Whether the Pac-10 wanted it or not, it just stole a whole lot of headlines, no? I warned you that my post from last week could be debunked immediately. Chip Brown from orangebloods.com is reporting that the West Coast-based conference is looking to swallow half of the Big XII by inviting Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado. Please note that Mr. Brown is not a hack (unlike me) and was the former Texas beat writer for the Dallas Morning News, so don’t let the fact that this is originating from the Texas Rivals site fool you into thinking that this is standard message board fodder. Colorado’s AD has now stated that he believes that his school is getting a Pac-10 invite, which may or may not be an indication of more things to come (as CU has long been rumored to be the most likely Big XII school to end up in the Pac-10). For what it’s worth, Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott has issued a standard denial which no one on the interweb will believe unless/until nothing happens over the next few days.
Here’s what I’ve heard:
A source from a Big XII school other than Texas has stated to me that the main basis of this story is legit and it has known for several days that this proposal was on the table for the schools in question. A Texas A&M insider that runs the premium content on TexAgs.com also has stated that these invitations are forthcoming, with the Aggies (at least publicly) being wary of making the move. What’s extremely unclear is whether the Pac-10 is making these invites before it knows whether it’s receiving a “yes” answer from everyone. One would think that the Pac-10 isn’t going to be inviting Texas Tech unless it has been assured that Texas is coming along. This seems to be a contingent offer where everyone would need to sign on for it to happen and then official invites would be sent out.
The Big Ten not being interested in Nebraska, though, is the one piece of the article that doesn’t correlate with any of the information that I’ve received. My understanding is that Nebraska is a lock to be invited to the Big Ten. I have had multiple independent corroborations that the main substance of the infamous Northwestern message board rumor (which has disappeared from the Rivals site in the same manner as the missing minutes from the Watergate tapes) is correct, where the Big Ten’s intended invitees are Nebraska, Texas and Notre Dame. Now, things may have changed in the last couple of weeks, but if the Big Ten were to have to choose between Nebraska and Missouri, there is little doubt that it would take Nebraska. In fact, if a school needs to “break the seal” of causing an avalanche of schools to leave the Big XII, do not be surprised at all if Nebraska ends up being the first mover in all of this. I’ve received indications that Nebraska could be invited to the Big Ten quickly (possibly in the next week), where the conference would grant the school a fully vested revenue share (including a full stake in the Big Ten Network) in order to cover the higher Big XII exit fees for a 1-year notice period for leaving. This would allow the Huskers to begin Big Ten play for the 2011 football season. It could also set into motion something similar to what I had theoretically posed in the “Multi-Phase Big Ten Expansion: How to Build a Super Death Star Conference” post, where the Big Ten inviting Nebraska puts pressure on Texas to join. Now, that could ultimately just give Texas and other Big XII schools the political cover necessary to bolt to the Pac-10 en masse as rumored, but let me be clear on this one: THERE IS NO SCHOOL MORE LIKELY TO END UP IN THE BIG TEN THAN NEBRASKA.
There continues to be mixed messages about where Missouri stands in this process. Chip Brown stated in his article today (along with his previous articles) that the Big Ten has sincere interest in Missouri. However, I’ve received separate indications from people in positions in the know from Big Ten and Big XII schools that Missouri would be very unlikely to receive an invite. My understanding is that Missouri would probably need to have a 16-school Big Ten that has either Texas or Notre Dame in order to get invited. Otherwise, in a 14-school Big Ten scenario, Nebraska and Rutgers would be likely choices, with Syracuse getting the nod over Missouri. If neither Texas nor Notre Dame are in the fold for the Big Ten, then securing the New York City market specifically and an East Coast presence generally is going to be the only way that a multi-school expansion can work out financially for the conference. Please note that the Big Ten’s argument to move into the New York area is NOT about believing that Rutgers and Syracuse alone can deliver that market. Instead, it’s about the “penumbra effect” of combining those schools with the existing large Big Ten alumni bases in that market (particularly Penn State and Michigan) that could theoretically grab the area. Whether the Big Ten would pull the trigger on that move and if that would work remains to be seen.
That’s what I know. Now, here’s my general interpretation of everything:
I previously noted that one of the underrated players in this conference realignment process would be Texas Tech because, in reality, there are plenty of conferences that would gladly take A&M either alone or in order to get Texas but having to add Tech on top of that was an entirely different matter. Texas Tech got into the Big XII because of political willpower and it’s exactly the type of school that would need to lean on political protection again. Oklahoma State has a similar political relationship with Oklahoma with T. Boone Pickens as a benefactor, to boot. Well, I don’t believe that it’s an accident that this Pac-10 rumor includes both Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as opposed to, say, Kansas and Utah (who would be more desirable from an additional market perspective). On the one hand, the inclusion of those schools lends support to the validity of this story because it takes into account what might be politically necessary moves. On the other hand, with the unanimous vote requirement of the Pac-10 for expansion, is Stanford seriously voting in favor of inviting Texas Tech and Oklahoma State?! Seriously?!
The other thing that I don’t understand whatsoever, though, is if Texas has been pushing so hard for the Longhorn Sports Network and maximizing TV revenue, why it would choose joining an expanded Pac-10, which Brown’s article itself stated would only project to make a little less on a per school basis than each Big Ten and SEC school makes today guaranteed. Indeed, a couple of people connected to the Texas program have told me flat-out that the Big Ten and SEC (in that order) have been the primary choices for the school in this process because it knew that the Pac-10 could never match either financially in any scenario. Now, it’s fully possible (if not likely) that political factors became intertwined here and Texas simply couldn’t go to its prospective highest revenue home. This TV revenue issue along with how Standford could have been convinced to vote for Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are the two items that are holding me back from jumping on board with this rumor completely.
Regardless, while the situation for Missouri is somewhat worrisome, it’s completely rosy compared to Kansas. I don’t believe that a Big Ten invite is forthcoming for the Jayhawks, the school might be shackled to Kansas State for political purposes if it tries to move by itself and it doesn’t help that the school is in the middle of an embarrassing ticket scalping scandal. It’s hard for me to believe that Kansas could end up with the leftovers of the Big XII in a Frankenstein league with some current MWC and WAC members, but it’s a very real possibility if this rumor is true.
Finally, the seismic shift that Jack Swarbrick had stated that would force Notre Dame to join a conference might be coming. I have long been a skeptic that we would see 4 16-team superconferences so quickly, but this type of move by the Pac-10 would start an immediate shift of massive proportions. So, if the Big Ten doesn’t end up with Texas but Notre Dame finally ends up joining, then maybe it really is mission accomplished for Jim Delany. We might be going back to the traditional “Big Ten adds Notre Dame/Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Syracuse” rumors as opposed to a Southern demographic shift, yet at least we might be finally getting some closure on this issue sooner rather than later. UT President Bill Powers is supposed to have a press conference with Big XII Commissioner Dan Beebe tomorrow, which should be extremely entertaining for all of us expansion junkies.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from Be a Longhorn)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hawkeyes national champs.
LikeLike
Not once they get Nebraska on the conference schedule.
LikeLike
Iowa and Nebraska would be a great game every year.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
multiplying
LikeLike
Frank; this just got off the press while you were posting that. I put it on the previous post, but since we’re moving here I brought it over.
suzhalliburton (twitter)
“CU AD is backing off his statement about Pac 10-Big 12 expansion story. It’s getting crazy here in Kansas City. 36 minutes ago via web”
And an article accompanying: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2010/06/03/no_pac_10_expan.html
Key point: “The athletic directors from A&M, Oklahoma and Tech said their schools have not been contacted by the Pac 10. Longhorns athletics director DeLoss Dodds had a plane to catch to Austin and deferred comment to school president Bill Powers.”
LikeLike
If true, this could move things ahead a lot sooner than the “deliberate” study phase of 12-18 months suggested by Delany.
And set wheels in motion for the SEC and perhaps even the ACC? to decide whether and if so how they want to expand.
If this rumor is true in whole or part, is it possible that while the Big 10 has been sitting around brainstorming about Texas, A&M, UMD, UVA, Vanderbilt, the Pac 10 has been negotiating with Texas to create a package based on inclusion of regional schools????
These schools didn’t come out of thin air; clearly the Pac 10 wants Colorado and Texas; beyond that these other schools had to have been discussed with Texas at length.
Interesting the Colorado AD and now the other ADs have said they have not been contacted by the Pac 10.
Which presumably means Texas has been playing the key role and this is clearly a package deal that requires Texas and was suggested by Texas.
Time will tell.
LikeLike
Or…
the PAC10 knows that Texas is ready to go to the Big 10 without a dance partner. So, to put some pressure on them politically, they are offering (and I can’t believe Stanford and Cal would accept!) the “big 3” Texas schools a supposed lifeline out of the BIg 12, all together in one package. If Texas says NO, which I think they’d like to, then politically there could be some angry folks around Texas…OU and OkSt fans who will blame UT for breaking up the nucleus of the Big 12 South…TTech fans for leaving them without a home. And aTm fans for breaking up the dynamic duo. (By “fans” I mean everyone connected to those schools)
And after all, it’s just a “rumor”…so again, this is the perfect political pressure move by the PAC10.
LikeLike
Re “Or” (allthatyoucanleavebehind)
If this is simply a deliberate rumor by the Pac 10 as you suggest and there is no follow-up, then not sure what has been achieved by Pac 10.
The Pac 10 Commissioner could get into a lot of trouble if the Pac 10 Presidents aren’t on board.
Floating a proposal as a “trial balloon” offering Tech and OSU and even OK without a consensus would seem to be a good way of creating chaos at the upcoming PAC 10 meeting.
And then there is the comment by I believe the California Chancellor who said he expected a revolutionary development which this certainly would be.
If this offer is real, then I would believe (as an outsider) Texas would want to seriously consider the offer “unless Texas prefers to go to the Big 10 with Nebraska and perhaps another school like A&M. And if A&M doesn’t want to go the Big 10 but prefers the SEC whose fault would that be?
Yet here Texas would be going with 5 regional schools. And I believe the Texas President has publically said including Tech and A&M would be important and here OK is included as well.
Clearly this rumored offer has Texas written all over it. Could the Pac 10 offer anything more?
So it will be interesting to see what happens next.
LikeLike
Gravy!
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
adding again.
LikeLike
add. 200 comments already? really? I hit the bars for about 3 hours and this is what I come back to. None of you can be trusted.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Adding again
LikeLike
The Nebraska stuff is music to my ears, Frank. At this point it seems if you’re connected to Texas, trashing Nebraska’s chances of getting into the Big Ten is par for the course.
LikeLike
Could it be that the pupil has schooled the master? Scott vs. Delaney – opening shot fired. I have to believe that Delaney will respond in kind…but taking Tech might be too much to swallow.
LikeLike
If the Pac-10, A&M and the other Big XII schools allow Texas to have a Longhorn Network to futher make the playing field uneven, I think everyone will live to regret it. If that’s the deal, the Big Ten would be better off without Texas.
LikeLike
agree. love to have TX, but if they are determined to start their own network, they do not fit in the B11.
LikeLike
Read this on how Texas can have the Longhorn Network and be in the Big 10.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=5999773
LikeLike
That is a remarkable idea. There would definitely be a need to make all the additional content available. The only downside is the already spread thin talent pool. It may be unbearable to have the volume on when watching the games.
LikeLike
From what I’ve read, this is supposed to be an “all in” offer, meaning UT would forego their own network–they would have to for the cable deal to work. Now, why they are willing to do this for the Pac 10 but not the Big XII is a real mystery to me. Could it be that they aren’t as attached to this network as we have been led to believe? Maybe other Big XII schools have been the hold.
A&M AD Bill Byrne said last week that it wasn’t just Texas that voted down a Big XII network several years ago–he also fingered Nebraska and Kansas. Nebraska actually makes decent money from PPV, and may not have wanted to share any of that money and/or doubted the viability of the cable channel. Kansas may be an even more interesting case. I saw some discussion on the KU board which indicated to me that IMG has a contract with KU for all their media, radio for fotball and basketball, but more importantly, TV for basketball, and that may have been a sticking point for them. If KU had to forego several million in local TV revenue, then I could see why they initially voted against a league wide cable channel. But, if that decision utlimately left them in the college athletics version of Gilligan’s Island, it would only be fitting.
