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

[Pumpy Tudors]

But the insiders said it was going to happen...

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

Well, that’s kind of my point. We have to create a perfect scenario before it starts to look good. And as far as your list goes, let’s dump Utah and bring along Oklahoma State to maintain the regional rivalries.

Oklahoma State doesn't have nearly enough TV market pull. Salt Lake City is the nation's #31 ranked media market, ahead of places like San Antonio, Las Vegas, Oklahoma City, Memphis, New Orleans, etc.

Utah wouldn't help a new Pac-10 TV contract as much as Colorado would, but it's not far off.

Besides, as far as regional rivalries go, Utah/Colorado wouldn't be creating a new rivalry, it would be reviving a long-standing existing rivalry. Rivalries would work out just fine in the 16-team arrangement I suggested.

And I still maintain that 16 teams makes a lot more sense in many ways than 12 teams, especially if the 16 includes Texas (and that's probably the only way you get Texas).

Whether or not the resulting conference is technically the Pac-10 absorbing big chunks of the Big-12, or whether it gets described as more of a "merger" or partnership, whatever - I think if the Pac is going to expand, don't pussy-foot around - go big and do it right. Be proactive instead of reactive.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I agree with this. I think the most likely result is that the B12 would be dissolved with the big schools getting picked off by the Big 10, Pac-10, and SEC.

I've said from the beginning of all this that any one team leaving the Big 12 is a death knell for the league. There is simply no logical solution to replacing any one team, much less more than one team. Missouri to the Big 10 and Colorado to the Pac 10 seem like very likely probabilities at this point.

The Big 12 isn't going to peel anyone away from the SEC, Big 10 or Pac 10 because those conferences have better TV deals and league structure. The Big 12 would turn to Arkansas to replace Missouri but Arkansas is not leaving the SEC.

The most logical teams for the Big 12 to pursue are TCU, BYU, Utah, Houston, UTEP and Tulsa. Some of those are nice schools but they simply aren't Big 12 mega-conference material.

If the Big 10 expands to 14-16 teams, you have to think the Pac 10 and SEC will follow suit. Maybe Texas ends up in a bidding war between the two, but I've read the Pac 10 wants Texas and might be willing to take A&M and Tech to make it happen. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State would be looking for a life raft too, and the Pace 10 or SEC would be good fits. In a mega expansion of the Big 10, I think Missouri and Nebraska both join.

The schools that should be scared are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State. I don't see a home for them unless they convince the Big 10 to take them. Whoever gets left out of the conference free for all is going to end up in a place they don't want to be, like Conference USA.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

The schools that should be scared are Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State. I don't see a home for them unless they convince the Big 10 to take them. Whoever gets left out of the conference free for all is going to end up in a place they don't want to be, like Conference USA.

Kansas has the best shot of those three to get scooped up by a major conference. Their basketball program would be a boon to any conference, their football program is respectable, their academic status is good enough for the Pac-10 and Big-10, and Kansas City roughly comparable to Salt Lake City in terms of media market size.

I could see the Pac-10 debating the merits of Kansas vs. Oklahoma if they decided to expand to 16. Kansas has an edge on Oklahoma in terms of academics, and that's not an afterthought factor...

[the_meanstrosity]

I honestly don't see the Big 12 going anywhere unless Texas and Texas A&M elect to leave (which I doubt happens). People forget that the current Big 12 tv contract is much smaller than the SEC and Big Ten packages because they elected to make a short term deal due to the fact they couldn't come to an agreement on revenue sharing. If the Big 12 presidents are smart they'll all come to an agreement and either start their own network or sign a long term deal with a cable company. The Big 12 will never make as much as the Big Ten or the SEC, but they have enough pull that they can garner something within range.

[dawgfan]

So if Colorado bolts for the Pac-10 and Utah joins them, who does the Big-12 go after to replace Colorado? And if the Big-10 peels away a team or two also?

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So if Colorado bolts for the Pac-10 and Utah joins them, who does the Big-12 go after to replace Colorado? And if the Big-10 peels away a team or two also?

