PDA

View Full Version : NCAA Conference Realignment



A-Tex Devil
02-18-2010, 07:04 PM
This probably belongs on off-topic since it is pretty speculative at this point, but as many may have seen in the press recently, the golden goose of conference realignment may end up being Texas and not Notre Dame.

While there are many reasons for Texas to stay in the Big XII and be happy, if Mizzou bolts for the Big Ten, or Colorado to the Pac Ten, I think that will be the equivalent of Arkansas leaving for the SEC and be the first domino to fall. The Big 12 loses its championship game with no attractive options to add in. Texas will be next to bolt and it will be quickly.

I have a ton to say on the matter, and how it eventually could effect Duke, but let me lay it out there -- the only reason for Texas (which would always be packaged with A&M) not to accept an invitation to the Pac 10 or the Big 10 is geography. That's it. And this is not just about money either (well, not just about athletic department money). Texas and Texas A&M would love to join the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, which makes up the Big Ten and U Chicago, and provides a TON of resources to its member schools. And those schools would love to include Texas and Texas A&M.

These discussions are real. And if the Big 12 were to fall apart, expanding the Pac 10 and Big 10 in a manner where the SEC felt obliged to add schools, they will likely look to the ACC first (Clemson, FSU, Ga Tech). This would put Duke football in a precarious position.

We may be heading to a split of college football from the NCAA as the BCS contract expires. But if these dominos start to fall, Duke football, and by association, Duke athletics, will need to be ready with a plan.

Deslok
02-18-2010, 07:16 PM
Just a note of inquiry... maybe I've missed it, but I haven't seen any speculation regarding Texas and the Pac 10. To me that hookup makes no sense on pretty much any level. Coming into the Big 10(and hey, Texas wouldn't even have to truly switch conferences, since their joining it would kill their old conference, and the Big 10 would actually become the Big 12 ;) ), makes a lot more sense.

And while it would certainly be a major shake to the system, I don't forsee it causing as significant an overall impact around the country as you seem to project.

tallguy
02-18-2010, 07:27 PM
The SEC isn't adding any schools anytime soon...there are no viable candidates that would bring in enough money to make up for splitting the pie into 13-16 pieces. The Big 12 is vulnerable b/c they just don't have the TV markets to counter any incursion (and the Big 10 makes the most money of any conference...SEC is 2nd, ACC is third).

Right now, Duke really doesn't have to worry...the ACC is immune to any incursion b/c there's no schools that would make attractive additions to the Big 10 or the SEC.

DU82
02-18-2010, 07:56 PM
What I've heard is that Pitt is possibly bolting the Big East to the Big Ten. Makes the most sense from a geographic basis without screwing up other conferences' football title games. Gives Penn State their primary rival back (although takes UWV away from Pitt, at least in terms of being in the same conference.)

It leaves the Big East with only seven football teams (and 15 bball). They'd probably come after BC (and, they can have them!) I would guess that ECU or UCF might be candidates as well. Not sure what other semi-east coast schools are left. (This is my speculation, unlike the Pitt move, which I heard from a coach at a Big East school.)

If Mizzu skips to the Big Ten, I'd expect the Big Twelve to go after TCU. Never understood why they chose Baylor over the Frogs back when the SWC imploded.

A-Tex Devil
02-18-2010, 08:14 PM
Texas and Texas A&M almost went to the Pac 10 in 1994. That is a fact. Ann Richards and Bob Bullock (and certain other Tech grad legislators) held it up by holding back funds if they didn't drag Baylor and Tech along with them. Neither was up to Pac 10 academic snuff and would have made the conference too big, so the Big 8 became the Big 12. Texas is much more independent from the legislature than it used to be, and Tech and Baylor less powerful.

The Big 10 is going to extend an invitation in the next 18 months. The Pac 10 has publicly said it is mulling expansion. If Notre Dame finally gives up the independent ghost to the Big 10, I think there won't be many dominoes.

But if that team is Mizzou or Texas, there is going to be some fallout. The biggest of which will be the demise of the current Big XII. While most of the leftovers aren't much, Oklahoma, Kansas and Nebraska all have very profitable athletic departments and are traditional powers in either football or basketball. They will be coveted by one of the surrounding conferences, and with respect to OU, that includes the SEC.

We already have the BCS and non-BCS, but we are seeing a stratification within the BCS. It's the Big Ten, SEC and then everyone else right now as far as TV contracts and money goes. Northwestern and Vandy make more in TV revenue than Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina and Florida State. The Big XII doesn't have the TV sets to lure in the money, and the ACC and the Big East compete against pro sports much more than the SEC and Big Ten do. It is highly likely that without change, by the end of the decade the ACC and Big East may be marginalized with the Big 12 being gone all together.

I don't necesarrily believe all of this is going to happen. Like I said, it is speculative. But it's also very real, and college presidents are already talking.

Check out this great Orlando Sentinel (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2010/02/texas-is-the-big-fish-and-other-rules-of-college-football-radical-superconference-realignment.html) article that sets the stage. It is speculative as well, but also pretty informative on the $$ driving everything.

A-Tex Devil
02-18-2010, 08:16 PM
What I've heard is that Pitt is possibly bolting the Big East to the Big Ten. Makes the most sense from a geographic basis without screwing up other conferences' football title games. Gives Penn State their primary rival back (although takes UWV away from Pitt, at least in terms of being in the same conference.)

It leaves the Big East with only seven football teams (and 15 bball). They'd probably come after BC (and, they can have them!) I would guess that ECU or UCF might be candidates as well. Not sure what other semi-east coast schools are left. (This is my speculation, unlike the Pitt move, which I heard from a coach at a Big East school.)

If Mizzu skips to the Big Ten, I'd expect the Big Twelve to go after TCU. Never understood why they chose Baylor over the Frogs back when the SWC imploded.

TCU does nothing for the Big XII but leave them further behind the SEC and Big Ten. If Mizzou bolts, Texas and Texas A&M are gone within a year. I guarantee it.

It's all $$. It's not about geography, rivalries, or even common sense in some cases.

phaedrus
02-18-2010, 08:24 PM
It's not about geography, rivalries, or even common sense in some cases.

See, e.g., Boston College.

sagegrouse
02-18-2010, 08:52 PM
Here's what I understand to be the strongest forces there:

1. The Pac 10 wants to add two teams. If they add, as seems sensible, Utah and BYU, none of the major conferences get hurt. The two Utah teams are rivals anyway, respectable academically, in a state that is growing in population and economics, and not too far away. The other options seem unlikely:


(a) Adding two of the California state schools (Fresno State, etc.) just isn't going to happen, IMHO (where the H is often silent) because of crowded markets and academics.
(b) Colorado may be available, but what's the second school?
(c) Texas and Texas A&M are in some sense dream additions, given the money they generate and the population of Texas. But why the heck would they want to be part of a West coast conference, and how would it be more remunerative than what they have.

2. The Big Ten really wants a twelfth team, and because of the money generated by the Big Ten network, the conference will likely get whomever it wants.


(a) I know Notre Dame has never been in a football conference, but not having any inside knowledge, I wouldn't be surprised if the money were too attractive to turn down.
(b) The Big 12 North teams seemingly would jump in a heartbeat. Miizzou has just about asked for an invitation. Even Nebraska looks interested.
(c) The other adjacent possibilities would be Kentucky and Pitt. I won't say anything bad about academics at UKy, but I am not sure the academic side of the Big Ten would believe it had added another Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota. The same argument may apply to Pitt, although I know very little about the school (but that hasn't stopped me in over 1,200 posts on DBR).
(d) There apparently were discussions between Texas and the Big Ten, but I have a hard time seeing Texas going anywhere without taking Texas A&M with them, and the Big Ten doesn't want to be the big 13.

3. The other force in the works is for the top conferences to say, "Sayonara," to the NCAA and form their own association. This doesn't affect conference alignments per se, but it will have seismic effects on college sports throughout the country.

