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

[cartman]

I'm starting to wonder if all of this expansion of the power conferences talk is just a smoke screen to deflect attention away from the non-AQ conferences trying to get AQ status.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm starting to wonder if all of this expansion of the power conferences talk is just a smoke screen to deflect attention away from the non-AQ conferences trying to get AQ status.

Expansion would benefit those schools I would think. If you have a consolidation that results in 4-5 mega conferences, there's less automatic qualifiers and more at-large spots or an additional auto-bid or two (assuming they keep the BCS spots as they are and only allow auto-bids to championship game winners).

[sooner333]

If something happened where Missouri, Colorado, and Nebraska left, I think we'd then see how committed the Texas schools are to the Big 12. If those three left, the replacements looked bleak, and the SEC offered tons of cash, it would certainly become interesting quickly.

I think KU will be fine without the Border War financially. It's just a matter of whether they want to give up a traditional rivalry. Of course if it's a Big 12 rule and Missouri knows it, it is really the Tigers that are giving it up for more money. It seems to me that the Mizzou fans on here can live with that result. There aren't that many non-conference rivalries that don't involve Notre Dame anyway. Florida-FSU and Clemson-South Carolina are the only two at the top of my head. Oklahoma-Texas used to be one, and I imagine will always be one even if the teams split (unless A&M is also not in their conference, then I think they would play A&M over Oklahoma).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

If you have a consolidation that results in 4-5 mega conferences, there's less automatic qualifiers and more at-large spots or an additional auto-bid or two (assuming they keep the BCS spots as they are and only allow auto-bids to championship game winners).

I think you're being naive - if we start having 16 and 20 team mega-conferences among the current BCS conference, the number of auto-bids will go up commensurately.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think you're being naive - if we start having 16 and 20 team mega-conferences among the current BCS conference, the number of auto-bids will go up commensurately.

Even if there were no increase in auto-bids, it would be a lot harder to penalize a team in the polls for not winning their conference. If anything, the per-conference-bid cap would be lifted or raised from 2.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Logan

Well in the case of BC, it was more about the anger felt by many of the remaining Big East schools. While Miami and VT were upfront about their desire to move on, BC initially came out and stuck by the BE schools, lambasted the others for moving for more money (it made plenty of geographic sense for those schools to join the ACC), and then when a spot opened up for them, they did all their behind the scenes shit and bailed. There was plenty of furor over Syracuse signing the BC deal on some boards, even from some Cuse fans, and I could tell you right now, if Mulcahy was still the Rutgers AD, we would never consider playing them (I'm long over it).

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Agreed. BC deserved the anger directed towards them because they were in the braintrust that decided to file the lawsuit and then they decided to flip afterwards (which obviously didn't happen overnight). That was over hurt feelings, rather than mandated by the conference and it probably hurt BC (because they are so far away, geographically, from the rest of the ACC) while not really harming the Big East teams (BC was a decent rivalry, but I doubt any school would list them as their #1 rival and they don't bring a traveling fan base or TV ratings or anything).

In the case of a rivalry like Missouri-Kansas, it is a mutually beneficial game that brings good exposure to both schools.

Hm. Perhaps I wasn't aware of the details going on on the other end of the raid, but my recollection of the events is that the ACC offered BC, Miami, and Syracuse initially. VT (through the Virginia state government) and UConn (through the Connecticut AG Blumenthal) were the muscle behind the lawsuit. The bigger of the two problems was VT's power play, which forced Virginia to support VT instead of BC or Syracuse for the ACC, even though VT was part of the original lawsuit with the remaining Big East schools. BC wanted to come to the ACC all along because they thought they were getting in with Syracuse and Miami. Miami was voted in by the ACC easily, but Virginia couldn't accept anyone else in unless VT got in first, so VT got in as the 11th member. After that, Syracuse basically was off the board and the question was whether BC (which was the more enthusiastic of the two schools about coming to the ACC) would get voted in. However, they fell one vote short because I believe the NC State chancellor at the time wanted to make a play for Notre Dame. When ND refused, the ACC returned to BC later, thus the two-step expansion. I do remember reading about a lot of disappointment on the BC end after they were rejected initially since they were pretty much all set to go to the ACC that first year of the expansion. Led to a pretty awkward exit period.