TCU would make the most sense at least from an athletics perspective.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

So if Colorado bolts for the Pac-10 and Utah joins them, who does the Big-12 go after to replace Colorado? And if the Big-10 peels away a team or two also?

If the Big 12 is smart they would be talking to TCU, BYU, and Utah. BYU and Utah would be placed in the north division and TCU is placed in the south. Of course you have to wonder if the Pac 10 would just stop expanding with Colorado.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

If the Big 12 is smart they would be talking to TCU, BYU, and Utah. BYU and Utah would be placed in the north division and TCU is placed in the south. Of course you have to wonder if the Pac 10 would just stop expanding with Colorado.

If the Pac-10 expands with Colorado, they'll also be taking Utah to make it an even 12. Unless they go big and try to pull 4 more teams from the Big-12...

[MrBug708]

Utah is already a forgone conclusion when the PAC-10 expands. Colorado gets the public mention because people have basically written in Utah with the PAC-10.

Adding BYU means the conference can't play games on Sunday. Not sure how that would work with certain games. Just glancing at Texas' baseball schedule, looks like baseball games are played Sunday. That is one of two reasons the PAC-10 isnt considering BYU to add to their conference

[Young Drachma]

Oh and Colorado had been invited to the PAC-10 once before and their existence in the Big 12 isn't exactly all roses; largely for competitive reasons, but in general, the PAC-10 is just a better for the more academically minded CU.

[dawgfan]

And there seems to be growing evidence that Colorado would like to join the Pac-10 - see the comments by Colorado's Chancellor in this article:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14979982

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Adding BYU means the conference can't play games on Sunday. Not sure how that would work with certain games. Just glancing at Texas' baseball schedule, looks like baseball games are played Sunday. That is one of two reasons the PAC-10 isnt considering BYU to add to their conference

IIRC, when it hits the NCAA tournament, BYU typically has a Friday-Saturday-Monday schedule.

[JeffNights]

It was briefly mention before..but this thread is somewhat Ironic in its reasoning, we are discussing this as if these conferences are basing everying on 90% Athletics, whereas in reality the University presidents care much more and base all this on 90% Academics.

Also, Sorry but the PAC-10 isn't letting A &M and Tech in, they like the BIG10insist on thier members being AAU Research schools, and Tech and A & M are far off from that distinction, the Texas Trio's only route would be to go to the SEC if it is a must that they stay together.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

If the Big 12 is smart they would be talking to TCU, BYU, and Utah. BYU and Utah would be placed in the north division and TCU is placed in the south. Of course you have to wonder if the Pac 10 would just stop expanding with Colorado.

If the Big 12 were smart they would be looking at landing a decent TV deal or creating their own network and sharing revenues like the Big 10 so that Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado or anyone else wouldn't want to leave. If the Big 12 agreed to a TV revenue sharing deal like the Big 10, Missouri wouldn't want to leave.

No offense to fans of TCU, BYU or Utah, but the Big 12 would no longer be a major conference if those schools are in the conference.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If the Big 12 were smart they would be looking at landing a decent TV deal or creating their own network and sharing revenues like the Big 10 so that Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado or anyone else wouldn't want to leave. If the Big 12 agreed to a TV revenue sharing deal like the Big 10, Missouri wouldn't want to leave.

No offense to fans of TCU, BYU or Utah, but the Big 12 would no longer be a major conference if those schools are in the conference.

Huh?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

Also, Sorry but the PAC-10 isn't letting A &M and Tech in, they like the BIG10insist on thier members being AAU Research schools, and Tech and A & M are far off from that distinction, the Texas Trio's only route would be to go to the SEC if it is a must that they stay together.

The Big 10 is considering adding UConn... I agree that Texas Tech would be a stretch, but I could easily see the PAC-10 agreeing to a UT/aTm package deal.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

Also, Sorry but the PAC-10 isn't letting A &M and Tech in, they like the BIG10insist on thier members being AAU Research schools, and Tech and A & M are far off from that distinction, the Texas Trio's only route would be to go to the SEC if it is a must that they stay together.

