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

[stevew]

A 64 team mega conference could basically tell the NCAA to pound sand, right? They could basically pay athletes a reasonable wage, and there would be no more of these Bush type scandals?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by stevew

A 64 team mega conference could basically tell the NCAA to pound sand, right? They could basically pay athletes a reasonable wage, and there would be no more of these Bush type scandals?

Theoretically perhaps, not so sure in practice.

I mean, are the 64 megas willing to forego things like the NCAA basketball tournament (and it's 98% of all revenue produced by the NCAA) for a much shorter national tournament and the reduced revenue?

Because I have a tough time seeing the NCAA willing to allow member schools to compete against non-members in other sports (i.e. letting those 64 break away for football but nothing else) and still feed at the trough for those.

And while the rest are theoretically free to break away for their own group of "The Rest", then negotiate with The 64 & end the NCAA altogether, that wouldn't be something that comes easily nor quickly.

Not to mention having to tear up every contract that's in place currently & start over (not sure what the legal wrangling over that would even look like)

edit to add: Not to mention what 50 different state legislatures would do with the concept of paying players as employees while laying off academic staff.

[albionmoonlight]

Also, things work really, really well for the powers that be right now.

Players play football for free (I, know, they get a scholarship, so it isn't totally free).

Colleges make money selling tickets, TV rights, etc.

NFL gets a free minor league system that both develops the players and makes the best of them stars.

While it is possible to start paying players, I'm not sure that that would not be killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[MrBug708]

Cowherd was saying that CU and Utah to the PAC-10 was a done deal. I think they tried to kick Texas' tires and while Texas to the PAC-10 was probably more likely then to the Big-11, it probably bordered on next to nil.

[digamma]

Fun fact: on average about half of a college football program's revenue comes from ticket sales and alumni contributions. Conference distributions (which includes bowl money and television money) are a distant third as a revenue source.

In other words, there is more to this than just television money, and the value of having an extra home game a year is huge for most schools. This ties into JIMGA's point regarding teams not being able to play the BIG 64 teams if they split off and to albion's regarding how good it currently is.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

edit to add: Not to mention what 50 different state legislatures would do with the concept of paying players as employees while laying off academic staff.

Quite a few of the big schools have athletic departments that are self-funding, and don't receive any money from their respective states.

[molson]

Even Cowherd is getting in on the fake rumors. I'm ready for a federal gag-order or something.

And ya, I think the everyone's armchair analysis, including my own, is going to prove to to be way off base when we see what actually goes down. There's likely all kinds of politics and negotiations and hidden factors at work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Quite a few of the big schools have athletic departments that are self-funding, and don't receive any money from their respective states.

I know (the Vols are definitely one of them) ... but there aren't 64 of them either.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

This would seem to be very low on the totem pole, but I read that one of the attractions of UConn was that it already has a DI ice hockey team and that is one of the sports that the Big Ten (do they already have hockey as a Big Ten league?) and the BTNetwork want to feature prominently.

Seems a little shaky, as I'm sure Syracuse or Pitt or any one of a number of other schools could get a hockey program up and running, relatively quickly, if they have the Big Ten's media money to assist.

Interesting. Mizzou has had a club hockey team for several years that they've been looking to upgrade to play at the top level.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Cowherd was saying that CU and Utah to the PAC-10 was a done deal. I think they tried to kick Texas' tires and while Texas to the PAC-10 was probably more likely then to the Big-11, it probably bordered on next to nil.

Texas is obviously (along with Notre Dame) the big prize out there. I have little doubt that if the Big-10 goes big and starts carving pieces out of the Big-12, the feeding frenzy will be on - the Pac-10 will have to try to grab Texas (and A&M) and whatever else it can get from the remains of the Big-12 in order to stay competitive with the Big-10 and SEC (which will also be looking at trying to grab Texas and A&M).

This is assuming the Pac-10 has the guts to make the bold move, but they have to realize they will be in a precarious position when the dominoes start falling, and merging with/absorbing parts of the Big-12 is their ultimate path to survival.

[Swaggs]

If Texas is passing up the overtures from the Big Ten, I have to think that the Pac 10 need not bother with them. Perhaps their thinking is that they are heavyweight enough to anchor their conference without having to move (and, they are almost certainly correct in that regard). As long as they have Oklahoma as their wingman (and, again, probably even w/o them), their conference will always be relevant and one of the two will almost always be in the national title picture.

