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

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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

Agreed ... but citing US N&WR rankings of universities as any part of the decision making process seems pretty weak too. The schools (and especially those who consider themselves academically elite) absolutely hate those rankings in particular.

This one seems more likely to be something they'd even consider as an influence.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Guess I'm done here.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

Yeah duckman really should have just said that he "has sources" and paraphrased that entire article. Then he should have ignored multiple requests for details on said sources and just treated his information as fact and gospel. I'm sure we'll all learn eventually.

[MJ4H]

If that's a reference to me, as I've said, I will gladly tell you my source by PM.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Radii

Yeah duckman really should have just said that he "has sources" and paraphrased that entire article. Then he should have ignored multiple requests for details on said sources and just treated his information as fact and gospel. I'm sure we'll all learn eventually.

Agreed. Most will learn eventually that Vahe Gregorian is about as laughable a source as you'll ever get. His information pipeline in regards to college athletics dried up long ago.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Agreed ... but citing US N&WR rankings of universities as any part of the decision making process seems pretty weak too. The schools (and especially those who consider themselves academically elite) absolutely hate those rankings in particular.

This one seems more likely to be something they'd even consider as an influence.

This is probably a better measure. ACT averages for incoming freshmen at Big Ten universities (36 is a perfect score). Numbers are rounded. Mizzou measures up pretty well.

30 Northwestern
28 Michigan
27 Wisconsin
27 Illinois
27 Penn State
26 MISSOURI
25 Ohio State
25 Purdue
24 Indiana
24 Michigan State
24 Iowa
24 Minnesota

Big XII rankings:

26 MISSOURI
25 Texas
25 Texas A&M
25 Colorado
25 Oklahoma
25 Oklahoma State
25 Baylor
24 Kansas
24 Nebraska
24 Iowa State
23 Kansas State
23 Texas Tech

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

This one seems more likely to be something they'd even consider as an influence.

Thanks for that link. I knew Washington ranked very high as a research institution, but it was nice to see just how well-regarded it is.

It also helps explain why schools like BYU and Boise State just aren't realistic options for the Pac-10.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This is probably a better measure.

Not really. A big part of what the Big-10 and Pac-10 are about is research dollars, so the measure Jon linked to in rating schools as research institutions is far more relevant to what those conferences are looking for academically.

Mizzou does pretty well by that measure also, but not as well as some others being linked to the Big-10.

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Radii

Yeah duckman really should have just said that he "has sources" and paraphrased that entire article. Then he should have ignored multiple requests for details on said sources and just treated his information as fact and gospel. I'm sure we'll all learn eventually.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This is probably a better measure. ACT averages for incoming freshmen at Big Ten universities (36 is a perfect score). Numbers are rounded. Mizzou measures up pretty well.

30 Northwestern
28 Michigan
27 Wisconsin
27 Illinois
27 Penn State
26 MISSOURI
25 Ohio State
25 Purdue
24 Indiana
24 Michigan State
24 Iowa
24 Minnesota

Big XII rankings:

26 MISSOURI
25 Texas
25 Texas A&M
25 Colorado
25 Oklahoma
25 Oklahoma State
25 Baylor
24 Kansas
24 Nebraska
24 Iowa State
23 Kansas State
23 Texas Tech

This isn't a great measure since each university has different admission requirements. So if school A is allowed to take ACT scores of 21 while school B can has a minimum of 23 then school B is more likely to have the better average barring major outliers on the high end.

Is there a perfect measure of how schools stack up ratings wise? No, not really. My guess would be each school favors the one that puts them in the best light.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty good summary of why the comments from the Big 12 brass in today's article from Vahe Gregorian are so laughable. The ones creating the scenario where MU, NU, and CU are likely to leave are the ones blaming those three schools for the breakup when the B12 leadership is the one to blame. From Mike DeArmond's blog at the KC Star.......