Not sure what you're talking about. While I agree that the Pac-10 is unlikely to go after Texas Tech, there's no reason I can see that they wouldn't offer Texas A&M along with U of Texas. First off, you're wrong that A&M isn't part of the AAU, and secondly there are a few Pac-10 schools that aren't (ASU, OSU, WSU). Thirdly, A&M is one of the more significant research universities in the country.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

It was briefly mention before..but this thread is somewhat Ironic in its reasoning, we are discussing this as if these conferences are basing everying on 90% Athletics, whereas in reality the University presidents care much more and base all this on 90% Academics.

Also, Sorry but the PAC-10 isn't letting A &M and Tech in, they like the BIG10insist on thier members being AAU Research schools, and Tech and A & M are far off from that distinction, the Texas Trio's only route would be to go to the SEC if it is a must that they stay together.

Edited since Dawgfan covered my point regarding A&M being in the AAU not to mention they are ranked slightly better than Colorado in the US News and World Report rankings.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

If the Big 12 were smart they would be looking at landing a decent TV deal or creating their own network and sharing revenues like the Big 10 so that Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado or anyone else wouldn't want to leave. If the Big 12 agreed to a TV revenue sharing deal like the Big 10, Missouri wouldn't want to leave.

No offense to fans of TCU, BYU or Utah, but the Big 12 would no longer be a major conference if those schools are in the conference.

Well, the Big 12 is indeed looking into creating their own network. They must wait till their current deal expires in 2015 (I think) before they can put plans to a new one. As for the revenue sharing, that right now is the major sticking point. Hopefully with NU, CU, and MU all showing interest in other conferences the Big 12 will finally get their act together and come up with an agreement.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Here's an article with the three likely scenarios for expansion (one, three and five teams). All three involve Missouri moving and then other teams based on how many more they add.

The Big Ten is on the verge of adding one, three or - 05.03.10 - SI Vault

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

It was briefly mention before..but this thread is somewhat Ironic in its reasoning, we are discussing this as if these conferences are basing everying on 90% Athletics, whereas in reality the University presidents care much more and base all this on 90% Academics,

And there are many on here who understand that the 90% athletics is related to the money that it generates, and the 90% academics is related to the money generated/afforded to that.

[BishopMVP]

Is Missouri or Colorado alone left and the Big XII grabbed TCU, would TCU go to the North division? I can't imagine them splitting up Ok/Ok St. If both leave, would they add TCU and Houston/Rice and go to an all-Texas South division?

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by Logan

And there are many on here who understand that the 90% athletics is related to the money that it generates, and the 90% academics is related to the money generated/afforded to that.

The money universities gets from being major research institutions DWARFS the money that College Football generates, sorry.

[JeffNights]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Is Missouri or Colorado alone left and the Big XII grabbed TCU, would TCU go to the North division? I can't imagine them splitting up Ok/Ok St. If both leave, would they add TCU and Houston/Rice and go to an all-Texas South division?

If one leaves, the other will follow, and it will be the last one left in the BIG12 turn out the lights.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JeffNights

The money universities gets from being major research institutions DWARFS the money that College Football generates, sorry.

That varies GREATLY based on the University...

Quick numbers...
Tennessee has 7 home games a year, 100,000 per game, 50 per ticket.
thats $35MM annually before you take tv/radio/ad revenue into account. Do they really get 50-100M annually in education grants?

I am sure the Medical schools probably do, but your average engineering (and admitedly this may be a horrible example as I have no knowledge of UT's med program) school i doubt gets these kind of donations ANNUALLY

[miked]

GATech likely gets wayyyy more money from research than from football.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That varies GREATLY based on the University...

Quick numbers...
Tennessee has 7 home games a year, 100,000 per game, 50 per ticket.
thats $35MM annually before you take tv/radio/ad revenue into account. Do they really get 50-100M annually in education grants?

According to The University of Tennessee: UT Among Top National Public Universities, UT's research grants were $179M in 2009. $24M of that alone is from the NSF.

