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

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Dr. Sak

Unless they head out west to get a team or somehow pull Texas/Notre Dame, I don't think any of the schools in the Big East make sense financially. But the Big Ten NEEDS that 12th team.

Why? So each school gets less money?

And if they got any team that forced NYC cable systems to add the B10 network, that would make sense financially. Plus, Rutgers easily meets the other criteria you list as pluses for Pitt, and Syracuse stretches to them.

I am not entirely convinced that Rutgers or Syracuse forces the network on the basic cable tier - more likely on a sports tier. The only team that forces it to the main tier is Notre Dame.

But, a school that would have some tv interest in NYC has to make more sense than Pitt.

Considering that these same reports came out about a month ago with Syracuse as the selected target, I am skeptical as to this being a done deal.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Why? So each school gets less money?

While you can argue whether Pitt is the best choice, there's little question that having a conference championship game in football would benefit the Big 10 financially. I don't think it's a guarantee that the schools would see a drop in revenue.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

While you can argue whether Pitt is the best choice, there's little question that having a conference championship game in football would benefit the Big 10 financially. I don't think it's a guarantee that the schools would see a drop in revenue.

Big 10 schools get 21 million paid out. A conference championship game would add 10-15. That's a net loss for the existing schools.

EDIT: Even if the championship game added 21 million, there's still no benefit to adding another team, just a break even. They really need to add subscriber fees.

[Swaggs]

If the Big 10 moves to 12-teams, pretty much regardless of who it is, they will be able to have a championship game and likely add close to enough money from that game to feed the extra mouth. I agree that Pitt doesn't make a ton of sense from a television standpoint, but they are probably the best academic fit (probably even moreso than Texas or Notre Dame) and that seems to matter to most of the B10 schools.

I don't buy for a minute that anyone in the Big 10, outside of State College, cares about giving Penn State a natural rival.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Big 10 schools get 21 million paid out. A conference championship game would add 10-15. That's a net loss for the existing schools.

EDIT: Even if the championship game added 21 million, there's still no benefit to adding another team, just a break even. They really need to add subscriber fees.

But you're not factoring in any revenue from the increase in number of basketball and football games during the regular season. These people aren't stupid. They're not going to add a team if it means a net loss for everyone else. There's plenty of revenue to be had and I have little doubt that all schools will end up making more rather than less.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

1. Mizzou's board has NOT asked to be invited to the Big 10. That's simply false. The governor has openly said that he'd like to see Mizzou go to the B10, but the board and the AD are both against it.

2. Mizzou has actually benefitted from the current deal due to the structure that rewards TV appearances and results. Mizzou has received more over the last 5 years than they would have if all revenues were split equally over that same time.

3. The current Big 12 financial income is peanuts compared to the Big 10. The pot to be divided in the Big 12 is around $500M. The pot to be divided by the Big 10 schools is $2.6 billion. It's not even remotely close.

I did chat with a couple of people in the Mizzou AD and they mentioned that a Big 12 Network in some form is a strong possibility in the next TV deal. We'll see if that happens.

The MU chancellor has publicly stated they would listen to the Big Ten if an offer was made. That doesn't mean they would definitely go, but they certainly aren't against it as you are suggesting. I'd go far as to suggest Missouri would be stupid not to go if offered given the television contracts. Granted the Big 12 should get a nice little raise on their next contract, but they'll still be behind the Big Ten.

You're correct that Missouri is doing well in the Big 12 when it comes to football revenue currently, but that's not the problem as Mike Alden suggested. The problem is that you're making a lot less than other schools in the Big Ten and SEC. And the biggest reason for that is because the Big 12 as a whole can't get on the same page with regards to revenue sharing. If everyone could get on the same page then they'd be able to finally lock into a long term deal/plan (tv contract or Big 12 network). Everyone in the Big 12 is so afraid to commit to a long term deal right now because they're afraid that the have's will just get a bigger portion of the larger deal leaving the have nots left behind. Right now the disparity is only a few million. With a larger deal it could be a much bigger disparity unless they learn to share.