LikeLike
I have already posted these comments on the last board but since I think they are pertinent and may be interesting to you, I am duplicating the post.
I have been on the Aggie boards for a great deal of time today and I have cut and pasted a lot of random remarks made by a great many very well informed Aggie people. Hope you enjoy the comments.
“”””Re: A&M in the middle of re-alignment talks Reply
A&M and OU need to stand together to prevent Texas from getting it’s own network. No team in a conference should be allowed to have their own network and if some conference is willing to kiss tu’s butt and allow them to do it, A&M and OU should not join that conference and vow to never play Texas in any sports so long as they have their own network.
Would Texas be willing to lose their biggest rivals for their own network and a little more money? Byrne sure seems to be alluding to this. It’s a good threat so long as OU is in the same camp as he is. What good would a Texas network be if they only played crappy teams.
Posted by MEDIA GUY
This is a hot button issue. Texas really wants to be the first to have one. A&M does not want Texas to have one. I know. I have spent many, many hours discussing the topic with Bill in his office and with DeLoss and Chris in theirs. This is the hottest of hot button issues.
Tarp, their only chance to have a network is if the Big 12 continues to exist.
I should restate my previous post by stating if tu gets their own network, we are not going to be in the same conference.
A&M might not have any influence over it but we should not join a conference with them if they get their own network. Why in the hell would the PAC-10 agree to this? They’re not desperate. Like I said before, A&M and OU need to stand together on this. If Texas joins the PAC-10 and gets it’s own network, then A&M and OU need to bolt to the SEC and not play Texas anymore. And Texas fans can talk all they want about who cares about OU and A&M but losing those rivalries along with Arkansas years ago will leave them with nothing but a network and meaningless football games. They can end up like ND for all I care and schedule the service academies in their place.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
A&M & OU can and will pursue their own best interests here. Playing second fiddle to tu in the Pac 10 East while they get their own network and we get whatever time slot is left on channel 924 won’t fly with either program.
MEDIA GUY
That’s exactly what ESPN did — but they did it with a carrot…a big financial number and the contractual promise of significantly increased exposure on ESPN (which has immense non-financial value relative to the mediocre exposure the Big Ten gets on BTN or, worse, the abysmal exposure (and poor remuneration) the Pac-10 and the Big 12 get on FSN/CSN).
However, the SEC was able to negotiate for the contractual right to re-open the contract in the event of conference expansion. The SEC, essentially, got an option to put the contract back to ESPN. How you like dem apples?
As of right now, the A&M people are contemplating what is best, PAC-10 or SEC. This means, in my personal analysis, the first threshold question, is the Big 12 viable, has been answered no.
Also, Byrne seems to be the type where his words to the press usually provide no clue as to his true intention, but his travel usually does.
Here’s what mediaguy himself had to say on another thread:
“If I had to guess, I think A&M, UT and OU are all headed to the Pac-10 and the issue now is 3rd tier rights and what reverts to conference control. That’s what precipitated Bill’s comments.”
Tarp
LikeLike
Wait, what, huh? Someone other than Nebraska and Missouri might be disgruntled with Texas? I’ve been led to believe that this would be impossible.
LikeLike
@Wes – Good stuff. Thanks for posting. It comes back to what I’m trying to figure out about Texas. If the Longhorn Sports Network is so important to Texas, yet the Pac-10 won’t give it to them (since it makes little sense to do so if the Pac-10 wants to start its own network), then why would Texas join the Pac-10 instead of the Big Ten or SEC, who would each provide a ton more TV revenue compared to the projected dollars of this Pac-16 proposal?
LikeLike
If the Longhorn Sports Network is so important to Texas, yet the Pac-10 won’t give it to them (since it makes little sense to do so if the Pac-10 wants to start its own network)
My impression of the leaks is that TX would be allowed to have some form of the LSN. Isn’t that the sticking point for aTm regarding the P16 proposal?
There are ways to compromise and integrate the LSN (and potential USCN, UCLAN, etc.) with a PTN.
Seems like a lot of things declared as “seems unlikely/impossible” are being considered. Such as Stanford and the P10 would never consider school X, why on earth would Texas do any favors for OU and bring them along, Texas and aTm couldn’t split, etc.
LikeLike
Well, if they’re not joining for money, they’re joining for political reasons. Either way, I think we can start the taps on the end of the BXII.
LikeLike
As an OU guy I can confirm, that the Longhorn Sports Network is a huge issue for Oklahoma.
OU wants no part of a conference where UT gets the LSN.
There is an assumption that OU and A&M would just go along and follow UT. That assumption is not sitting well at OU or A&M it appears.
I still believe OU is an SEC school….but the rub there is the road to a division championship, and a conference championship is MUCH easier in this new Pac 16 than the SEC where they tend to eat their young.
LikeLike
Re Oklahoma and SEC (Redhawk)
What chance would Oklahoma State have to get invited to SEC? Wouldn’t that be a factor for OK?
Also, if this rumor is true, wouldn’t OK want to be part of a conference that includes the Texas schools along with the AZ schools in combination with the Pac 10 if A&M signed on?
LikeLike
I was one that repeated that OU and OSU were legally tied to each other. That’s actually not true it turns out.
They (OU and OSU) are only tied in the fact that the final signature is the Governor. They don’t even go through the legislature, and they are separate systems.
What chance for OSU in the SEC? I think they could get an invite WITH OU…but not with out. They had a long series with Arkansas for years.
It’s no secret that the SEC wants into the Texas market. Who doesn’t? OU and A&M would get the SEC into Texas. It would also get both schools out from under the shadow of UT.
Now…would Stanford vote yes on OSU in the Pac-16 if OU didn’t come? UT maybe tied to Tech…but they aren’t tied to OSU except in travel partner/area team.
LikeLike
Wes (and other Longhorns or Aggies),
Do you agree with the part in the Rivals article about A&M and UT not playing each other if they were in separate conferences?
I was under the impression that keeping the UT / A&M football game as a season ending non-conference game was important to both schools if they split up.
LikeLike
If the administrations stay on good terms they will play in all sports.
If there is real acrimony when the break up happens one side may threaten to break off the series, but I would expect politicians to get involved at that point. In fact, I would expect more political uproar over the ending of the UT/A&M rivalry than Texas Tech and Baylor getting left behind.
LikeLike
Agreed. I think the talk is bluster.
LikeLike
Thanks! It seemed a real stretch to me. I think of Iowa-Iowa St and Colorado-Colorado St as examples where the two big schools in the same state almost have to play each other non-conference in not only football but probably a lot of sports.
LikeLike
No one really knows what the decision makers have in mind. The problem with keeping the game is the number of games required to play in each of the new conferences and trying to get no-names to play at either Austin or College Station. With six or seven games wiht the sub-conference opponents and another one or two games with the other sub-conference teams, how many chances are really left to play this game. Both programs make money by bringing in a Rice, ULa-La, North Texas, Sam Houston State, and such to play at the home fields.
The problem would be compounded for Texas if both OU and A&M were to bolt for another conference. How will Texas play the Red River Shootout and the Thanksgiving games year in, year out? The Longhorns will want some home games and the RSS is in Dallas and the game with the Aggies would be rotated yearly.
LikeLike
http://blog.ai.com/solomon/2010/06/sec_reacts_to_pac-10_expansion.html
SEC point of view. Further down, Slive talks about how valuable the local networks are in the SEC. Article mentions the LSN would be mostly non-revenue sports and coaches shows.
That’s the hard part for me. Understanding how one schools non-rev TV channel could generate a lot of $. And generate enough to threaten OU or A&M. Coaches shows traditionally are late night TV with low $ advertisers. They were basically set up to supplement coaches salaries, not to generate funds for the athletic department.
The market must have changed. Slive is saying that you can’t compare conference $ without considering that, implying that the SEC is much better off than the $17 million figure would indicate.
LikeLike
Bullet..
interesting point..
Years ago Host Communications did most of the NCAA work and they were based in Lexington, KY (I always thought when the NCAA moved to Indy, there was a part that was based on the business with Host). I think Host got bought by Bull Run, and is now IMG (the rep for Texas @ Austin).
It seems like years ago it was in the press in Cincy and Louisville how big the deal was for UK basketball and that Host had the rights. Fast forward, and the comment someone on here made about the SEC getting 17 Million or so per school, but there being added revenue. Host
Frank, the guy that was helping with the media numbers a few months ago.. can he do some follow up on the value of these added side deals.. and how it affects the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10, and SEC? We may be missing a key part of the equation here.
IMG is a private company which means much can be hidden, but being based in NYC now it could be driving some discussions we are not privy to see.
If the SEC schools are getting much more than 17 Million per team, it can change some decision making.
just an observation….
LikeLike
If the scenario is true and comes to pass, the Big12 dissolves in essence, it might remain in name, but it will not be “a collection of MWC and WAC teams” it will be the MWC in total with 4-5 of the big 12 leftovers unless those leftovers don’t include Kansas, Nebraska or Mizzou – The MWC with Boise will be stronger than K-State, Baylor and Iowa State. The MWC would emerge from this in a buyers market and could end up at 14 or 16 as a pretty damn solid conference, if they no longer have the nameplate MWC or not.
LikeLike
@Monty – It’s certainly possible. Plus, the MWC has its own network (albeit in a traditional rights fee structure with CBS as opposed to an equity stake like the Big Ten).
LikeLike
I agree. The MWC conference actually might gain the most by the destruction of the Big XII if it helps them secure the AQ status they’ve been after.
LikeLike
If you mean MWC conference teams, then sure. Otherwise, I can only see the top MWC teams jumping to the BXII because of the BXII’s AQ status. IT makes no sense that an MWC team would stay in that conference and hope that they “earn” the AQ status based on the ridiculous BCS formula we saw earlier this year for earning AQ by conference. They’d be much better off joining a conf that already has that status permanently.
LikeLike
@Frank I think the mtn. is a Comcast network. Go to http://www.comcastsportsnet.com and you’ll find a link to the mtn.
LikeLike
I posted in the last thread that the B12 leftovers have enough votes (4) to block dissolving the conference and keep the name and AQ. They can then invite the entire MWC plus Boise State and come out stronger than the Big East.
LikeLike
Dissolution of a Delaware Corp only requires a majority vote. If the Pac 10 rumors come to fruition, the conference will dissolve.
LikeLike
I’m sorry. I must have missed this before. The BXII is a Delaware Corp?
LikeLike
Well conferences are not, strictly speaking, corporations. It is a contractual relationship among universities. If Stanford balked at the Big 12 six-pack, the conference could theoretically break up, with the pro six-pack schools setting up a new conference (subject only to whatever exit penalties there might be in the Pac 10 agreement). The problem of course is that the Tournament of Roses is contracted with the Pac 10 to invite its champion to the Rose Bowl Game. It is hard to see the pro six-pack schools (USC among them) splitting off to form a new conference without the Rose Bowl tie.
LikeLike
So I haven’t checked out the Charter and Articles of Incorporation, but I’m fairly certain the Big XII is a Delaware Not-for-Profit Corporation just as the Big Ten is.
For example, in the Big XII bylaws, there is this section on the Conference Seal: “The Conference shall have a circular corporate seal which shall have inscribed
around the circumference thereof the words “The Big 12 Conference, Inc.” and
elsewhere thereon shall bear the words “Corporate Seal” and the word “Delaware.””
Just like any group of stakeholders use corporate structure to ensure long-term commitment and continuity, conferences are set up the same way.
LikeLike
Will you are correct.
LikeLike
You were wrong in the other thread, and wrong now. If the remaining Big XII schools issued invites, they wouldn’t ask Wyoming or Air Force. That would be suicidal. They would rely on the Big XII name as the drawing card, and pick-and-choose who to invite.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the Big XII brand name is all that valuable, as it has only been around since 1996 or so. The lure of the Big XII, I think, is the link to the conference’s high-profile schools — Nebraska, Kansas, OU, Texas & aTm — which will be much diminished when any of those schools split.