[DeToxRox]

As far as hockey goes, the next two schools most likely to get a D1 team would be Penn State and Illinois. I dunno if it can feasibly happen because of Title 9 but they are most likely.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

As far as hockey goes, the next two schools most likely to get a D1 team would be Penn State and Illinois. I dunno if it can feasibly happen because of Title 9 but they are most likely.

Title 9 and the fact that Penn State wasn't smart enough to make sure the Bryce Jordan Center could be fit for ice when the built it are two big reason Penn State is just Club Hockey.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If Texas is passing up the overtures from the Big Ten, I have to think that the Pac 10 need not bother with them.

Maybe, but as with anything it just depends on the quality of the offers. Perhaps the Pac-10 would be more willing to create an arrangement that benefits Texas more than any offer from the Big-10? Maybe the Pac-10 is more willing to take on Texas A&M as well, and perhaps others from the Big-12?

The Big-10 is obviously in a much stronger position financially right now than the Pac-10, and that gives them greater leverage. But at the same time, maybe that leverage makes them less likely to bend to what Texas would want in return for joining...

[albionmoonlight]

I also wonder how much U. Texas has the ability to do that without the blessing of the Texas state legislature.

And, if enough Baylor, A&M, Texas Tech, etc. grads are in that legislature, they may make Texas' approval of the move contingent upon that conference being willing to take [x] other schools.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

I also wonder how much U. Texas has the ability to do that without the blessing of the Texas state legislature.

And, if enough Baylor, A&M, Texas Tech, etc. grads are in that legislature, they may make Texas' approval of the move contingent upon that conference being willing to take [x] other schools.

Yeah, that would be the potential complicating factor. It's already assumed that any conference that takes Texas has to take Texas A&M. That's doable, but if Texas Tech & Baylor are also requirements, that pretty much kills the incentive to grab Texas.

I also wonder how much Texas would insist on Oklahoma coming along too so they don't have to make the Red River Shootout an OOC game...

[cartman]

A&M has a ton of leverage right now politically since the current governor went there. That was a big part of the reason Baylor got pulled in to the Big 12, but their political clout is nowhere near what it was back in the early 90s.

As for OU being a non-conference game, it was that way up until the formation of the Big 12, so it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It would be, however, if Texas went out on its own. I doubt there would be much support for having A&M and OU be two of the 3 or 4 OOC games every year.

[Passacaglia]

The Big 10 and the Big 12 should just merge to form the Big 22. But I guess then they'll have to add 2 more teams if they want a second championship game.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

the cuse community seems to think we're getting an invite. we've certainly been posturing that way with football scheduling the past couple years.

i'm torn. but big east leadership has been so abysmal for so long i guess it was only a matter of time.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

The Big 10 and the Big 12 should just merge to form the Big 22. But I guess then they'll have to add 2 more teams if they want a second championship game.

But 25 teams would make for some awkward scheduling...

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Theoretically perhaps, not so sure in practice.

I mean, are the 64 megas willing to forego things like the NCAA basketball tournament (and it's 98% of all revenue produced by the NCAA) for a much shorter national tournament and the reduced revenue?

Well, the revenue from the tournament comes from those 64 teams being in the tournament. With the NCAA only handing back a miniscule percentage of the money to the schools that earn it, those schools could have their own tournament, sell it to tv for half the rights fees, and still get more tournament revenue per school.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Well, the revenue from the tournament comes from those 64 teams being in the tournament. With the NCAA only handing back a miniscule percentage of the money to the schools that earn it, those schools could have their own tournament, sell it to tv for half the rights fees, and still get more tournament revenue per school.

I'm not entirely sure you could even get half, there simply isn't enough commercial inventory to make up for the difference in game.

Lemme see here, a little extremely loose math based on what I've seen spots go for in the past.