I do think we'll eventually see a Big 12 network unless some channel just throws out tons and tons of money. I've even heard it suggested we could go into network partnership with a conference such as the Pac 10 which would make some sense given the time zone difference. I don't know how feasible that is, but it's something they are looking at per the Big 12 commissioner.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

But you're not factoring in any revenue from the increase in number of basketball and football games during the regular season. These people aren't stupid. They're not going to add a team if it means a net loss for everyone else. There's plenty of revenue to be had and I have little doubt that all schools will end up making more rather than less.

I don't think there would be an increase in revenue from having more football games. The extra game every Saturday would end up on the Big 10 network. The big money from that is subscriber revenues - which don't go up from having more games. The additional ad money from the 4th game on that network would be minimal. Plus, we've seen in the past that adding games itself does not increase revenue unless you increase the number viewers total watching the conferences games every week.

While Pitt will certainly add some viewers, it seems to me they will add the least of all of the rumored candidates. While the move may end up being a small net increase in revenue, it seems to me that it would be the smallest net increase they could have. It just does not make sense to me.

But, I suppose if it makes sense to them, that's what matters.

[Logan]

I would also think Rutgers is more attractive than Pitt for the potential revenues that the school could add. They would immediately bring in more money than Pitt and Cuse because of NYC, and that could really grow bigger if the program gets closer to top level. Immediately though, a Rutgers-Michigan matchup would put up a huge NYC number.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

The MU chancellor has publicly stated they would listen to the Big Ten if an offer was made. That doesn't mean they would definitely go, but they certainly aren't against it as you are suggesting.

I can 100% GUARANTEE you that they are totally against it and are using it as little more than a playing card against the B12 South teams. It's as simple as that. I'd note that I don't think it's nearly as powerful a playing card as the higher-ups think it might be due to the transparency of the move (i.e a moron could figure out what they're doing). But it never hurts to try.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

100% GUARANTEE

I don't think that means what you think it means.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

I don't think that means what you think it means.

I'll clarify. There is no way that Mizzou will be filling that 12th spot in the Big 10. It's not going to happen. That mean what you thought it meant?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Probably bears noting somewhere here that the Big 10 Network already has clearance in NYC on Cablevision, Comcast, and Time Warner.

Of the top 20 markets, the only one that doesn't have clearance on traditional cable (as opposed to Fios or U-Verse) appears to be Los Angeles. The next largest market where that's the case? #21 St. Louis
http://www.bigtennetwork.com/corporate/FAQ.asp#14

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

The war of rumors has gone to Twitter..........

Pitt Official Derides Internet Speculation on Pitt to Big Tent | Campus Corner

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Why not Soldier Field? Or whatever they call the Spaceship Stadium now? Or maybe the new place the Lions play? There are a couple other spots I think they could go.

I'd love to have it in Chicago. I used to go to the Big 10 Tournament when it was at the United Center.

Few reasons why I doubt it would be at Soldier Field. It's outdoors and potentially cold as shit. The field is typically torn to shreds by that time of year thanks to high school games and concerts. Soldier Field is really not that easily accessible for the public and not a great gathering place. And finally, college sports doesn't generate a ton of buzz in the city and it would be well behind the Bears and perhaps Blackhawks and Bulls in coverage.

Only way I can see it happening is if they laid down some turf on the field (which a lot of people have been pushing for). Otherwise, I think they like the location of Indianapolis and the fact it'll be indoors. Detroit is an option but who the hell wants to go there for a weekend.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'll clarify. There is no way that Mizzou will be filling that 12th spot in the Big 10. It's not going to happen. That mean what you thought it meant?

You must feel 100% certain that they will not be getting an invitation, then. There is no way that a school like Missouri is in a position to say no to the Big 10 or SEC, if they are offered.

[yacovfb]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The war of rumors has gone to Twitter..........