Anyway, what are the prospects for any of these forces dislodging the ACC and Duke or disrupting the SEC and, therefore, threatening instability in the ACC? I have a hard time imagining it. If the Big 12 loses a team to the Big Ten, I suppose it scours the plains and mountains for a replacement: TCU, Colorado State (which regularly drums CU on the gridiron), Houston, whatever.

If the Big East loses a team to the Big Ten, then they will be looking to add a football team or two. The Big East is a poor excuse for a conference, and it tends to operate as a potluck dinner rather than as an athletic conference where everyone is treated the same. If BC wants to return, then Syracuse would probably be available. And I wouldn't be surprised if South Carolina wouldn't rather play in the ACC than in the SEC. The Frank McGuire bad blood and the fight with Eddie Cameron over academics was a lo-o-o-ng time ago. Moreover, the folks in my native state are actually capable of acting as though academics are important these days.

If Texas and Texas A&M change conferences, then it could have widespread consequences for every conference, but it is hard to take that seriously.

sagegrouse
'I hope no one who reads this believes I have any idea what I am talking about'

Jim3k
02-18-2010, 08:59 PM
If the author is right about the appearance of the Mega-Conference, then the ACC needs to become proactive. I see Syracuse, WVU and some combination of Pitt, Rutgers and UConn appearing on the scene.

YourLandlord
02-18-2010, 09:06 PM
If the author is right about the appearance of the Mega-Conference, then the ACC needs to become proactive. I see Syracuse, WVU and some combination of Pitt, Rutgers and UConn appearing on the scene.

Ew, please no. What miserable basketball to watch.

Papa John
02-18-2010, 09:15 PM
(a) I know Notre Dame has never been in a football conference, but not having any inside knowledge, I wouldn't be surprised if the money were too attractive to turn down.

Notre Dame isn't joining any conference... They have a lucrative television contract with NBC and utilize tie-ins with the Big East to secure avenues to bowl invitations in the even that they don't qualify for a BCS bowl [and there's no way in heck that a bowl won't invite them when they qualify], and they don't have to share those revenues with anyone...

RelativeWays
02-18-2010, 09:18 PM
The SEC isn't adding any schools anytime soon...there are no viable candidates that would bring in enough money to make up for splitting the pie into 13-16 pieces. The Big 12 is vulnerable b/c they just don't have the TV markets to counter any incursion (and the Big 10 makes the most money of any conference...SEC is 2nd, ACC is third).

Right now, Duke really doesn't have to worry...the ACC is immune to any incursion b/c there's no schools that would make attractive additions to the Big 10 or the SEC.


You post on the Big Lead forums don't you?

In any event, Clemson, GT, Miami and FSU would be attractive to the SEC in the event they lose a team. I think the ACC would survive a Miami or even an FSU departure, Clemson is a charter member and GT has been around for over 30 years. Losing them hurts the ACC in football. Also if WVU or Pitt were to leave the Big East, they'd need to replace them. They could always go back to VT or BC (please take BC) but even UMD or even Duke would look attractive to them based on the Big East demographics,

Jim3k
02-18-2010, 09:18 PM
Ew, please no. What miserable basketball to watch.

Well, the author doesn't concern himself with basketball.

And, the schools I mention would be the likely leftovers after the BEast was raided by the BigTeleven. WVU could easily slide into the B10 or the SEC and Pitt just as easily to the BigT, to join PSU.

roywhite
02-18-2010, 09:37 PM
If Notre Dame finally gives up the independent ghost to the Big 10, I think there won't be many dominoes.

But if that team is Mizzou or Texas, there is going to be some fallout. The biggest of which will be the demise of the current Big XII.
I don't necesarrily believe all of this is going to happen. Like I said, it is speculative. But it's also very real, and college presidents are already talking.



A-Tex...I follow Penn State football closely and your comments are right on line with the discussion going on amongst PSU and B10 fans. The Big 10/11 is now very motivated to add at least one additional team, and perhaps more (Joe Paterno actually helped get the ball rolling a year or two ago, and now Jim Delany the B10 commish and former UNC guard are pushing).

The preference from the B10/11 point of view seems to be:
Notre Dame---a natural fit in many ways, but plenty of resistance from many at ND
Texas---the hot new candidate and one which would be a good fit in every way but geographically
Texas A&M---part of the Texas package?
Mizzou and Nebraska

Pitt---not much support; they just don't add much (Pittsburgh area and media are already well represented in Penn State and appeal for tOSU)

The Big10 Network has been very successful and the Big 10 is now rivaling the SEC in overall financial strength and distributions to member institutions.

I don't see too many scenarios that spill over to Duke, but you never know for sure when the winds start blowing.

Kedsy
02-18-2010, 09:55 PM
They could always go back to VT or BC (please take BC) but even UMD or even Duke would look attractive to them based on the Big East demographics,

But why would any of those teams want to play in the Big East instead of the ACC? Especially Duke.

RoyalBlue08
02-18-2010, 10:16 PM
You post on the Big Lead forums don't you?

In any event, Clemson, GT, Miami and FSU would be attractive to the SEC in the event they lose a team. I think the ACC would survive a Miami or even an FSU departure, Clemson is a charter member and GT has been around for over 30 years. Losing them hurts the ACC in football. Also if WVU or Pitt were to leave the Big East, they'd need to replace them. They could always go back to VT or BC (please take BC) but even UMD or even Duke would look attractive to them based on the Big East demographics,

Seems to me schools make these decisions based on how much money they can make from football, and if that is the case, no school is leaving the ACC for the Big East.

Jim3k
02-18-2010, 10:32 PM
Seems to me schools make these decisions based on how much money they can make from football, and if that is the case, no school is leaving the ACC for the Big East.

I agree. Even so, Maryland has been mentioned as a possible B10 candidate. Why them as opposed to any other ACC team?

Rhetorical question actually, since I don't see Maryland or any of the rest of the ACC as a viable B10 school. The Terps have no Midwest or national appeal. In fact, only Duke and BC have any national appeal (Duke, some in the midwest), and even that small quantum would be insufficient to attract the B10 (not to mention Duke's small stadium draw). There is hardly any TV market for the ACC or its erstwhile members in the Midwest.

blazindw
02-18-2010, 11:22 PM
As someone who hails from B10 country and has deep roots in Texas, here's what I've heard:

-Texas is indeed a viable candidate for B10 expansion. They fit in line academically, with regards to resources and is a research institution with a wide alumni base and lots of dollars rolling in. As A-Tex said, the only drawback for Texas is geography. Texas would absolutely love to take their chances in a B10 West division with Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, and Minnesota on a regular basis.
-Notre Dame is clearly choice 1-100. But, adding Texas to the mix lets Notre Dame know that the B10 is serious: either get onboard the gravy train or you lose out on everything. I wouldn't be surprised if the B10 conspires to leave Notre Dame off their schedules if they don't join (leaving them with about 4-5 games a year that they have to fill).
-Pitt is still an option, and they fit in geographically. They, however, are not the glamorous coup that stealing Texas would be.
-One trip-up to Texas's possibilities is that they would try to pressure the B10 to also take A&M as well, leaving the B10 with 13 teams instead of 12. We will see how that would work, but having Texas and A&M leave would be the beginning of the end of the B12.
-Mizzou and Nebraska are possibilities, but would they leave their biggest rivals in the B12 (Kansas and Colorado, respectively). Both would be better geographical alternatives to Texas, but again, not the bigger draw.

Notre Dame is still the best option, but with Texas as a real alternative, Notre Dame will finally be forced to speak now or forever hold their peace, so to speak.

A-Tex Devil
02-19-2010, 01:06 AM
I guess what I am saying is that if these dominos fall. If the ACC doesn't stay proactive in this game, it, along with the Big East, will become more marginalized in football than they already are -- possibly becoming the east coast equivalents of the WAC/Mountain West, with the "super-conferences" being the SEC/PAC-10/Big Ten and remnants of the Big XII.