Now (I'll skip the nearly worthless play-in game)
32 R1 Games @ 1x dollars = 32 dollars
16 R2 Games @ 2x dollars = 32 dollars
8 S16 Games @ 3x dollars = 24 dollars
4 E8 Games @ 4x dollars = 16 dollars
2 FF Games @ 5x dollars = 10 dollars
1 Title Game @ 6x dollars = 6 dollars
63 Games Revenue = 120 dollars

Then (with a bump for the higher profile & spot scarcity)
8 S16 Games @ 4x dollars = 32 dollars
4 E8 Games @ 5x dollars = 20 dollars
2 FF Games @ 6x dollars = 12 dollars
1 Title Game @ 7x dollars = 7 dollars
15 Games Revenue = 78 dollars

So yeah, a little over half if my generosity is accurate, but that's strictly TV spot revenue and I think I'm probably overestimating it.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm not entirely sure you could even get half, there simply isn't enough commercial inventory to make up for the difference in game.

Lemme see here, a little extremely loose math based on what I've seen spots go for in the past.

Now (I'll skip the nearly worthless play-in game)
32 R1 Games @ 1x dollars = 32 dollars
16 R2 Games @ 2x dollars = 32 dollars
8 S16 Games @ 3x dollars = 24 dollars
4 E8 Games @ 4x dollars = 16 dollars
2 FF Games @ 5x dollars = 10 dollars
1 Title Game @ 6x dollars = 6 dollars
63 Games Revenue = 120 dollars

Then (with a bump for the higher profile & spot scarcity)
8 S16 Games @ 4x dollars = 32 dollars
4 E8 Games @ 5x dollars = 20 dollars
2 FF Games @ 6x dollars = 12 dollars
1 Title Game @ 7x dollars = 7 dollars
15 Games Revenue = 78 dollars

So yeah, a little over half if my generosity is accurate, but that's strictly TV spot revenue and I think I'm probably overestimating it.

You are assuming they'll only let 16 teams in their tournament. I think it would be at least 32 (since that's roughly how many of those 64 make it every year) if not all 64.

Right, but the amount of revenue currently going to the top 64 teams is nowhere near half - its more like 5%. Having their own tournament with half the revenue would represent a HUGE windfall for the 64 teams.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

You are assuming they'll only let 16 teams in their tournament. I think it would be at least 32 (since that's roughly how many of those 64 make it every year) if not all 64.

Right, but the amount of revenue currently going to the top 64 teams is nowhere near half - its more like 5%. Having their own tournament with half the revenue would represent a HUGE windfall for the 64 teams.

LOL, devalue a tournament much? What's the point to a regular season, strictly seeding?

By the very nature of things, you're talking about a tournament that consistently has .500 or even sub-.500 teams in it at that point, since they're virtually certain to only be playing each other all year.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

LOL, devalue a tournament much? What's the point to a regular season, strictly seeding?

By the very nature of things, you're talking about a tournament that consistently has .500 or even sub-.500 teams in it at that point, since they're virtually certain to only be playing each other all year.

Yeah, I think that is the big problem to basketball breaking loose - losing the ability to pad records against NCAA schools.

But, a 32 team tournament would not change things all that much - right now around 32 of those 64 are making the tourney anyway, and the worst of those have .500 or less records against each other. All that's lost is the record padding games against inferior competition. I think people would adapt.

I'd be hard pressed to envision a scenario in which the teams that break away losing NCAA tourney money out of creating their own tournament. They just end up with so little of the current pot, and are responsible for so much of the revenue. They've got to be able to make money by cutting out the funding of everything the NCAA does out of their product.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Samdari

They've got to be able to make money by cutting out the funding of everything the NCAA does out of their product.

Planning to drop championships in those other sports eh? And enforcement? And attorneys to negotiate these new deals? And logistics? I mean, "funding everything NCAA does" covers a lot of ground.

And, although not at all the problem of The 64 but probably worth at least a miniscule mention somewhere (might as well be here), it also means the end of funding for the 87 other championships the NCAA administers. Free market at work & all that, I know, just saying that it's at least worth a split second of noting.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Planning to drop championships in those other sports eh? And enforcement? And attorneys to negotiate these new deals? And logistics? I mean, "funding everything NCAA does" covers a lot of ground.

No, but having the championships, enforcement, logistics, etc. for those 64 schools is a lot cheaper than doing it for the thousands of schools and conferences that add nothing to the pot. "Funding everything the NCAA Does" is a LOT cheaper when doing it for dozens of schools than doing it for 1500-ish schools in the NCAA. All of those costs for not only lower level D-I, but all of D-II and D-III are funded from the D-I basketball tournament.