Edit: An article detailing the original suit filed in Connecticut. BC is named as a defendant while VT is one of the plaintiffs.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sooner333

I think KU will be fine without the Border War financially. It's just a matter of whether they want to give up a traditional rivalry. Of course if it's a Big 12 rule and Missouri knows it, it is really the Tigers that are giving it up for more money. It seems to me that the Mizzou fans on here can live with that result. There aren't that many non-conference rivalries that don't involve Notre Dame anyway. Florida-FSU and Clemson-South Carolina are the only two at the top of my head. Oklahoma-Texas used to be one, and I imagine will always be one even if the teams split (unless A&M is also not in their conference, then I think they would play A&M over Oklahoma).

1. MU/KU will continue on. Only thing that's really lost is one basketball game. It's not that big of a change in regards to games played.

2. Mizzou ends up with some really good regional rivalries in the Big Ten scenario. Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois are a short drive away for the fan base.

[RainMaker]

16-20 team conferences in football is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard of.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Hm. Perhaps I wasn't aware of the details going on on the other end of the raid, but my recollection of the events is that the ACC offered BC, Miami, and Syracuse initially. VT (through the Virginia state government) and UConn (through the Connecticut AG Blumenthal) were the muscle behind the lawsuit. The bigger of the two problems was VT's power play, which forced Virginia to support VT instead of BC or Syracuse for the ACC, even though VT was part of the original lawsuit with the remaining Big East schools. BC wanted to come to the ACC all along because they thought they were getting in with Syracuse and Miami. Miami was voted in by the ACC easily, but Virginia couldn't accept anyone else in unless VT got in first, so VT got in as the 11th member. After that, Syracuse basically was off the board and the question was whether BC (which was the more enthusiastic of the two schools about coming to the ACC) would get voted in. However, they fell one vote short because I believe the NC State chancellor at the time wanted to make a play for Notre Dame. When ND refused, the ACC returned to BC later, thus the two-step expansion. I do remember reading about a lot of disappointment on the BC end after they were rejected initially since they were pretty much all set to go to the ACC that first year of the expansion. Led to a pretty awkward exit period.

Edit: An article detailing the original suit filed in Connecticut. BC is named as a defendant while VT is one of the plaintiffs.

My bad on the lawsuit part. I remembered that they were supposedly involved in sharing confidential information from league meetings and that was part of the lawsuit. In any case, there was no Big East "rule" that prohibited the teams from playing BC, Miami, or VPI.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

16-20 team conferences in football is the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard of.

Seriously. Where are they going to find 320 schools to fill all those?

[the_meanstrosity]

Saw this funny ad posted yesterday on Craigslist. It was taken down, but not before a couple of KU fans saved the pic.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Saw this funny ad posted yesterday on Craigslist. It was taken down, but not before a couple of KU fans who posted the ad saved the pic.

Fixed.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

ESPN Radio is reporting that Dan Beebe has talked with the Big 10 commissioner (despite his repeated denials) and is already considering options to replace Mizzou and Nebraska.

[the_meanstrosity]

An interesting take from a Detroit Free Press columnist.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...te=fullarticle

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

An interesting take from a Detroit Free Press columnist.

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...te=fullarticle

I'm not sure he's saying anything new. Notre Dame is the obvious option and it's becoming increasingly apparant that Notre Dame realizes that their other sports will suffer significantly with the Big East falling apart. They need to make the jump now to a conference or risk being left out of a reformed BCS picture. If Notre Dame had already gone with the 'we're staying independent' option, this expansion plan would already be signed, sealed and delivered. The fact that it's not done yet speaks volumes.

The Texas argument doesn't hold much merit. Texas isn't coming on their own because they're still holding on to the hope of creating their own network. And there's no way that the Big Ten is bringing four Texas schools on board as he suggests.