I don't know how this would effect basketball, maybe a lot, maybe not at all. But if you don't think this is a possibility in football, I'd ask you to look at where all of the undefeated teams in BCS conferences came from since the 2002 Fiesta Bowl with Miami, and where every single BCS title game participant came from. There has not been a viable national championship team from the ACC or the Big East in eight football seasons. That's a lot.

A-Tex Devil
02-19-2010, 01:49 AM
HAnyway, what are the prospects for any of these forces dislodging the ACC and Duke or disrupting the SEC and, therefore, threatening instability in the ACC? I have a hard time imagining it. If the Big 12 loses a team to the Big Ten, I suppose it scours the plains and mountains for a replacement: TCU, Colorado State (which regularly drums CU on the gridiron), Houston, whatever.



If the Big 12 loses a team, the conference is gone within 5 years or relegated to Mountain West status. Texas is more likely to go independent and start it's own network (which it has already considered doing) before it will stay in a Big XII with no championship game. Not a good idea, but better than staying in a dying conference.

It's money folks. No non-BCS team, except *MAYBE* BYU will ever get into a BCS conference. The BCS or its future equivalent is more likely to shrink than grow.

ricks68
02-19-2010, 02:28 AM
Can anyone imagine Texas not playing Oklahoma or A &M every year? So, how is that going to happen if they bolt? Also, I understand it may be somewhere like an extra 10 mil a year for Texas even after figuring in extra travel expenses for all of their teams, etc. I don't know if that is correct, but that's chicken feed compared to what a few alums would pony up every year to keep Texas playing Ok and A & M football traditions alive. Seriously.:confused:

Even though I was dead wrong on how good Texas bball turned out this year, I just can't imagine the above not being the deal breaker.

ricks

A-Tex Devil
02-19-2010, 02:33 AM
Can anyone imagine Texas not playing Oklahoma or A &M every year? So, how is that going to happen if they bolt? Also, I understand it may be somewhere like an extra 10 mil a year for Texas even after figuring in extra travel expenses for all of their teams, etc. I don't know if that is correct, but that's chicken feed compared to what a few alums would pony up every year to keep Texas playing Ok and A & M football traditions alive. Seriously.:confused:

Even though I was dead wrong on how good Texas bball turned out this year, I just can't imagine the above not being the deal breaker.

ricks

Texas and Texas A&M are likely a packaged deal. Texas and OU played each other for more than 50 years consecutively without being in the same conference. It's no different that Ga-Ga Tech, Clemson-SoCar or Florida-FSU.

ricks68
02-19-2010, 02:39 AM
Other factors:

Texas packs their out of conference fball games with losers to improve their record. Possibly having to add OK and A & M out of conference could really hurt them. Also, they would probably not do so well playing games where it is too cold. The extreme Texas heat that the high school recruits are used to would probably affect their play when they would have to travel north. No kidding. Also, there are just too many alums in the state with so much money and political clout that could stop it to preserve the rivalries, it just doesn't seem to make sense.

Besides, all the coaches, players, assistants, etc., would need to keep their passports up to date when travelling up north------and that would involve keeping track of maybe hundreds of passports.:rolleyes:

ricks

ricks68
02-19-2010, 02:45 AM
Texas and Texas A&M are likely a packaged deal. Texas and OU played each other for more than 50 years consecutively without being in the same conference. It's no different that Ga-Ga Tech, Clemson-SoCar or Florida-FSU.

Is the Big 10 really the Big Televen? If it is, how do two additional teams add up to a total of 12? If it is not, then I can see A & M. Also, I still can't see the justification of leaving for a measly (for Texas alums) 10 mil to go play in the frozen north where they run the risk of losing more games. They would have to make the deal where they play in the extremely weak side of the conference mentioned in an earlier post. We know them really too well, don't we, A-Tex?;)

ricks

DukeAppWV
02-19-2010, 08:17 AM
If the author is right about the appearance of the Mega-Conference, then the ACC needs to become proactive. I see Syracuse, WVU and some combination of Pitt, Rutgers and UConn appearing on the scene.

I would have loved to have seen West BY GOD Virginia become the 12th member of the ACC instead of BC - but good old Swofford being the tarheel he is, went for the money and exposure ---- Wrong !!!! - If any of you have attended a bowl game where WVU was playing you would see that entire families come - The people of the the great state of WV support the university more than any other I can think of - I would love to see the Montaineers as part of the ACC but doubt it will ever happen ----

barjwr
02-19-2010, 08:32 AM
Does anyone else really see much of an advantage for Missouri to leave the Big XII for the Big Ten? They're already in a 12-team conference with a championship game, and they have been much more successful lately in that conference in football than they had been in years. Long term, will they really compete better in football against Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, et al, than they do against their current Big XII foes? Especially when the Big XII North is a toss-up nearly every year? I don't see it taking much for any team in any given year to be able to schedule their way into a likely matchup with Texas or OU in the Big XII championship.

sagegrouse
02-19-2010, 09:43 AM
Does anyone else really see much of an advantage for Missouri to leave the Big XII for the Big Ten? They're already in a 12-team conference with a championship game, and they have been much more successful lately in that conference in football than they had been in years. Long term, will they really compete better in football against Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, et al, than they do against their current Big XII foes? Especially when the Big XII North is a toss-up nearly every year? I don't see it taking much for any team in any given year to be able to schedule their way into a likely matchup with Texas or OU in the Big XII championship.

It's all about money. The Big Ten, thanks to the Big Ten Network and the ABC/ESPN contract, is a money machine. Moreover, the Big Ten shares revenue evenly, while the Big 12 distributes TV money based on appearances. As a result, the Big 12 South schools, where Texas and Oklahoma play, do better than Mizzou, Kansas and Nebraska. There is some unhappiness over this in the Big 12 family.

Here's an article (http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/sports_college/2009/07/how-much-revenue-did-your-favorite-fbs-school-take-in-in-200708-this-chart-will-tell-you.html) listing athletic revenue by school. The definition includes donations and institutional support (waived tuition, etc.) and not just the usual revenue sources.

Here is revenue ($ millions) per school by conference (with top school):




ACC 54.1 Duke!?!
Big 12 66.5 Texas
Big East 45.6 UConn
Big Ten 76.4 Ohio State
Pac 10 58.8 Stanford
SEC 71.1 Florida



I haven't researched the definitions used beyond what I mentioned above. So caveat emptor.

sagegrouse

sagegrouse
02-19-2010, 09:54 AM
It's all about money.

Nevertheless, academics are still important to the Big Ten.

All 11 Big Ten schools are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities, the leading academic research institutions in the US and Canada. There are 62 members in total. AAU membership seems to be a requirement for entry (with one exception noted here), as the academic leaders of the Big Ten have a heckuva lot more clout than in, say, the SEC.

Of the mentioned candidates in this thread for the Big Ten, several are in AAU, including Texas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Nebraska, and Maryland.

But several are not: Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pitt. Forget about these.

Notre Dame is also not a member, but somehow I believe there would be an exception made;), due to its recognition as a competitive school for undergraduate admissions. And, of course, it brings a lot of money to the table.:rolleyes:

sagegrouse

A-Tex Devil
02-19-2010, 09:55 AM
Does anyone else really see much of an advantage for Missouri to leave the Big XII for the Big Ten? They're already in a 12-team conference with a championship game, and they have been much more successful lately in that conference in football than they had been in years. Long term, will they really compete better in football against Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Penn State, et al, than they do against their current Big XII foes? Especially when the Big XII North is a toss-up nearly every year? I don't see it taking much for any team in any given year to be able to schedule their way into a likely matchup with Texas or OU in the Big XII championship.

You are thinking short term. In the first 5 years of the Big XII, the Big XII North was dominant (NU, CU and K-State) and the South was average. Things change.

Also, to address this and other points, switching from the Big XII to the Beg Televen is so much more than TV revenues. As mentioned the Committee for Institutional Cooperation (http://www.cic.net/Home.aspx)is a huge carrot here for the more academically minded college presidents (who are the ones that will ultimately make any decision to invite teams to a conference or to leave a conference). It provides additional revenue streams and resources outside of government grants.

