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

[miked]

Originally Posted by Marmel

As a Syracuse fan, and a basketball fan primarily, I'm in a tough spot. I don't want to be a part of the Big10, at all. But if there was an invite, I know the school would accept it.

But then, I wonder what kind of conference Syracuse would be joining, if they really believe Rutgers would be a good team to invite. No offense to the Rutgers fans here, but that school has contributed exactly NOTHING to the Big East since it joined. It continues to provide nothing, and in fact, they have done nothing but suck at the tit of the Big East since joining. It doesn't make a dent in the NYC market (no Big East team does). It has a smoke and mirror football team with 5 years of "success" built on one win against Louisville and about 30 wins against the worst teams in 1A and 1AA. If the Big10 thinks this is a good choice, then they are no smarter than the ACC leaders who completely blew it with their expansion plans a few years ago.

Bottom line and best case scenario, take Rutgers off our hands and let the rest of the Big East stay intact. Please. We'll even waive their departure fee.

I guess the Orangepeel's 2 bowl games since 2000 does wonders to feed the mighty Big East tits. I think the last bowl game they went to, they were also pasted by Tech. But I guess you can live off the history of Joe Morris, Marvin Harrison, and Donovan McNabb for the next decade or two. Maybe we should bow to their OOC schedule of Akron, Washington, and Maine next season.

Big East basketball, we suck mighty balls.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Even if it is "only" .30-.40. Its still 18 million people paying .30-.40.

I'm not sold that if you put Rutgers in the Big Ten Time Warner Cable and NYC cable providers automatically move it from the digital sports tier to a basic tier. I'm guessing the market share for Rutgers in NYC is pretty small, maybe 10 percent or less. Whereas in Missouri and Nebraska, the cable companies would almost have to put it on basic or else.

I don't think there's anyway NYC adds the BTN for 70 cents on basic cable. I'd bet it would stay on a digital sports tier, or if they put it on basic it would be for 10-20 cents at best. So in this equation, a large share of a smaller market could be more profitable than a small share of a large market.

[kcchief19]

Listening to the Big 12 commissioner in his press conference today, it seems pretty clear that the only schools at any risk of leaving are Missouri and Nebraska. Nothing explicitly was said, but Beebe's comments are that the overwhelming consensus of the conference is that almost all the schools are ready to move forward together and there are only a couple of "risks" out there as far as teams who aren't "on the plane" yet.

I truly don't think Texas has any interest in the Big Ten. I think the Big Ten interest in Texas was probably limited to the "Oh, wouldn't it be great if we got Notre Dame, Florida and Texas?" speculation.

The Big 12 commish also thinks it's just as likely the Big Ten will do nothing as they will do something. He claims that's based on his talks with Delaney.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by miked

I guess the Orangepeel's 2 bowl games since 2000 does wonders to feed the mighty Big East tits. I think the last bowl game they went to, they were also pasted by Tech. But I guess you can live off the history of Joe Morris, Marvin Harrison, and Donovan McNabb for the next decade or two. Maybe we should bow to their OOC schedule of Akron, Washington, and Maine next season.

Big East basketball, we suck mighty balls.

Well let's see the Orange does have a top quality mens basketball team, men'/women's lacrosse teams and softball teamalong with it's academics.

Remind me again what Rutgers does for the Big East?

[Logan]

Compared to other national programs, nobody has done anything for the Big East as a football conference besides West Virginia.

[Chubby]

I would argue Cinci lately but I don't think they will have sustained success

[miked]

I never said Rutgers was a boon for the Big East, I'm merely asserting that they are not suckling off anyone's tit really. It's quite obvious our basketball team sucks. From what I remember, we were ok at women's basketball, soccer, and baseball.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The Big 12 commish also thinks it's just as likely the Big Ten will do nothing as they will do something. He claims that's based on his talks with Delaney.

This is the same commish that said that the biggest reason Mizzou would stay in the Big 12 was “their rivalries with Texas and Texas Tech.”

I'm with Stupid.