[Swaggs]

I don't know that Notre Dame's sports will suffer significantly if they stick with the non-football playing members of the Big East. Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, and Notre Dame are all pretty strong (routine tourney teams) and Seton Hall, St. John's, DePaul, and Providence all have good histories and are much better than the bottom half of most conferences. If they add Xavier and St. Louis (as has been mentioned), they are in a lot of good markets (St. Louis, Chicago, D.C., Philly, NYC, Cincy, etc.)

Still, I agree with your point. Either Notre Dame is not a firm no yet or Jim Delaney is just getting off on all of the attention the Big Ten is receiving. We know that Missouri and the Big East schools would say "yes!" before the offer was out of his mouth and, I assume, Nebraska is in the same boat.

[Abe Sargent]

Mark my words - Boise State. Seriouslly Serious.

[duckman]

My sources told me that Missouri was starting a one team conference. This will give them more opportunities to play with themselves.

[molson]

This all would have been resolved if sportsdigs was still around.

This thread has the potential to beat the maximum football thread in posts, if it continues to 2012 or whenever this happens.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Mark my words - Boise State. Seriouslly Serious.

Their academics will hold them back from moving anywhere. It's still really just a big commuter school. What they've accomplished with the football program is ridiculous.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Discussion about possible revenue explosion with expansion........

Big Ten expansion: TV money could skyrocket - chicagotribune.com

Interesting read. This article is from December. It's an interview of Mizzou's AD that is pretty telling in hindsight given his comments about the B12 payouts...........

Frustration and temptation: Q&A with Mike Alden | ColumbiaTribune.com

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like we have a pretty good indication that a contract or bid is in Mizzou's hands. A local paper attempted a Freedom of Information Act request and was denied. But they also made it pretty obvious why they were denied. From Dennis Dodd:

Missouri's Freedom of Information request

Someone's finally done it. Bravo, to the Columbia Missourian for filing a Freedom of Information ACT request with the University of Missouri.

The intent was see if there has been any communication between the school and the Big Ten. But has you can see if you read the school's response, Missouri may have provided key information about the Big Ten negotiations by denying the request.

The school said it was protected from releasing any information that includes "sealed bids and related documents until the bids are opened," or "documents related to a negotiated contract." While Missouri would not confirm or deny whether such documents exist, that is its stance. . The paper's attorney said the school's response was "correct, as long as you have contract negotiations going on."

We may have found the first smoking gun in the Big Ten expansion shoot out.

The Big 12 spring meetings are June 1-4 in Kansas City where commissioner Dan Beebe has promised to find out "who's on the plane when it takes off."

Also, Lincoln voters just approved a new arena for the Nebraska basketball team. Hopefully that along with a move to the Big Ten will give them an opportunity to build their program.

Will Nebraska's new arena really translate into hoops success? - The Dagger - NCAAB* - Yahoo! Sports

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by sooner333

If something happened where Missouri, Colorado, and Nebraska left, I think we'd then see how committed the Texas schools are to the Big 12. If those three left, the replacements looked bleak, and the SEC offered tons of cash, it would certainly become interesting quickly.

I think KU will be fine without the Border War financially. It's just a matter of whether they want to give up a traditional rivalry. Of course if it's a Big 12 rule and Missouri knows it, it is really the Tigers that are giving it up for more money. It seems to me that the Mizzou fans on here can live with that result. There aren't that many non-conference rivalries that don't involve Notre Dame anyway. Florida-FSU and Clemson-South Carolina are the only two at the top of my head. Oklahoma-Texas used to be one, and I imagine will always be one even if the teams split (unless A&M is also not in their conference, then I think they would play A&M over Oklahoma).

There's also UNLV-Nevada

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Izulde

There's also UNLV-Nevada

Colorado-Colorado State for that matter. Miami-FSU is a historical one that is now intra-conference.

[Young Drachma]

Looks like the MWC might bring Boise State in finally.

Another Boise-to-MWC rumor ahead of league meeting | CollegeFootballTalk.com

[Kodos]

Don't know if this has been posted already, but over on Scout, somebody said the name for the expanded Big Ten could be:

B16 Ten.

