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

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

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

Don't you get the feeling some of these guys are sitting around, trying to justify their jobs, just making shit up because there's been a lull in the buzz? His "the thought is" phrasing is especially suspect, as it suggests to me that he's either referring to himself, or just throwing out ideas to other people who are discussing it with him.

Kinda reminds me of a joke a couple of us played on an attorney I used to work with who would always bitch about getting jumped for promotions. He came into an office while the two of us were talking, and we said, "Did you hear the news? We were asked if we wanted X position!" And after he got all flustered and visibly annoyed at the thought, we said, "Yeah, he asked me and I asked him."

[Logan]

As of about a week ago, I gave up on following any and all buzz. As in, trying to interpret what's going on or figuring out which rumors to believe.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Logan

As of about a week ago, I gave up on following any and all buzz. As in, trying to interpret what's going on or figuring out which rumors to believe.

For whatever reason, I can't seem to help myself on this stuff.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Don't you get the feeling some of these guys are sitting around, trying to justify their jobs, just making shit up because there's been a lull in the buzz? His "the thought is" phrasing is especially suspect, as it suggests to me that he's either referring to himself, or just throwing out ideas to other people who are discussing it with him.

Kinda reminds me of a joke a couple of us played on an attorney I used to work with who would always bitch about getting jumped for promotions. He came into an office while the two of us were talking, and we said, "Did you hear the news? We were asked if we wanted X position!" And after he got all flustered and visibly annoyed at the thought, we said, "Yeah, he asked me and I asked him."

This one passes the eye test, at least. All three teams are "national" teams that will improve the level of football in the Big Ten, w/ a history of pulling in viewership. The 7-game thing (for ND and Texas) probably allows them to go to two fourteen team divisions, where they can anchor one side with Notre Dame/Texas and the other with Michigan/Ohio State AND potentially sets two of those teams to be national title contenders each year (since they won't have to play one another).

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

The point is, though, at some point adding teams provides diminishing returns. Missouri would add KC market, which would add additional subscribers and higher fees for those providers who do carry it. If St. Louis doesn't already pay more because they are an Illinois market (which has been said here, but I have no idea if it's accurate, that market may not have much of an effect. Then there's the rest of the state which would raise fees as well.

But Nebraska doesn't have a market, and to a great deal much of their "national base" would be around the midwest. Sure, they were once big in New Jersey, at least as far as a recruiting pipeline, but I don't think it would be enough of a pull to make sure to get their games on cable, especially when it is going to be games that aren't as big (not selected for ABC or ESPN broadcasts). I'm a college football fan, and I even went to Northwestern for two football seasons...there aren't many games that I think "man, I wish I could watch that game" even if it involves Northwestern. I think national fan bases don't mean that much for something like the Big 10 Network unless the alumni are spread throughout the country (Notre Dame=jackpot).

And then at some point, the fan base regions will overlap. UCONN and Syracuse would have some kind of overlap, just as Mizzou and Nebraska would. The $15mm for Missouri adds up to less than $1mm per team if they add 16 teams. Yeah, it's an increase...but for the teams other than Missouri, not really that much. If it means less of a chance to play for a National Title or disturbing traditional rivalries...it becomes a question of whether it's worth it to lose. For Missouri this is about money. Yeah, it's about respect too, but that comes back to the money they don't get because they aren't on TV as much in relation to the Big 12 revenue sharing agreement.(either because they haven't been as good, because the North hasn't been as good so fewer big matchups, or because Texas is a bigger market and OKC rotates between the #1 and #2 college sports TV market per capita). But for the Big 10, it's about way more than money because their step up won't be nearly as big as Missouri's.

I don't think Missouri has to leave either. The conference members may be upset, but I don't see things being any different if they stay. The Big 12 won't oust Mizzou. Mizzou won't leave for another conference because they're worried they hurt some feelings. So why do they "have" to go?

[endemicFOF]

It's simply a matter of time till we have 3 or 4 SUPER-CONFERENCES...and the Big Ten is simply being smart/pr-active here...and quite frankly, 99% of college teams would make that move if possible due to the money they would get by joining.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

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.

Don't forget last season when Iowa State was chosen over Missouri in the bowl selection process as well (Insight Bowl).

http://www.kansascity.com/2009/12/02...ried-that.html

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Don't forget last season when Iowa State was chosen over Missouri in the bowl selection process as well (Insight Bowl).

http://www.kansascity.com/2009/12/02...ried-that.html

Shrug. I'm not going to internalize every little slight to Missouri.