[Young Drachma]

Some things about higher education to remember:

1. Innovation isn't really cherished by the status quo. It's all about following what the leaders are doing.

2. Nothing happens quickly or overnight. And when it does, it's almost always political.

3. The overwhelming majority are always working to maintain the status quo.

So all of these conversations are nice, but...it's just unlikely it'll lead to any cataclysmic changes like everyone seems to be bracing themselves for. And if does happen, I can't see Big 10 expansion as the domino that starts the nuclear winter of college sports.

[the_meanstrosity]

A friend and I were talking about the BCS conferences potentially shifting away from the NCAA and how it was coming from the university presidents. We both thought it made sense since a number of universities are getting less funds from their respective states now and thus maybe the presidents are looking at the athletic departments to fund the difference. Just another potential reason for those schools to leave the NCAA.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

A friend and I were talking about the BCS conferences potentially shifting away from the NCAA and how it was coming from the university presidents. We both thought it made sense since a number of universities are getting less funds from their respective states now and thus maybe the presidents are looking at the athletic departments to fund the difference. Just another potential reason for those schools to leave the NCAA.

Presidents care about fundraising. Sports help fuel multimillion dollar donations in some cases, but often times, that money just goes right back into sports. Athletic revenues do not keep schools open, pay for labs or most importantly, build new buildings.

Let's not overstate this.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

A 64 team mega conference could basically tell the NCAA to pound sand, right? They could basically pay athletes a reasonable wage, and there would be no more of these Bush type scandals?

(not specific to stevew) Yeah, again, to all the "pay athletes" people- IT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN. EVER. EVER! EVER!!?!! I can't emphasize this enough.

Until you have some magical court challenge or structure that can work around Title IX, you will never, ever, ever have athletes being paid. They would have to become separate entities from the University (moreso than they are now where they are their own corporations) because as soon as you want to pay athletes, you have to pay EVERY athlete, not just revenue generating sports. The wink-wink, nudge-nudge agreement of giving everyone a scholarship while having fairly unbalanced budgets (about 60/40) is all they can do right now to keep from being challenged in court.

Bush had signed an executive order saying that you could have a survey around campus that demonstrated less demand for female athletics then you could unbalance the payment field further but that was recently struck down by an Obama executive order.

I don't like it at all because I think it completely decimates male non-revenue generating sports and, honestly, I don't think the interest is there.

Similarly, I don't really feel sorry for someone who gets to go to college for free, even the ones who "football is their life" because, really, they probably weren't going to go to college otherwise.

But it's not going to change. At all. Unless you have some magical court precedent or way around Title IX and I'm guessing you don't.

SI

[molson]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

(not just to stevew) Yeah, again, to all the "pay athletes" people- IT WILL NEVER EVER HAPPEN. EVER. EVER! EVER!!?!! I can't emphasize this enough.

Until you have some magical court challenge or structure that can work around Title IX, you will never, ever, ever have athletes being paid.

I've seen a lot of magical court challenges when this much money is involved, and certainly Title IX itself isn't set in stone or immune from modification.

[sterlingice]

But where's the money that will push that? The NCAA doesn't want to have to pay- this arrangement works well for them. Any "interested third party" like the ACLU wants gender equity in sports. It's a cute story for the media but they don't care. The only ones who really want it are current and future players and they don't have anywhere near the clout to change what is in the vested interest of the previous parties.

SI

[Swaggs]

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...40/1/index.htm

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Presidents care about fundraising. Sports help fuel multimillion dollar donations in some cases, but often times, that money just goes right back into sports. Athletic revenues do not keep schools open, pay for labs or most importantly, build new buildings. Let's not overstate this.

In many cases, it's pretty close. If you think that UGA without a football program doesn't turn into Georgia Southern or Gainesville College (academically, enrollment, etc.) in a relatively short time, you're kidding yourself. And the same could be said for a lot of larger state schools.

edit to add: And the issue of state funding multiplies several times over as well, as there will be little voter support for funding UGA from the majority of taxpayers whose only connection or interest in the school at all is football.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...40/1/index.htm

Yup, thanks for posting. That's what I meant by my "Blame Notre Dame" post a page or so back. When they bolted from the CFA to sign their own television contract, it really started all of the dominoes toppling.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Presidents care about fundraising. Sports help fuel multimillion dollar donations in some cases, but often times, that money just goes right back into sports. Athletic revenues do not keep schools open, pay for labs or most importantly, build new buildings.

