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

[RainMaker]

Does it have to be about a big rivalry? Aren't regional games just a little more intriguing? You typically know the school better and perhaps even know some people who went there.

I remember watching the 30 for 30 special on SMU. They said one of the components of it was how the big business guys in Texas were all alum of these SWC schools. So there was a rivalry that went on between them. It made the games more interesting.

Being in Chicago, we have a ton of Big 10 alumni. So if you went to Purdue, there is a good chance someone in your office went to Indiana and you can rib each other when they play. Not to mention you might have heard of a high school player or two that ended up at these schools. There are just more local connections.

I can't speak for everyone, but I would think that a guy who went to Texas would have more interest in his team playing Baylor, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, or another regional school than they would playing Washington State or Arizona.

It doesn't have to be about a huge rivalry. It can just be "hey Jim's wife went to Illinois, I'll have to give her shit on Facebook".

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Why would the Big East do that? The travel costs without any financial reward would sink the conference. At least Notre Dame is in the footprint, and they were added to balance out the additions of West Virginia and Rutgers in 1995.

I dunno, because they need an 18th team anyway and at least Texas doesn't suck and oh they added TCU and so it'd balance that move out too. Not in football, obvi., but to have Notre Dame and Texas in your league at least peripherally seems to at least raise the stakes even if the whole deal eventually implodes?

[RainMaker]

If you've added TCU, might as well add Texas. I guess in other sports, you can play the schools in one trip.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I dunno, because they need an 18th team anyway and at least Texas doesn't suck and oh they added TCU and so it'd balance that move out too. Not in football, obvi., but to have Notre Dame and Texas in your league at least peripherally seems to at least raise the stakes even if the whole deal eventually implodes?

Nope. If you are going to add teams, you need to add teams that add to the football inventory. With the Big East looking to secure a huge deal from NBC/Comcast next year, football inventory will be key to that deal. And let's get it straight, Football and basketball are the only spots that matter. Adding a Texas to the league gives you a few good extra games, but it also takes away good games. If Texas wants to go independent, they can let basketball and baseball die in Conference USA or the Sun Belt.

[tarcone]

I disagree with the powerhouses dont think rivalries are important. See UM/OSU. They hate each other. Coaches lose jobs when they fail to beat the other.

I HATE Iowa State. In everything. I love playing them every season. I love beating them. I wish ill on them often. And I truly hate their wrestling program. A bunch of run for the edges and hang on wrestlers.
Anyway. I would hate to lose the Iowa State game. No matter how good or bad their program is. And I bet an ISU fan would say the same.

As for conferences, the B1G isnt just about athletics. Academics are a huge part of the conference. The share research and grant money. This is why the B1G is so important to the schools.

[flounder]

Originally Posted by tarcone

As for conferences, the B1G isnt just about athletics. Academics are a huge part of the conference. The share research and grant money. This is why the B1G is so important to the schools.

I think that may be true theoretically, but I've worked in research at a B1G institution and I can tell you that in all the conversations I ever had about research and grant money, conference affiliation never came up. I doubt most research professors could name another school in the B1G or even what the name of the conference is (or what a conference is).

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's certainly not a bluff. OU/OSU are out with or without UT. Also, the Pac-XX is expanding to 16, not 14. The debate is just who comes along. If OU/OSU only, then it'll be MU and KU. If UT decides to come along, then OU wants Mizzou while UT wants Tech. That's really the only hangup on the move at this point.

OU does not want Mizzou. They want Texas Tech for recruiting purposes (more Texas schools).

[molson]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Does it have to be about a big rivalry? Aren't regional games just a little more intriguing? You typically know the school better and perhaps even know some people who went there.

I remember watching the 30 for 30 special on SMU. They said one of the components of it was how the big business guys in Texas were all alum of these SWC schools. So there was a rivalry that went on between them. It made the games more interesting.

Being in Chicago, we have a ton of Big 10 alumni. So if you went to Purdue, there is a good chance someone in your office went to Indiana and you can rib each other when they play. Not to mention you might have heard of a high school player or two that ended up at these schools. There are just more local connections.

I can't speak for everyone, but I would think that a guy who went to Texas would have more interest in his team playing Baylor, Texas Tech, Texas A&M, or another regional school than they would playing Washington State or Arizona.