The Pac 10 has similarly minded research institutions which are in line with the academic objectives of UT and Texas A&M (and, frankly, Missouri). Neither Texas school has been a great fit in the Big XII from that perspective (nor would they in the SEC).

This is not about short term gains on the football field or an extra $10MM a year. It's about schools positioning themselves to not be left in the background if there is a realignment. It's about increased and new revenue streams both athletically and academically. Texas is the prize now, but it might not be in 10 years. These schools don't want to be left heading into a forced marriage a la the Big 8 becoming the Big 12 when the SWC fell apart.

Jim3k
02-19-2010, 12:00 PM
But several are not: Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pitt. Forget about these.


sagegrouse

Pitt is a member, Sage. See list. (http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476)

Curiously, from the ACC, only Duke, UNC, UVA and UMD are AAU members.

crimsonandblue
02-19-2010, 01:14 PM
I'd prefer barkingcarnival's approach (http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/02/15/being-bill-powers/)which would add five Big XII schools to the Big Televen; UT, A&M, Missouri, Nebraska and Kansas. Beware, the link is an ultra detailed look from UT's perspective of possible entry into the Big Ten. I think it makes pretty good sense from political, cultural, athletic and economic perspectives, which means it won't happen.

They pretty quickly reject the Pac10 approach, maybe a little out of hand, but still with good reason.

Chicago 1995
02-19-2010, 03:11 PM
Here's what I understand to be the strongest forces there:

1. The Pac 10 wants to add two teams. If they add, as seems sensible, Utah and BYU, none of the major conferences get hurt. The two Utah teams are rivals anyway, respectable academically, in a state that is growing in population and economics, and not too far away. The other options seem unlikely:


(a) Adding two of the California state schools (Fresno State, etc.) just isn't going to happen, IMHO (where the H is often silent) because of crowded markets and academics.
(b) Colorado may be available, but what's the second school?
(c) Texas and Texas A&M are in some sense dream additions, given the money they generate and the population of Texas. But why the heck would they want to be part of a West coast conference, and how would it be more remunerative than what they have.

. . .

sagegrouse
'I hope no one who reads this believes I have any idea what I am talking about'

One of the interesting aspects of the Pac-10's role in all of this is that there needs to be a unanimous vote from every member of the conference to issue an invitation to a new member. I think that's important from two perspectives. First, there's an inertia that comes with a need for unanimity that will slow the Pac 10 down. Second, there is rampant speculation that because of the need for a unanimous vote, that BYU will never be asked to join the Pac 10 because of a perceived hostility toward the conservatism of the school by some of the more liberal members of a relatively liberal conference like the Pac 10. Thus, much of the Pac 10 speculation has been on the addition of Colorado and Colorado State or maybe Colorado and Utah (although Utah presents similar problems to BYU, although not as institutional) as the most likely Pac 10 additions.

I thought Texas was a long shot for the Big 10, but the more I read and learn about this, I think there is a real chance the Big 10 gets Texas for a 12th. The question then becomes does the Big 10 add two more to get to 14 -- A&M and Pitt. That's a much more complicated question. I think the preference would be to only add a 12th, but I don't know if Texas is worth two additional members to divide the pie. What the Big 10 does in this regard will be driven at least somewhat by the SEC. They'll clearly add OU and OSU, I'd think, if the Big XII splinters, but do they go to 16? If so, does the Big 10 as well.

I should be interesting, and the potential for SEC expansion is where Duke could be impacted. What move does the ACC make if the SEC comes for FSU and Miami or Ga Tech and Clemson?

A-Tex Devil
02-19-2010, 03:54 PM
What the Big 10 does in this regard will be driven at least somewhat by the SEC. They'll clearly add OU and OSU, I'd think, if the Big XII splinters, but do they go to 16? If so, does the Big 10 as well.

I should be interesting, and the potential for SEC expansion is where Duke could be impacted. What move does the ACC make if the SEC comes for FSU and Miami or Ga Tech and Clemson?

Bingo. And much more eloquently put then me (and full disclosure -- I eat this stuff up. I LOVED the expansion debates re: the ACC 7 years ago). If you look at the 6 BCS football conferences, plus Notre Dame, that's 66 teams. Now to get REALLY speculative -- we start getting close to the four 16 team conferences that people have talked about in the past that can lead to a playoff while keeping that sweet BCS money among the power conferences. There is no playoff now because, as someone stated above, Alabama doesn't want to share the TV revenues with Utah St.

If the power conferences can form 4 16 team leagues, there is a built in 8 or 16 team playoff right there. The problem with this, though, is that the mid-atlantic/north atlantic conference (assuming there is some regionality at play) will be decidedly weaker in tradition, money and fanbase fpr football. And it is likely that Duke would be part of such a conference.

As an example:

West Coast - Pac 10 plus Colorado, Texas Tech, Baylor, K-State, KU
Midwest - Big Ten plus Texas, Texas A&M, Mizzou, Iowa State, Notre Dame
South - SEC plus Oklahoma, Okie Light, Louisville, Florida St.
East - ACC (less FSU) plus Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, UConn and Rutgers

Out in the cold -- Cincy, USF (Cincy has ZERO alumni support and was an untouchable for the BCS bowls despite the auto-bid, USF is too new and little alumni support).

But I think it could be even less -- I could see schools like Baylor, Texas Tech, Louisville, Iowa State and K-State also getting left out, with some conferences staying at 14.

Edited to add --- the scenario above where the Pac 10 is left with the option of picking up Tech and Baylor to fill out to 16 is why I think they might battle with the Big Televen over Texas and Texas A&M.

DukeAppWV
02-19-2010, 03:57 PM
Nevertheless, academics are still important to the Big Ten.

All 11 Big Ten schools are members of the prestigious Association of American Universities, the leading academic research institutions in the US and Canada. There are 62 members in total. AAU membership seems to be a requirement for entry (with one exception noted here), as the academic leaders of the Big Ten have a heckuva lot more clout than in, say, the SEC.

Of the mentioned candidates in this thread for the Big Ten, several are in AAU, including Texas, Missouri, Texas A&M, Nebraska, and Maryland.

But several are not: Kentucky, West Virginia, and Pitt. Forget about these.

Notre Dame is also not a member, but somehow I believe there would be an exception made;), due to its recognition as a competitive school for undergraduate admissions. And, of course, it brings a lot of money to the table.:rolleyes:

sagegrouse

Just for a point of fact - West Virginia University has had 25 Rhodes Scholars which ranks them 6th in public institutions ----

Jim3k
02-19-2010, 04:04 PM
Just for a point of fact - West Virginia University has had 25 Rhodes Scholars which ranks them 6th in public institutions ----

The AAU could reasonably invite WVU to join.

A-Tex Devil
02-19-2010, 05:13 PM
Another great article (with some great follow up in the commentariat) from Peter Bean at Burnt Orange Nation (http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/2/18/1316668/would-texas-join-the-big-10#comments)

And apologies that this seems Texas centric, but they are at center of discussion right now, and I do believe that if the Big XII falls apart, it will affect Duke and the ACC. The ACC has to stay proactive as things fall out.

Anyway -- the comparison to the prisoner's dilemma in the linked article is really on point. Both the Pac 10 and Big Ten are likely better off not doing anything right now (other than maybe Big Ten adding Notre Dame). But the first one to make a move will have a clear advantage and could put the slow mover in a WORSE position than the status quo. If you ever took Professor Nou's (sp?) game theory class at Duke circa 1995, you know what the outcome of that means, unless there is cooperation between the Big Ten and Pac 10.

Kdogg
02-19-2010, 05:24 PM
Seems to me schools make these decisions based on how much money they can make from football, and if that is the case, no school is leaving the ACC for the Big East.

Same reason no school will leave the SEC willingly.