Pitt Official Derides Internet Speculation on Pitt to Big Tent | Campus Corner

I really don't see these rumors being true right now. Chris Peak of Pitt's rivals site is quite adamant that all of his sources point to this being bunk. Also, this guy sees it the same way: ZagsBlog.com – Pitt to Big 10 Rumors False

Not saying it won't happen down the road, but it seems highly doubtful that anything goes down this week (or month). Wouldn't mind being wrong, but I doubt it.

EDIT: Pitt football's beat writer for the Post Gazette Paul Zeise chimed in as well (saying all the rumors aren't true): http://community.post-gazette.com/bl...e-big-ten.aspx

[Young Drachma]

Part of me feels like this whole B10 expansion thing has been in the works behind the scenes for a bit, that they already knew who they're adding and it's just a formality to announce the plans to consider studying expansion.

It'll seem homeresque of me, but it's not because of the Jersey thing with Rutgers, as much as it's understanding the mechanics of higher ed. Rutgers, even in the face of some significant budget cuts in other areas, didn't slow plans to grow their football program in recent years.

They've been consistent with their success, have given Schiano anything he's wanted to ensure he's not tempted to leave and the stadium capacity of 52k puts it in a respectable size nationally.

Anyway, the more this plays out -- and I thought this from the outset -- the more it seems to me that they knew this was going to happen and they've been doing the work behind the scenes to get prepared for the move to the B10 from the time it was first floated back a few years ago, than say, some sort of "thoughtful" process where a few schools do the show pony to determine who'll get tapped for B10 expansion.

That's all just random speculation in my head, not anything scientific, but...I just feel like if there wasn't some larger plan in mind beyond "being considered a respectable player on the Big East scene" that the school would've scaled back its plans at some point or caved to the considerable faculty (and some state) pressure to focus less on increase the football program's footprint.

I guess we'll see, though.

[RainMaker]

I also kind of wondered if the reason Schiano has been so adamant about staying at Rutgers is because he knew something was in the works to get them into the Big 10.

I guess one of the things that would turn me away from Rutgers being added is that it is a long trip for some of the smaller sports. Not a big deal for the football team but when Minnesota or Iowa have to send the Women's Field Hockey team out to New Jersey, that has a cost.

[Jon]

Adding to the Rutgers argument: the new WR coach has recruiting ties to Illinois and other midwest states...

[tarcone]

You guys obviously didnt look at the links I posted. Most questions are answered.
What will the conference look like?
Eastern Division

* Michigan
* Michigan State
* Northwestern
* Ohio State
* Penn State
* 12th Member (Pitt, Syracuse, or Rutgers)

Western Division

* Illinois
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Minnesota
* Purdue
* Wisconsin

Where will the championship game be played?

Lucas Oil Stadium. Its new and indoors.

[Abe Sargent]

One of those divisions does not look like the other.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also kind of wondered if the reason Schiano has been so adamant about staying at Rutgers is because he knew something was in the works to get them into the Big 10.

I guess one of the things that would turn me away from Rutgers being added is that it is a long trip for some of the smaller sports. Not a big deal for the football team but when Minnesota or Iowa have to send the Women's Field Hockey team out to New Jersey, that has a cost.

Meh. Google the UAA conference. It's a D3 conference that contains Wash U and a bunch of other big endowment D3 schools that could easily afford D1 if they wanted to, but don't want the sacrifice of academic standards to do it. If they can travel the way they do (NYU, Brandeis, Carnegie Mellon, U Chicago, et. al.) then having trips to Rutgers once or maybe twice a season is of no real consequence.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You guys obviously didnt look at the links I posted. Most questions are answered.

Not sure how links to the original posting of the rumors, that has questions answered with the author of the rumors suppositions, is supposed to convince everyone this is a done deal?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Meh. Google the UAA conference. It's a D3 conference that contains Wash U and a bunch of other big endowment D3 schools that could easily afford D1 if they wanted to, but don't want the sacrifice of academic standards to do it. If they can travel the way they do (NYU, Brandeis, Carnegie Mellon, U Chicago, et. al.) then having trips to Rutgers once or maybe twice a season is of no real consequence.