LikeLike
While the MWC might move as a group, it’s really easy to see schools like Wyoming, San Diego State, and Air Force getting passed over and Fresno State, Houston, and Memphis getting in. Also, if the Big East gets some losses, Louisville and Cincinnati might be willing to join.
LikeLike
Over the last few months I’ve put various scenarios to paper. If the P10, B10+, SEC, ACC, and the Axis of Leftovers go to 16, there actually may be room for most or all of the MWC schools. Memphis is probably in the most danger of getting left out.
LikeLike
I don’t see those teams being left out and a school like SDSU has been abysmal (or worse) in football but has a lot going for it in terms of being in socal (recruiting and 3 million possible tv sets), has a top 50 bball program and has made huge strides in academics. The top 3 (tcu, byu, utah) + soon to be added boise might leave (though I think that is doubtful) but picking and choosing a couple schools from the bottom I don’t think is an option right now. WYO is considered pretty connected to the other “gang of 5” that started the MWC so they likely won’t be jettisoned, and Air Force is pretty solid and unique so they aren’t going anywhere.
The MWC will likely find themselves stronger, though, the other 4 conferences will have continued to move farther and farther away while the WACs, Sun Belts, et al will have fully fallen out of even the lower middle class.
LikeLike
Added
LikeLike
I, for one, am hotly anticipating the first Oklahoma/Nebraska Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
I didn’t even think about that. That would be amazing.
LikeLike
@loki_the_bubba – That might be the most awesome hypothetical ever.
LikeLike
Better than Rutgers-Arizona?
LikeLike
Rutgers-Texas Tech!
LikeLike
Can I still throw oranges on the field?
LikeLike
Wow, the Rose Bowl committee would sound like the Cotton Bowl officials when UHou came to town…
LikeLike
One year when UHou won the SWC, someone leaked the comments of a Cotton Bowl official. Something about when UHou fans come to town they’ll dine at the 7-11’s or rob them.
LikeLike
“On the day of the game their fans drive up and eat at 7-Elevens or rob them.”
LikeLike
Funny you should mention a NU/OK Rosebowl. Iwas thinking myself that Texas A&M should go along with CU to the Pac 10. A more interesting game for texans might be a Texas Texas A&M Rose bowl. I find this a much better reasn to leave the BigXII as it creates Rose bowl possibilities for each and both.
LikeLike
Great post Frank! Tough to wrangle all of the individual pillars of smoke to put together a picture of the fire.
I have had a thought recently that the BIG 10 / PAC 10 / FOX SPORTS may be actively trying to come up with the best solution for everyone possible. If Texas and A&M went to the BIG 10, the PAC 10 would be left with slim pickings. If they go west, and the BIG 10 gets Notre Dame / Nebraska it appears to put a maximum value on the combination of BTN and PTN to the joy of Fox Sports. Then shop the 2 networks as a package to cable providers and you get 2 basically national products. TV markets are important until you get to a National distribution…. then it’s big dollars!!!
LikeLike
That’s certainly plausible if the Big Ten can lock down NYC like your numbers indicated.
LikeLike
I have had a thought recently that the BIG 10 / PAC 10 / FOX SPORTS may be actively trying to come up with the best solution for everyone possible.
Sounds very plausible.
LikeLike
eggs
LikeLike
This just ends the (not so) Silent Phase, and begins the Scramble Phase.
I would be shocked if Texas, the Big 10+, and ND were not talking tonight and tomorrow.
I would not be shocked to see ND end up in the ACC instead of the B16.
Likely several surprises ahead.
We probably end up with 5 BCS (or equivalent) conferences, not 4×64. 64 leaves out too many teams in too many politically influential states. 5 fits a 4 BCS bowl format nicely (P16 plays B16 for the Rose, every other BCS conference gets its own affiliated bowl to play wildcards.) So somewhere between 73 and 80 BCS conference teams in West (P16), South (SEC), East (ACC), North (B16), and Central (B12/MWC/WAC/BEast leftover mishmash.) Central will be far poorer, but probably a top 3 conference on average in the football polls. The hungry misfits of the ROTN conference (Revenge of the Nerds.) No explicit pull away from the NCAA into a D1-$$, but rather more subtle monetary separations in the new contracts.
LikeLike
Should clarify: P16 is not a given. P10 and ACC could end up with just 12 schools.
LikeLike
I love this move by the Pac-10, if it is true. I still think swapping Kansas for Texas Tech is even better, but Texas calls the shots.
As for Stanford? Get over yourself.
As for the Big 10… this nibbling at all corners may end up costing them. Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers is a strikeout compared to the Pac-10 adding Texas, Oklahoma, and A&M. I don’t care how much more money Rutgers so-called NY ties will add, that’s a loss on all three schools. Frankly, those three schools are closer to Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, and Colorado, right?
LikeLike
I agree.
Only the ‘leaked’ NW memo (ND, UT, UN) offered an exciting scenario for the Big Ten.
A Rutgers, Syracuse etc. move will be a disgrace (though I’m sure Bo and Woody would have loved it). ND, NEB and one other ‘mystery’ team’ wouldn’t be too bad, but please don’t delute the Big Ten in a determination to get to 16.
If this rumor is true, which I’m not convinced it is, the Big Ten should hang their heads in shame for spending the last three weeks tooting their own horns instead of closing the deal.
LikeLike
May be exciting, but you have to be careful what you wish for. As I posted before, the BE is too strong a bb conference and a lot of schools have suffered. Baylor used political pull to force their way into B12 and a very solid program (easily 4th best in SWC despite what TCU fans say) became a cellar dweller. Having 6 of the top 9 all time winning programs in a 14 team league could be bad for most of the league.
LikeLike
this nibbling at all corners may end up costing them
If the rumor is true, could one call this allowing the pursuit of the perfect to sacrifice the obtainment of the good?
LikeLike
yes. dammit. yes. Amazing how the euphoria and intrigue of the unknown quickly gives way to the terror and dread of the possibly known.
LikeLike
If this report is true and the schools accept the offer, the only thing the Big 10 has lost is the Texas schools (unless Colorado was an actual target).
If they’ve already given the Texas schools their best offer, all they can do is shrug and move on to their next candidates.
Of course, if they’ve been holding back their best offer, now would be the time to put it out there.
LikeLike
How about giving them their 22Mil upfront AND a 5Mil sweetener to pay a leavening fee if there is one from the B12. That’s like giving a girl a diamond ring and a new house on the same day. If they can do this without a Tech, A &M tie up, they are so outa there. Arriving in the league with Nebraska means they wil still have someone from the old neighborhood to ad familiarity and an instant rivalry en route to MIch, Penn St and Ohio State. That’s a lot of air time. And it’s mostly on central time opposed to Cali-time.
LikeLike
In fairness…I can’t help but think a 6 school expansion such as this would be the end of the Pac10.
Sure it’ll get some revenue, sure it will last for a while, but in a couple decades I could see the same disparate views and ties to regionality causing schisms in the conference just as the Big12 enjoys now.
And maybe in comparison to this a “boring” expansion of Nebraska, Mizzou, Rutgers, etc could easily be described as a “complete failure”, but 50 years from now and the Big10 is still around and operating with teams that share similar goals and ideals and the Pac10 SWC Division is starting to look to bail out how much of a home run would it be then?
Hell, maybe I’m seeing ghosts and shadows, but I really think the Pac10 is biting down on a poison pill if they go with this expansion.
LikeLike
this is looking like an absolute reprise of the swc/big 8 fiasco. just shifted west.
LikeLike
well, and with two more bags, of course.
LikeLike
How is this any worse than the Big 10 inviting schools from the Big 12 (lower midwest), Big East (northeast), ACC (south/east), or SEC (southeast)?
If the Big 10 is supposed to sell its soul to go to Florida or Texas or New England/NY… why can’t the Pac-10 do the same?
LikeLike
It’s different because there are 6 teams being added, all from the same section of the country, with a completely different culture than the 10 PAC 10 schools…..all of the added teams will be in the same division…If the Big 10 was actually going to invite 5 teams, all from the Big 12, it would be similiar. I’ve never thought that would happen.
LikeLike
I agree with mushroomgod (for once!)
Schools like Rutgers, Mizzou, and Nebraska (and to a lesser extent, probably Pitt and Syracuse) have made it pretty clear they are buying what the Big Ten is selling; no questions asked. These schools would jump at any scenario that had them in The Big Ten, whether it was as #12, as a regional bloc, or as the sole school from their region (such as Nebraska as the only western addition, the rest from ND, Big East, and ACC).
If Vandy decided to join the Big Ten, I don’t see any of the Big XII type issues disturbing them.
I have heard gripes from ACC schools about the conference being centered around UNC and Duke basketball, but I don’t think that would be a problem in the Big Ten. There aren’t two schools that dominate the conference politically, or in basketball. You could argue that M and OSU dominate in football historically, but I don’t see that affecting the ACC schools that might join.
LikeLike
Personally I think this rumor is bogus, but it seems to have at least touched a nerve. Best case scenario is that it convinces texas that the big xii is a sinking ship and gives political cover for them to “react” and not have to be the first mover.
If it is true then every single report discussing the PAC 10s options has been completely wrong on every level. Remember when we thought Utah might be academically marginal? Oklahoma state makes Utah look like Berkeley.
LikeLike
The thing is…. suppose Texas Tech and Oklahoma St. join the Pac 10…. how does this negatively impact Stanford and Cal?
What candidate in their right mind is going to opt against those schools because their sports teams are aligned with inferior schools??? Who makes decisions like that? “I’d love to go to Stanford, but since Oklahoma St. is in the Pac 10, I am going to M.I.T.”
It’s all bullcrap. Academics is academics and Stanford is always going to be awesome. Athletics is athletics and Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech are worth it to keep the athletic departments thriving. Money will increase.
Where is the downside???
LikeLike
@ezdozen
I understand the “what does it matter academically which conference my university plays sports in” perspective, but in past stanford rejected Texas and tried to reject ua and asu, all better schools than some of those those suggested now. Accepting this arrangement even under duress would be major shift.
LikeLike
Or maybe schools just think about it and come to the new conclusion of “what does it matter?”
Or maybe the dollars in the past were such that adding a school meant less money in the very near future (dividing the pie further)… whereas now… adding schools seems to be a way to increase money (expanding the pie).
LikeLike
A similar Pac 16 plan with 5 or 6 Big 12 teams was discussed on a Cal message board a few weeks back. A large number of Cal fans had the opinion “if Stanfurd turned down an opportunity to get Texas into the Pac again, f*** them. They can go form Ivy League west and play Caltech, Claremont, Reed and Pomona in athletics.”
And from this Cal alum’s perspective, this plan is a good one. Yes, having Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech in the Pac is not ideal from an academic perspective, but as others have pointed out, the Pac 10 is limited in its options.
LikeLike
I checked out a few Pac 10 message boards this afternoon, expecting to see a lot of negative pushback at adding a bunch of Texas schools. I was surprised to see near-unanimous support for the rumored plan.
Alas, I did not visit a Stanford message board.
LikeLike
You probably didn’t find one with lots of activity. I go to thebootleg.com when I want to check up on my rivals. I checked it for a thread. They have one, but it has one response and that response is about lamenting what will happen to the smaller schools when the superconferences form.
LikeLike
The problem is athletics is the face of the conference. For a long time the SEC was considered a conference of bad schools rife with cheating where academics took a back seat to athletics. While this was patently untrue for most of the schools (several schools especially) the fact is that was the perception and in many cases percetption is relaity.
A FSU chancellor (I think it was) mentioned how joining the ACC opened avenues for the university because of the perceived “step up” in academics. Facts are the university is SUPPOSED to be about academics and while Stanford may go a little overboard on its desire for academic equals, I think its worries about being associated with poorer performing schools are well founded.
Again, we sports fans like to exist in a vacuum where the air is made of football (and sports close behind). The problem is the universities have to live in a completely different world. One which academics is equally as important, if not more so, than athletics.