It doesn't have to be about a huge rivalry. It can just be "hey Jim's wife went to Illinois, I'll have to give her shit on Facebook".

Ya, I really don't think its as much about "rivalry" as the fact that the matchups are predictable, and you can drive to the games. People plan trips around these games, it's not so much about anger/hatred as it is about habit, tradition, and predictability. Oregon fans may spend a weekend in Seattle when the Ducks are playing up there, I know I would always plan weekend trips around Syracuse playing at Boston College. I don't know where this plays into the bigger picture financially but it something big that you lose when you move to mega-conferences.

[Eaglesfan27]

Interesting rumors are that Texas may not come to the Pac-16 cause they don't want to give up their TV deal. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are "a done deal." The interesting team that is being named as a potential replacement for Texas is Boise State.

[MrBug708]

EF, you crack me up. This is like the third time you've mentioned stuff that we've discussed at length. Is the USC board that far behind expansion?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

EF, you crack me up. This is like the third time you've mentioned stuff that we've discussed at length. Is the USC board that far behind expansion?

Guess UCLA's board has to talk about something else than the pathetic team that lost to Houston

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

The interesting team that is being named as a potential replacement for Texas is Boise State.

I'd be shocked if Boise State were invited.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Guess UCLA's board has to talk about something else than the pathetic team that lost to Houston

The UCLA board doesnt really follow expansion actually

Plus if I'm talking about old subjects, that would have happened before the Houston loss and Heisman candidate Case Keenum

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by duckman

OU does not want Mizzou. They want Texas Tech for recruiting purposes (more Texas schools).

I think Stoops would prefer this, but the Sooner AD is the former Missouri AD and probably still has a lot of ties to the school. So I could see a few people in the OU athletic department that would rather be tied to Missouri at this time. No idea why Texas would want to tie itself to Texas Tech though.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by duckman

OU does not want Mizzou. They want Texas Tech for recruiting purposes (more Texas schools).

Incorrect. OU admins prefers MU over Tech. They won't have any issues recruiting Texas as long as UT comes along. They also have a much higher level of trust with Mizzou admins to the point where they feel they have a trusted ally to bring along to the new conference. Tech brings nothing to the table for OU.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Man, don't say that rivalries don't matter around hardcore SEC fans. They're already getting upset over getting Texas A&M and losing the yearly LSU-Florida or Alabama-Tennessee games because of expansion. They're going to be really pissed if #14 is a team like Missouri or Virginia Tech that no one has any bitter anger towards. At least A&M makes Arkansas a little happy.

Which is oe place Clemson makes a lot of sense. Clemson V SC is on par with any rivalry in the country. Clemson UGA has a great history, auburn, bam a, Florida, even miss st and arky have some shared history....

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Incorrect. OU admins prefers MU over Tech. They won't have any issues recruiting Texas as long as UT comes along. They also have a much higher level of trust with Mizzou admins to the point where they feel they have a trusted ally to bring along to the new conference. Tech brings nothing to the table for OU.

I don't doubt they prefer Missouri over Texas Tech, but if Texas is coming, then Tech is too. And that's the bottom line cause Stone Cold said so.

[kcchief19]

I do like Colorado's president today complaining about old Big 12 schools coming to the Pac 12, especially four more. His complaint is that if we end up with a Pac 16 with five old Big 12 schools, they are essentially going to be in a division playing the same teams and games in the central time zone they hated before. They came to the Pac 12 to play on the Pacific coast, and now here they are getting dragged back to the Midwest.

Chip Brown is still the only one pitching the Texas-to-the-ACC option. He was on radio in KC this afternoon selling it again. We all know that's coming from Dodds, so I'm assuming it's just Dodds trying to leverage Scott to let the LHN operate outside the Pac 12 TV model.

I don't see Scott and the Pac 12 caving, but I can Texas taking a wait-and-see-attitude. All evidence seems to point toward the Pac 12 wanting to go 16 or bust, so if Texas says no their options are limited.

Any conference that lets Texas in with its LHN operating outside the conference is just asking for what's happening to the Big 12. There were some rumors the Big Ten was negotiating with Texas, but told them they would either have to fold the LHN into the BTN or Texas simply wouldn't get a share of BTN money. That could work, but Texas won't buy it -- they want their cake and to eat it too.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by General Mike

I don't doubt they prefer Missouri over Texas Tech, but if Texas is coming, then Tech is too. And that's the bottom line cause Stone Cold said so.