From the Post Dispatch:

* * *

I don’t have a problem with Big 12 - office staff and school officials - feeling that way. But the fact that some of them don’t see themselves as part of the problem is the elephant they don’t seem capable of admitting is in the room.

If the Big 12 shared revenues equally, and protected the integrity of the bowl selection for all its conference members, certainly Missouri and perhaps Nebraska would have no need to look elsewhere.

The truth is, the Big 12 does neither of those things and shows no willingness to start doing them.

Instead, hiding behind anonymity and whispering petulant criticism is the way to go?

It reminds me of a telephone call I received from Ed Stewart - Big 12 assistant commissioner for football and student services - right after I ripped the league for its bowl lineup, including a new one set for December of 2010 in Yankee Stadium in New York City between the fourth-place Big East finishers and the seventh-place team from the Big 12.

Stewart didn’t like my saying the bowl lineup - site heavy and partial to inviting Texas schools - “stinks,” and that the Yankee Bowl wasn’t going to change that.

What ails the Big 12 is the inability to see that all members of a conference need to benefit equally. Go ahead and tell Missouri and Nebraska and Colorado (exploring Pac 10 options) to shut up. Just don’t blame anyone but yourself if the Tigers, Cornhuskers or Buffaloes react by finding a better playground.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm still trying to figure out how much the Texas schools are really going to mind if MU or CU leave the B12 frankly. Nebraska, because of their football history, I can kind of understand causing some degree of angst but from the outside looking in I'd be surprised if there was all that much fallout if the other two left beyond "okay, who ya want to replace 'em with".

[Scarecrow]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

This isn't a great measure since each university has different admission requirements. So if school A is allowed to take ACT scores of 21 while school B can has a minimum of 23 then school B is more likely to have the better average barring major outliers on the high end.

Is there a perfect measure of how schools stack up ratings wise? No, not really. My guess would be each school favors the one that puts them in the best light.

Agreed. For instance in Kansas, if you graduate from a Kansas high school you can attend any Kansas public university, regardless of your ACT.

And just to throw in my two cents, if the Big 10 wants a Big 12 school, they should be looking at Iowa State instead of Missouri.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Scarecrow

Agreed. For instance in Kansas, if you graduate from a Kansas high school you can attend any Kansas public university, regardless of your ACT.

And just to throw in my two cents, if the Big 10 wants a Big 12 school, they should be looking at Iowa State instead of Missouri.

To corner that Des Moines/Ames television market? (which I guess is a few steps above Springfield, MO) LOL

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm still trying to figure out how much the Texas schools are really going to mind if MU or CU leave the B12 frankly. Nebraska, because of their football history, I can kind of understand causing some degree of angst but from the outside looking in I'd be surprised if there was all that much fallout if the other two left beyond "okay, who ya want to replace 'em with".

You're a tv advertising guy... Denver/St. Louis/Kansas City vs what exactly? Salt Lake City? Another Texas school?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

You're a tv advertising guy... Denver/St. Louis/Kansas City vs what exactly? Salt Lake City? Another Texas school?

I think the question is whether those teams are delivering those markets vs quality matchups that could deliver them.

For example, an article about how the Big 12 markets ranked highly in college sports viewership ... but that's based on places like Oklahoma City & Austin & Kansas City. There's not the big bump in, say, Denver for something like Oklahoma vs Florida or for Kansas vs Memphis (in basketball).

Look at the primetime games that ABC has carried in the past several years. UM appeared once last year, the second least watched game of the season, CU didn't appear at all.

Point being, those teams aren't driving viewership anyway. It'll matter to local affiliates in those markets but on a national basis, it really doesn't appear to be a factor at all. People are going to watch Texas or Oklahoma if they're good & they're on whether Missouri & Colorado are in the conference with them or not.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm still trying to figure out how much the Texas schools are really going to mind if MU or CU leave the B12 frankly. Nebraska, because of their football history, I can kind of understand causing some degree of angst but from the outside looking in I'd be surprised if there was all that much fallout if the other two left beyond "okay, who ya want to replace 'em with".