LikeLike
Congrats on an excellent post. Also if the term “perception” sounds subjective and weak, try “brand management.” Superior brands do not want to be associated with inferior brands, unless strict rules are established and enforced to manage the impact of the relationship on the brand image. Sorry if it sounds elitist. In one sense, it is and it is a good thing.
LikeLike
I have trouble believing that the Pac-10 would extend these offers without confirming they would get the ten “yes” votes. So the question is, did the Pac-10 make any concessions to Stanford? Perhaps a promise to toughen academic rules. I’m just throwing it out there.
LikeLike
I can’t agree with you more PSU Guy. The tru value of a University is in its perception as an academic institution. NOT in the football team or stadium out on College drive. I would expect the kind of mentality that does not consider this from an SEC affiliated school. Back in the 70’s Northwestern Football was abysmal, I mean so bad you couldn’t make this stuff up. In the early eighties there was some rumblings from some big ten fans of kicking NWS’N out of the conference. At the Big Ten office I don’t believe there were ever seriously any such thought. The school routinely ranked between 9th and 20th academically in the country. This is just shortly behind your Ivy’s. Academics IS Important to them. They let the pro game and gamers take care of themselves. Apples and oranges folks, apples and oranges.
LikeLike
Sorry, but Missouri will get an invite before Nebraska does. Despite Frank’s earlier blog, the majority of the revenue that the Big 10 network makes is from subscription fees. Missouri is 3 times the size of Nebraska. The Big 10 would make a lot more money by adding Missouri than they would Nebraska.
The Big 10 only gets .70 cents per subscription in the eight states which currently has a university in the Big 10. So for Missouri they only get .10 now.
LikeLike
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the numbers were run by Patrick who works in the industry. 60% of the BTN revenue comes from advertising, so ratings have a big impact in all of this. Nebraska brings rating, Missouri does not. Furthermore, if the BTN can lock in NYC, I would think that having Nebraska could further increase that ad revenue, but Patrick would have to comment on that.
LikeLike
Not sure where Patrick is getting his numbers from.
Here is a recent article from the Pittsburgh tribune.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/college/s_682521.html
A couple of relevent quotes:
“The main point of expansion for the Big Ten Network,” said John Ourand, a media reporter for the Sports Business Journal, “is to expand its in-market area.”
“According to industry experts, the Big Ten Network receives between 70-80 cents per month from 17.6 million subscribers within its eight-state footprint, and between 5-10 cents per month from 27.5 million subscribers outside the region”
“By landing Missouri, the Big Ten’s footprint would expand to include St. Louis, the nation’s 21st biggest media market, and Kansas City, the 32nd ranked market.
If the 2.2 million households in Missouri started earning the Big Ten Network the 70-cent basic-tier fee rather than the 10-cent out-of-region pay, that would equal potentially an extra $1.5 million per month.”
And from the Big 10 Network website:
“The Big Ten Network’s revenues are derived primarily from cable subscription fees, with additional revenues coming from sales of advertising. Cable companies pay the network a set fee per subscriber per year. The network’s agreements with cable companies are multi-year deals”
LikeLike
$1.5M per month… also known as $18M per year… meaning that Missouri would suck out more than it adds.
I agree that Missouri should not be ruled out though. These are just some of the numbers.
LikeLike
No, that’s just the money it would bring to the table from subscription fees. That doesn’t include all other revenues that it would bring to the table.
LikeLike
What other money? The footprint will not expand. The bowl revenue? Please.
Assuming it can get jacked to 70 cents, it is close to break even.
Conversely, if Syracuse and Rutgers can deliver a fraction of their states, they would be a bigger money maker.
LikeLike
Using Rutgers as an example just further illustrates my point. They have no following, so there wouldn’t be much of an advertising boon with them. But they are desirable for the subscription fees they would bring.
Nebraska would add about 500,000 households to the footprint. At .70 cents per month that equates to about $4.5M per year. That would mean they would have to bring an extra $18M in other revenue. They will bring more due to their national following, but nowhere close to $18 million.
LikeLike
Which makes the Rutgers/Syracuse/Nebraska option all the more realistic. That being said, I’d still expect Missouri to come along in 16-team expansion assuming the Pac-10 rumor is true. If the Pac-10 can scare Notre Dame to the tables, a Rutgers/Syracuse/Nebraska/Missouri/Notre Dame expansion would be a nice set of teams.
LikeLike
@ Mizzou1
You don’t need Rutgers’ followers for additional advertising $$’s. You just need the Big 10 followers in the NY DMA, of which there are millions. I, and most every B10 fan would prefer 11 than add MU. Likewise, we’d all prefer 12 w/ Nebraska than stay at 11. No hard feelings, but other than Ill fans, none of us really heard much about you other than a 5th down sometime in the 90s and Chase Daniels.
And you’re also wrong on Neb following bringing in additional $$’s. Neb vs. UM/OSU/PSU/Iowa (even MSU) is infinitely more exciting than Missouri doing the same.
LikeLike
$18 million a year in subscription fees alone.
As Patrick explained, approximately 2/3 of BTN money is advertising…thus there’s an additional $36 million (or round about) of ad revenue a team like Mizzou brings to the table for its expansion footprint.
LikeLike
But it’s not 2/3rd advertising like Patrick states. The Big 10 Networks own website says that revenue is primarily made up of subsription fees. There is a lot of false info going around.
LikeLike
The Big 10 Network is ALREADY is Missouri, no? So how does that add potential viewers?
If Indiana plays Illinois on a Saturday night… will Missouri residents watch that game? Does Missouri in the Big 10 suddenly jump the ratings that much higher?
LikeLike
Yes, the Big 10 network is already available in Missouri. It’s also already available in every top market except LA. So that includes New York, Miami, Houston, Dallas, San Fran. etc.. The only problem is that they are only getting .10 cents per subscription from those markets, which includes St. Louis and KC. That is where the Big 10 can make a lot more money, but being able to charge .70 cents in those markets vs .10 cents they are getting now.
LikeLike
Mizzou will be a fit for the BT and the numbers are good BUT Missouri is like the girl next door. The BT has its eyes on the girl down the block. That would be Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame and Rutgers appears to be a lock JUST for the sake of NY/NJ. Frankly I think Maryland is the real prize in the east.
LikeLike
I concur Maryland is the best East coast option. (Virginia is also a nice grab.)
LikeLike
I don’t think Patrick’s analysis accounted for the ad revenue that Fox Sports would get. I figured it out and posted it on that post about 2 weeks ago, and the ad revenue adds what I think was around $2-4 million per team – certainly nothing to scoff at, but also not anywhere near 60%.
LikeLike
IMO, Patrick’s analysis was flawed. The ratings for Nebraska were inflated because they included only a)regionally televised games, where you’d expect Nebraska to do well and b) national games where Nebraska was not the top draw.
Personally, I’m not a fan of adding either Missouri or Nebraska.
LikeLike
I also thought Patrick’s analysis was off, can you repost your conclusions for us?
LikeLike
For what it’s worth, this was my comment on the issue that I posted back in May:
“Patrick, I might just not be understanding things correctly, but I’m not sure you accounted for Fox’s cut in the advertising money. Let me explain. If each Big Ten school made around $22 million last year, then the conference pulled in around $242 million. Subtract the $102 million from CBS and ESPN, and the BTN made them about $140 million. Just from subscriber fees, the BTN made them around (.357*26,000,000*12)=$111,384,000, meaning that the advertising revenue was closer to $28,616,000 for the conference, or about $2,601,454.55 per school – a significant amount of money, but certainly not 60% of their BTN revenue. Don’t get me wrong, I think with more investment into higher quality programming, more live sporting events, and bigger name schools making the cut, the advertising dollars will certainly go up, but I don’t think it’s fair (unless there’s just something I’m not getting) to assume the 60/40 principle as far as money making goes.”
LikeLike
Funny how after all the Southern expansion talk, MO could end up being the conference’s southernmost school.
The Sochi of the Big Sixteen…
LikeLike
If the Pac 10 add Texas and Oklahoma, the Big 10 needs to add a big name football school in order to avoid furthering the perception that it is a second-rate football conference. Nebraska would be a much splashier addition than Missouri.
LikeLike
Mizzou–no, the previous poster proved that the bulk of the revenue the B10Network earns is by advertising and ratings, not base subscriber rates.
Base subscriber rates keep the lights on. Advertising income fluctuates based on your product–the better the product, the more money you pull in. Adding Nebraska, who pulled better average ratings than any of the viable Big 10 expansion candidates, is a national draw that turns TV sets on.
Your program’s recent flirtations with mediocrity may have filled Mizzou fans with delusions of grandeur. But when it comes to having a college football product to watch, the smart money would be on Bo, and not Gary.
LikeLike
Funny, for a second I thought you meant the difference between Schembechler and Moeller. But I was thinking of the wrong Bo and Gary.
LikeLike
Again, read the Big 10 Networks website. If anybody would know how they make their money, it would be them. And what they say directly flies in the face of what is being said here.
LikeLike
Until they release their numbers, I’ll default to Patrick’s. Even if subscription fees did matter, it doesn’t change the fact that the Big Ten appears to be more interested in Nebraska than Missouri. That’s not saying Missouri wouldn’t get an invite in a 16-team Big Ten, they just wouldn’t be #12, 13. or 14.
LikeLike
Here are the numbers. Each Big 10 team earned $22M from TV rights deals last year. That’s a total of $242M. The Big 10 network is able to charge .70 cents per subscription to 17.6M households in the Big 10 footprint which equates to $148M per year. They charge .10 cents per subscription to 27.5M households outside of the Big 10 footprint which equates to $33M per year. Those two totaled equals $181M. So of the $242M total, $181M is from subscription fees. That’s 75%, meaning only 25% is from advertising and marketing. So therefore, Patrick was wrong when he stated that 60% of the revenue is from advertising.
LikeLike
@Mizzou1: There is a difference between revenue (total money taken in) and profit (revenue after costs). Further, of the $22M you reference, only part was TV rights fees; some was profit distribution from the equity in the BTN, the rest was the TV rights fees from both ABC/ESPN and the Big Ten Network.
LikeLike
Fair enough, but when it comes time to negotiate a new deal with ABC/ESPN, you’ve got to agree that having an inventory of games to sell that includes Neb vs. UM/OSU/PSU/Iowa is going to net the Big10 more money than selling an inventory of Mizzou games, especially when those games will likely end up on the BTN anyway.
LikeLike
First of all, I went back and read Patrick’s analysis of how he came to the conclusion of 60% advertising. He was trying to calculate it the same way I was, by taking the total amount, and then the amount they got from subscriptions, and the difference being advertising. The problem that I saw with his analysis is that he was using .36 cents per subscription within the Big 10 footprint. I haven’t read anywhere where it is .36 cents. It’s .7-.8 cents in the Big 10 states. So his numbers are low for subscription dollars.
@Hoosier Mike
Yes, national appeal will be apart of future negotiations. But more than anything, TV companies want hard numbers right away. You can estimate with good confidence that a certain team will provide ratings in the future, but hard numbers right now, which households do, is more important to them.
LikeLike
Mizzou1,
Actually I was using 36 cents for every subscriber nationwide as an average. Truth is each agreement is negotiated differently. For example, KC and St. Louis both have the BTN right now, but While St. Louis is probably already paying around .70 cents because of U of Illinois…… KC is paying .10 cents. Adding Missouri may get St. Louis up to .90 cents per because of the combination, but in KS they only pay 50 cents because 1/2 the people want Kansas. Also, that is only for cable subsribers…. differs by market, but usually 60-70% have cable, others have Directv or Dish and already get the BTN. The rate for direct and dish may increase also, depending on school. Also the BTN made big portions of that $22 million from ABC / ESPN and rights fees from FOX Sports. They split the profits with Fox Sports and then among the 11 schools.
There were some flaws in my analysis because I don’t have all the data, and actually had some more solid facts show up after I posted but I will say that I learned a few things.
1) Trying to get specifc markets and negotiate locally is crappy, they should TRY TO GO NATIONAL. Maybe packaged with the PAC ten network.