[molson]

I know nothing about academia, but don't research grants have to be spent on specific research? It's not profit for the school, like athletic revenue can be.

[Celeval]

...and those may not be the right numbers. According to Research- The Center for Measuring University Performance, looking at 2006 (most recent data I could find easily on that site), UTK had $240M total research money, which ranked 70th. The lowest DI school in the top 200 was San Diego State, with $34M, they were 197th.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by molson

I know nothing about academia, but don't research grants have to be spent on specific research? It's not profit for the school, like athletic revenue can be.

Much of it, sure. And I don't know that anyone is making the argument that research grant $ is dollar for dollar more important than athletic revenue - but keeping that stream intact is just as high if not higher a priority.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by molson

I know nothing about academia, but don't research grants have to be spent on specific research? It's not profit for the school, like athletic revenue can be.

Schools get a cut of all research grants for overhead. Plus a lot of the money goes to pay professors' salaries, saving the school more.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Quick numbers...
Tennessee has 7 home games a year, 100,000 per game, 50 per ticket.
thats $35MM annually before you take tv/radio/ad revenue into account.

And the benefit extends well beyond the money that the Athletic Foundation puts back into the school in direct cash. Without them, the promotion of the school itself suffers, the interest in the school itself suffers, & with that the willingness to donate to the university as a whole declines.

(and admitedly this may be a horrible example as I have no knowledge of UT's med program) school i doubt gets these kind of donations

It's actually quite good.

[miked]

Originally Posted by molson

I know nothing about academia, but don't research grants have to be spent on specific research? It's not profit for the school, like athletic revenue can be.

For the University at which I work, they get $0.53 for every dollar I bring in. It's not out of my money either. If I get a grant from the NIH for 1M, the University gets an extra 530k for overheads and such. Most of that goes to the Dean's office, provost, etc, to pay for salaries and other expenses (building maintenance). So if a University gets 300M in NIH funding alone, that brings back over 150M in overheads (like PIT, though I'm sure it's more). It also varies by funding agency (some only allow 10% overhead).

The University gets a nice shot from research dollars as it brings in donors, private companies, employs a lot of people, and brings in prestige.

[gstelmack]

And yet they still keep skyrocketing tuition rates...

[miked]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And yet they still keep skyrocketing tuition rates...

Well, they always tell us research is a money-losing business (remember, they are non-profits). The amount of infrastructure to support research (equipment, buildings, pre-grants staff, post-grants staff) is quite large. Now I'm not saying I agree or even can see the books, but the prestige prominent research brings is quite high. That and many institutions have profit centers set up for licensing technology so it can be quite lucrative. But the tuition part bugs me too. From what I hear, most of the monies brought in from grants go to support the medical schools and very little is transferred over to liberal arts and the regular college.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

especially if the 16 includes Texas (and that's probably the only way you get Texas).

Actually, there are rumblings from Texas of a virginia like state government nixing of a UT conference move that would leave Texas A&M/Texas Tech behind. They won't be going to the Big-10/Pac-10 without A&M and Tech.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Actually, there are rumblings from Texas of a virginia like state government nixing of a UT conference move that would leave Texas A&M/Texas Tech behind. They won't be going to the Big-10/Pac-10 without A&M and Tech.

Yeah, that's been the case for some time. Those universities are a package deal. All or nothing.

[Abe Sargent]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

That varies GREATLY based on the University...

Quick numbers...
Tennessee has 7 home games a year, 100,000 per game, 50 per ticket.
thats $35MM annually before you take tv/radio/ad revenue into account. Do they really get 50-100M annually in education grants?

I am sure the Medical schools probably do, but your average engineering (and admitedly this may be a horrible example as I have no knowledge of UT's med program) school i doubt gets these kind of donations ANNUALLY

According to CNN/Si only 9 schools in teh country bring in enough money from their football programs to not only prop up teh rest of athletics, but also to contribute top teh school's general fund . Everybody uses it to prop up non-revenue sports, bu tvery few have enough to rollover. Just nine schools.