I'll agree with this somewhat. Texas will still have their piece of the pie, albeit a bit weaker and less palatable with competition that is more watered down.

More important to note in this argument would be just how much better of a fit and how much more those three schools would bring to their new conferences. CU, even though they've been down of late, still has a very large alumni base in the three coastal states that will fit in perfectly. MU and NU both bring athletic programs that will expand their TV footprint significantly along with academic programs that fit well into what the conference tries to do.

All three of those schools are getting the short end of the stick, but it's obvious from the spiteful comments that the B12 brass have been putting out in recent days that all three of these schools are needed even though they won't admit it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

All three of those schools are getting the short end of the stick, but it's obvious from the spiteful comments that the B12 brass have been putting out in recent days that all three of these schools are needed even though they won't admit it.

I saw some numbers last night that suggests to me that the Big 10 (well, the B10 Network at least) probably needs them even more. Or it needs something.

The generally accepted figures of 70 cents per subscriber (inside the conf. footprint) vs 10 cent per subscriber (outside the conf. footprint) is where the money lies for them, but it probably isn't in the viewership of their actual games.

Their average in the 9 overnight markets (Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh. ) was a 2.3 HH rtg and 8 of those are solidly in the conference footprint. By comparison, even medicore ACC Raycom games outperform that on a little-watched (CW) outlet in Atlanta and the comparable 3rd/4th tier SEC game of the week tops that average by 2x-3x, even for relative duds. It's pretty clear that the value lies in increasing household availability (although I have to believe that as the conference core territory is diluted with expansion that the 7x multiplier will fall) because the viewership simply isn't there for the B10 Network already, no reason to believe that it's going to improve with the addition of non-traditional conference teams to the mix. For every game that gets a bump from, say, St. Louis or Denver, there's going to be drop offs across Ohio or Michigan when their in-state teams are featured less often.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I saw some numbers last night that suggests to me that the Big 10 (well, the B10 Network at least) probably needs them even more. Or it needs something.

The generally accepted figures of 70 cents per subscriber (inside the conf. footprint) vs 10 cent per subscriber (outside the conf. footprint) is where the money lies for them, but it probably isn't in the viewership of their actual games.

Their average in the 9 overnight markets (Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh. ) was a 2.3 HH rtg and 8 of those are solidly in the conference footprint. By comparison, even medicore ACC Raycom games outperform that on a little-watched (CW) outlet in Atlanta and the comparable 3rd/4th tier SEC game of the week tops that average by 2x-3x, even for relative duds. It's pretty clear that the value lies in increasing household availability (although I have to believe that as the conference core territory is diluted with expansion that the 7x multiplier will fall) because the viewership simply isn't there for the B10 Network already, no reason to believe that it's going to improve with the addition of non-traditional conference teams to the mix. For every game that gets a bump from, say, St. Louis or Denver, there's going to be drop offs across Ohio or Michigan when their in-state teams are featured less often.

The biggest bumps are likely to occur in KC. One thing that I've seen regularly noted is that Kansas City is a great market for football that doesn't involve local teams. You may actually be able to help me out with this given your background. KC puts up good numbers for both college and NFL where the teams don't involve any local interest when compared to other markets. Some examples would be other AFC West teams playing or other big college games that may or may not involve B12 teams. I know Super Bowl numbers are often very good for KC as well.

Not sure about the drop-off where their team is featured less often. Depends on how it's structured. I honestly don't even know how the Big Ten national games are selected right now.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The biggest bumps are likely to occur in KC. One thing that I've seen regularly noted is that Kansas City is a great market for football that doesn't involve local teams. You may actually be able to help me out with this given your background. KC puts up good numbers for both college and NFL where the teams don't involve any local interest when compared to other markets. Some examples would be other AFC West teams playing or other big college games that may or may not involve B12 teams. I know Super Bowl numbers are often very good for KC as well.