2) The BTN will make huge $$$$ by going to 16 teams, even if those teams are SUNY-Albany and South Dakota State. Increasing the schools from 11 to 16 basically doubles the inventory of games across the board. So, anyone they add will make money.
3) The advertising revenue may be around 25 – 35% of the total from 2007-2008 when we had more solid numbers (@ $19 million)and it is probably around 40% now…. but most operations like the BTN are right near 50/50 and successful ones can get to 60/40 but then the subsriber fees come up to balance the desire. That’s why most operations run around 50/50. If ad dollars are pouring in, they go back to the cable company and renegotiate to get equity for their product to be carried. The local cable company sells ads on the BTN also, the more popular it is, the more desireable it is. Why ESPN get over $4.00 per subscriber. So my point is a marketable product that is awesome and brings in fans/viewers is going to increase value across the board.
LikeLike
Patrick: Don’t be hating on the Jackrabbits, man.
LikeLike
And that is why Patrick rocks. Kudos, Sir, and thanks for your insight.
LikeLike
Patrick, the problem though is that you are using 26,000,000 as your total households. When in reality, that number is really 45,000,000, thus your subscription revenue that you are reporting is too low. And St. Louis isn’t getting .70 cents. The only markets that are getting .70 cents are those that are in the 8 Big 10 states.
I’m not arguing that Nebraska doesn’t pull in more advertising dollars than Missouri. But I think you are way overestimating the difference. If Nebraska could pull in that much of a difference then broadcasting companies would be knocking down the door to get something set up with Texas and Nebraska. But that hasn’t happened.
Listen, I appreciate your response, but I still think you have a lot of flaws in your analysis.
LikeLike
Here is another good article on the subject:
http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-football/big-ten-could-make-a-big-splash-with-expansion/
And a relevent quote:
“As is, the Big Ten Network rakes in an estimated 88 cents per cable/satellite subscriber in its eight-state footprint (Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin) and six cents a subscriber elsewhere, according to research firm SNL Kagan. Penetrate a new state, New Jersey and its estimated 2.6 million cable households, for instance, and watch the money flow (that’s $2.3 million for the calculatorly impaired”
So it doesn’t matter if KU has 60% market share in KC, the Big 10 would collect .70-.90 cents on the entire households in that market.
LikeLike
The ACC deal IMO supports the importance of market size. SEC gets $17 vs. $13 for ACC, but SEC was at its peak in a good market while ACC is at its nadir in a horrible advertising market. ACC has bigger population. In the early 90s, the ACC did better per school than SEC despite not having a championship game. I believe they also did better on the later TV deals, but I don’t have the figures, so I could be mistaken.
LikeLike
Mizzou, your numbers are completely flawed, starting with the $242 Millon figure. That number isn’t the total TV revenue from the Big Ten Network, as you state, but rather the amount that the conference made from all TV revenue, so it doesn’t include the 49% cut that Fox takes off the top. It also includes the ESPN/ABC TV money that the conference made, so your numbers are completely bogus.
LikeLike
Subscribe fail
LikeLike
Bring your daughter to the slaughter! (adding)
LikeLike
Final try
LikeLike
I read this as “Colorado is going to the PAC 10.”
As for the other teams, who knows?
LikeLike
From what I have read and I have read extensively, the absolute locks are Colorado to the Pac 10 and Nebraska to the Big 10 thus far. Texas to the Big Ten is in the balance. ND has its head in the sand.
LikeLike
Doesn’t the Big10 make more money from advertising? If true, Nebraska trumps Mizzou easily.
LikeLike
I don’t think that’s true as of right now. Maybe when the BTN becomes a national network and improves its non-live sports programming, but I don’t believe that to be accurate now.
LikeLike
Based on Patrick’s previous post (not comment, post), yes, the B10 makes 60% on ad rev, and 40% on subscriber fees.
LikeLike
I read his post, and it was very well thought out, but when I added the numbers up, it didn’t appear that he accounted for Fox’s 49% of the advertising revenue; the way he factored everything, the Big Ten got the whole thing, which just is not the case. I mentioned this on that thread about 2 weeks ago. If you want to read my reply (which is where I did the computing myself), then you can determine whether he accounted for them or not.
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100603/BIGRED/306039778/-1#barfknecht-did-beebe-s-silence-answer-the-questions
Evening Update
Key Statement
“The World-Herald learned Thursday evening of administrative discussion that the Pac-10 may have set a deadline of Sunday for Big 12 teams to accept. The Pac-10 spring meetings begin Friday in San Francisco.”
LikeLike
Things are getting pretty leaky.
LikeLike
The quote below (from that same article) you linked to rings true to me. I agree with Frank the Tank. I think Nebraska is a done deal. Missouri? Not so much.
“But two Husker scholarship athletes said recently their coaches have given them a heads-up about a move to the Big Ten being more than smoke. Also, a couple of recent NU job candidates said they were asked during interviews about their recruiting ties in Minneapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee.”
LikeLike
Patrick,
from the same article:
“But two Husker scholarship athletes said recently their coaches have given them a heads-up about a move to the Big Ten being more than smoke. Also, a couple of recent NU job candidates said they were asked during interviews about their recruiting ties in Minneapolis, Chicago and Milwaukee.”
This is the first legitimate media confirmation of any potential Big 10 rumbles from Omaha or Lincoln.
LikeLike
My 1st reaction was that this confirms Frank.
But after further thought: It was also a Pittsburg athlete who leaked the Pitt to B10 rumour. To play the skeptic-it is more than smoke. That doesn’t mean anything is going to happen. And NU has always recruited the midwest.
LikeLike
With talk of issuing deadlines, of A&M lobbying for the SEC, with OU and A&M not being comfortable with a side Longhorn Network deal for Texas, why does it sound like several of the schools mentioned have not actually signed onto this deal yet?
LikeLike
@djinndjinn
’cause…maybe all the schools HAVEN’T signed off on the deal yet?
The issue for A&M and OU seems to be the LSN, and seeing if they have another choice i.e. the SEC.
LikeLike
Agreed. That’s my impression.
So, the question is why would the Pac-10 make an offer that wasn’t confirmed as being accepted ahead of time? That only puts them in a position of having egg on their face.
Perhaps they knew a Texas deal with the Big Ten was imminent. Perhaps they’re trying to make a deal they think Texas can’t refuse, without even considering the notion that such a deal may not be acceptable to A&M and OU.
It will be very interesting to see what unfolds here. However, if the Pac-10 didn’t get this all worked out with the other schools ahead of time, it wouldn’t suprise me if the deal fell through.
LikeLike
djinndjinn, After the B10-ND rebuff, nobody is going to offer publicly without a private acceptance. All the expansions since B10-ND have been fait accompli once it was publicly announced.
LikeLike
One would think this is the Pac-10 would do it, yes. But why, then, the deadline? Why, then, is A&M supposedly still negotiating with the SEC?
LikeLike
It seems that Texas sure loves them some Texas. The university of texas sure seems to be the crux of much of the discontent. But texas is the purdyest gal in the bunch.
LikeLike
I got a lot of respect for Lee Barfknecht, so I don’t doubt the article. If the Pac-10 did indeed give those teams a deadline, we could see expansion coming in two conferences before the end of the month. Also, this lines up with what Frank was saying about Nebraska and the Big Ten, too.
If I were the ACC, I’d be worried. With the Texas and Oklahoma schools gone to the Pacc-10, the SEC is limited in its potential targets, and with the way they’re talking, it’s a safe bet that they’ll expand if the Big Ten and Pac-10 expand.
LikeLike
Patrick do you believe a conference would take 4 months to chose a mate & then give them only 72 hours to accept? Not a good way to start the relationship and there are sooo many things to discuss & information to share so this has all the signs of another internet/media hoax.
LikeLike
@SDB10 – I agree that no conference is going to give a school 72 hours to decide. That being said, if something does get announced quickly, you can be assured that the proposal had been on the table for quite awhile.
LikeLike
Fortunately, I feel like this is yet another hold your breath moment that will come to pass by Monday.
Fortunate, because I couldn’t stand the B10 not coming out on top of this realignment and because I enjoy this too much.
Next post title:
Dr. Strangelove 2: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Expansion (rumors)
Starring …
Slim (T. Boone) Pickens
Peter (IU is again in the Big 10) Sellars
George C. Scott (as Patton – great fucking movie)
James Earl Jones (as Jim Delany)
LikeLike
@Hoosier Mike:
This sounds like fun!
Can I help with the screenplay?
I think a better Jim Delaney would be James Gandolfini from the Sopranos….And seeing as how Peter Sellars is no longer with us…Maybe Steve Martin? He did decent as inspector Clouseau in the re-makes….
LikeLike
Hoosier Mike..
James Earl Jones..
*ponders*
Jim Delany saying..
“Luke, I am your father”
“This is CNN”
ps.. moment of pause for Indiana boy JW – RIP….
LikeLike
No, I think this has been discussed behind closed doors for a long time maybe 6 months or a year. From Barry Alvarez’s quotes a few days ago, the Big Ten may be voting on a proposal at the Presidents meetings coming up…. so the PAC 10 might be trying to jump the Big 10’s vote, or they may be annouced at about the same time, or they have decided to push Texas to a decision, or the Omaha World Herald got bad information.
LikeLike
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100603/BIGRED/306039778/-1#barfknecht-did-beebe-s-silence-answer-big-questions
LikeLike
pay attention to the last few sentences
LikeLike
Frank, based on what I’m reading, I feel there is no way that Stanford would be willing to accept a school like Texas Tech in the Pac-10. From what you’ve heard, is there some incentive for Stanford to allow Tech/Oklahoma/OK State in? If not, I have a difficult time seeing this come to fruition.
LikeLike
If the Pac 10 believes that they have to get to 16 to keep pace nationally, their options, due to geography and time zone differentials, are limited. Stanford will have to defer to those unchangeable facts and current reality, because their conference doesn’t want to be left behind with no options for growth.
LikeLike
You know I have to agree with gobucks1226. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Stanford University, as in the school with the 3rd largest endowment of any US university and arguably the most successful athletic program overall in terms of NACDA Director’s Cup finishes (15 straight number one finishes,) would be desperate enough for cash or athletic prestige to vote for Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. (No offense to any alums of those institutions.)
15 years ago, Stanford voted against Texas. Clearly the landscape has changed, so I could obviously see Stanford giving the thumbs up to Texas this time around. I could also see the Cardinal likewise approving Texas A&M, (although I personally thought A&M in the B10 was a culture clash, I can only imagine what the Aggies would look like out on the west coast.) I could also see it giving Colorado the green light, as this has long been a given since this whole debate started.
But then we come to Oklahoma. You can make an argument either way, but I think if adding Texas requires Oklahoma, then I could see Stanford pulling the trigger. Despite being a borderline tier 1 university, OU is about the same as Oregon and ranks higher than Washington State and Arizona State. You factor in the Sooners’ pretty strong atheltic teams across the board, and I sense that Stanford can find a way to find OU acceptable.
But admitting Texas Tech and Oklahoma State is essentially doing some serious dumpster diving, and I don’t know how any sane academically minded president would not share the same sentiment. You are correct, in the end Stanford will remain Stanford, the Ivy of the west, but I think people are glossing over the fact that the Pac 10 save for 2-3 schools is a pretty prestigious collections of universities.
Even if its just a matter of sports, what is the point in adding TT and OSU? Why not just stop at 14? With UT, Colorado, A&M, and OU on board, Texas has its two main rivals, the Pac 10 picks up a nice TV market in Colorado, and you now have the state of Texas’ three premier programs, UT, A&M, and OU. I just don’t see the need for Texas Tech and likewise with OSU. Why add the Red Raiders and Cowboys when it will only further dilute potential revenue when you already have OU hailing from the small state of Oklahoma?
That said, if this does go down, then the B10 must get both ND (even though as a B10 fan, I’m firmly against adding the Irish) and Nebraska. That would give the league 5 storied programs, whereas the P10 would still only have 3-4 (I’m counting either Washington or UCLA as the 4th.) Then you can poke around round out the final three from the Big East / ACC. But ND and Nebraska would certainly be a must.