[Wolfpack]

I severely doubt UVa is going anywhere and especially not without Virginia Tech, not after what happened to get VT into the ACC in 2004. It could be argued that circumstances are somewhat different since the ACC is likely stronger than the Big East was perceived to be back then, but if UVa and Maryland were to go, opening up the conference to potential losses from Clemson to Miami if the SEC came calling, then VT would absolutely be doing what they could to either scuttle anything that saw UVa leave them behind in a supposedly dying conference.

Maryland, however, is definitely the more vulnerable of the two to be pried away. As others have noted, the dollars might make it worth breaking with 60 years of history (longer even, if you consider the old Southern Conference than preceded the ACC). Maryland also has a long dislike of the NC-centered nature of the conference (see Gary Williams referring to his school being in "Alaska") though obviously that power has waned with expansion. Laying that aside, joining the B10 would be a way of getting out from underneath the NC schools, but it isn't as if the focus really would be in their favor in the Big 10, either. The schools are a little more diffuse in that league, but the power center wouldn't be any closer to Washington/Baltimore than it is now and they'd have even less influence in the near term being the new kid on the block rather than a founding member of the conference. Money can make up for a lot of that, though, so I can't totally rule out Maryland exiting the conference.

Now, if it did come to pass that the ACC were to lose several schools to the SEC or Big 10, then it's very damaging to the ACC. Albion is quite right that there are people particularly here in NC who yearn for the simpler times before 1990 when basketball was truly king and the double-round-robin was sacred. These same folks barely tolerated FSU in the league (kept the double-round-robin, but screwed up the tournament symmetry) and absolutely despised the last expansion wave that brought VT, Miami, and BC (no double-round-robin, too many non-NC teams at the tournament, tournament now played in foreign places like Tampa, etc). However, the world that they're looking for is a long time gone and is likely never to return as long as football drives everything else. Carolina just got authorization to hit up their donors for a multi-million dollar improvement to Kenan Stadium. If the ACC were to be raided down to eight or nine teams, do you think those big money donors are going to fork over for mid-major football? Basically, the basketball schools in the conference (State, Carolina, Wake, and Virginia, particularly) have made too much investment in football in the last 15 years to turn around and let it all go to pot, so the ACC will go after other conferences to get membership back up to 12 again. They can't afford to not do it, no matter what the traditionalists want.

[cuervo72]

Maybe if a couple of schools leave the ACC should invite ECU and App St.

[the_meanstrosity]

An interesting article from the Oklahoman suggesting the Big 12 needing to break up. He feels that Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Kansas, Oklahoma State, and Colorado should join with Arizona and Arizona State to make up the Eastern Division of the newly expanded Pac 16. I've seen similar arguments making the same suggestion, but normally from fans.

http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-break...medium=twitter

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like the Texas AD saved Beebe from having to make a futile stand. Dodds came out blasting yesterday. The amusing irony is that Texas is the source for the unrest in the Big 12, despite his attempt to pawn it off on other schools who he believes to be disloyal. This move by Dodds has to make member schools more likely to run from the conference, when his intent may have been to scare them into staying. There's no question that Texas would prefer to hold the power (as it does right now) as opposed to sharing it with others.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/01...-says-its.html

[Toddzilla]

There is a less than zero chance that Virginia, Maryland, or (guffaw) Virginia Tech leaves the ACC for the Big 10.

However, if the SEC comes calling, I'd expect FSU and Miami (and maybe Ga Tech / Clemson ) to jump in a heartbeat.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

There's no question that Texas would prefer to hold the power (as it does right now) as opposed to sharing it with others.

Like it or not, Texas will always hold the power. I don't like it, but in today's conference allignment we are going to have to live with it. Let's face it, both of our programs would be worse off in the Big 8 than in the Big 12...at least financially, which is what I think you're concerned most with. Right now for the teams in the Big 12, Texas is the player who will decide how big of a TV contract we are going to get.

The funny thing is that as a program that is so upset about Texas having all of the power, you are willing to let the entire Big 10 conference have the power over the future of your program. But you refuse to see the idea that the move is not a done deal, so you're pretty much blind to the fact that they hold that power over Missouri right now.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Like it or not, Texas will always hold the power. I don't like it, but in today's conference allignment we are going to have to live with it. Let's face it, both of our programs would be worse off in the Big 8 than in the Big 12...at least financially, which is what I think you're concerned most with. Right now for the teams in the Big 12, Texas is the player who will decide how big of a TV contract we are going to get.