I think it has more to do with OU not wanting to let Texas get anything that it wants or needs. By all accounts, the relationship between OU and Texas has completely soured. I'm not sure what the final straw was -- maybe it was the LHN and Texas doing everything they said they wouldn't do. But OU seems to want Texas to drop off the face of the earth.

At this point, it's Texas lobbying OU to stay, not OU lobbying Texas to join them. I think OU would prefer MU/KU join them based on what I'm reading and hearing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by General Mike

I don't doubt they prefer Missouri over Texas Tech, but if Texas is coming, then Tech is too. And that's the bottom line cause Stone Cold said so.

The problem with that right now is that Larry Scott also prefers Mizzou over Tech along with several Pac-XX execs. There's a huge difference between the TV market AND academic standings of Mizzou and Texas Tech. Colorado is also heavily campaigning for Mizzou because they don't want to see a school like Tech come in when they could have Mizzou (or even Kansas for that matter). There's not many that are listening to Texas right now. They've soured a lot of relationships at this point and have put themselves into a tough negotiating position with the Pac-XX. The Pac-XX is happy to have Texas join, but it's going to be on the Pac-XX's terms and not Texas (especially after what has transpired in the B12 the past 18-24 months). I have little doubt that Dodds is not please to have someone else telling him who's calling the shots.

Pretty amusing to listen to Chipper's interview here in KC today. He lamented how everyone was blaming Texas for the downfall of the conference and repeatedly painted UT as a victim. Add in that he was being interviewed by a K-State grad and it made for comedy gold.......

Audio Vault - StationCaster

[kcchief19]

Actually wouldn't surprise me if the Pac 12 collectively preferred MU over Tech, assuming Texas joins. Tech doesn't bring you anything that Texas doesn't bring, whereas Missouri would add another market and make and Oklahoma/Missouri sports network more viable in the Pac 12 model.

Of course we all know about Texas's Tech problem ... hard to bring along OU's State problem without bringing Tech along ... leaving Baylor and Tech homeless is probably not a political reality in Texas.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Of course we all know about Texas's Tech problem ... hard to bring along OU's State problem without bringing Tech along ... leaving Baylor and Tech homeless is probably not a political reality in Texas.

This was basically my point. I'm not sure if Kansas has the same problem with K-State, but I wouldn't be shocked either. Politicians are not going to want to see one of their schools take a hard landing.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by General Mike

This was basically my point. I'm not sure if Kansas has the same problem with K-State, but I wouldn't be shocked either. Politicians are not going to want to see one of their schools take a hard landing.

KU and KSU are not tied in any way. If they moved together, that would be great, but there's no requirement that they do so.

[General Mike]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

KU and KSU are not tied in any way. If they moved together, that would be great, but there's no requirement that they do so.

I don't buy that. When push comes to shove, and Kansas State is on the verge of ending up in the Mountain West, the politicians will step in.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by General Mike

I don't buy that. When push comes to shove, and Kansas State is on the verge of ending up in the Mountain West, the politicians will step in.

We'll likely see if this statement holds up or not in the coming days.

Gray-Little: KU, K-State aren't tied to each other | Wichita Eagle

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by General Mike

I don't buy that. When push comes to shove, and Kansas State is on the verge of ending up in the Mountain West, the politicians will step in.

Bill Snyder will demand and get a cage match with Mike Alden for the final Pac-20 spot and he'll pull some Mortal Kombat move and rip his head out with his spine. On ESPN! Eat that, "The Decision"

SI

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Local KC sports radio reporting that A&M was approved in today's meeting in Atlanta. Final vote was 11-0 in favor with Vandy abstaining. VIP room at Kyle Field is fully set for official announcement either tomorrow or Thursday depending on when paperwork is complete.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I do like Colorado's president today complaining about old Big 12 schools coming to the Pac 12, especially four more. His complaint is that if we end up with a Pac 16 with five old Big 12 schools, they are essentially going to be in a division playing the same teams and games in the central time zone they hated before. They came to the Pac 12 to play on the Pacific coast, and now here they are getting dragged back to the Midwest.