Thing is, with KC we're talking about a market that's essentially the same size as SLC, Cincinnati, and Columbus. Even if they're 30% more likely than, say St.Louis, to watch, that would only make them about equal. (as STL is roughly a 25% larger DMA than KC). But the real value of KC again here lies in the (potential) increase in HH availability.

Did you know (cause I didn't until I looked it up) that the wired cable penetration in KC is 64% while in STL it's only 49%? Basically that means that there are about the same number of cable HH's (and subscriber fees) in KC as there are in StL, in spite of some 300k more TV HH in StL.

I honestly don't even know how the Big Ten national games are selected right now.

National? Or B10 Network? The distinction I'm trying to draw there isn't meant as a slight to the B10N in this case, just trying to separate the ABC game from the conference/Fox owned network game.

Nationally it's pretty much going to be all about the likely ratings, with the conference owned network I'm sure there's at least some eye toward trying to spread things around a little bit although they'll trend toward "best available game" as well.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I saw some numbers last night that suggests to me that the Big 10 (well, the B10 Network at least) probably needs them even more. Or it needs something.

The generally accepted figures of 70 cents per subscriber (inside the conf. footprint) vs 10 cent per subscriber (outside the conf. footprint) is where the money lies for them, but it probably isn't in the viewership of their actual games.

Their average in the 9 overnight markets (Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Detroit, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Minneapolis and Pittsburgh. ) was a 2.3 HH rtg and 8 of those are solidly in the conference footprint. By comparison, even medicore ACC Raycom games outperform that on a little-watched (CW) outlet in Atlanta and the comparable 3rd/4th tier SEC game of the week tops that average by 2x-3x, even for relative duds. It's pretty clear that the value lies in increasing household availability (although I have to believe that as the conference core territory is diluted with expansion that the 7x multiplier will fall) because the viewership simply isn't there for the B10 Network already, no reason to believe that it's going to improve with the addition of non-traditional conference teams to the mix. For every game that gets a bump from, say, St. Louis or Denver, there's going to be drop offs across Ohio or Michigan when their in-state teams are featured less often.

Not sure there will be any bump from St. Louis. Due to the Illini being considered a local team for whatever reason all local cable outlets already carry the big ten network. I think (tv wise) losing St. Louis would be a loss for the Big 12 but not much of a gain for the big 10. (again talking tv only)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not sure there will be any bump from St. Louis. Due to the Illini being considered a local team for whatever reason all local cable outlets already carry the big ten network. I think (tv wise) losing St. Louis would be a loss for the Big 12 but not much of a gain for the big 10. (again talking tv only)

That's really a point that gets overlooked too often, and I guess I'm guilty of doing it here as well. The availability already exists in most markets, all that's going to vary is the extent & as you rightfully point out here not even always that is going to make much difference.

I think I'm guilty of trying to give the benefit of the doubt by going with the larger market here but if your assessment is correct then there's about as much to be gained from a TV perspective by adding Utah as there would be by adding Missouri (which is the conclusion I was actually trying to avoid pointing out). And based on the B10N press release numbers, Pitt seems likely to be another case of limited increased availability as well (since they're including those in what they promote already I have to imagine they're already widely available as well).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Thing is, with KC we're talking about a market that's essentially the same size as SLC, Cincinnati, and Columbus. Even if they're 30% more likely than, say St.Louis, to watch, that would only make them about equal. (as STL is roughly a 25% larger DMA than KC). But the real value of KC again here lies in the (potential) increase in HH availability.

Did you know (cause I didn't until I looked it up) that the wired cable penetration in KC is 64% while in STL it's only 49%? Basically that means that there are about the same number of cable HH's (and subscriber fees) in KC as there are in StL, in spite of some 300k more TV HH in StL.