Kedsy
02-19-2010, 05:39 PM
As an example:

West Coast - Pac 10 plus Colorado, Texas Tech, Baylor, K-State, KU
Midwest - Big Ten plus Texas, Texas A&M, Mizzou, Iowa State, Notre Dame
South - SEC plus Oklahoma, Okie Light, Louisville, Florida St.
East - ACC (less FSU) plus Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, UConn and Rutgers

Out in the cold -- Cincy, USF (Cincy has ZERO alumni support and was an untouchable for the BCS bowls despite the auto-bid, USF is too new and little alumni support).

Unless my math skills have abandoned me, you only have 15 teams in the Pac 10 in your example. Which means there's also another team you've left out, which I think is Nebraska. Would they go in the Pac 10, too, as a companion for Colorado?

Also, it seems odd that FSU would bolt but Miami would stay in the ACC, doesn't it?

A-Tex Devil
02-19-2010, 05:53 PM
Unless my math skills have abandoned me, you only have 15 teams in the Pac 10 in your example. Which means there's also another team you've left out, which I think is Nebraska. Would they go in the Pac 10, too, as a companion for Colorado?

Also, it seems odd that FSU would bolt but Miami would stay in the ACC, doesn't it?

Meant to include Nebraska.

This is just an example, not meant as the most likely case. The SEC could just as well choose Miami or Ga Tech or Clemson over FSU. I picked FSU because of its yearly Florida game, it's relatively short time in the ACC (compared to Ga Tech and Clemson) and the fact that they have never historically been in the same conference as Miami (and only really played them annually beginning in the late 80s)

Frankly, if all this speculative craziness were to occur, the SEC could decide to stay at 14 and not take on anyone beyond OU and Ok St. If OU is out there for it to grab, though, the SEC will grab them up, and Ok. St. will be a packaged deal.

mgtr
02-19-2010, 06:13 PM
As an example:

West Coast - Pac 10 plus Colorado, Texas Tech, Baylor, K-State, KU
Midwest - Big Ten plus Texas, Texas A&M, Mizzou, Iowa State, Notre Dame
South - SEC plus Oklahoma, Okie Light, Louisville, Florida St.
East - ACC (less FSU) plus Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, UConn and Rutgers


I understand that these realignments would be driven by money and football (same thing for many schools), but the interesting thing for me would what a killer basketball conference the ACC would be. I could see them sending regularly 8-10 teams to the tourney.

RPS
02-19-2010, 06:34 PM
Anyway -- the comparison to the prisoner's dilemma in the linked article is really on point. Both the Pac 10 and Big Ten are likely better off not doing anything right now (other than maybe Big Ten adding Notre Dame). But the first one to make a move will have a clear advantage and could put the slow mover in a WORSE position than the status quo. If you ever took Professor Nou's (sp?) game theory class at Duke circa 1995, you know what the outcome of that means, unless there is cooperation between the Big Ten and Pac 10.Since my youngest plays football in the PAC-10 and I have talked to a number of prominent PAC-10 alums about this (and one AD too), I might have something to add.

1. Texas was much closer to moving to the PAC-10 the last time this issue was on the table than most people realize.

2. Most of the people involved believe that Texas and A&M have to stay together due to Texas politics (but Baylor and TT no longer). That hurts the Big T'Eleven's chances.

3. Texas would love to be linked academically with Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC and U-Dub.

4. The PAC-10's TV deal sucks and has to get better.

5. The PAC-10's new commissioner is charged with fixing the TV problem, looking at a conference TV network and considering expansion. See here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/collegesports/2011019280_pac09.html).

6. More importantly, the new commissioner brought in the former Big 12 commissioner as his deputy. Coincidence?

7. Football now demands a conference championship. Other options (Utah, BYU, Colorado) provide that but not an upgrade. Texas does.

8. PAC-10 football coaches would like a reduction in conference games from 9 to 8 in order to add another patsy and improve BCS status. Moving to 2 divisions would allow that.

The obstacles are still major (for reasons that others have mentioned), but I think the PAC-10 makes more sense for Texas than the Big T'Eleven does.

sagegrouse
02-19-2010, 06:36 PM
Having read all the posts above and contributed my own, would someone give me a rationale for a conference having more than 12 teams (except that Texas would insist on Texas A&M for a Big Ten move)?

sagegrouse

A-Tex Devil
02-19-2010, 07:16 PM
Having read all the posts above and contributed my own, would someone give me a rationale for a conference having more than 12 teams (except that Texas would insist on Texas A&M for a Big Ten move)?

sagegrouse

I am not necessarily a fan myself. That being said, I am not sure we know where the law of diminishing returns sets in. In fact, it is probably different for each conference.

The Big Ten adding ND, Texas and A&M (as an example) probably is a better move than the Pac 10 adding Texas, A&M, Colorado and Utah.

blueprofessor
02-21-2010, 01:34 PM
I am not necessarily a fan myself. That being said, I am not sure we know where the law of diminishing returns sets in. In fact, it is probably different for each conference.

The Big Ten adding ND, Texas and A&M (as an example) probably is a better move than the Pac 10 adding Texas, A&M, Colorado and Utah.

The Oklahoman's Berry Tramel:
The Big 12 is fine with Texas. Without Texas, it's every man for himself.
Also, the Big 10-11 expanding to the east coast for New York tv and cable business?

http://newsok.com/berry-tramel-texas-is-the-engine-that-powers-the-big-12/article/3441208?custom_click=lead_story_title

Best regards. Go, Blue Devils! Blueprofessor:)

G man
02-22-2010, 10:02 PM
You have to remember through all of this does Texas want to open its boarders to the big ten for recruiting that is a big deal. It is already heavily recruited by every big 12 team, western SEC schools, and eastern Pac 10 schools. Not to mention Houston, and TCU. These are all considerations that really do come into play. Texas already generates a ton of revenue as mentioned earlier in this thread. I cannot back this up, but I read some where that the extra money that Texas received from being in the Big 10 would be spent on traveling expenses up North. It just does not make as much sense as it would for Nebraska who does not get to play Oklahoma every year anymore and for Missouri who could use the extra cash. Nebraska's other big rival CU sucks so bad now they would be a good fit out in the Pac 10. With Nebraska and Missouri programs heading in the right direction it would make more sense for them to jump to the big ten. That being said Big ten would obviously rather have Texas or Oklahoma, but in the end I bet they get neither and will settle for a lesser program.

SoCalDukeFan
02-22-2010, 11:41 PM
I wish that the conferences and the NCAA would be as concerned with the student in student-athlete as they are in making money off the "student's" athletic achievement.

I fail to see how a conference championship game contributes to the academic life of the athlete. Obviously it contributes money to the schools and the NCAA.

SoCal

94duke
02-23-2010, 08:43 AM
Bingo. And much more eloquently put then me (and full disclosure -- I eat this stuff up. I LOVED the expansion debates re: the ACC 7 years ago). If you look at the 6 BCS football conferences, plus Notre Dame, that's 66 teams. Now to get REALLY speculative -- we start getting close to the four 16 team conferences that people have talked about in the past that can lead to a playoff while keeping that sweet BCS money among the power conferences. There is no playoff now because, as someone stated above, Alabama doesn't want to share the TV revenues with Utah St.

If the power conferences can form 4 16 team leagues, there is a built in 8 or 16 team playoff right there. The problem with this, though, is that the mid-atlantic/north atlantic conference (assuming there is some regionality at play) will be decidedly weaker in tradition, money and fanbase fpr football. And it is likely that Duke would be part of such a conference.

As an example:

West Coast - Pac 10 plus Colorado, Texas Tech, Baylor, K-State, KU
Midwest - Big Ten plus Texas, Texas A&M, Mizzou, Iowa State, Notre Dame
South - SEC plus Oklahoma, Okie Light, Louisville, Florida St.
East - ACC (less FSU) plus Pitt, Syracuse, WVU, UConn and Rutgers

Out in the cold -- Cincy, USF (Cincy has ZERO alumni support and was an untouchable for the BCS bowls despite the auto-bid, USF is too new and little alumni support).