No one in the ACC complained about having to trek up to Boston College, or the Big East going all the way across to Louisville or down to USF (I know the remaining BE members had less room to be stingy, but still).

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Not sure how links to the original posting of the rumors, that has questions answered with the author of the rumors suppositions, is supposed to convince everyone this is a done deal?

I guess I figure they know more then me. And the fact that Pitt student-athletes were twittering about it. This was reported on these sites. My main point was several statements were made and questions asked and this kind of answered them.

I am hearing rumblings of the Big 10 adding 3 teams. Pitt, Syracuse and Missouri top the list.

[Young Drachma]

Heck, if student-athletes would be the absolutely LAST people to know. If they're talking about it, you know it's just rampant silliness and speculation, rather than actual facts. Coaches too. They'd find out JUST before the students.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

No one in the ACC complained about having to trek up to Boston College

Umm ... I'd say that's always been somewhat unpopular with the core ACC fans & I've never gotten the impression it was particularly popular with the athletic departments either but since there wasn't jackshit they could do about it no real point in complaining.

It's a funny thing I guess, having FSU probably helped Miami integrate into the ACC somewhat & they at least now feel (to other schools/fans) a little bit like they're in the ACC but I don't know that BC will ever feel like they're actually part of the conference. They certainly never have to me & I don't know that I've ever run across anyone from any school that took particular interest in playing them. That's not BC's fault & I'm not knocking them about it, I doubt they/their fans get real excited about the marriage of convenience either.

[Logan]

I was talking about at the time of the movement, and I specifically remember the ADs/Presidents saying how travel costs didn't figure to be an issue when they were asked about it. But you're right, I know BC fans who weren't thrilled by the move at the onset even though they knew it would be better overall for the program because of the loss of natural rivals. Even more don't like it now.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Logan

No one in the ACC complained about having to trek up to Boston College, or the Big East going all the way across to Louisville or down to USF (I know the remaining BE members had less room to be stingy, but still).

Louisville is right by UC anyway? Next state over from Pitt and WVU? Why would they complain about that?

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

Louisville is right by UC anyway? Next state over from Pitt and WVU? Why would they complain about that?

Louisville came into the league with Cincy.

It looks like it's about 550 miles between Louisville and Morgantown which is a hell of a trip for the men's swimming team or whatever non-revenue sports you're talking about. It's 700+ miles between Louisville and New Brunswick, NJ.

Back to the original discussion, the point is you're going to have geographic outliers in these conferences just like Miami was in the Big East originally and people dealt with it fine.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Logan

I was talking about at the time of the movement, and I specifically remember the ADs/Presidents saying how travel costs didn't figure to be an issue when they were asked about it.

Different era though.

Here's one of several articles (ranging from sports business journals to NPR) that talks about the increasing concern over rising travel costs. More recently that report (Knight Foundation? Knight Commission? the name escapes me now that I'm typing) that tried to focus attention on the rise in coaching salaries also included mention of 60% of NCAA members supporting a look at mandating reduced schedules for non-revenue sports due to travel costs.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaah...08+-+NCAA+News

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I can 100% GUARANTEE you that they are totally against it and are using it as little more than a playing card against the B12 South teams. It's as simple as that. I'd note that I don't think it's nearly as powerful a playing card as the higher-ups think it might be due to the transparency of the move (i.e a moron could figure out what they're doing). But it never hurts to try.

Better late than never I guess. I just wonder why Missouri took so long to re-join their Big 12 north brethren. Colorado and Missouri were the two Big 12 north schools who voted with the Big 12 south for the commissioner and other votes during the Big 12's early years. Glad to have Missouri finally back in the fold.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

One of those divisions does not look like the other.

I'm with Abe. Those divisions look really lopsided. Northwestern has to be wondering what they did to anger the Big Ten gods.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by tarcone

You guys obviously didnt look at the links I posted. Most questions are answered.
What will the conference look like?
Eastern Division

* Michigan
* Michigan State
* Northwestern
* Ohio State
* Penn State
* 12th Member (Pitt, Syracuse, or Rutgers)

Western Division

* Illinois
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Minnesota
* Purdue
* Wisconsin

Where will the championship game be played?