Overall, I think that while the B10 would obviously love the Longhorns, sending UT and OU west as opposed to the SEC works out well for the B10, because an SEC with OU and maybe a reconstructed FSU or Miami would be almost too good.
LikeLike
The problem with the Pac 10 just going to 14 is that the Pac 10, uniquely, is made up of five paired schools-2 SoCal, 2 NorCal, 2 Oregon, 2 WA and 2 AZ. If you went to only 14 schools, then one of those pairs would have to be split into separate divisions, which would be politically impossible for those 10 schools.
Now they could go to 12, but I’m guessing that Texas won’t accept without more schools in their neighborhood. And without Texas, the dollars aren’t there.
LikeLike
Pac-10 could go to 14 with a zipper split – one team from each pair in Division A, and the remaining teams in Division B. You’d use a 6-1-2 scheduling model, with 6 divisional games, 1 protected cross-division game against your partner school, and 2 rotating cross-division games.
LikeLike
Zipper is the only wat to go for anything less than 16 in an expanded Pac due to the current conference set up…
LikeLike
Just a nod to jd wahoo for anyone who didn’t notice. We don’t mess around on this here comment board. “zipper split” – yeah, we’re in the minutia and love it.
LikeLike
I think too many schools from the same conference have a danger of changing/corrupting the culture of the conference. Note what happened when the Texas schools joined the Big 8. Yes the quality of the sports rose, but bare in mind what I said. This is why Delany and the Boys from the BT office are taking a scientific approach instead of the school yard approach.
LikeLike
scrapple
LikeLike
Thanks Frank, enjoy reading your blog.
Cant wait to see Nebraska going into the big house, ohio stadium, kinnick stadium, etc… and vice versa in Nonmember. 😉
LikeLike
wow why did I say nonmember? lol, oops. November.
LikeLike
My quick thoughts on this.
(1) If this happens, I mentioned this in one of Frank’s earliest posts. The Big 10 wants Texas very badly, but the PAC 10 ABSOLUTELY NEEDS Texas to have any viability as a financial equal of the SEC and Big 10. The PAC 10 will make concessions that the Big 10 will simply not make. TTU, OU and OSU are non-starters for the Big 10. The PAC 10 already has an unequal revenue sharing arrangement, so Texas could continue to earn an inordinate amount of the pie. The rivalries reduce travel cost, and keep alumni interest high.
(2) Does Texas’ move to the Pac 10 devastate Delaney? Only if you believe that Texas, not ND, was the true target. A 16 team PAC 10 almost cements the theory that we are going to see multiple megaconferences which is exactly the type of massive landscape change that Swarbrick cautioned could lead to ND joining a conference.
With the PAC 10 going to 16 first, the Big 10 and SEC are likely to follow. Will ND eschew a Big 10 invite and assess the landscape now? There would still be a home in an ACC, which could be drastically watered-down though if its hit hard by the SEC. In other words, this is exactly the scenario which may push ND to the Big 10.
(3) The SEC is now in an interesting position. It is fully aware that A&M and maybe OU are reluctant to head west. Does it quickly extend an offer to A&M? If A&M accepted, the PAC 10 would need to find a replacement (Kansas? Utah?). However, I don’t think A&M’s loss would scuttle the PAC 10 plans. I do think A&M is a must for the SEC. It gets a presence in Texas.
Here is how I see this happening
PAC 10 – Texas, OU, OSU, Colorado, TTU and Kansas
SEC – Texas A&M, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Florida State – A&M opens up Texas, WVU and VT give the SEC a foothold in the talent rich Virginia region. FSU is simply too big a national name to pass up.
LikeLike
That leaves room for Nebraska, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, and Virginia in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Md and Va aren’t coming to the Big 10…get over it…
LikeLike
Justin,
Good points. However, if six Big XII schools go to the Pac 10, then I think the ACC will be put in the exact same situation that the Big XII is in right now. Maryland and Virginia rumors to The Big Ten. FSU, Va Tech, Clemson rumors to the SEC. Miami and Ga Tech rumors to both.
Duke and UNC, the core of the ACC, are going to see that they might get left behind if they don’t make a move. We’ll be having conversations about Duke and UNC being tied to Wake and NCSt, similar to the conversations about who UT or OK is attached to.
Suddenly, it could be 5 of these 6 to The Big Ten: Maryland, Virginia, Duke, UNC, Nebraska, ND.
LikeLike
The ACC package of four (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke) would make sense as a blend of Big Ten-level academics and solid all-around athletics. As a group addition, they might be enough to entice Notre Dame to become member #16; if ND’s demands were too high for the Big Ten’s liking, it simply substitutes Nebraska as its “big football” addition.
If you don’t take the ACC AAU four as a group (something they may desire), you’d be left with members with deficiencies in academics (Missouri), athletics (Rutgers), market (Pittsburgh) or research (Syracuse).
LikeLike
In your ACC scenario I like a Maryland and Virginia for the reasons you stated. This would work if you have a ND and or Nebraska You can keep the Carolina schools. Too much of a cultural shift.
LikeLike
A lot of what I’ve been reading implies that adding CU and Utah doesn’t do much more than break even for the P10. Every indication is that CU wants to go to the P10 but needs a significantly better deal to afford it. So this may be the only way for the P10 to expand.
If you believe in the 4 super-conference theory happening (which I don’t-but I’m getting more open to the thought day by day), this was always the way it had to happen. The Pac10 basically had to absorb the B12 South, with A&M splitting to go to the SEC.
LikeLike
A&M might be the best bet for the SEC. A&M does not fit well in the BT and without at least two e of its former conference mates, preferably Texas or OK, would be outsiders in California dominated Pac 10. The SEC would be a better cultural fit as well the Texas pick up for the SEC would mean they actually make a difference in viewership. Where as in most of the teams they poach from the ACC ( FL st, MI, GA Tech) they get no viewership bounce as they are duplicated. The SEC is also the last of 3 option on Texas list
LikeLike
Hey Frank,
Thought I’d let you know I subscribe to the Michigan rival’s site, and in their weekly update they also made mention of the Texas topic.
They said their sources on the whole expansion have confirmed what’s been said here about, should Texas and ND go to the Big Ten, they always want to play each other. Also been said the two are very much in contact with each other about what the Big Ten has been saying, which in my mind says the Big Ten may stand a better chance than expected if those two are wanting to be with each other (I don’t see ND being anywhere but the Big Ten if it does affiliate).
LikeLike
On WBNS-TV (Columbus) 11:00 news.
Made mention that Gordon Gee (OSU President) had sent 10 e-mails to fellow Big Ten Presidents on wooing Texas. Gordon Gee has supposedly been talking to Texas President Powers about expansion.
The news department said there would be more on the e-mails in tomorrow’s Columbus Dispatch.
LikeLike
Now *that’s* interesting news.
LikeLike
Article:
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/06/03/e-mails-hint-big-ten-expansion-eyes-on-texas.html?sid=101
LikeLike
@Manifesto (OhioSt.) – Thanks for posting – interesting that Gee noted that Powers told him that UT had a “Tech” problem. Gee was also prophetic about the need for the Big Ten to be swift in order to take advantage of its situation.
LikeLike
@Frank:
I can’t comment on the author (I’m a little behind on my Dispatch guys), but I don’t think the Dispatch is the type of place to run a story misquoting Gee. OSU swings a big enough stick in that town to have this guy’s head on pike if he was making stuff up, especially about something as big as this.
And I agree with you — Gee had the right idea when telling Delany not to doddle. 12-18 months as a public timeline is foolish if Delany really believes he will have that long.
In the end, perhaps the BigTen loses out because of Texas politics. Taking Gee’s quotes under consideration, perhaps Tech has more clout than we were giving them credit for early.
LikeLike
I keep coming back to the comment the TX president made when the subject of BT expansion first came up – to the effect that he couldn’t see himself sending the women’s softball team up north to play, as I recall….
I think the TX president is not too excited about his teams playing on the frozen tundra…thus I see the pac 10 route as more probable fot TX…
LikeLike
Crazy! Wow! Interesting that these emails “leaked” at the same time as this PAC10 story leaked. Hmm….
Is the Big 10 trying to stay in play?
Or are they letting frazzled Texas folks “we’re here for you”?
LikeLike
No clue. I mean, the article made it sound like it was a FOIA request. Perhaps it wasn’t. The timing, however, is really suspicious. I doubt the Dispatch would just sit on this for over a month (the emails were dated 4/20 supposedly). Did they magically get their FOIA request granted today or yesterday? Tinfoil hat time!
LikeLike
Texas politics-Tech doesn’t have anywhere near the clout they had in 1994. But all the schools are under pressure because of the budget situation. Texas is down to being around 23% state supported. Even if Tech doesn’t have a lot of clout, it could be that Powers doesn’t want to alienate even a handful of legislators.
It could also mean that Powers doesn’t like what Georgia fans refer to as “that trade school on North Avenue,”-Georgia Tech. (Had to get that in after that other post about GT being the place to get an education in GA).
LikeLike
The comments about leveraging the situation to get “hrs” is the most intriguing to me.
That would support placating Notre Dame and Texas as to what they want. If Notre Dame wants Syracuse and Pitt, then perhaps that is what it takes to get Notre Dame. If Texas wants Tech plus “anyone but Missouri,” then that is what it will take.
If the Presidents are dead set against Tech and Syracuse… well, now what? Months of delay.
Meanwhile… Texas is in the position to be making the demands right now though.
LikeLike
I tend to agree. While I don’t think we’re going to go near OSU, there’s an outside chance that we maybe take OU or Tech (probably Tech) if that’s really what it would take to get Texas/A&M/ND on board with Nebraska as the 5th.
If anything, I think Delany’s going to run through his scenarios to see what he can offer that’s still palatable to the Big Ten presidents.
Let’s just put it this way, the Big Ten isn’t desperate for Texas like the Pac-10 is if it pursues this scenario. No one can call adding OU/OSU/TTech to the Pac-10 as anything other than a total desperation move for Texas under the idea that Texas is the Pac-10’s only bridge to 16 teams…
LikeLike
Interesting stuff, Ross. Thanks.
This further confirms the UT/ND connection. We know UT´s down for expansion, but the politics of a ND move seem to be the problem.
What´s the best way to scare ND alumni and get TPTB to the table? . . . not sure I could draw up a better rumor/leak than the stuff we´re hearing tonight.
LikeLike
Yeah, it looks to me like the Big Ten is in the best position to get Texas, but it all hinges on ND.
If ND ultimately decides to stay independent, then that may be Texas’ deal breaker and what pushes it to the Pac-10 or independent status.
LikeLike
There’s a long UT/ND history. Jack Chevigny was UT coach in the 30s after being passed up as Knute Rockne’s replacement. Texas upset ND his 1st year in a game, coupled with a Rice win over Purdue, put the SWC on the map and led to 3 SWC national titles that decade (none by UT). Chevigny later died on Iwo Jima and there’s a story (probably apopcryphal) that a Japanese admiral signed the peace treaty on the Missouri with his pen which had an inscription about an old Notre Damer who beat ND.
Notre Dame played in the Cotton Bowl vs. #1 Texas after the Big Shootout in 1969. That was the 1st time ND agreed to go to a bowl in nearly 50 years. That was a BIG deal at the time. Hard to imagine now, when there are 35 bowls instead of 7 or 8, when 7 or 8 B10 teams go to a bowl instead of 1 who can never go 2 years in a row. UT won that game. ND upset #1 Texas in the Cotton Bowl the next year and handed NU the coaches title for Devaney’s 1st national championship. ND also upset an overachieving #1 Texas team in the Cotton Bowl following the 76 season and jumped from #5 to #1. The schools also played a couple of games in the mid-90s.
LikeLike
“handed NU the coaches title for Devaney’s 1st national championship.”