But I think it could be even less -- I could see schools like Baylor, Texas Tech, Louisville, Iowa State and K-State also getting left out, with some conferences staying at 14.

Edited to add --- the scenario above where the Pac 10 is left with the option of picking up Tech and Baylor to fill out to 16 is why I think they might battle with the Big Televen over Texas and Texas A&M.

I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but I wanted to make a comment about the possibility of having 4 conferences with 16 teams. With 16 teams in a conference, we would be able to have a truly balanced schedule again. Each team could play every other team exactly one time for a 15 game schedule. So here is a question. Is a truly balanced schedule more desirable than having two games against a rival?

PumpkinFunk
02-23-2010, 09:13 AM
I'm a bit late to the party on this one, but I wanted to make a comment about the possibility of having 4 conferences with 16 teams. With 16 teams in a conference, we would be able to have a truly balanced schedule again. Each team could play every other team exactly one time for a 15 game schedule. So here is a question. Is a truly balanced schedule more desirable than having two games against a rival?

That's not a truly balanced schedule, because you get 8 home and 7 away or vice versa. 9 or 10 are the only ways to be able to truly balance - 16-game or 18-game home-and-home series with every team. Think old ACC or current Pac-10. No other conference has a balanced conference schedule like the Pac-10 does now.

G man
02-23-2010, 09:47 PM
Espn reported that Texas does not wish to leave the big twelve. So that ends Texas as a possible addition else where.

Kedsy
02-23-2010, 11:15 PM
Espn reported that Texas does not wish to leave the big twelve. So that ends Texas as a possible addition else where.

For the moment.

Jarhead
02-23-2010, 11:24 PM
Espn reported that Texas does not wish to leave the big twelve. So that ends Texas as a possible addition else where.

That's what I've thought. What a waste of time this tread has been when it takes just one post to debunk the whole premise..

G man
02-24-2010, 10:39 AM
That's what I've thought. What a waste of time this tread has been when it takes just one post to debunk the whole premise..

Not really we still have the possibilities of other big 12 teams jumping ship. I am not surprised about Texas the downsides trump the bonuses. Missouri could still leave or Nebraska, or even CU. Lets face it the big twelve north is lacking firepower. I am a husker fan and I recognize the north sucks. In regards to football it is like playing in the big east. Anyhow I hate the current alignment of the big 12 the Huskers don't get to play Oklahoma every year and Colorado sucks so I was kind of hoping for a little shake up. A shake up that included Nebraska going to the big 10. If texas had left it would have doomed the league Nebraska will not be missed near as much.

Kedsy
02-24-2010, 11:17 AM
Not really we still have the possibilities of other big 12 teams jumping ship. I am not surprised about Texas the downsides trump the bonuses. Missouri could still leave or Nebraska, or even CU. Lets face it the big twelve north is lacking firepower. I am a husker fan and I recognize the north sucks. In regards to football it is like playing in the big east. Anyhow I hate the current alignment of the big 12 the Huskers don't get to play Oklahoma every year and Colorado sucks so I was kind of hoping for a little shake up. A shake up that included Nebraska going to the big 10. If texas had left it would have doomed the league Nebraska will not be missed near as much.

Yeah, but that's the thing. If someone else leaves then Texas almost has to leave too, don't they? They're not going to sit tight in a league with no football playoff game, and the alternatives for replacing Nebraska with someone like Colorado State aren't particularly attractive.

hurleyfor3
02-24-2010, 01:05 PM
If the Pac 10 expands I'm going to miss the symmetrical arrangement of its teams (two in every state, pretending California is two states) and its basketball scheduling (which someone else can describe, but it's quite elegant). What other conference used to have some neat scheduling practices, including with its basketball tournament... oh yeah. Sigh.

Duvall
02-24-2010, 01:07 PM
If the Pac 10 expands I'm going to miss the symmetrical arrangement of its teams (two in every state, pretending California is two states) and its basketball scheduling (which someone else can describe, but it's quite elegant). What other conference used to have some neat scheduling practices, including with its basketball tournament... oh yeah. Sigh.

Unless the two teams they add are Utah and BYU.

hurleyfor3
02-24-2010, 01:08 PM
Unless the two teams they add are Utah and BYU.

Brilliant. U-Nevada and Unlv would work too. So would UT and A&M! Come to think of it, that's how they got from the Pac 8 to the Pac 10. They've got a lot of options as it turns out.

G man
02-24-2010, 01:08 PM
Yeah, but that's the thing. If someone else leaves then Texas almost has to leave too, don't they? They're not going to sit tight in a league with no football playoff game, and the alternatives for replacing Nebraska with someone like Colorado State aren't particularly attractive.

I do not think so they could get another team like a TCU instead of CSU. Maybe they could try and pry a SEC school (although I doubt it would be possible). I am just saying that I think things could get turned on its head still.

formerdukeathlete
02-24-2010, 04:38 PM
I do not think so they could get another team like a TCU instead of CSU. Maybe they could try and pry a SEC school (although I doubt it would be possible). I am just saying that I think things could get turned on its head still.

What if Pitt were the Big Ten choice? Rutgers and Syracuse provide more tv revenue, may provide more tv revenue. Pitt has better Football and Basketall programs than either New York market school and presumably some national appeal. That works into the equation. Were Pitt to go to the Big Ten, then the Big East picks up Central Florida, perhaps. The domino effect would be much less painful were it to go that way than were Nebraska to leave the Big 12.

The Big Ten office apparently is in no hurry. Pitt is in no hurry. Jamie Dimon would like to stay in the Big East. US News ranks Pitt more highly than Nebraska. Penn State's natural rivalry, etc.

The Pac Ten grabbing two more may cause a commotion. As long as a team does not leave the SEC, I think the ACC remains in tact.

A-Tex Devil
02-25-2010, 12:09 AM
That's what I've thought. What a waste of time this tread has been when it takes just one post to debunk the whole premise..

Lovely post...... . It's fun to think about for some people. It's not any more waste of time than any other thread on an internet message board. I mean what are we doing here if we aren't speculating. Let us have our fun.

And while I've always said the staus quo is best. It doesn't do Texas any good to say they WANT realignment. And they don't so long as things stay the same. But DeLoss Dodds comments don't get into at all what would happen if another Big XII team were to leave. If that happens, I still say all hell will break loose in the Big XII.

G man
02-25-2010, 01:47 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/351902-the-big-12s-manifest-destiny

A good read

jimsumner
02-25-2010, 02:03 PM
"Florida State joined the ACC in 1991, almost 60 years after the formation of the conference"

Nice to know that Bleacher Report uses the finest fact-checkers available/

formerdukeathlete
02-25-2010, 06:53 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/351902-the-big-12s-manifest-destiny

A good read

author of that bit loves the Big 12, so much so, that he suggests leapfrogging over SEC states 3 or 4 of them to land in Florida for media market exposure and quotes an about to expire ACC tv contract as the rationale, that Miami and Florida State are so ripe for the picking, that the Big 12 otherwise is so desirable that these schools would jump at the chance. And what about all that travel for Olympic Sports all the way over, etc., or the decline in the academic affiliation that Miami and FSU would enjoy by virtue of jumping at such an incredible offer?


Is there a Big Ten school really loving Nebraska at this point? Joe Pa / Penn State want Pitt, Syracuse, or Rutgers. Its also a faculty vote thing. Pitt has the largest endowment of the 3 Big East schools, is the highest ranked in US News among the Big East plus Nebraska, and the Big Ten barely wanted Penn State back when partly because they had a phys ed. major (no longer at this point). All this I think this favors a Big East team over Nebraska, all in.

Which suggests less disruption. Pretty soon we will know more. There was a leak that Pitt was it, which was later refuted. Where there is smoke....

G man
02-25-2010, 07:58 PM
Problem with Pitt is they already have part if not most of the football market with Penn State why add Pitt. I understand all the reasons you are making, but is it not really all about dollars. I would argue Mizzou would be the better choice that brings Missouri which give you St. Louis and Kansas city (not so much Kansas city due to the Jayhawks fans there), but that is a better market for them to chase.