The funny thing is that as a program that is so upset about Texas having all of the power, you are willing to let the entire Big 10 conference have the power over the future of your program. But you refuse to see the idea that the move is not a done deal, so you're pretty much blind to the fact that they hold that power over Missouri right now.

Sure, I've never stated otherwise regarding Texas controlling the conference. It's mutually beneficial as the Big 8 schools have been able to play on the national stage much more. In addition, it should be noted that Texas has seen much more success in the Big 12 both in football and basketball.

I disagree that I'm not able to see that it's not a done deal. It's not done until the signature is on the dotted line. I'd also disagree that the B10 controls Mizzou's future. Mizzou still has the option to stay in the Big 12, which given the stir that a possible departure has caused, will return in a better position than they were before.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by tarcone

Even if it is "only" .30-.40. Its still 18 million people paying .30-.40.

Except that it's not 18M people paying that. How many households are in NYC? It sure as hell isn't 18M. And how many will be getting cable that's got the Big Ten network? And not every single cable provider carries Big Ten Network- they've gotten in spats before because they charge too much. I think our number is much closer to $5M than the $15M that people are talking about. That's pretty good money but is it good you can bring other value to the conference by asking another member? How does that Big Ten Network Rutgers money compare to, say, what money Virginia could bring in as an academic institution or the value of bringing in another historical football power like Nebraska?

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by miked

I guess the Orangepeel's 2 bowl games since 2000 does wonders to feed the mighty Big East tits. I think the last bowl game they went to, they were also pasted by Tech. But I guess you can live off the history of Joe Morris, Marvin Harrison, and Donovan McNabb for the next decade or two. Maybe we should bow to their OOC schedule of Akron, Washington, and Maine next season.

Big East basketball, we suck mighty balls.

Originally Posted by Chubby

Well let's see the Orange does have a top quality mens basketball team, men'/women's lacrosse teams and softball teamalong with it's academics.

Remind me again what Rutgers does for the Big East?

Scarlet Knights vs Orange cat fight!

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Maybe if a couple of schools leave the ACC should invite ECU and App St.

The SEC should be all over that since half their schools schedule them in the non-con anyways

SI

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Like it or not, Texas will always hold the power. I don't like it, but in today's conference allignment we are going to have to live with it. Let's face it, both of our programs would be worse off in the Big 8 than in the Big 12...at least financially, which is what I think you're concerned most with. Right now for the teams in the Big 12, Texas is the player who will decide how big of a TV contract we are going to get.

The funny thing is that as a program that is so upset about Texas having all of the power, you are willing to let the entire Big 10 conference have the power over the future of your program. But you refuse to see the idea that the move is not a done deal, so you're pretty much blind to the fact that they hold that power over Missouri right now.

That's why I'd like to see the Big 12 and Pac 10 with some sort of merger. Then we can grab some of the other growing markets and take some of that pressure off the state of Texas. I'm probably naive and not seeing everything, but I see it as a win win situation for both conferences.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by miked

Maybe we should bow to their OOC schedule of Akron, Washington, and Maine next season.

Really, that is what you want to point out? We routinely play the best OOC schedule in the Big East, if not most of the country.

Page 2: Formidable -- the BCS teams that don't avoid competition - ESPN Page 2

I also see that Rutgers has played the most Div1-AA teams...



.
clemson 24 arizona 6 texas tech 12 mich. st. 1 vandy 12 syracuse 5

maryland 8 oregonst 17 kansas st. 28 iowa 6 missisippi 19 wvu 6

virginia 22 stanford 0 iowa st. 19 minn. 14 miss.st. 17 pitt 8

wake forrest 32 wash. 0 kansas 19 ohio st. 2 auburn 15 cinncy 26

virginia tech 20 wash. st. 14 colorado 2 illinois 7 alabama 6 'ville 31

miami 16 cal. 3 oklahoma 5 wisconsin 9 tennesee 2 rutgers 61



Formatting on that might suck, but it does show Rutgers with 61 and the next closest is 31 games against Div1AA. Pathetic.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The SEC should be all over that since half their schools schedule them in the non-con anyways