Those numbers concerning KC/STL cable don't surprise me. The STL metro has no growth right now. The KC metro is adding 20-25K new residents per year. STL has been hit hard by unemployment and the recession. KC hasn't had nearly as big of a problem over the past few years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Those numbers concerning KC/STL cable don't surprise me. The STL metro has no growth right now. The KC metro is adding 20-25K new residents per year. STL has been hit hard by unemployment and the recession. KC hasn't had nearly as big of a problem over the past few years.

Eh, it doesn't look like it's economically related to me.

KC is actually down about 2% vs 2005 whereas StL is up fractionally over the same time. Meanwhile the combined Cable+Satellite percentage in StL is actually a couple of points higher than KC. This looks a lot more like a case where StL is simply much more apt to have Dish/Direct customers whereas KC is significantly more oriented toward traditional cable. I don't know off hand whether that's an issue of crappy cable in one vs the other, or multiple systems vs a dominant single provider, or great satellite pricing or more historically aggressive marketing or whatever but it does happen. For example, I've run into similar situations in the Carolinas & parts of Virginia as a buyer over the years, where there as just really bad markets in terms of cable vs satellite for one reason or another.

I lean even more toward that being the case when I see a StL adjacent market like Paducah/Cape Gir. with only 37% cable whereas KC adjacents like Topeka & St.Joe's are at/around 60% cable.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Eh, it doesn't look like it's economically related to me.

KC is actually down about 2% vs 2005 whereas StL is up fractionally over the same time. Meanwhile the combined Cable+Satellite percentage in StL is actually a couple of points higher than KC. This looks a lot more like a case where StL is simply much more apt to have Dish/Direct customers whereas KC is significantly more oriented toward traditional cable.

I lean even more toward that being the case when I see a StL adjacent market like Paducah/Cape Gir. with only 37% cable whereas KC adjacents like Topeka & St.Joe's are at/around 60% cable.

Yeah, St Louis cable sucks. I know that every city's cable sucks to some degree but ours doesn't even come close to competing with AT&T, Directv, or Dish Network. Charter Communications has to be one of the worst run businesses in the country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Charter Communications has to be one of the worst run businesses in the country.

You sound like someone who has never had to deal with Comcrap

But yeah, having dealt with Charter on my mother-in-law's recent install, they're right up there on my list of "OMG I'd sooner have a root canal than try to deal with these people" companies.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by panerd

Not sure there will be any bump from St. Louis. Due to the Illini being considered a local team for whatever reason all local cable outlets already carry the big ten network. I think (tv wise) losing St. Louis would be a loss for the Big 12 but not much of a gain for the big 10. (again talking tv only)

I'll be interested to see how a MU and NU move would affect my situation. I'm currently paying for the 'sports' package to get the B10 network and a couple other channels. That would be fantastic if that would get taken off my bill (assuming the B10 moves to a different tier).

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Another story pointing towards what I mentioned on Friday. Slight variant here, but the news is basically the same. MU, NU, and Rutgers have already been extended offers. All three have already privately expressed interest, so it's assumed they'll all accept. Notre Dame has also been offered. If they accept, either Syracuse or Pitt are the likely candidates to round out the 16 team league. If not, they may stop at 14 teams.

Sports Radio 810 WHB - Powered by Fans

[kcchief19]

Hope you've all had your grain of salt for the day ...

Sports Radio 810 here in KC is reporting initial invitations have been extended to 4 schools: Notre Dame, Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska.

If Notre Dame accepts, the Big 10 would like invite another school to join. If Notre Dame declines, the Big 10 would either stay at 14 or extend invitations to two more school.

Let the nonsense continue.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Hope you've all had your grain of salt for the day ...

Sports Radio 810 here in KC is reporting initial invitations have been extended to 4 schools: Notre Dame, Rutgers, Missouri and Nebraska.

If Notre Dame accepts, the Big 10 would like invite another school to join. If Notre Dame declines, the Big 10 would either stay at 14 or extend invitations to two more school.