Let's not overstate this.

9 schools have more money coming into the athletic program that goes to the general fund - and it;s usually in the millions of dollars. It's just 9 though. I'm sure you can figure out which 9 pretty easily.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...40/1/index.htm

It's interesting how little the discussion has changed over the last 20 years:

"As the haves consolidate their power, the have-nots will be all but shut out of any shot at the major bowls or TV exposure, begging the question of why they simply don't drop back to I-AA or split off and form an entirely new division"

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...40/1/index.htm

Good arty

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Here's an interesting SI article about conference shifting from 1991:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...40/1/index.htm

Nice find

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Presidents care about fundraising. Sports help fuel multimillion dollar donations in some cases, but often times, that money just goes right back into sports. Athletic revenues do not keep schools open, pay for labs or most importantly, build new buildings.

Let's not overstate this.

Agreed, to a point. Basically, college athletics basically advertisement for Universities. They pay back to the University for what they borrow or use (i.e. rent on facilities, etc) and, in exchange, they have quite a bit of autonomy. They're essentially an independent entity who swaps scholarships for "free" advertising.

SI

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by molson

It's interesting how little the discussion has changed over the last 20 years:

"As the haves consolidate their power, the have-nots will be all but shut out of any shot at the major bowls or TV exposure, begging the question of why they simply don't drop back to I-AA or split off and form an entirely new division"

Actually...I think I suggested something similar in one of the other threads.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Agreed, to a point. Basically, college athletics basically advertisement for Universities. They pay back to the University for what they borrow or use (i.e. rent on facilities, etc) and, in exchange, they have quite a bit of autonomy. They're essentially an independent entity who swaps scholarships for "free" advertising.

SI

My understanding from MU's standpoint is that the athletic department isn't a big factor in the discussion. The main consideration is research money. Mizzou stands to get a large research funding boost if they were to join the Big 10. I don't know the specifics, but I've been told that Alden and the athletic department really just have to go with what the university leadership decides.

[Swaggs]

A Big East note: Former NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue to Advise BIG EAST Conference on Strategic Planning - BIG EAST Conference Athletics

Probably won't hurt to have him aboard (if he has anything left to work with), particularly TV contract-wise. The folks that want a football/basketball school split will probably be disappointed, as he is a Georgetown Alum and has been working for them.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Mizzou stands to get a large research funding boost if they were to join the Big 10.

This is an angle that doesn't get a lot of attention by most, but it's an important point. The Big-10 and Pac-10 are more than just athletic associations - they also take seriously academic associations and there is a lot of sharing that goes on in terms of research between the member institutions. Given that the University Presidents are the ones that ultimately make the decisions with regard to the Pac-10 (and I would guess the Big-10 as well), academic considerations should not be underestimated when discussing possible mergers and expansion...

[Young Drachma]

Mountain West making strides toward automatic BCS bid - ESPN

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Mountain West making strides toward automatic BCS bid - ESPN

Well, about the time they get that, there will be massive realignment and they'll be screwed again

SI

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Well, about the time they get that, there will be massive realignment and they'll be screwed again

SI

One wonders if that might be a factor to spur the BCS schools leaving the NCAA.

[NorvTurnerOverdrive]

well if the big ten loots the big east i'm sure they'll lose their bid.

[Young Drachma]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...html?eref=sihp

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany broke his silence concerning conference expansion Wednesday and said almost nothing during a 30-minute chat/filibuster with reporters. A few hours later, SEC commissioner Mike Slive needed about 30 seconds to speak volumes.

Slive poured himself a cup of coffee, took his seat, unfolded a slip of paper and began to read.

"Given the success the SEC has experienced over the past decade, we are very comfortable with the position in which we find ourselves today," Slive said after a day of BCS meetings. "Having said that, if there is going to be a significant shift in the conference paradigm, the SEC will be strategic and thoughtful to make sure that it maintains its position as one of the nation's pre-eminent conferences."

Declarations of war have been less emphatic. Translated, Slive's statement means this: If the Big Ten expands into a superconference, the SEC will make itself just as super. Just listen to Slive himself, from a more off-the-cuff moment Wednesday. "I won't just sit back," he said, "and ignore what is going on around me."