SI

ECU is far from a cupcake. SEC teams don't want any part of that crap!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

The SEC should be all over that since half their schools schedule them in the non-con anyways

Since 1980, ECU has played
Arkansas 1x in 2009
Kentucky 2x in 1993 & 2008
Alabama 1x in 1998
Tennessee 1x in 1995
Auburn 3x between 1985 & 1994
Georgia 1x in 1990
Florida 1x in 1983
5 other SEC teams have never played ECU

Since 1980, Appalachian State has played
LSU 2x, last played in 2008
Auburn 1x in 1999
South Carolina 8x last played in 1988
9 other SEC teams have never played Appalachian State

So yes, half the SEC has scheduled them ... at least once in the past 30 years.

Only 3 SEC teams have played either of them in the past decade

[Poli]

Maybe he's referring to the back to back bowl games with ECU. You know one of them...the one where they beat Arkansas.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Poli

Maybe he's referring to the back to back bowl games with ECU. You know one of them...the one where they beat Arkansas.

Teams don't make those schedules so surely that couldn't have been it.

[Poli]

I know, that was a little tongue-in-cheek...mostly to take a jab at a certain band director.

[MJ4H]

Originally Posted by Poli

I know, that was a little tongue-in-cheek...mostly to take a jab at a certain band director.

Poli loves to take shots at me because he knows I react.

ECU DIDN'T BEAT ARKANSAS JERKFACE

Though how they didn't, we will never know.

And holy crap that game was cold.

edit: diediediediedie

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

ECU is far from a cupcake. SEC teams don't want any part of that crap!

Yeah, better to play teams like Georgia State who are in their first year of football.

SI

[Poli]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

Poli loves to take shots at me because he knows I react.

ECU DIDN'T BEAT ARKANSAS JERKFACE

Though how they didn't, we will never know.

And holy crap that game was cold.

edit: diediediediedie

You mean Arkansas eventually won that game?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Yeah, better to play teams like Georgia State who are in their first year of football.

Somebody has to play them, and frankly, that's a gift to (former Alabama) Coach Curry in order to help the program. That's a huge boost for the Panthers even if they lose 80-0. And with the transfer of a QB from 'Bama to GSU it'll get even more press making it even more valuable to them.

Having already proven that you were talking completely out of your ass on both ECU & Appy State, I'll point out that grasping at straws like this isn't helping you any.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Marmel

I also see that Rutgers has played the most Div1-AA teams...



.
clemson 24 arizona 6 texas tech 12 mich. st. 1 vandy 12 syracuse 5

maryland 8 oregonst 17 kansas st. 28 iowa 6 missisippi 19 wvu 6

virginia 22 stanford 0 iowa st. 19 minn. 14 miss.st. 17 pitt 8

wake forrest 32 wash. 0 kansas 19 ohio st. 2 auburn 15 cinncy 26

virginia tech 20 wash. st. 14 colorado 2 illinois 7 alabama 6 'ville 31

miami 16 cal. 3 oklahoma 5 wisconsin 9 tennesee 2 rutgers 61



Formatting on that might suck, but it does show Rutgers with 61 and the next closest is 31 games against Div1AA. Pathetic.

Yeah you're going to need to improve your formatting and show a link to what you're talking about, since the link contained within your link (Page 2: Statistics -- The BCS from top to bottom - ESPN Page 2) shows that Rutgers played 8 1-AA games from 1998-2007 which is in line with plenty of other BCS teams.

[Noop]

Cat Fight!!!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Decent read. Not sure there's much new here, but offers a pretty good summary of what we've seen so far.

The Big Ten's Three-Step Recovery Program For Demographic Shifts | Bleacher Report

[digamma]

So, it's a pretty good summary of nothing?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by digamma

So, it's a pretty good summary of nothing?

Gotta find something to kill the time I suppose.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Somebody has to play them, and frankly, that's a gift to (former Alabama) Coach Curry in order to help the program. That's a huge boost for the Panthers even if they lose 80-0. And with the transfer of a QB from 'Bama to GSU it'll get even more press making it even more valuable to them.