Especially pissant little bowls like Insight that have no bearing on a discussion of how many BCS bids a league might get.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Shrug. I'm not going to internalize every little slight to Missouri.

Especially pissant little bowls like Insight that have no bearing on a discussion of how many BCS bids a league might get.

It's not about a slight to Missouri. If you read the article you'd see that some times the individual bowl selection committee is looking at things other than the won-loss record. So even though a conference wants Team A to go to this bowl the bowl committee can come along and take Team B for their own reasons. Teams with the national following of Texas, Notre Dame, Nebraska, etc won't have these problems though.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

It's not about a slight to Missouri. If you read the article you'd see that some times the individual bowl selection committee is looking at things other than the won-loss record. So even though a conference wants Team A to go to this bowl the bowl committee can come along and take Team B for their own reasons. Teams with the national following of Texas, Notre Dame, Nebraska, etc won't have these problems though.

Probably not.

But my guess is that if that's what it takes to land a Texas or a Notre Dame for the Big Ten, that they're going to go to the BCS and say "This is how it's going to be if you want us to participate."

My further guess is they would require that 7-0 team to also be BCS-eligible otherwise. No Notre Dame going 7-4 but having all 7 wins come in the Big Ten and eke out the bowl bid that way over a Texas who might be 10-1 (6-1).

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Probably not.

But my guess is that if that's what it takes to land a Texas or a Notre Dame for the Big Ten, that they're going to go to the BCS and say "This is how it's going to be if you want us to participate."

My further guess is they would require that 7-0 team to also be BCS-eligible otherwise. No Notre Dame going 7-4 but having all 7 wins come in the Big Ten and eke out the bowl bid that way over a Texas who might be 10-1 (6-1).

Hopefully if we're all lucky the BCS (and NCAA) will be a thing of the past within ten years.

[SackAttack]

I dunno that I really have any gripes with the NCAA.

But I could totally get behind the BCS disappearing.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Hopefully if we're all lucky the BCS (and NCAA) will be a thing of the past within ten years.

The NCAA is a darn fine organization. The problem is that a tiny minority (but richest and most visible members) have disparate goals and ideals than the vast majority of members. What really needs to happen is a split.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My further guess is they would require that 7-0 team to also be BCS-eligible otherwise. No Notre Dame going 7-4 but having all 7 wins come in the Big Ten and eke out the bowl bid that way over a Texas who might be 10-1 (6-1).

{scratches head}

Maybe I'm just missing something obvious here but wouldn't ND be "BCS-bowl eligible" since they would be the Big 10 champion in that scenario? I mean, either they are or they aren't the conference champ and either the conference champ has an auto-bid or it doesn't. Unless you're suggesting something like "bid goes to highest BCS rated team in the conference" which renders the conference championship pretty well meaningless as far as the BCS is concerned.

And if that highest-rated criteria is what you're suggesting then why not apply it to all BCS members (or all non-title game BCS conferences) as well?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head}

Maybe I'm just missing something obvious here but wouldn't ND be "BCS-bowl eligible" since they would be the Big 10 champion in that scenario? I mean, either they are or they aren't the conference champ and either the conference champ has an auto-bid or it doesn't. Unless you're suggesting something like "bid goes to highest BCS rated team in the conference" which renders the conference championship pretty well meaningless as far as the BCS is concerned.

And if that highest-rated criteria is what you're suggesting then why not apply it to all BCS members (or all non-title game BCS conferences) as well?

Reading it the same way you are, with the addition of course that ND win the Big Ten championship game or championship mini-tournament or whatever they are setting up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by digamma

Reading it the same way you are, with the addition of course that ND win the Big Ten championship game or championship mini-tournament or whatever they are setting up.

I thought the latest version was that the B10 wasn't certain to even add a title game, depending upon the final configuration, although Lord knows I could just be confused about that.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I thought the latest version was that the B10 wasn't certain to even add a title game, depending upon the final configuration, although Lord knows I could just be confused about that.

I'm sure MBBF will correct us soon enough.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by 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.

The way I read this post, a 7-0 team would not be the champion, but would get some other kind of benefit -- a sort of 1b champion, I guess.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

This whole Texas chatter just doesn't hold water at all. Texas has a population that would allow them to make 35-40% of the total Big Ten contract all by themselves (and that number is expected to grow). They have absolutely no reason to join the Big Ten and divide that money amongst 12-16 other teams when they can have that all to themselves. I suppose it COULD happen, but they'd be morons if they did do that.