Uh, no. Notre Dame beat Texas, Stanford beat Ohio State, then a one-tie (vs. USC) Nebraska team beat LSU. Notre Dame didn’t hand Nebraska anything, in fact they felt they were in line for the title after beating Texas, prompting Devaney’s famous line, “even the Pope wouldn’t vote for Notre Dame!”
I believe this is also one of the national championships Texas also claims, since they were #1 prior to the bowls and one of the polls had their final installment then and didn’t poll after the bowls.
LikeLike
The last pre-bowl national championship. After Alabama’s & Joe Namath’s loss to one loss UT in the Orange Bowl, leaving Arkansas the only unbeaten (after they beat NU in the Cotton), the AP poll switched to post bowl. The coaches switched after that UT-ND Cotton Bowl.
LikeLike
Of the Pac 10 AND the Big 10 Texas is the biggest bang for their expansion buck. But for the Pac 10 it’s a double bang. The big ten can recoup its bang and with some other combinational while keeping the academic component high.
LikeLike
This could easily be done in an 8 game Big 10 schedule with four pods.
ND would be in a pod with UM, MSU, and Purdue. Their one fixed rival out of pod would be Texas. In years that their pod is in the same division as Texas’, they’d play Penn State.
So, their schedule would always have UM, MSU, Purdue, and Texas. 4 of 6 years they’d have Penn State. The rest of the Big 10 teams (whom Notre Dame’s so despise!!!!) they’d only play twice every six years.
They’d still have 2 home games, 1 away game, and 1 neutral site game a year for their “national schedule”. USC, Navy, 1 cream puff home game, and 1 rotating series with a strong BCS school.
LikeLike
If the PAC takes three from Texas, who does the B12 reload with from the state of Texas? They’re left with only Baylor. I would think they take about 2 or 3 more. In order of appeal I would say:
1. TCU – best football
2. Houston – best potential overall
3. UTEP – large school. Almost 40k avg attendance in football over 5 years.
4. Rice – 😦
5. SMU – no reason for them if you have TCU
6. North Texas – nothing there
LikeLike
By these rumors, there will only be Kstate, Iowa St, Baylor, and MAYBE Kansas left over in the Big 12.
I’m not sure it CAN reload that many. If it did, I’d guess that when the BCS is re-figured the Big 12 would lose it’s AQ.
LikeLike
SMU would be #3. TCU doesn’t bring DFW, so it would probably be wise to have a Texas 4-quad.
Not sure about UTEP, but it is so far west to be somewhat irrelevant to most state TV markets. Plus their mascot looks like a plastic Keith Hernandez.
BTW, I have no worries about Kansas. Probably at worst they fall to a B12-x+y rebuild/MWC/leftovers BCS conference, but I expect the SEC to grab them if the P16 and B16 don’t. Expansion may be about football, but they have one of the few superstar brand names in basketball that could make a monetary difference.
Sometimes you draft the best player available on the board.
LikeLike
Here’s another crazy thought that has a shot: One or more of Baylor, TCU, and SMU could wind up in the ACC. Depends on who takes whom, but the east could run out of quality schools in a P16-B16-SEC16 scenario. If the ACC refuses to water down its academic standards to expand, Those 3 Texas privates could give them an option to get to 16. Also might help lure ND, by providing conference games each year in TX, FL, the Carolinas, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast. ‘National schedule’ and all that…
LikeLike
I could see Kansas to the ACC. Like PlayoffsNow! said, sometimes you draft the best player available. At least the ACC could try to spin it as adding a basketball power that fits in with UNC and Duke.
LikeLike
Would TCU leave a MWC that appears to heading up for a Big XII on the verge of collapse?
LikeLike
I’m assuming that the B12 DOES collapse. And the majority of the MWC joins the shell to get the AQ status.
LikeLike
I think you add TCU and Houston so they get to play in the 2 biggest markets in Texas and then look elsewhere for schools.
LikeLike
I think most would agree with that. The harder question is who you would take if you want one more.
LikeLike
Well, if you gotta get 3, you either take UTEP, or get UTSA a waiver to go straight to FBS football so you get the 3rd big Texas city in your rotation.
LikeLike
No offense,
But this would be like discussing how getting San Jose St. & San Diego State would help replace USC.
I don’t care if you find 10 such schools, you can’t fill up the void left.
That’s why a viable big 12 is near impossible.
LikeLike
Frank, Texas Tech is one of the largest schools in the Big 12 and will hit 40,000 enrollment in less than a decade. It has higher SAT averages than half the PAC 10 schools and boasts arguably the largest single Big 12 fanbase in the coveted Dallas/FW market (only UT comes close). Having not had a losing season in over 15 years, they’ve built themselves into a consistent Top 25 football program. Tech’s managed to pull some pretty remarkable TV ratings over the last few years. Last buy certainly not least, they also have the hottest chicks in the Big 12 – if not the country.
LikeLike
boasts arguably the largest single Big 12 fanbase in the coveted Dallas/FW market (only UT comes close)
Huh? Texas only comes close to TT in DFW?!?
LikeLike
Maybe it was a typo. Only OU comes close to Tech for 3rd in DFW.
LikeLike
Ed TTU is a tier 3 school and the P10 sees itself as similar to the B10 which is manifested in the Rose Bowl among other items. Academics first, athletics second so very unlikely TTU would get unanimous approval as required to join. My nephew is at OkSt because he could not get into any B10 school, & OkSt is a tier 3 like TTU & P10 is like B10 in academics. Not only Stanford & Cal, but USC, UCLA, Wash would take Colo & Ut before TTU.
LikeLike
You’re joking, right Ed?
LikeLike
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-tierone_02edi.State.Edition1.312af2c.html
Since 2009 there has been a push by the Texas Legislature to add to the list of AAU schools in Texas. Tech is one of the seven candidate schools. Maybe this gets fast tracked now?
LikeLike
Frank,
Absolutely love your work on the conference expansion front. I have a question that I wonder if you can look into: If the demise of the Big XII is a foregone conclusion, would Iowa have any political pressure to look out for Iowa State, ala UVA, when then-Gov. Warner strong-armed them into advocating for Va Tech to join the ACC back in 2003?
LikeLike
@Jimmy – Iowa might get that political pressure, but unless there’s a known bloc of schools in the Big Ten that are against expansion like Duke and UNC back in 2003 (and I don’t think there is), it won’t mean anything. It would’ve taken 3 votes in the ACC to block expansion. The only reason why the pressure on UVA worked was that Duke and UNC were openly against it, which gave UVA effective veto power.
LikeLike
Frank,
That’s a good point–I had forgotten that UNC and Duke were opposed to any expansion.
Another one: Do you agree with the assertion that if the Big XII dies along the lines you reported tonight, that the MWC would go to 16 teams, snatching up KU, KSU, ISU and three other schools (I already consider Boise St. to be joining it next week), and becoming a BCS conference (since it would be sound politics for the BCS to do that)?
Similarly, do you see the MAC going to 16, taking Cincy, Louisville, and 2 others (Lets say Memphis and Tulane/UAB, for arguments sake, as Marshall just fled the conference a few years ago)), since there is no chance those commuter schools get into the ACC or SEC?
LikeLike
Gee talked about listening to each other in that article the other day when he talked about sharing revenue, would the B10 listen to Iowa and save Iowa State (who is AAU) by taking them as #16? Or would it strictly be their top 5 with no mercy shown? Iowa State hasn’t had great success other than wrestling, but they are a solid program. They have better attendance than a third of the BCS schools. They are a lot different than Temple, UH, TCU, SMU and Rice, other schools that got left behind.
LikeLike
If Stanford shuns OSU, Tech, or both, why not invite Kansas? They fit more academically, and time zone would be no issue, as they were already getting teams from the central time zone.
LikeLike
Nebraska supposedly telling scholarship player to get ready for the Big 10.
LikeLike
Haven’t seen this personally yet. Have heard it was confirmed on the Rivals boards, FWIW.
Also, the RB coach for Nebraska spoke in Texas not too long ago. While he played ignorant, he made it sound as if they were making sure folks were schooled on Big 10 ball “just in case”.
LikeLike
@Bob:
Pelini coaches Nebraska. You guys are already ready for Big10 ball. 😉
Big10 ball = play defense, unless you’re Northwestern or Purdue (or Michigan lately).
LikeLike
Big 10 ball is vastly different from Big 12 ball. We use 11 guys on offense, 11 guys on defense, wait sounds similar…there is one difference, your fans don’t have to shell out $39.95 to watch the games on TV.
Now you can hear the rest of the country whine about how Big 10 games are being stuffed down everyone’s throats every saturday afternoon on espn, espn2 and abc.
LikeLike
Frank–I don’t know if you have a relationship with Chip Brown, but there are those of us that know Chip as a former hack for the Dallas Morning News that regularly admitted to making up items or writing stories to screw with fans of other teams (read: not Texas), and he especially had a poison pen for Nebraska.
This, plus my theory that Chip’s article is merely posturing by Texas (via a paid mouthpiece) to try and take any bargaining leverage Nebraska had in the Big XII talks (like, say, getting rid of the Longwhorn Network…which supposedly was gaining traction amongst members per the NU boards and posters here).
Texas is frankly scared s**tless right now. Nebraska has the balls to call their bluff, and Texas knows they can’t get the Pac 10 or SEC to let them suckle at the teat of the conference like Texas has been able to with the Big XII. Texas will not be successful if it has to play in either the Pac-10 or SEC; the former won’t put up with Texas’ antics and selfishness, and the later wrote the very book on dirty political conference pool that Texas uses.
Also, keep in mind only confirmation coming on this article comes from Colorado, a school that would hop in bed with anyone or anything with a pulse for money, they’re hurting so bad. Colorado knows if they don’t hop in bed with Bevo and/or the Pac 10, they won’t remain solvent next decade. Having both Bevo and the Pac 10 in the same story…well, that makes it all the more easier for Colorado to smile while they dance for their master.
LikeLike
Oh, and before I forget…thanks for all the work you’ve done on this, Frank. I dare say your coverage is better than that of any of the networks.
Perhaps you should do this for a living? 🙂
LikeLike
here are those of us that know Chip as a former hack for the Dallas Morning News that regularly admitted to making up items or writing stories to screw with fans of other teams
You have proof of this? The part about a reporter at the DMN who “regularly admitted to making up items or writing stories to screw with fans of other teams”?
Texas is frankly scared s**tless right now.
HuskerHoosier, are you posting under two different names?
LikeLike
From everything that I’ve heard, Chip Brown is well respected in the industry, and that includes the local sports journalists here in Omaha that are on our sports talk show. Lee Barfknecht of the Omaha World-Herald wouldn’t have mentioned the article had he any indication that the man was lying.
LikeLike
After thinking about this a bit, there’s a lot I want to say, but much has been written above already. So, I’ll add one concern I have as a Texas fan to a plan which I’m otherwise pretty happy with if it turns out to be true:
CIC?
Just sayin’.
LikeLike
This was supposed to be a new post at the bottom.
LikeLike
hop, if this thing is for real we have nothing now in that regard. i really don’t get the impression that the pac schools cooperate at all with each other and certainly not those interlopers, the ariz schools. so guess who they dump us in with.
the cali schools are going to view us as a necessary evil and have pretty much nothing to do with us outside of sports, is my guess.
very dark day if this is true.
LikeLike
@Hopkins – I have heard of a couple of Nebraska fans that have traded emails with Chip where he admitted he was just messing with Husker fans. I don’t know if its “regularly… making up items” but he knows (like Woody Page) that Husker fans are easily riled and seems to enjoy doing so.
LikeLike
I never read the mention of Nebraska in that article as anything but speculation added to the Pac-10 story. I’m not sure why others wouldn’t.
LikeLike
There’s a world of difference between “needling” Husker fans (I think eapg knows what “needling” fans of another school looks like) and making things up.
LikeLike
Glad to see you’re polluting multiple sites with your inane ramblings:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2010/06/03/no_pac_10_expan.html#comment-336218704
LikeLike
Yeah, I really don’t see any reason that Texas would be “scared”. They’re the biggest prize in this whole realignment, and will bring mega dollars with them wherever they go. Where’s the fear in that?