Agreed - the Bama-Georgia State game is all about doing favors for ex-coaches. That'll be the highest profile game GSU will play in two or three seasons, most likely.

[DeToxRox]

This was taken from another forum but it was written by a guy on the Texas Rivals site (The cliffs were added in after obviously)

Cliffs:
- Sources are saying the Pac-10 will invite Texas, Texas A&M, OU, OKState, Texas Tech, and Colorado to join them in creating a 16 team conference.
- The new conference would start its own network where each team would receive 20 million in tv revenue a year.
- Conference would include 7 of the top 20 tv markets in the US.
- A&M may want to hold out for the SEC , Texas may want to hold out to start a network of their own.
Interesting stuff........

The Big 12 meetings are reaching their climax Thursday and Friday in Kansas City with the presidents and chancellors from the league coming together to discuss pressing issues, including sites for championships. (Look for the Big 12 title game in football to stay at Cowboys Stadium for the next three years.)

But when it comes to possible realignment, the Big 12 meetings may be premature.

Why?

Because it appears the Pac-10, which has its meetings in San Francisco starting this weekend, is prepared to make a bold move and invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado to join its league, according to multiple sources close to the situation.

Left out would be Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska and Missouri.

Messages left with Pac-10 officials by Orangebloods.com on Thursday were not immediately returned.

The six teams from the Big 12 would be in an eight-team division with Arizona and Arizona State. The other eight-team division would consist of USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State.

The thought is the Big 16 (or whatever they decide for the name) would start its own television network that could command premium subscriber dollars from cable providers on par with the Big Ten Network and pay out upwards of $20 million to each of the 16 schools in TV revenue.

Such a merger between the six Big 12 schools and the Pac-10 would build a conference with seven of the country’s top 20 TV markets (Los Angeles, Dallas, San Francisco, Houston, Phoenix, Seattle and Sacramento). And such a league would likely command attention from every cable system in the country and command a premium rate from every cable system west of the Mississippi.

Those projected TV revenues would double the current payouts of roughly $9 million to Big 12 and Pac-10 members. If the Big 16 reached its projections, the league would also surpass the SEC’s projected payout of $17 million per school reached in a 15-year TV deal with ABC/ESPN and CBS signed in 2008.

According to the Omaha World-Herald, the TV revenues paid out to the Big 12 in 2007 (the last year revenue was made public) were as follows:

1. Texas: $10.2 million
2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million
3. Kansas: $9.24 million
4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million
5. Nebraska: $9.1 million
6. Missouri: $8.4 million
7. Texas Tech: $8.23 million
8. Kansas State: $8.21 million
9. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million
10. Colorado: $8.0 million
11. Iowa State: $7.4 million
12. Baylor: $7.1 million

AN OFFER THAT CAN’T BE REFUSED?

An invitation from the Pac-10 will be hard for the six Big 12 schools being targeted not to consider. Why? Because Fox Cable Networks (a division of News Corporation), which serves as the chief operating partner of the successful Big Ten Network, appears ready to make the Big 16 Network happen.

Fox is the chief television partner of the Pac-10 currently, and its subsidiary Fox Sports Net currently holds the rights to the Big 12 cable package, which comes up for bid in the spring of 2011. The Pac-10 also has television deals with Fox up for re-bid at the same time.

The Big Ten has shown the conference network model works. According to published reports, the TV revenue paid out to Big Ten schools jumped from $14 million for the fiscal year 2006-07 to $22 million for the fiscal year 2007-08.

A&M TO THE SEC?

There does appear to be some resistance to an invitation from the Pac-10 from at least one of the six schools being targeted - Texas A&M. According to a source close to the situation, A&M officials have had serious conversations with the Southeastern Conference about the Aggies joining that league.

In Thursday’s editions of the Houston Chronicle, A&M athletic director Bill Byrne was asked if the SEC is an option for the Aggies should the Big 12 break up, and he said, “It might be. You know what? It might be.”

Byrne, the athletic director at Oregon from 1984-92 before going to Nebraska, has been openly critical of having student-athletes travel west, only to return home at odd hours.