Meanwhile, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said his conference should decide by year's end -- before it begins its next round of television negotiations -- whether it will expand. If it does, Scott said, the conference will use the "Noah's Ark philosophy, two-by-two." The plan, it seems, would be to add just two. But if the Big Ten and SEC supersize, who knows?

Get ready, college sports fans, because everything is about to change.

If the Big Ten expands to 14 or 16 teams and prompts the SEC to expand, everyone will go looking for shelter. If you didn't like the idea of six conferences controlling everything before, just wait until four conferences have all the power.

Big East commissioner John Marinatto and Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe are understandably nervous. Their conferences stand to be annihilated if the Big Ten, SEC and Pac-10 move simultaneously. Judging by Slive's pledge to be proactive, that's exactly what would happen if the Big Ten decides to go really big.

"It would be irresponsible of me not to be concerned about all of that stuff," Marinatto said. "It's not the elephant in the room anymore. Everybody talks about it -- although it's not on our agenda. We're all concerned about it. Not only the Big East, but everyone. How will -- if they do anything -- it expand or contract the marketplace for intercollegiate athletics?"

Moments before Delany met reporters Wednesday, the Big East e-mailed a release that former NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue had signed on to provide strategic assistance. Tagliabue's main role, in the long run, may be to help the Big East pick up the pieces for the second time in less than 10 years after another raid. Marinatto and former commissioner Mike Tranghese did a brilliant job reinventing the league after the ACC snatched Boston College, Miami and Virginia Tech. The job could be considerably tougher if the Big Ten takes Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Before you deluge me with e-mails about how some team would be a better choice for the Big Ten because of its football record the past few years, remember one thing. Despite the commissioners' collective ability to rattle off the number of championships their conference's teams have won, this has little to do with what happens on the field. This is about money and power and the accumulation of both.

The Big Ten has a hammer. It's called the Big Ten Network, which allows the conference to distribute $22 million to each school in the league each year. That's why even Notre Dame, which cherishes its football independence more than it cherishes money, could become a candidate for the Big Ten if that league smashes up the Big East, of which Notre Dame is a non-football member. Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick has maintained that the program will do everything to protect its independence, but if everything changes, can the Fighting Irish afford to?

The SEC also has a hammer in the form of a pair of monster deals with CBS and ESPN that allow the SEC to pay out $17 million a year to each team and -- unlike the Big Ten -- still allow teams to negotiate their own local rights deals. The Pac-10 doesn't have as much leverage, but it owns the Los Angeles and Bay Area television markets, and that's a very big deal.

So while expansion wasn't on the agenda for the BCS meetings, it hangs over the proceedings. Oklahoma athletic director Joe Castiglione said that while he understood everyone wanted a sound bite to encapsulate the mood, he couldn't provide one. A few seconds later, he produced the perfect one.

"It's a little complicated right now," said Castiglione, who could find himself reporting to Slive instead of Beebe if realignment gets radical.

It's fitting that Castiglione used the phrase any Facebook member would use to describe a confusing courtship, because that's essentially what this is. Just ask Delany. "You're not trying to find somebody you're going to spend a year with," he said. "You're trying to figure out what you're going to be for the next 25 or 50 years."

Delany isn't going to propose this week, but he could propose soon. Big Ten athletic directors and presidents will do their homework. They will crunch the numbers. They may even go on a few dates. Then they'll authorize Delany to drop to one knee and invite one, three or five lucky schools to live in the mansion of a conference that boasts its own television network that could soon appear on the expanded basic cable systems in more than a third of American homes. That may not sound sexy to you, but to an athletic director and a university president, it's the equivalent of a flawless three-carat, round-cut diamond.

Delany said little of substance, but one nugget stood out. "It's possible," Delany said, "that we may act in a way that it would be more than a single member." That's his first public acknowledgment that the league might expand beyond 12 teams. Delany also said Big Ten presidents might not approve expansion at all, but why would the league put out a release in December announcing its plan to examine expansion without having some ducks already in a row?

As Delany spoke Wednesday, two non-media folks hung near the front of the room. The first was Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary who now serves as the chief spin doctor for the BCS. The second was WAC commissioner Karl Benson, who, like all of his colleagues, wanted to hear what one of the guys with a hammer had to say.

Because once Delany or Slive takes that first swing, the blow will reverberate through all of college athletics.