Let the nonsense continue.

ND won't go for it.

Big East wise, this is a best case scenario. Losing Rutgers is no big deal for either football or basketball.

SU wise they seem to be in good shape. If only Rutgers goes who cares as it won't break up the BE. If they see the BE breaking up they need to get our of dodge before the shit hits the fan.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

It'll be interesting to see how and when this expansion shakes out. It notes in the article that Mizzou is ready to take the early-exit penalty and join the Big Ten starting in 2011-2012 rather than in two years as previously noted. Would the Big Ten play with 12 teams next year or would NU and Rutgers (and possible two other teams) also jump next year?

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Chubby

ND won't go for it.

Big East wise, this is a best case scenario. Losing Rutgers is no big deal for either football or basketball.

SU wise they seem to be in good shape. If only Rutgers goes who cares as it won't break up the BE. If they see the BE breaking up they need to get our of dodge before the shit hits the fan.

Agreed. I don't want to lose Rutgers, but aside from Notre Dame joining the Big Ten with them stopping at 12 teams, this is the least damaging scenario for the remainder of the Big East.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It'll be interesting to see how and when this expansion shakes out. It notes in the article that Mizzou is ready to take the early-exit penalty and join the Big Ten starting in 2011-2012 rather than in two years as previously noted. Would the Big Ten play with 12 teams next year or would NU and Rutgers (and possible two other teams) also jump next year?

I'm not sure the exact details (or if there is an "early" exit penalty), but after the ACC raid, the remaining Big East schools agreed to a $5-million and 27-month notice. With lawyers, anything is possible, but I think it would be unlikely for Rutgers to join the Big Ten by the 2011-12 season.

[Logan]

If it happens, I'll surely miss some of the Big East matchups and the interactions with the WVU fans on the board especially, but I know this move is best for Rutgers as an institution.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

FYI.....live feed at Sports Radio 810 WHB - Powered by Fans. The guy who broke that article has his show starting at 2:00 PM CDT. He's going to go over the details in-depth and discuss what could happen.

[Swaggs]

It will be interesting to see what happens with Notre Dame (if this latest report is true). The smart money has been on them staying independent, but would the Big Ten actually go through the process of offering them an invitation (and letting that information become public), without knowing Notre Dame's answer? That part has me questioning the validity of this report.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Logan

If it happens, I'll surely miss some of the Big East matchups and the interactions with the WVU fans on the board especially, but I know this move is best for Rutgers as an institution.

Yeah -- as a WVU fan, I think it sucks that Rugers, Penn State, and Boston College (and possibly Pitt and Syracuse, although I think we'd keep the rivalry with Pitt) are all going to be off of our schedule in the next few seasons.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Rutgers sports. I think the move is a slam dunk for the university, as a whole. And, for the sports programs, the money from the Big Ten will stabilize things and allow them to grow more comfortably over the long term, but the football team will no longer have a regular trip to Florida (which has obviously been tremendously helpful with their recruiting) and I have trouble seeing how their basketball program will thrive with less access to the NYC kids (although, with basketball, there is obviously a lot of room for improvement if a good head coach comes into the picture).

[miked]

They also lose a lot of recruits to PSU, so I think it may help them in that regard, but Schiano still has plenty of ties to Florida and recruiting from that area has been going down with Shannon taking over at the "U".

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It will be interesting to see what happens with Notre Dame (if this latest report is true). The smart money has been on them staying independent, but would the Big Ten actually go through the process of offering them an invitation (and letting that information become public), without knowing Notre Dame's answer? That part has me questioning the validity of this report.

Didn't they offer and ND decline 10 years ago? Or was that a preemptive declination?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It will be interesting to see what happens with Notre Dame (if this latest report is true). The smart money has been on them staying independent, but would the Big Ten actually go through the process of offering them an invitation (and letting that information become public), without knowing Notre Dame's answer? That part has me questioning the validity of this report.