[Logan]

In related news, the ACC reached a new TV deal with ESPN. $155 million annually, more than double what was received from the prior ESPN/Raycom deal. I'm sure there was a ton of language put into the deal in the event that any teams leave, but at $13 million annually per team there's a lot less incentive for someone to leave for the SEC. Also likely to reduce the chances of expansion in the conference.

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/tria...17/daily2.html

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Logan

In related news, the ACC reached a new TV deal with ESPN. $155 million annually, more than double what was received from the prior ESPN/Raycom deal. I'm sure there was a ton of language put into the deal in the event that any teams leave, but at $13 million annually per team there's a lot less incentive for someone to leave for the SEC. Also likely to reduce the chances of expansion in the conference.

ESPN outbids Fox for ACC television rights - Triangle Business Journal:

Not sure this changes the expansion dynamic much. It is a much better deal than people thought the ACC would get, for sure, but it is still going to be no match for SEC money. And I know the SEC deal contains escalator clauses if they add teams and/or markets (i.e., Miami, Dallas or Atlanta). I would be surprised if the ACC deal wasn't similar.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by duckman

My sources told me that Missouri was starting a one team conference. This will give them more opportunities to play with themselves.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by digamma

Not sure this changes the expansion dynamic much. It is a much better deal than people thought the ACC would get, for sure, but it is still going to be no match for SEC money. And I know the SEC deal contains escalator clauses if they add teams and/or markets (i.e., Miami, Dallas or Atlanta). I would be surprised if the ACC deal wasn't similar.

I'd have to agree with that. Given all the expansion buzz, it'd be crazy for the ACC or anyone else not to include some lines in the contract describing what would happen should the lineup within the conference change. At the very least, it's an indication that while ESPN values the SEC more, they pretty much believe the ACC membership will be unaffected by any fallout from any realignments in college football. I doubt ESPN would put up this sort of cash for a league that would face potential losses of any football schools to the SEC or the Big 10.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by digamma

Not sure this changes the expansion dynamic much. It is a much better deal than people thought the ACC would get, for sure, but it is still going to be no match for SEC money. And I know the SEC deal contains escalator clauses if they add teams and/or markets (i.e., Miami, Dallas or Atlanta). I would be surprised if the ACC deal wasn't similar.

Well, a lot of people just sort of figured that if the SEC ever came calling for some combination of Clemson, Fla. St., Ga. Tech, and/or Miami, they would come running. This deal does not make that impossible, but it does give all of those schools reasons to strongly consider their options before bolting for the SEC. At a minimum, it certainly keeps the ACC from looking like a sinking ship right before a bunch of movement might happen.

Maybe it makes SEC expansion more likely with non-ACC schools like South Florida, Louisville, the Texas Schools, etc.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by molson

Their academics will hold them back from moving anywhere. It's still really just a big commuter school. What they've accomplished with the football program is ridiculous.

I think you need to learn how to read sarcasm without a smiley attached.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Well, a lot of people just sort of figured that if the SEC ever came calling for some combination of Clemson, Fla. St., Ga. Tech, and/or Miami, they would come running. This deal does not make that impossible, but it does give all of those schools reasons to strongly consider their options before bolting for the SEC. At a minimum, it certainly keeps the ACC from looking like a sinking ship right before a bunch of movement might happen.

Maybe it makes SEC expansion more likely with non-ACC schools like South Florida, Louisville, the Texas Schools, etc.

I agree with much of that. I still think an SEC offer would be very difficult for FSU, Ga Tech or Miami to turn down. I'm not sure how in the mix Clemson is in the SEC shuffle. Part of the attractiveness of the SEC deal is the ability to negotiate your own local deals outside of the ACC contract. For example, Florida has a side deal with the Sunshine Network. As I understand it, the ACC deal prevents individual schools from doing the same.

But, I completely agree that this is a GREAT deal for the ACC and a pretty big step in the right direction for the conference.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's an article that says a whole lot about nothing new, but at least it's the Big Ten commissioner doing the talking this time.

Big Ten commissioner: 'We won’t expand for the sake of expansion' - KansasCity.com

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Big Ten commissioner

'We won’t expand for the sake of expansion'

I thought that's what they announced they were looking into to begin with.