G man
02-25-2010, 08:01 PM
In reality if they really want to get better as a conference to gain more recognition then Nebraska is a homerun. The huskers bring tradition and a descent fan base, heck Missouri is a much better football program than Pitt is. Pitt maybe in the upper echelon of teams in the big east, but they would get waxed in the Big 12 or the Big 10.

formerdukeathlete
02-26-2010, 02:00 PM
In reality if they really want to get better as a conference to gain more recognition then Nebraska is a homerun. The huskers bring tradition and a descent fan base, heck Missouri is a much better football program than Pitt is. Pitt maybe in the upper echelon of teams in the big east, but they would get waxed in the Big 12 or the Big 10.

This does not have to be a pro Pitt as the likely inivitee for the Big Ten.

Syracuse, an undermanned bottom of the league Big East Team, nearly beat, should have been beaten Minnesota, beat Northwestern, and gave Penn State a pretty good game. Nebraska and Missouri will have larger alumni bases, presumably, as large state universities, but they would lower the academic cache of the conference.

University of Missouri, with an 85% acceptance rate, is ranked 102. University of Nebraska is ranked 96 by US News in 2010.

This is a pretty far cry from Pitt, 56, Syracuse, 58 and Rutgers 66. Faculty of each existing Big Ten school must approve a new member of the Big Ten.

That may be what is going on - judging which school(s) will work in terms of the overall package, including basketball, national appeal, recent participation in the NCAA tourney.

Chicago 1995
02-26-2010, 02:46 PM
In reality if they really want to get better as a conference to gain more recognition then Nebraska is a homerun. The huskers bring tradition and a descent fan base, heck Missouri is a much better football program than Pitt is. Pitt maybe in the upper echelon of teams in the big east, but they would get waxed in the Big 12 or the Big 10.

First, in response to your post on the previous page about Texas reportedly not being interested, I have a couple of thoughts. One, Texas saying they aren't interested right now is a lot like seeing mid-season Ray Felton say he's coming back for his senior year. It's newsworthy that it is being said, but it doesn't mean a whole lot. Two, with credit to frankthetank for suggesting this at:

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/

Texas may have some reason they can't be the prime mover in realignment. Texas can't destroy the Big 12 themselves, but if someone else, say Colorado and the Pac 10, make the conference appear to be splintering, Texas can do what it needs to do to protect itself. It's more reason to not simply shut down discussion of Texas here simply because of the ESPN report you noted. I'd also note that the idea that travel expenses would be a problem is at least questionable, as addressed, also, by frankthetank.

Second, I think you are looking at this through the wrong angle. Big 10 expansion is only marginally about improving the on-the-field product. The conference certainly wants a school that can be competative in football and basketball, but that's not the most important consideration. The most important consideration is revenue generation, and what can be done to improve the Big 10s value and television footprint. With that in mind, Nebraska's not an attractive option at all. They really add very little to the Big 10 Network's subscriber base. That's one of the downsides of Pitt's candidacy. They do very little besides give the Big 10 a 12th team and a conference football championship. Mizzou's a better option, but it has enough overlap with the Big 10 footprint, I don't know how much they really add either.

As good as the on the field product is (and I'll concede that adding a good program will add to the television value to some extent) the real draw of adding Texas is all those TV sets in 4 of the nation's top 15 media markets. No one, not even ND's national following, comes close to that kind of added draw. Good sports programs are a benefit, but not necessary. TV sets are the more important metric, at least initially. If it comes down to the Big 10 picking from a bunch of small media markets, academics and atheltics will be more important concerns.

tommy
02-26-2010, 02:58 PM
Problem with Pitt is they already have part if not most of the football market with Penn State why add Pitt. I understand all the reasons you are making, but is it not really all about dollars.

Yes it is. It's about dollars generated by athletics as well as the ability to attract research dollars. Lots and lots of them.

G man
02-27-2010, 01:42 AM
I recognize the fact that most think Nebraska is a small market and it is not as big as Missouri, but everyone every Saturday from Des Moines to Greeley Colorado watches the Nebraska game. Nebraska is a better market than most people realize. Like I said before it is not the same as Missouri, but I bet you a hell of a lot more people watch Nebraska football than Pitt or Missouri. That being said I know the academics are not on par with the rest of the big 10, but I think everyone is forgetting how great the Huskers can be and what that means can you imagine a powerhouse husker team with the likes of Mich, Ohio State, and Penn State that gives them a lot more credit going forward. Lets face it the big ten has not been on the same level as the SEC, Big 12, or the Pac 10 for some time they could use a good football program.

Chicago 1995
03-01-2010, 01:04 PM
I recognize the fact that most think Nebraska is a small market and it is not as big as Missouri, but everyone every Saturday from Des Moines to Greeley Colorado watches the Nebraska game. Nebraska is a better market than most people realize. Like I said before it is not the same as Missouri, but I bet you a hell of a lot more people watch Nebraska football than Pitt or Missouri. That being said I know the academics are not on par with the rest of the big 10, but I think everyone is forgetting how great the Huskers can be and what that means can you imagine a powerhouse husker team with the likes of Mich, Ohio State, and Penn State that gives them a lot more credit going forward. Lets face it the big ten has not been on the same level as the SEC, Big 12, or the Pac 10 for some time they could use a good football program.

They did beat 4 top 15 teams in the bowls this year. And while they've lost the BCS games against the SEC, they've actually played the SEC pretty evenly in bowl games over the last 5 years.

Regardless, whether or not they "need" a good football program, that has nothing to do with the desire to expand. Revenue does. A mediocre program from a big TV market is a better expansion partner than Nebraska.

A-Tex Devil
03-01-2010, 01:18 PM
A mediocre program from a big TV market is a better expansion partner than Nebraska.

Bingo. If anything happens, Nebraska may be a tag along to the Big Ten or Pac Ten, but they aren't a target. While it's "all about football" it's also not "all about football." The Big Ten wants to add major research institutions and expand the resources of the already very strong CIC.

The more and more I think about this, the more I think we won't see anything happen until the Big XII and PAC Ten have to do their new TV deals. At that point, the Pac Ten may need to seriously consider adding a championship game to get a package that can at least be in earshot of the SEC and Big Ten deals. The Comcast/NBC merger and Comcast's desire to create a competitor network to ESPN that doesn't have the "federalist" regional weaknesses of Fox Sports will be a player in all this too.

Neither the Big Ten or the Pac Ten benefit from being the first mover at the 3 Big XII schools allegedly in play (Texas, Mizzou, CU). Additionally, Texas won't be the team that leaves the Big XII first. As mentioned before, it's a prisoners dilemma of sorts. The conference (Big Ten/Pac ten) to move first could end up getting the short end of the stick (no Texas) if the Big XII falls apart.

formerdukeathlete
03-01-2010, 03:17 PM
Bingo. If anything happens, Nebraska may be a tag along to the Big Ten or Pac Ten, but they aren't a target. While it's "all about football" it's also not "all about football." The Big Ten wants to add major research institutions and expand the resources of the already very strong CIC.

The more and more I think about this, the more I think we won't see anything happen until the Big XII and PAC Ten have to do their new TV deals. At that point, the Pac Ten may need to seriously consider adding a championship game to get a package that can at least be in earshot of the SEC and Big Ten deals. The Comcast/NBC merger and Comcast's desire to create a competitor network to ESPN that doesn't have the "federalist" regional weaknesses of Fox Sports will be a player in all this too.

Neither the Big Ten or the Pac Ten benefit from being the first mover at the 3 Big XII schools allegedly in play (Texas, Mizzou, CU). Additionally, Texas won't be the team that leaves the Big XII first. As mentioned before, it's a prisoners dilemma of sorts. The conference (Big Ten/Pac ten) to move first could end up getting the short end of the stick (no Texas) if the Big XII falls apart.

The Big 12 can and will get their tv revenue up.