[Swaggs]

I think it just means that the Big Ten would put the 8-0 and 7-0 teams into the BCS (if offered the additional spot), rather than say taking a team that travels better if they were 7-1.

For example, if Michigan or Ohio State went 11-1 (7-1), the conference would have to send a less attractive, undefeated team like an Illinois or Northwestern team that went 9-3 (8-0) AND send 9-3 (7-0) Notre Dame or Texas before Michigan or Ohio State.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

This whole Texas chatter just doesn't hold water at all. Texas has a population that would allow them to make 35-40% of the total Big Ten contract all by themselves (and that number is expected to grow). They have absolutely no reason to join the Big Ten and divide that money amongst 12-16 other teams when they can have that all to themselves. I suppose it COULD happen, but they'd be morons if they did do that.

It's all speculation at this point, but if we are assuming that the Big Ten is compromising on in-conference scheduling, who knows what else they are willing to "pay" to get Texas on board? Plus, five out of conference home games could be "up for sale" (be that to the highest network bidder or to the Longhorn Network) in this situation.

[Swaggs]

Semi-related, but here are the latest Forbes Top 5 Most Valuable College Football teams:

#1 Texas 119 million
#2 Notre Dame 108 million
#3 Penn State 99 million
#4 Nebraska 93 million
#5 Alabama 92 million

Not hard to see why Texas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska are at the top of the wishlist.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I think it just means that the Big Ten would put the 8-0 and 7-0 teams into the BCS (if offered the additional spot), rather than say taking a team that travels better if they were 7-1.

For example, if Michigan or Ohio State went 11-1 (7-1), the conference would have to send a less attractive, undefeated team like an Illinois or Northwestern team that went 9-3 (8-0) AND send 9-3 (7-0) Notre Dame or Texas before Michigan or Ohio State.

Umm ... as I understand it, the conference doesn't "send" anybody anywhere. What you're describing is up to the BCS, not the Big 10 or anyone else. They could change their eligibility for selection rules, they could mandate selection order, or whatever ... but that's up to the BCS, not the Big 10.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Semi-related, but here are the latest Forbes Top 5 Most Valuable College Football teams:

#1 Texas 119 million
#2 Notre Dame 108 million
#3 Penn State 99 million
#4 Nebraska 93 million
#5 Alabama 92 million

Not hard to see why Texas, Notre Dame, and Nebraska are at the top of the wishlist.

Sure, they're at the top of the wish list. That wasn't in question. My point along with many others was why Texas would give away that much money to other schools? As several writers have noted, Texas would be much better off financially making the move to independent as opposed to joining the Big Ten. They'd have to be brain dead to make that move.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Sure, they're at the top of the wish list. That wasn't in question. My point along with many others was why Texas would give away that much money to other schools? As several writers have noted, Texas would be much better off financially making the move to independent as opposed to joining the Big Ten. They'd have to be brain dead to make that move.

Then why are they staying in the Big 12 at all? It's not like the keep ALL of the money they generate the conference. I don't think they'd be morons to go to the Big Ten if they could make more money with the security that goes with being in a conference. But, obviously money isn't the only factor for them--or so it seems.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{scratches head}

Maybe I'm just missing something obvious here but wouldn't ND be "BCS-bowl eligible" since they would be the Big 10 champion in that scenario? I mean, either they are or they aren't the conference champ and either the conference champ has an auto-bid or it doesn't. Unless you're suggesting something like "bid goes to highest BCS rated team in the conference" which renders the conference championship pretty well meaningless as far as the BCS is concerned.

And if that highest-rated criteria is what you're suggesting then why not apply it to all BCS members (or all non-title game BCS conferences) as well?

I think you are misreading it. That post was under the assumption that they don't add a championship game. ND/Texas would be allowed to play only 7 games, while the rest of the conference would be playing 8. Thus, the 8-0 team, if there were one, would be conference champion, but the 7-0 team, if there were one, would be "required" to be the team selected if the conference got a second BCS bid.

If ND/Texas went undefeated and nobody else did, sure, you'd have the right of it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I think the Big 12 commish has officially gone off the deep end. He seems to think he holds some power over the schools that are considering moves to the Big 10 and Pac 10 when he actually has no choice but to wait it out.