Probably my biggest complaint about Larry Scott - he sold out the PNW schools in order to lure Colorado to the conference by promising them the same division as the LA schools. I know Scott was playing a bigger game to break up the Big-12 and bring Texas into the fold, but it pisses me off that Colorado - a newcomer to the conference that, by themselves didn't add a tremendous amount - got greater access in LA than longtime, established schools in the PNW.

I'm worried that Scott would cave on scheduling and divisional arrangements with Texas & Oklahoma. I doubt he'll cave on revenue sharing, but he might very well tell Oklahoma & Texas they get to be in a Pac-16 "South" and put Tech & Oklahoma State in the "North". Or slightly less obnoxiously, setting up a pod system that would further reduce the LA exposure for the PNW schools.

[MrBug708]

I would imagine that while the exposure to LA would suck, seeing USC, Texas, and Oklahoma in the same bracket of the PAC-16 would be especially inviting to Washington.

Everyone wants to be in LA, nobodies going to be totally happy

[General Mike]

You could always go zipper system with the Pac-16.

[General Mike]

Dola,
Kansas Board of Regents wants the 2 Kansas schools to stay together,

Board of Regents prefers KU, K-State stay together - ESPN

"Again, our preference is for the Big 12 to stay together, and that they're both in BCS-qualifying conferences," McKechnie said of the two Kansas schools.

[MrBug708]

They should let Kansas go and give 20% of added revenue to KSU

[Atocep]

Supposedly down to WVU and Mizzou for the 14th spot in the SEC. Would it be too much to ask Mizzou to just take the PAC-XX offer so we can get out of this fucking conference finally?

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by General Mike

Dola,
Kansas Board of Regents wants the 2 Kansas schools to stay together,

Board of Regents prefers KU, K-State stay together - ESPN

The Board of Regents have very little power though to force the two Kansas schools to stay together which is what MBBF is suggesting. The guy quoted in the article is a Pitt State (in Kansas) grad, but is also working with KSU's new National Agri and Bio Facility in Manhattan and has worked with the KSU President. I'm not shocked that he's suggesting the two schools stay together given his ties to KSU.

Kansas' problem is that the AD and Chancellor would both rather work with the BOR which is a bad idea in my opinion. They should be more interested in setting up an alliance with Missouri and Oklahoma rather than working with the BOR to make sure KSU has a spot.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Local KC sports radio reporting that A&M was approved in today's meeting in Atlanta. Final vote was 11-0 in favor with Vandy abstaining. VIP room at Kyle Field is fully set for official announcement either tomorrow or Thursday depending on when paperwork is complete.

From what I've read the straw poll was 10-1-1 with Ole Miss against and Vandy abstaining. It will officially go into the records as a 12-0 vote though.

Mizzou and WVU were approved as possible 14th members (supposedly).

As with anything that has to do with expansion this info should be taken with a grain of salt. When it comes to conference expansion talk there's not a single person anywhere I put a ton of faith in.

[MrBug708]

What is the significance of Vandy abstaining?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Mizzou and WVU were approved as possible 14th members (supposedly).

Well, we know this didn't happen. Neither team has left their conference, so they can't approve a school without an official application.

[Kodos]

Seems like WVU would be a better fit than Mizzou for the SEC.

[Swaggs]

Definitely some smoke from WVU's end.

I know that, if offered, we have to accept. But it would kind of stink to be in a conference with literally none of our traditional rivals.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Seems like WVU would be a better fit than Mizzou for the SEC.

I really doubt it matters. They'll likely both end up in the SEC because there's no way they're stopping at 14 at this point. OU will make sure of that one way or another.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I really doubt it matters. They'll likely both end up in the SEC because there's no way they're stopping at 14 at this point. OU will make sure of that one way or another.

This is what WVU seems to believe. It's matter of when, not if. The SEC may stop at 14 initially, but this time next year they'll have 16 teams locked up.

I said earlier in this thread that WVU has been very confident about expansion this time and from what I've heard they're more confident now than they were a couple weeks ago. WVU hasn't been involved in the rumors much, but they like where they stand.

FWIW, WVU people also seem to think Virginia Tech is still in the conversation. Personal opinion here, but the potential issues with Virginia legislation and the ACC may have the SEC keeping them in mind for a 15/16th slot instead of the 14th slot.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

What is the significance of Vandy abstaining?