The Pac 10 will invite both Utah and BYU to join the conference.

The Big 10-11 will invite Pitt.

This is how I think it plays out.

The Big 10-11 might go with Syracuse.

The Big East could go after Boston College.

If Pitt goes to the Big 10, the ACC might expand to 14 through inviting Syracuse and Rutgers.

Just dont see the Big 12 breaking apart, even though Nebraska and Missouri might be game....just wont pass the academic muster for the Big 10, and they dont offer the basketball programs of a Pitt or Syracuse.

It would be interesting to revisit this after it all goes down.

SoCalDukeFan
03-01-2010, 03:42 PM
that all this is being done so that the schools can make more money off of supposedly unpaid athlete-students.

SoCal

Chicago 1995
03-01-2010, 10:57 PM
The Big 12 can and will get their tv revenue up.

The Pac 10 will invite both Utah and BYU to join the conference.

The Big 10-11 will invite Pitt.

This is how I think it plays out.

The Big 10-11 might go with Syracuse.

The Big East could go after Boston College.

If Pitt goes to the Big 10, the ACC might expand to 14 through inviting Syracuse and Rutgers.

Just dont see the Big 12 breaking apart, even though Nebraska and Missouri might be game....just wont pass the academic muster for the Big 10, and they dont offer the basketball programs of a Pitt or Syracuse.

It would be interesting to revisit this after it all goes down.

Do you really think Cal-Berkeley is going to vote to issue an invitation to Brigham Young? And the Pac-10 requires unanimous support to extend an invitation.

Colorado's really interested, apparently, in the Pac-10. They make a lot more sense on every front than either BYU or Utah. It might be Utah with Colorado, but I think it's very, very unlikely that BYU gets an invite to the Pac-10.

G man
03-01-2010, 11:41 PM
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/350707-conference-realignment-and-the-birth-of-the-super-conferences

Another interesting piece

formerdukeathlete
03-02-2010, 03:46 PM
Do you really think Cal-Berkeley is going to vote to issue an invitation to Brigham Young? And the Pac-10 requires unanimous support to extend an invitation.

Colorado's really interested, apparently, in the Pac-10. They make a lot more sense on every front than either BYU or Utah. It might be Utah with Colorado, but I think it's very, very unlikely that BYU gets an invite to the Pac-10.

Re BYU, the idea of BYU and Utah joining as an outcome was presented to me by a Cal guy. From the standpoint of building a cable network, subscribers, based on region, splitting with two states makes more sense.

Rivalries bring viewership, eg. SEC Football, Pitt-Penn State, Duke - North Carolina, and with that bring tv revenue.

I believe the PAC 10 and ACC are exploring the possibility of a jointly sponsored cable network. UCLA and USC are pretty close to one another and cover the same geographic footprint. But, were the PAC 10 to say pick up Colorado or pick up a Big Ten school and let UCLA go, they probably lose money in the final equation. How far do you make college students travel to compete in games? There is somethng to be said for maintaining a regional geographic footprint - better rivalries and travel distances which are relatively sane.

A-Tex Devil
03-02-2010, 03:56 PM
Re BYU, the idea of BYU and Utah joining as an outcome was presented to me by a Cal guy. From the standpoint of building a cable network, subscribers, based on region, splitting with two states makes more sense.

Rivalries bring viewership, eg. SEC Football, Pitt-Penn State, Duke - North Carolina, and with that bring tv revenue.

I believe the PAC 10 and ACC are exploring the possibility of a jointly sponsored cable network. UCLA and USC are pretty close to one another and cover the same geographic footprint. But, were the PAC 10 to say pick up Colorado or pick up a Big Ten school and let UCLA go, they probably lose money in the final equation. How far do you make college students travel to compete in games? There is somethng to be said for maintaining a regional geographic footprint - better rivalries and travel distances which are relatively sane.

The problem with BYU going to any conference is that they won't play on Sundays. Virtually every sport except football has Sunday events. I am not sure the Pac 10 and I know the Big XII don't want to retool their long standing traditions where Sunday is a key part (e.g. conference basketball tourneys). This sounds like a minor issue, but it's not in the slightest.

blazindw
03-02-2010, 05:00 PM
The problem with BYU going to any conference is that they won't play on Sundays. Virtually every sport except football has Sunday events. I am not sure the Pac 10 and I know the Big XII don't want to retool their long standing traditions where Sunday is a key part (e.g. conference basketball tourneys). This sounds like a minor issue, but it's not in the slightest.

That can definitely be a big deal. I remember the "Jewish Jordan" Tamir Goodman when he was recruited by Maryland he had his policy that he wouldn't play on Saturdays because of the Sabbath. Maryland tried to get the ACC to give them no Saturday games for him, but the logistics were too hard. Goodman, of course, ended up not going to Maryland.

Newton_14
03-02-2010, 09:51 PM
No matter how this thing shakes out, and at the moment I am of the mind that it ends up being a simple change verses some drastic domino effect change, I wish for 2 things.

If I could be in charge for one day and make the rules, I would implement two hard and fast rules/

Rule 1- A conference may have no more than 12 teams. Period.
Rule 2- To be a conference member, each school must be Division I in all sports and compete as a member in the conference in all sports, men and women.

I realize there is no chance we ever see either rule in place, but the Big East is Exhibit A for what should not be allowed.

Having 16 schools is not a conference, it is like a separate league or something. Notre Dame has D1 FB and BB yet is allowed to have the BB team in the conference but be an Independent in FB. Seton Hall, St Johns, Georgetown, are members in basketball but don't even have D1 FB programs. It is crazy and to me, should not be allowed.

I do hope we never see the day where the ACC adds more teams or God forbid, has members that only participate in BB or FB but not both.

The media goes on and on about how many good basketball programs are in the Big East, but good grief, look how many teams they have. And although they have 8 or more really good basketball programs, scroll down to the bottom of the conference and look at how many horrible basketball programs they have as well.

Just my take but I think 12 should be the max and while that number is good for football, it ruins the basketball regular season by taking away the Round Robin. But I can at least live with 12 if they would tweak the rules and schedules to make the basketball schedules more balanced and fair to the teams.

But I digress.. rant over.. carry on with the good analysis of how this shake up will play out...

G man
03-04-2010, 05:16 PM
No matter how this thing shakes out, and at the moment I am of the mind that it ends up being a simple change verses some drastic domino effect change, I wish for 2 things.

If I could be in charge for one day and make the rules, I would implement two hard and fast rules/

Rule 1- A conference may have no more than 12 teams. Period.
Rule 2- To be a conference member, each school must be Division I in all sports and compete as a member in the conference in all sports, men and women.

I realize there is no chance we ever see either rule in place, but the Big East is Exhibit A for what should not be allowed.

Having 16 schools is not a conference, it is like a separate league or something. Notre Dame has D1 FB and BB yet is allowed to have the BB team in the conference but be an Independent in FB. Seton Hall, St Johns, Georgetown, are members in basketball but don't even have D1 FB programs. It is crazy and to me, should not be allowed.

I do hope we never see the day where the ACC adds more teams or God forbid, has members that only participate in BB or FB but not both.

The media goes on and on about how many good basketball programs are in the Big East, but good grief, look how many teams they have. And although they have 8 or more really good basketball programs, scroll down to the bottom of the conference and look at how many horrible basketball programs they have as well.

Just my take but I think 12 should be the max and while that number is good for football, it ruins the basketball regular season by taking away the Round Robin. But I can at least live with 12 if they would tweak the rules and schedules to make the basketball schedules more balanced and fair to the teams.

But I digress.. rant over.. carry on with the good analysis of how this shake up will play out...

Wow I could not agree more. This is a spot on assessment! If we truly want a playoff in football would it not be conducive to the environment for a balanced regional schedule. Were all the teams in the conference played each other in all sports. This allows for different schools to be better at different sports. I recognize it all comes down to revenue generated for the schools, but lets not loose the fun rivalries because the conferences are huge and engulf half of the continental United States