Byrne has used the example of when the Aggies had their men’s and women’s basketball teams in Spokane and Seattle for the NCAA Tournament in March and couldn’t get back to College Station until 6:30 a.m. with students having to attend 8 a.m. classes.

It’s no coincidence Byrne’s example included cities in the Pac-10’s dominant time zone.

There is also reason to believe Oklahoma could be enamored with joining the SEC. But that does not appear to be an option Texas officials would be willing to consider. There is a sense among UT officials the academics in the SEC are not on par with Texas.
If A&M and Oklahoma were to splinter off and join the SEC, the Pac-10 would obviously have to revise its invite list.

Any move the SEC made in terms of expansion would likely cause the 15-year, $3 billion in TV contracts the SEC landed with ABC/ESPN ($2.2 billion) and CBS ($825 million) to be re-opened for negotiation.

The question would be how much more money the SEC could command in TV revenue without starting its own network?

A&M is starved for cash because its athletic department fell $16 million into debt and received a loan from the school’s general fund to pay it off, causing a rift between the university and athletics. That rift, in part, led to A&M school president Elsa Murano to resign under pressure because she was pushing for the money to be paid back and was met with resistance by A&M system chancellor Mike McKinney, whose sons played football at A&M, and possibly even Texas Gov. Rick Perry, an Aggie who is still very involved in the school’s politics.

Surprisingly, the Legislature doesn’t appear to be an obstacle for the state’s two biggest schools to split off into separate conferences, although that is not an ideal situation for either school. If A&M opted to head to the SEC and Texas opted to go elsewhere, there is a very good chance Texas would no longer play the Aggies in any sports.

NEW OPTIONS

So after this weekend, there will be a new option for half the schools in the Big 12 to find a new home.

There also appears to be a chance Nebraska will not get invited to the Big Ten, which means the only school the Big 12 stands to lose to the Big Ten is Missouri. The Big Ten and its efforts to move south, thus far, have been rebuffed by Texas, which doesn’t like the logistics of serving as the southern boundary of the Big Ten.

So the Big Ten continues to focus on Notre Dame and is seriously considering whether to invite Missouri as well as three schools from the Big East (Rutgers, UConn and either Syracuse or Pittsburgh) . Such a move would likely collapse the Big East, where Notre Dame plays its sports other than football, and might cause the Irish to finally acquiesce to joining the Big Ten.

If that happened, there would be a strong likelihood that four super conferences of roughly 16 teams could emerge: the Big Ten, the SEC, a collaboration of the Big 12 and Pac-10 as well as a collaboration of the Big East and ACC.

Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe warned against that when the Big 12 meetings started this week in Kansas City.

“I think it’s very serious,” Beebe said. “And I think it’s something that we better be very careful about. If we come to a day where there are four 16-member conferences, then it’s going to be a sad day, and it’s going to be very difficult to not have more legal issues and interventions. The pressures will be immense for certain programs to be successful, (and) there will be less chances to win conference championships and national championships.”

CAN THE BIG 12 SURVIVE?

Believe it or not, it’s still Texas’ goal to hold the Big 12 together, and simply create a non-conference football scheduling alliance with the Pac-10 that would help generate a big-money, cable TV deal for both leagues.

Such a move would continue to allow Texas to pursue its own network and create a unique, potentially lucrative revenue stream UT wouldn’t have to share. If Texas ended up as one of the six schools going off to join forces with the Pac-10, it would likely have to forgo its own network.

Larry Scott, the Pac-10 commissioner, told Orangebloods.com recently his schools are “very interested” in exploring a conference network and that it would have to be an “all rights in situation.”

Can Texas convince the rest of the league the Big 12 is the way to go? Would all the wandering eyes like Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Nebraska and Missouri commit to staying in the Big 12 immediately if Texas committed to staying in the Big 12 in light of the Pac-10 offer?

Missouri probably would not. The Tigers already have one foot in the Big Ten. But Nebraska has no assurance it will be invited to the Big Ten and could be left completely out of the power conference structure if it’s not careful. Texas A&M doesn’t have the resources to start its own network and doesn’t appear eager to be in a league that allows Texas to generate added revenue. The same might be true for OU.