Tired of playing the waiting game - Sports | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri

[tarcone]

If Texas starts its own network, that would be the end of the Big 12.
How much TV revenue would the league lose?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by tarcone

If Texas starts its own network, that would be the end of the Big 12.
How much TV revenue would the league lose?

There's no question about that, though the commish seems to simply gloss over that in this interview.

To put it in perspective, the state of Texas in 15 years is projected to have 2/3 of the population that the entire Big Ten footprint currently has. So a good guess would be that Texas would make 60-66% the revenue that the Big Ten is currently making (if not more) and be able to keep it all to themselves. There's a reason that the Big 12 brass bends over backwards to keep Texas happy.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think the Big 12 commish has officially gone off the deep end. He seems to think he holds some power over the schools that are considering moves to the Big 10 and Pac 10 when he actually has no choice but to wait it out.

Tired of playing the waiting game - Sports | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri

If he had enough schools backing him, couldn't they amend the Big 12 rules in whatever way they see fit? So I wouldn't say he's gone off the deep end especially if he can get the support of a clear majority of the Big 12 schools.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by tarcone

If Texas starts its own network, that would be the end of the Big 12.
How much TV revenue would the league lose?

That depends. There are a few theories being thrown out right now. Even if Texas had their own network they could possibly package the Big 12 and Texas networks together. What is gained or lost from doing it that way I don't know.

[Passacaglia]

To put it in perspective, the state of Texas in 15 years is projected to have 2/3 of the population that the entire Big Ten footprint currently has.

That's a really strange statistic, and doesn't really put anything in perspective for me at all.

[Logan]

Change the fuckin thread title, dick.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

That's a really strange statistic, and doesn't really put anything in perspective for me at all.

Much of the revenue of the Big Ten Network comes from subscriber revenue. If you've got a base to draw from that's roughly 2/3 the size of an entire conference, the revenue potential is immense. Texas is a huge drawing card. I think Beebe is fooling himself if he thinks that Texas is just wanting to set up a little state network and is willing to share all that revenue with the rest of the Big 12. But he has little choice but to follow along because the Big 12 falls apart if Texas moves or becomes independent.

[Logan]

But in 15 years, what is the projected population of the rest of the Big 10 footprint?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Logan

But in 15 years, what is the projected population of the rest of the Big 10 footprint?

It's relatively neutral. That was the basis behind the comments from the Big Ten commish last week. He stated that they were looking to expand south of the current geography because that's where the popuation growth was happening. The Rust Belt has some towns that are really struggling to just keep the population they have. There are some area that have growth, but it's really a tough situation and doesn't show any signs of improving overall.

[tarcone]

Welcome to the Big10 Florida State and Miami..........lol

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Much of the revenue of the Big Ten Network comes from subscriber revenue. If you've got a base to draw from that's roughly 2/3 the size of an entire conference, the revenue potential is immense. Texas is a huge drawing card. I think Beebe is fooling himself if he thinks that Texas is just wanting to set up a little state network and is willing to share all that revenue with the rest of the Big 12. But he has little choice but to follow along because the Big 12 falls apart if Texas moves or becomes independent.

All I mean is that the statistic should tell me what the population of Texas is compared to the Big Ten now, or it should tell me when the population of Texas will be the same as the Big Ten. I don't care when it will be 2/3 of the Big Ten.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's relatively neutral. That was the basis behind the comments from the Big Ten commish last week. He stated that they were looking to expand south of the current geography because that's where the popuation growth was happening. The Rust Belt has some towns that are really struggling to just keep the population they have. There are some area that have growth, but it's really a tough situation and doesn't show any signs of improving overall.

MBBF is correct. The sun belt is where the biggest population increases are happening currently and thus the Big Ten commissioner talked about expanding their search to that region based on the future growth. It's another one of the reasons why I'm so excited to see the Big 12 and Pac 10 discussing working together on a network. Hopefully it happens.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I think the Big 12 commish has officially gone off the deep end. He seems to think he holds some power over the schools that are considering moves to the Big 10 and Pac 10 when he actually has no choice but to wait it out.

Tired of playing the waiting game - Sports | The Columbia Daily Tribune - Columbia, Missouri

Beebe is a spineless pussy. Pointing the finger at the Pac-10 to explain why Kansas-over-Missouri was a good thing?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Logan

Change the fuckin thread title, dick.

Or post more RutgersAl. If we're posting half-assed rumors and crazy theories, let's hear what the master thinks.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Beebe is a spineless pussy. Pointing the finger at the Pac-10 to explain why Kansas-over-Missouri was a good thing?