[Samdari]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yeah, that's been the case for some time. Those universities are a package deal. All or nothing.

That makes Texas much less a slam dunk revenue producing machine. Adding three mouths for essentially the same increase in revenue.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

The amount of infrastructure to support research (equipment, buildings, pre-grants staff, post-grants staff) is quite large.

And that is largely paid for by the school "taxing" research money on the way in the front door. Schools typically lop 40% off the top to pay for overhead.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Abe Sargent

According to CNN/Si only 9 schools in teh country bring in enough money from their football programs to not only prop up teh rest of athletics, but also to contribute top teh school's general fund . Everybody uses it to prop up non-revenue sports, bu tvery few have enough to rollover. Just nine schools.

Yes, most athletics programs do not generate enough revenue after expenses that could be rolled over outside of the athletics department.

But I think it was Jon who nailed it on the head with why Universities put an emphasis on athletics even though it is usually a money-loser: athletics are a useful tool to promote the University "brand", to build equity and awareness with prospective students and people not associated with the school, and to act as both an interest generator and conduit for overall "institutional development" (i.e., fund-raising) for targeted (read: wealthy) alumni and other prospective donors of interest (i.e., again, wealthy ones).

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

Yes, most athletics programs do not generate enough revenue after expenses that could be rolled over outside of the athletics department.

And even those that could, it's kindof like an executive budget- if you have some spare change at the end of the year, I'm sure it will get spent on something worth the price like a gold plated bathtub for the Athletic Director's private bathroom.

SI

[albionmoonlight]

My co-worker is a Davidson alum. She keeps moderately on the pulse of what's going on there, and she said that applications spiked sharply after Davidson's NCCA run with Stephon Curry a couple years ago.

Now, I am not sure whether the increase in the quantity of applications actually increased the quality of admitted students, but it is an anecdote worth noting.

It probably would not be that hard to look at schools that have recently become national players in men's basketball or football (Butler, Gonzaga, Boise State, TCU, probably about 5 obvious ones that I am forgetting) and see whether you can also spot an increase in alumni donations and/or admitted student quality.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Samdari

Actually, there are rumblings from Texas of a virginia like state government nixing of a UT conference move that would leave Texas A&M/Texas Tech behind. They won't be going to the Big-10/Pac-10 without A&M and Tech.

I think everyone pondering Pac-10 expansion knows that Texas is a package deal with Texas A&M, and that's doable. If Tech is also a requirement, that might be a different story - it further dilutes the revenue bump from adding Texas. But it may still prove viable...

[cuervo72]

So...is this meeting still scheduled for tomorrow?

[digamma]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

So...is this meeting still scheduled for tomorrow?

Yes, but every day they reschedule it for the next tomorrow.

[miked]

I thought it was set that invites were going out to ND, PIT, and MIZZOU.

[I. J. Reilly]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think everyone pondering Pac-10 expansion knows that Texas is a package deal with Texas A&M, and that's doable. If Tech is also a requirement, that might be a different story - it further dilutes the revenue bump from adding Texas. But it may still prove viable...

The Pac-10 should jump at the Texas schools, even if they have to take Baylor and Tech. While the current schools may not see a huge revenue bump right of the bat, being the main conference in both CA and TX would be a pretty nice recruiting footprint.

[albionmoonlight]

Insiders now say that every Division I, II, and III school in the country is merging into the Big-Eleventy-Billion.

Notre Dame will remain independent in football.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

And even those that could, it's kindof like an executive budget- if you have some spare change at the end of the year, I'm sure it will get spent on something worth the price like a gold plated bathtub for the Athletic Director's private bathroom.

Riiiiight.

In FY 2010, the Tennessee athletic department handed over $10.3 million dollars to the general fund. And that's not counting over $4m the department paid in sales tax, nor the nearly $24m take on sales tax from concessions & tickets alone, nor that they're funding Title IX requirements with only $1m in state money (similar programs are getting $2.5m to $8m in that area).

I think Mike Hamilton (the AD) is an idiot, but the money isn't going into gold plated tubs there.