Apparently nothing

To sum up what I've seen on blogs/forums, "They always abstain, it's just how they roll".. That would kind of make sense, would fit into their general "athletics have gotten out of hand" mindset (remember, they're the only D1 school that doesn't have a separate athletic department, folded it back in '03)

[kcchief19]

I think in most respects Mizzou and West Virginia are pretty equal. I'm a homer, and I think I have valid reasons to back up this claim, but I think Missouri is more attractive from an academic and demographic standpoint -- we're a large state, more markets and an arguably better academic background. Those points can be debated, so I don't want to be a Mizzou snob and not acknowledge that WVU has its pros.

That said, if the SEC invites Missouri it's not encouraging further bloodshed. If they take West Virginia, it's open season on the Big East and now we're in further turmoil. Conference armageddon could be very clean and simple if Missouri goes to the SEC with A&M. OU, OSU, Texas and Tech go to the Pac 12, and Kansas, K-State and Iowa State go to the Big East. Baylor is a question mark, but they could end up in a number of places.

if the SEC doesn't invite Missouri now, it will probably never get Missouri. I'm not saying Missouri is a huge get, but when it comes to capturing an entire state and it adding it to your footprint, Missouri is a great get. Anybody else you is going to me getting one of a couple of marquee schools in state -- Missouri is unique in having only one true flagship/BCS school with a large population.

As mentioned earlier, if you pass on WVU now you can add them later if Texas or someone else decides to join. If you pass on Missouri now, they will likely seek shelter in one of the other three conferences. Missouri is a pretty steady place -- they will not want to go somewhere like the Big East and pack their bags again. They want to go somewhere for a long time.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like the Big 10 may have the ball in their court thanks to the SEC. OSU Rivals site is reporting that Mizzou has been offered the 14th spot by the SEC, but Mizzou wants to see if the B10 is ready to take them. So the SEC is now pressuring Mizzou to make a decision by considering WVU. OSU guy said he's nearly certain that the B10 will decline and Mizzou will take the SEC spot. Sounds like WVU will be in the SEC once OU pulls the trigger on the Pac-XX deal.

[MrBug708]

Based on this thread, I'm sure that's exactly what's going to happen

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

More talk of MU/WVU situation. Makes some good points about the ease of adding Mizzou. WVU has a few hurdles that MU doesn't have.

http://outkickthecoverage.com/missou...-secs-14th.php

[Chubby]

how can missouri join the SEC when they just joined the big 10?

[RedKingGold]

Good thing the B1G doesn't have the internet.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Michigan and Ohio State still play every year and they have the chance for a rematch in the title game, to me that's not an example of doing rivalries wrong.

Example:

November 26th: Ohio State ( 9-2, 6-1 conference record, division championship clinched) vs. Michigan (9-2, 7-0 division clinched)

December 3rd: Ohio State vs. Michigan (Big Ten Championship)

"The Game" on the 26th may as well be a NFL exhibition game, since it's completely meaningless. At minimum, you have to move the game away from the last game of the year, which will cause Michigan/Ohio State fans to have a rare moment of agreement and burn down the Big Ten conference offices.

Heck, speaking as someone rooting for Florida State in 1996, rematches are incredibly overrated, especially when you pull what was basically a serious upset to knock off your rival only to have to play them again 5 weeks later for a national title.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by bronconick

Example:

November 26th: Ohio State ( 9-2, 6-1 conference record, division championship clinched) vs. Michigan (9-2, 7-0 division clinched)

December 3rd: Ohio State vs. Michigan (Big Ten Championship)

"The Game" on the 26th may as well be a NFL exhibition game, since it's completely meaningless. At minimum, you have to move the game away from the last game of the year, which will cause Michigan/Ohio State fans to have a rare moment of agreement and burn down the Big Ten conference offices.

Heck, speaking as someone rooting for Florida State in 1996, rematches are incredibly overrated, especially when you pull what was basically a serious upset to knock off your rival only to have to play them again 5 weeks later for a national title.

+1

Particularly when the coach of the other team publicly whines about late hits for 5 weeks and has the refs eating out of his hands by the time the rematch is played.

This year's FSU/Miami game is later than usual and could create this scenario. Even before the Labor Day debacles, the game was played by the second weekend in October at latest. This year, it's November. Not that I'm counting on Miami to knock off VT or anything, but you never know.