So the plot thickens. The Pac-10, which is hamstrung by geography and would love to have its sports aired into the Central time zone, wants a merger. And it appears ready to upstage the Big Ten in this game of musical conferences. No one would have its own network in the Big 16, which could compel A&M and OU to accept an invitation.

The Pac-10 doesn’t want to waste time by going out on dates with the Big 12 with a non-conference football scheduling alliance. It wants to take half of the Big 12 and get married. Now, we’ll see, who, if anyone, meets them at the altar.

[MrBug708]

Poor Utah

[DeToxRox]

Ha, it would be rather funny if Nebraska was all of a sudden left without a home. I truly cannot see any possible way that happened though. I do think the Pac 10 forcing everyone's hand would be the one way to get Notre Dame into the Big 10 because then it becomes obvious they are going to be left at alter.

[Kodos]

It would be awesome to see ND left out in the cold.

[Swaggs]

Interesting scenario there. Depending on if, and to what degree, the Big Ten expands, the fallout from a Pac 10 expansion like this could be to solidify the MWC as a very good BCS conference and high major basketball conference.

You could see something like this:

(existing MWC)
Air Force
BYU
Colorado State
New Mexico
San Diego State
TCU
UNLV
Utah
Wyoming

and then add 3, 5, or 7 of the following:
Nebraska (may end up in the Big Ten)
Missouri (may end up in the Big Ten)
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Iowa State
Boise State
Houston
SMU

[wade moore]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Agreed - the Bama-Georgia State game is all about doing favors for ex-coaches. That'll be the highest profile game GSU will play in two or three seasons, most likely.

two or three seasons? Way more than that.

I didn't see where this originally came up because I don't follow this thread, but this has been a HUGE topic on the CAA boards.

Honestly. I think it's stupid of GSU. I think they're actually taking way too big of a risk of injury to their players.

[sooner333]

I think the Pac 10 thing makes the most sense so far. I'm not sure if I'm for it as an OU fan. But I do agree that a lot is better than staying around and letting Texas make money at the expense of everyone else in a TV deal with their own network (I doubt the financial success of that network if they can't show football games though).

But the Pac 10 would allow the core of Big 12 programs to pretty much have a status quo, except adding Arizona, ASU, and Colrado into their division, and keep things more the same while expanding the base of the conference. The Pac 8 like it because they can keep to themselves on the coast...Washington schools like it because they'll keep their LA trip. No one loses a rivalry except Oklahoma and Colorado with Nebraska. Oklahoma lost it with the formation of the Big 12 anyway in any meaningful sense (and you can tell that the younger fans have lost respect for the other teams in a rivalry which was largely built on respect). Colorado would leave even if it was with Utah, so I don't see that being a big deal.

I don't think A&M and OU could both leave to the SEC without Texas or Oklahoma State. Maybe one could pull it off, but I don't think both could do it. I also think it creates an odd situation where both A&M and OU stand to lose the rivalry with texas, knowing that one will almost assuredly lose it, and that would almost necessarily be Oklahoma.

[Swaggs]

Notre Dame is still in a good position -- I don't see this potential move influencing them. They have a good home for all sports, besides football, in the Big East (and even if the football and basketball schools split, they can anchor an all-sports conference that features basketball powers in Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette, along with several other solid programs in very good markets). As long as they are willing to leave money on the table (ie: turning down the Big Ten and the BTN), they can survive and probably still thrive as an independent.

[Solecismic]

Texas Tech? Why? Utah would be a far more appealing choice, for so many reasons. People who throw these things together need to be much more careful.

Anyway, this is a good example of someone just having a little fun with all the expansion stories coming out at the moment.

The first salvo needs to come from a place where there's real conflict.

If we're going to play the Conference Armageddon game, the end-game is the four-conference, 64-team semi-pro league splitting off from the NCAA.

As such, the three powers are the SEC, the Big Ten and the PAC Ten. The Big East cannot compete. The ACC has more replacements to choose from and its core is less likely to be raided. This means the Big XII will essentially cease to exist.

Therefore, the conflict would be between the Big XII and everyone else.

AFAIC, this is a three-tiered issue.

1) What is the Big Ten going to do in the next year? If all the Big Ten does is add Pittsburgh or Rutgers, little will change over the next decade.