This was a leak. It was never meant to go public without knowing ND's answer.

They did mention on the radio that the Big Ten officials estimate that the B10 Network will generate $15M/year in additional revenue solely with the addition of Mizzou.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This was a leak. It was never meant to go public without knowing ND's answer.

They did mention on the radio that the Big Ten officials estimate that the B10 Network will generate $15M/year in additional revenue solely with the addition of Mizzou.

Everyone will want to watch their own teams beat the snot out of mizzou every year...

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This was a leak. It was never meant to go public without knowing ND's answer.

They did mention on the radio that the Big Ten officials estimate that the B10 Network will generate $15M/year in additional revenue solely with the addition of Mizzou.

Is that independent of a conference championship?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It will be interesting to see what happens with Notre Dame (if this latest report is true). The smart money has been on them staying independent, but would the Big Ten actually go through the process of offering them an invitation (and letting that information become public), without knowing Notre Dame's answer? That part has me questioning the validity of this report.

Does it really matter though? This courtship has been so publicized at this point that even my mother knows that the Big 10 wants Notre Dame. If they were offered a spot in the dark and they rejected, no one would buy the BS Delaney and co. spews about how they weren't wanted, etc. Maybe that's why Rutgers is considered the automatic 14th team...it allows the conference to say that Rutgers was considered Big 10 worthy regardless of whether or not ND wanted to join.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It will be interesting to see what happens with Rutgers sports. I think the move is a slam dunk for the university, as a whole. And, for the sports programs, the money from the Big Ten will stabilize things and allow them to grow more comfortably over the long term, but the football team will no longer have a regular trip to Florida (which has obviously been tremendously helpful with their recruiting) and I have trouble seeing how their basketball program will thrive with less access to the NYC kids (although, with basketball, there is obviously a lot of room for improvement if a good head coach comes into the picture).

Well, we have Miami on the schedule already in later years, and I wouldn't at all be surprised if that's lengthened or started earlier than currently planned. Between the next round of stadium expansion likely occurring sooner than later with the Big 10 backing, and the ability to play at the new Meadowlands, I wouldn't be surprised if we end up having series with UF or FSU in the near future. Restarting a series with USF would be a possibility...I think there's plenty of opportunities. But also, our Florida recruiting had leveled off considerably before last year (when we hit the state hard due to a weak NJ class) so I think that's a bit overblown anyway.

As for basketball, it's hard to say exactly with how poorly we've been able to recruit NYC in recent years anyway, but you're probably right. I think any worsening along those lines could be made up by not having to go through the Big East gauntlet. I mean, even with ideal conditions and reasonable expectations of progress, it's hard to see how we would ever rise above the bottom rung of the upper half of BE schools.

[MrBug708]

How do radio talk show hosts get any contacts?

[Swaggs]

On the Big East message board, folks are saying that those four schools (Rutgers, Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Missouri) have been invited to "apply for membership" to be voted on by the conference presidents next month. It will probably lead to the same end result, but it sounds like it could be a little different than just being invited to the league and it probably doesn't preclude other teams from receiving the same offer (to apply) in the coming weeks.

[tarcone]

I am soooooo excited to get Missouery into the Big10.

Now the drive will be 1 1/2 hours to see the Hawks beat up on the kitties. In every sport (except baseball.)

Missouri does have a world class Journalism school, though.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Iowa-Missouri would be EPIC.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by tarcone

I am soooooo excited to get Missouery into the Big10.

Now the drive will be 1 1/2 hours to see the Hawks beat up on the kitties. In every sport (except baseball.)

Missouri does have a world class Journalism school, though.

How far was the drive before?

[tarcone]

Iowa City was the closest Big10 city. It takes about 4 hours.

[sooner333]

Sad to see Missouri go. Haven't lost to them since the John Blake era and only one loss since losing in 1983. The last two Big 12 Championships were great too.