Lucas Oil Stadium. Its new and indoors.

No way in hell Michigan, OSU and PSU all end up on the same side of the conference.

[RainMaker]

I would swap Michigan and Michigan State with Indiana and Purdue.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I would swap Michigan and Michigan State with Indiana and Purdue.

But then Iowa wouldn't have a cakewalk to the conference championship game.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Different era though.

Here's one of several articles (ranging from sports business journals to NPR) that talks about the increasing concern over rising travel costs. More recently that report (Knight Foundation? Knight Commission? the name escapes me now that I'm typing) that tried to focus attention on the rise in coaching salaries also included mention of 60% of NCAA members supporting a look at mandating reduced schedules for non-revenue sports due to travel costs.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaah...08+-+NCAA+News

As soon as this is implemented, there will be a Title IX lawsuit somewhere.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

As soon as this is implemented, there will be a Title IX lawsuit somewhere.

Not important. What is important is whether this will be implemented in TCY2.

[tarcone]

You cant have the last game of the Big Ten season being Michigan/Ohio St. Then turn around and have them play again a week later in the championship game. That makes less sense then putting them in the same division.

And Iowa wouldnt have a cake walk. Wisconsin is routinely one of the better teams in the land.

And look at the Big 12. Seems OU and Texas are in the South together. I wouldnt think that would be possible.

[Pumpy Tudors]

were the insiders right or what

[tarcone]

Feb 4th is the day it is to be announced

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Feb 4th is the day it is to be announced

According to who?

[Kodos]

IMO, you have to split up OSU and UM. And then hopefully get a team on par with PSU to come in and pair off. That way, you have a good shot of the traditional OSU vs. UM showdown for the conference title.

[tarcone]

But Michigan and Ohio St wont give up a rivalry game that pours millions of dollars into each university. And it would be stupid for the Big Ten to expand and split those 2 up if they play a week before a conference championship game. That just makes the conference championship game redundant.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

According to who?

The Interwebs. C'mon man, follow along will ya?

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by tarcone

But Michigan and Ohio St wont give up a rivalry game that pours millions of dollars into each university. And it would be stupid for the Big Ten to expand and split those 2 up if they play a week before a conference championship game. That just makes the conference championship game redundant.

They are not going to put Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan in the same side of the conference. Between the 3 of them they won 70% of the titles last decade, plus they are probably the 3 highest TV drawers in the conference.

Love the passion man...but get a reality grip.

[JPhillips]

I know geography tends to dictate divisions, but in the Big Ten's case, why bother? The conference is used to traveling to all the other teams already. Why not just split the teams up in as even a manner as possible and be done with it.

Kick Ass Division

OSU
Mich
Mich St.
Purdue
Iowa
Indiana

Take Names Division

Penn St
Pitt
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota
Illinois

You can switch around teams some if need be. The point is that geography shouldn't limit competitive balance when distances traveled aren't going to change from the status quo.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by tarcone

The Interwebs. C'mon man, follow along will ya?

Heh.

Trashpress.

[tarcone]

How else do you break it up? The only logical thing is to put PSU in the West. But then you have to put their travel partner in the West. So you have PSU and Pitt (or Syr or Rut) in the West with Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
This makes more sense?

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I know geography tends to dictate divisions, but in the Big Ten's case, why bother? The conference is used to traveling to all the other teams already. Why not just split the teams up in as even a manner as possible and be done with it.

Kick Ass Division

OSU
Mich
Mich St.
Purdue
Iowa
Indiana

Take Names Division

Penn St
Pitt
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota
Illinois

You can switch around teams some if need be. The point is that geography shouldn't limit competitive balance when distances traveled aren't going to change from the status quo.

This makes sense to me. But I would love to see Iowa with Penn st. since we own them.