If the Big Ten adds Missouri or Nebraska, the Big XII will add one school. Could be Cincinnati, Rice, Tulane, Utah... hard to be certain. But little else will change as well.

But if the Big Ten adds more than one school, CA begins. And the Big XII dies.

2) At that point, everything depends on how Texas and Texas A&M see this conflict. They can go in three directions. The rest will follow logically.

That's the hook in this story, by the way. Once Texas/A&M move elsewhere (especially if they move to the SEC), the Pac Ten is weaker. So moving quickly if they think the Big Ten will move past 12 in the near future may be in their best interest.

However...

3) I doubt the Big Ten wants to be the first major to expand past 12 teams. This is a risky move, and the Big Ten is already in a position of great power and in a position to react easily if another conference tries it and it succeeds.

[DeToxRox]

Jim I think the reason Texas Tech is included in this is because of the political issues within the state. I think to get Texas any conference has to take Texas Tech, not A&M. A&M will be able to go where it wants most likely, but the government won't let TT be left in the cold, at least from what I have been reading on Texas forums and the like.

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Jim I think the reason Texas Tech is included in this is because of the political issues within the state. I think to get Texas any conference has to take Texas Tech, not A&M. A&M will be able to go where it wants most likely, but the government won't let TT be left in the cold, at least from what I have been reading on Texas forums and the like.

Maybe, but the A&M lobby is huge. Governor Perry is an A&M alum, so unless A&M is assured to be going somewhere else they want to be (like the SEC), then they aren't going without Texas. I don't know how big the Texas Tech lobby is. They were kind of the logical 3rd choice for the Big 12, and Baylor was in because of Anne Richards.

I think the reason Texas Tech goes over Utah is because this is a pure Big 12-Pac Ten merger. You have guys on both sides familiar with the other conference. You have six teams that work out well, have played in the same conference for almost fifteen years, three from the old Big 8, and three from the old SWC. Also, you're getting half of the old conference, making it much harder for the other schools to get pissed and change the bylaws to ruin it...and Texas Tech would be that school.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by sooner333

Maybe, but the A&M lobby is huge. Governor Perry is an A&M alum, so unless A&M is assured to be going somewhere else they want to be (like the SEC), then they aren't going without Texas. I don't know how big the Texas Tech lobby is. They were kind of the logical 3rd choice for the Big 12, and Baylor was in because of Anne Richards.

I think the reason Texas Tech goes over Utah is because this is a pure Big 12-Pac Ten merger. You have guys on both sides familiar with the other conference. You have six teams that work out well, have played in the same conference for almost fifteen years, three from the old Big 8, and three from the old SWC. Also, you're getting half of the old conference, making it much harder for the other schools to get pissed and change the bylaws to ruin it...and Texas Tech would be that school.

A simpler, but better observation. You are right, it sounds like it would be a straight merger which would explain leaving Utah out. Academically it doesn't do anything for the Pac 10 but it does add another good basketball team to the fray to go along with football.

[sterlingice]

Sounds like another round from the "Random Expansion Generator" and, like the others, makes sense for the most part but so do about a dozen other scenarios.

I am a little worried for Kansas if the Big XII gets heavily raided like that. They and K-State (and to a lesser extent, Iowa State) are in this weird geographical limbo where if the Big XII dissolves either at the Big 11's or Pac 10's hands and the other doesn't want them, where do they go?

SI

[sooner333]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Sounds like another round from the "Random Expansion Generator" and, like the others, makes sense for the most part but so do about a dozen other scenarios.

I am a little worried for Kansas if the Big XII gets heavily raided like that. They and K-State (and to a lesser extent, Iowa State) are in this weird geographical limbo where if the Big XII dissolves either at the Big 11's or Pac 10's hands and the other doesn't want them, where do they go?

SI

I would go straight to the Mountain West. They are getting Boise and a BCS bid that will be even easier to get if the Big 12 goes away. KU might also free itself for the Big 10 if they can ditch KSU en route.

[sterlingice]

An "easier" BCS football bid wouldn't be bad. But, arguably more important, KU needs to keep in an "elite" basketball conference.

SI