[Logan]

No, but they will expand for the sake of money.

[Young Drachma]

Big Ten commissioner says vote on expansion 'months away,' won't happen in June - ESPN

Delaney says vote still a ways off.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Big Ten commissioner says vote on expansion 'months away,' won't happen in June - ESPN

Delaney says vote still a ways off.

Fantastic to see the commissioner give two totally contrasting comments in the same day. In one article, he's quoted as saying a vote is months away. In another article, he says it could happen in less than the 12 month timetable. More than anything, the fact that he can't get his own story straight indicates there's probably a lot going on right now behind the scenes and the rumors of activity are likely pretty accurate.

[digamma]

I'm failing to see the total contrast.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

I'm failing to see the total contrast.

In the KC article, he said less than 12 months is a possibility (which would have to be early summer). In the other article, he said it's months away, which indicates a fall decision, if not later.

It's somewhat amusing that he's even playing this game at this point. As has been mentioned by several writers, he's just dragging it out to make sure he has the 'yes' from all schools, which basically hinges on Notre Dame. There's little question that we're going to have a decision in June or early July. There's far too many indicators that point to a sooner rather than later decision.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

In the KC article, he said less than 12 months is a possibility (which would have to be early summer). In the other article, he said it's months away, which indicates a fall decision, if not later.

It's somewhat amusing that he's even playing this game at this point. As has been mentioned by several writers, he's just dragging it out to make sure he has the 'yes' from all schools, which basically hinges on Notre Dame. There's little question that we're going to have a decision in June or early July. There's far too many indicators that point to a sooner rather than later decision.

He gives the same quote in the ESPN article. Having a vote several months from now and implementing before next football season seems doable. Most estimates I have read would put some kind of announcement by August of this year. Who knows if implementation is 2011, 2012 or 2015.

You're parsing this too much.

[Swaggs]

There is also a blog entry over on ESPN.com (by Eammon Brennan - sp?) that indicates that the Big Ten teams got closer to $9-million per (rather than the $22-million per that seems to have spread and considered fact) from the BTN. That is still a tremendous supplement for the teams in the Big Ten, but quite a bit different than the previously reported amount.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

There is also a blog entry over on ESPN.com (by Eammon Brennan - sp?) that indicates that the Big Ten teams got closer to $9-million per (rather than the $22-million per that seems to have spread and considered fact) from the BTN. That is still a tremendous supplement for the teams in the Big Ten, but quite a bit different than the previously reported amount.

Took a little digging over there to find it, so I'll provide the link to the Chicago Trib article he was referencing

Big Ten expansion: TV money could skyrocket - chicagotribune.com

Here's the relevant quote Last year, schools received roughly $9 million each from the conference's deal with ABC/ESPN and another $7 million to $8 million from the BTN. Add revenue from bowl games, the NCAA basketball tournament and licensing, and you arrive at the estimated $22 million-a-year distribution figure that's the envy of every Division I school outside the Southeastern Conference.

[sooner333]

One thing is that while the Big 10 Network's subscriber base may increase (or, more specifically, the fees per subscriber in the new markets), I can't see ESPN's contract going up proportionally with the new teams. I don't see Nebraska, Missouri, and three Big East teams making the deal worth that much more--even with a championship game. This is why I think it's probably more like the Big Ten expands by one (Notre Dame first, then pick one second) than by five.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by sooner333

One thing is that while the Big 10 Network's subscriber base may increase (or, more specifically, the fees per subscriber in the new markets), I can't see ESPN's contract going up proportionally with the new teams. I don't see Nebraska, Missouri, and three Big East teams making the deal worth that much more--even with a championship game. This is why I think it's probably more like the Big Ten expands by one (Notre Dame first, then pick one second) than by five.