Agree Beebe is spineless, but he is correct that bowl's pay more to be allowed to choose who they can and can't invite. The fact is bowl's are in this to make money. They are going to select match-ups that will make them the most amount of money possible. Just another reason to get rid of the bowl system and have a playoff.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Or post more RutgersAl. If we're posting half-assed rumors and crazy theories, let's hear what the master thinks.

Finally banned on our Rutgers site.

[kcchief19]

Here's the thing about a Texas network and the Big 12. Texas doesn't want to leave the Big 12. It's too good of a setup for them. There's not a market for a NBC-Notre Dame deal, and getting $13 million from the Big 12 for conference games is pretty darn good.

What Texas wants to do is build a Texas sports network that carries basketball and non-revenue sports. The draw is adding nonconference football games to the package outside the Big 12 deal. That way Texas can get the best of both worlds. In that kind of model, Texas could probably continue to draw $13 million from the Big 12 and $10 million or more from a cable network. It would be a cash cow.

Other teams and states are going to look at it too. If Nebraska doesn't go to the Big 12, they might look at forming their own network too. It's a rabid fan base they would pay good money for a four conference football games on cable.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

Agree Beebe is spineless, but he is correct that bowl's pay more to be allowed to choose who they can and can't invite.

He's spineless and wrong. All but one or two bowls pay teams the same amount of money. The Alamo Bowl paid the same amount for the fourth team from the Big 12 as they did for the fourth choice from the Big 12. It's just that the schools who hold the power in the conference prefer chaos and every-team-for-themselves than order and structure. Chaos more often than not benefits the power teams.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

He's spineless and wrong. All but one or two bowls pay teams the same amount of money. The Alamo Bowl paid the same amount for the fourth team from the Big 12 as they did for the fourth choice from the Big 12. It's just that the schools who hold the power in the conference prefer chaos and every-team-for-themselves than order and structure. Chaos more often than not benefits the power teams.

Here's a quick write up I found on KU and MU's payout from 2007. I don't believe you're right in this regard since it looks like there are a number of factors involved in how much a school can get plus some of the money is shared to schools that didn't go to a bowl (KSU in this story). I still believe that bowls pay more to the conference (not to the individual team) for the right to select what teams are selected. So last season Iowa State received a better bid then Missouri simply because Iowa State fans had previously shown an ability to travel. Is it fair? Probably not. But the bowl system has never been fair...that's not because of the Big 12 commissioner. You can put plenty on Beebe, but I believe in this instance you're wrong.

http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2007/de...out_4_million/

Missouri fans like to use the 2007 Orange Bowl snub as to why the system is broken. What they forget is that the Rose Bowl selected before the Orange Bowl in 2007. So the Rose Bowl took Illinois (a team Missouri beat) and USC due to tradition. How is picking based on tradition any better or worse than picking on fan base? Either way you're taking the lesser team for a reason that has nothing to do with record. Hence why I suggest the bowl system is broken. We saw it again this year when Iowa State was selected over Missouri simply because Iowa State's fan base has a proven track record of travel. The fact is bowls pay lots of money to select the teams they want. It's an awful system and one that will hopefully be replaced with playoffs in the future.

[Pumpy Tudors]

So has this shit happened yet or what?

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Texas could probably continue to draw $13 million from the Big 12 and $10 million or more from a cable network. It would be a cash cow.

The $10 million figure would absolutely shock me, as too many marquee events could not be shown. But if any school could do it, it's Texas.

[Izulde]

I'm not sure if this has been posted or not, but I thought it was interesting

Rumors abound regarding potential Mountain West shake-up - Las Vegas Sun

Boise State to the Mountain West would be very cool, even though I'm not sure it would happen.

[Swaggs]

The latest (take it with a grain of salt):

Folks reporting from the Big East conference meetings seem to be getting the feeling that the Big Ten may only expand with Nebraska this time around or that they will petition the NCAA to allow conference championships to be played with less than 12-teams (which would presumably get more support this time around than it did with the ACC).

There is also a rumor floating around that the Big East may add UCF and Temple (as all sports members) and give a Big East Network a try. Kind of a surprise to see Temple over Memphis (big, new market, one of the best basketball draws around), since Villanova seemed to block them out from being a full member last time around. I'm not sure what type of money a BEN would bring, but it would be cool to see some of the old basketball games.