Kind of a mixed bag of thoughts. Delaney sort of indicated that a conference championship is not a vital aspect of expansion (although he didn't shoot it down, either), but it is hard to figure out how expansion is a slam dunk for the Big Ten without adding Notre Dame or Texas. I think adding any of the discussed teams and getting to 12 w/ a championship probably pays for itself without diluting things and maybe going to 14, if Nebraska (one of the better national brand name teams), works. Although, I think there is some risk in 14 w/o Notre Dame or Texas.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sooner333

One thing is that while the Big 10 Network's subscriber base may increase (or, more specifically, the fees per subscriber in the new markets), I can't see ESPN's contract going up proportionally with the new teams. I don't see Nebraska, Missouri, and three Big East teams making the deal worth that much more--even with a championship game. This is why I think it's probably more like the Big Ten expands by one (Notre Dame first, then pick one second) than by five.

That's correct. The ESPN contract wouldn't change a whole lot initially. The Big Ten Network on the other hand is expected to add $15M in annual revenue by adding just Missouri alone. Any East Coast team would also bump that number substantially.

It does sound increasingly that Notre Dame is not going to budge. Mizzou and Nebraska have to (and want to) go at this point. They've cut far too many connections. It just remains to be seen where the other 1-3 teams come from.

I mentioned earlier in the thread that the rumors of Texas moving or aligning with other conferences are premature given their stance on wanting their own network. The comments from the Texas AD yesterday illustrate just how difficult a partner Texas is, whether it's in the Big 12 or somewhere else.

Speaking to the Dallas Morning News, Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds is clearly more interested in what works for the University of Texas than any consideration for what might be best for all of the schools in the Big XII.

"I always thought that individual institution networks serve institutions better than the conference network," Dodds told the Dallas Morning News. "Texas people would rather be able to go to the Texas network and catch all of our sports and all of our events and all of our academic side rather than going to the conference network, where one-twelfth of the inventory will be Texas."

[Swaggs]

Some new tweets from Tom Dienhart (they read from newest to oldest):

If Texas and ND joined the Big Ten, the thought is they would request to play each other every year.
about 3 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®

If ND joins the Big Ten, there is talk the league wouldn't take any other Big East schools.
about 3 hours ago via Twitter for BlackBerry®

And it sounds like the Big East may be pushing ND to discussions with the Big Ten. Play football in the Big East--or get out.
about 4 hours ago via web

Big Ten, Texas, ND are discussing a special rule to accommodate both schools. Instead of playing 8 league games, both would play 7.
about 4 hours ago via web

Latest Big Ten expansion buzz has the league focusing on Notre Dame, Texas, Nebraska.
about 4 hours ago via web

[Swaggs]

Other Big Ten buzz (this is all message board fodder, mostly from NCAAbbs - Expansion/Split ) :

They are not looking to add a conference championship or playoff because they want to preserve their rivalries at the end of the season.

If the rest of the league plays 8 regular season games and allows ND/Texas to only play 7, an 8-0 team would be the champion over a 7-0 ND or Texas, but the 7-0 team would be guaranteed the second BCS slot (ND and Texas would play each other every year to ensure that there would not be two 7-0 teams).

If Notre Dame joins the Big Ten, it will not add any other Big East schools.

[Passacaglia]

Interesting. I wonder what "the second BCS slot" means.

I mean, the Big Ten only sends one team to the BCS, right? As far as we know? And, what if there are two 8-0 teams and a 7-0 team? That could still happen, couldn't it?

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Interesting. I wonder what "the second BCS slot" means.

I mean, the Big Ten only sends one team to the BCS, right? As far as we know? And, what if there are two 8-0 teams and a 7-0 team? That could still happen, couldn't it?

Overanalysis.

Go back a few years to the Missouri screwjob, when they got passed over for Kansas by the Orange Bowl - Oklahoma had the automatic berth by virtue of the conference championship, Kansas received an at-large, and Missouri dropped to the Cotton Bowl because no BCS conference can send more than two teams to a BCS bowl.

What they're saying is that an ND/Texas who went 7-0 would be (probably contractually required) to be the second bid out of the Big Ten if any bowl wished to take a second Big Ten team.

Not that going 7-0 would guarantee them a spot in one of those bowls. Guaranteeing the spot would probably require the assent of the other major conferences, and I can't see them locking into that.