LikeLike
Alright, if there is actually truth to this rumor, I could easily see it stemming from the following:
We know ND and UT have been in touch – and from the NU message board rumor – there seems to be a mutual interest in joining the same conference. We also know that Swarbrick and ND continue to drag their feet about joining a conference, but they have stated that they may be compelled to conference affiliation in the case of massive realignment.A 16 team Pac 10, which could be followed by a 16 team Big 10 and SEC would certainly qualify.
Hang with me though . . . this leak, rumor or whatever it is could easily be a high stakes game of chicken between ND and Texas. The money´s better in the Big 10. The academics are better in the Big 10. The logistics of travel could be better in the Big 10. The question, however, is whether UT is bluffing, and, if they are, does Swarbrick have the balls to call the bluff? Or would he even want to? Maybe this is just a political ploy to give Swarbrick the cover to finally make the jump to the Big 10.
Either way, I think the dynamic between Notre Dame and Texas is very much in play here, and, if there´s truth to this rumor, we will see some sort of resolution over the next couple weeks.
LikeLike
The more I think about this the more excited and convinced I am about what´s actually going on:
What do we know:
1) Texas, Colorado and the Pac 10 commissioner, in so many words, have confirmed that this idea has been thrown around
2) Oklahoma, A&M, and everyone else has denied any contact with the Pac 10
3) A Texas coalition of schools to the Pac 10 is at least somewhat credible – for political reasons – just based on the credence given to this rumor
4) Notre Dame and Texas are in heavy contact and it is both of their best interests to play annually in the same conference – with that conference being the Big 10
Now the assumptions:
Colorado is in, and they may even get their bid this Sunday. They have been in talks with the Pac 10 for months and are privy to the latest expansion news.
At some point, the Pac 10 approached Texas and, more recently, gave them a blank check – or at least said they would consider it – and this led to the current rumor. The Pac 10 commissioner then is in no place to deny the rumor (since talks of some sort have occurred with Texas. He can say, however, that these talks are still in the initial phase and nothing cataclysmic will happen this Sunday. Under this scenario, there is also a good chance that Pac 10 presidents haven´t even been briefed about this latest rumor. And this helps explain Stanford´s role in this whole thing.
So why was this leaked, since it is still at very rough and initial stage? This is where Notre Dame comes in:
As I understand it, this was reported by a former UT beat writer with obviously strong ties to UT. It was leaked to him by UT higher ups who needed to accomplish two things:
1) implicate essentially the entirety of the Big 12 in expansion talk and setting the table for their own move
2) giving ND a new, radical landscape that forces full conference affiliation. In fact, I´d be very surprised if we don´t see significant news out of South Bend sometime soon.
I think the Pac 10 started talks with Texas in an exploratory way, hoping for compromise. I don´t think this particular group of schools could get enough to votes to actually garner invites, but I also don´t think that´s the point. UT is bargaining with the Pac 10 and leaked this particular discussion because it´s plausible and cataclysmic enough to draw ND and its alumni out of their isolation.
Not sure if UT´s bluffing or just playing the politics of the situation, but, if true, there is a lot more to this rumor than meets the eye.
LikeLike
What does Texas prefer:
1. Longhorn Sports Network
2. Conference with ND
knowing that is the key to knowing what Texas is thinking, IMHO. My bet is #1.
The other question is if the mere potential for a Super IA is enough to force ND into the Big Ten. Will the lure of Texas be enough to get ND to join with the gigantic public Ivies?
It ought to be a fun weekend around here.
LikeLike
We also can be pretty sure that the PAC 10 offer was discussed openly at the meetings this week. Why? Because that would be the main reason A*M a.d. made the comments about west coast travel. Those seemed somewhat out of the blue at the time, but I think the PAC10 senario was being thrown around in order to get the teams to commit to the Big 12 with a Longhorn Sports Network / Big 12 Network combo of some kind. And I think the fly in the ointment was Nebraska, who is strongly in the Big 10 camp. Nebraska could mess up the Longhorn Sports Network while simultaneously putting pressure on Texas to join the Big 10 as Texas has to do something after Colorado and Nebraska leave. Wouldn’t that make all the BIG RED fans happy?
LikeLike
From what I know of the power structure at ND, it won’t be Swarbrick’s call.
Fr. Jenkins, the prez, has made tough calls before (the Willingham buy-out). He has the guts to make the call. I’m not sure it’ll be his call to make.
In ’99 it went to the trustees. They are led by the Board of Fellows who are mainly alums and are used to making hard calls. The question is what do TPTB want, and who’s advising them.
I don’t think a rumor will scare ND. I think it will actually require a series of major moves. If we really see a Pac-16, Big 14, and a SEC at 14-16, then *maybe* ND moves.
Add
LikeLike
@FLP:
If we’re putting on our tinfoil hats, perhaps TPTB at ND *have* in fact made a decision, but are looking for the opportunity to do it as smoothly as possible. Would a rumor like this be enough cover? Would the Big12 seemingly coming apart at the seams in public be enough? Just speculating.
LikeLike
@ Mani
Perhaps. I doubt it, but perhaps. The last public decision was made in England of all places. The last private decision was unknown for seven years and has only had one leak, AFAIK.
I’m also not sure the NDPTB need to cover their decision, except to themselves. ND answers to no one outside of the big money donors and possibly the Holy Cross order (CSC). They often tell the rank and file to like it or lump it. If they are convinced its the right thing to do, they’ll do it.
That said, I doubt it will be smooth if ND is among the first movers. There will be a large group saying we should have waited for a better deal or better teams to improve leverage. There will be a larger group saying forgoing independence is and remains a bad idea. And a small but vocal minority will say anyone but the Big Ten.
No, Mani, for it to go “smooth” there will have to be a wholesale change in the BCS and/or FBS subdivision. ND never had a chair to begin with vis a vie Conferences, so watching the scramble will always be seen as a viable option.
@ Michael
ND never had a place in a conference before. Watching the chaos seemed like a good idea most recently in 2003. ND will likely maintain the non-football Big East in the future. Besides, we’re a religious school. We believe that God will provide. If that sounds crazy, you need to look harder at ND history. =)
I still don’t see how a SEC-16 is feasible financially given current contracts, so a raid of the Big East or ACC from there seems unlikely for another decade or so.
Of course ND’s going to be talking to Texas about this. Everyone is. And the potential to get Texas is the big change from the last two B10 proposals.
Don’t forget, ND is *not* TAMU. We are not joined at the hip. Also, don’t assume that the Big Ten is ND’s preferred landing spot.
I still think Delaney was mad about the leak because it was an accurate report of a spitball idea that may interest ND and Texas. I doubt it left the realm of pure speculation, but I wonder if Delaney’s anger was because that kind of an offer would be outside of what his bosses allowed him to make. To me that seems plausible.
LikeLike
FLP,
The problem you and everyone else at ND has here is that if this isn´t a bluff, there may not be a place for ND when the dust settles.
If this rumor plays out, I think the Big 10 and SEC move to 16 quickly. Notre Dame will get one last call and one last chance, if they say no, they´re in a bad place. But I really can´t see that happing – and if that´s true and they´d strongly prefer a Big 10 with Texas then the time to move is now, not after the Pac 10 goes to 16 and Texas is already spoken for.
The assumption here is obviously the ND-UT connection. We have seen Doss and Swarbrick acknowledge they´re in regular contact. We have seen independent confirmations that there´s a strong connection. We understand the football and academic traditions at both schools and the Catholic/Hispanic bond uniting the two. And we also have the NU message board rumor. Something about that rumor pissed off Delany and my guess is that it was the connection between UT and ND. Bringing the two together in a package deal may be the strongest bargaining chip the Big 10 has (even above and beyond the $ and the CIC). At the time that rumor saw the light of day, Delany had no interest in showing his hand. Well now it´s shown and so is that of the Pac 10.
Now it´s time for ND, once and for all, to make a decision. Is it going to be a 16 team Big 10 with Texas or a 16 team Big 10 without Texas?
LikeLike
I don’t understand the continual overstatement of the threat to ND of all this expansion.
They have in their back pocket, at a minimum, the ability to stay independent and keep their non-football sports in whatever conference is created by the non-football playing Big East schools (GTown, Nova etc.)when this is done.
They will never be “forced” to the Big Ten by a lack of leverage, because even in the scenario of the Big Ten, Pac 10 and SEC going to 16, there will be a conference created by the combination of the remaining ACC and Big East teams. This conference would be much more likely to offer ND special considerations to get them to join.
They may decide to join the Big ten, but they won’t be forced there.
LikeLike
Notre dame already IS in a conference and they know iT! Its called the Big East. They compete in over 20 sports in the BE. This illusion they perpetrate on people is wearing thin. It’s the Big East and therein is the problem. They are the bully of the conference and like it that way. Comes a time when a man must grow up and leave his mother’s house ND. Time to come play with the bigger boys and men. The Service academies will be fine.
LikeLike
Why? The Big Ten has had eleven members for nearly 20 years. If the dust settles, and ND believes that it does not like its current option of staying independent, it will go to a 16-Conference and ask to join. If the conference believes that adding ND is a net profit for the conference (it will), then the Conference will call itself the “Big 16” with 17 members. There is not going to be a punitive, collusive response by the remaining conferences in ND does not immediately jump. Maybe a few posters would like to administer some punishment but the conference will simply say “yes, we are the Big 16” with 17 (or 18 or 20) members.
LikeLike
I agree with this. And the Big 10’s graphic artists have always had a way of dealing with this numerical issue.
LikeLike
Confrence will be sick of the primadonna and not let it play in any reindeer games. It has carefully taken its time on expansion. It will make good choices and ND will not be one of them. Another thing. “The Big Ten” will remain such. It will be a registered trademark. This is like Fox News “Fair and Balance. “ of course it’s not true but they (Fox) can legally say so. All the kids applying to Big ten universities understand that getting in means you can count, so its not a problem. The long standing name recognition and stability are positive attributes to the conference.
LikeLike
I don’t see how UTx, A&M, OU, Okla St, Tex Tech, & CU to the Pac 10 is a better deal than the SEC’s supposed offer a few weeks ago of UTx and pick three friends (probably A&M, OU, and either Tex Tech or Okla St).
The LSN is not a problem under the SEC’s contracts.
Under that scenario, the four new schools go the SEC West, and Alabama & Auburn get shipped to the SEC East. The farthest any of the teams have to regularly travel is StarkVegas, Mississippi.
One problem I see with a potential Pac 10 Network is that people on the West Coast don’t seem to be the rabid sports fans that we are in the South, or you guys are in the Midwest/Rustbelt.
One big bonus (for UTx) in the Pac 10/Big XII South-Baylor+CU merger is that UTx only has one consistent Top 10 team in its division. For the most part, the winner of the OU/UTx game wins the Pac 10 East. That may be more agreeable to UTx than jumping into the SEC meatgrinder.
LikeLike
FWIW, LSU consistently gets 3-6 4&5 star recruits out of Texas every year. Arkansas gets players out of Texas every year. Ole Miss & Mississippi State would probably be helped the most with a Texas presence in the SEC. Mississippi turns out great football players every year, but many of them would rather go to LSU, Bama or Auburn, rather than Ole Miss or Miss. State. I would expect the Mississippi schools to get the Texas players that Mizzou or Kansas currently get.
LikeLike
Alan, You have more truth in your last paragraph then you know.
I have contacts at OU..and while I’ve heard surprisingly little from them on expansion, they always end by saying something about how hard it will be to win the SEC.
LikeLike
@ Alan. You are correct, that west coast fans are not as rabid as a whole in comparison to others but….if you get a PTN on basic cable subscription – the sheer population of CA and TX, plus WA w/ Seattle, AZ w/ Phoenix, CO w/ Denver, and OK w/ Ok Cty is impressive. Although not as rabid – there are still plenty of fans that care in P10 looking at attendance numbers plus they would now be joined with the “rabidness” of TX and OK football fans.
LikeLike
The Big 12 gets ignored in the SE. Will a Pac 16 get any coverage east of the Mississippi?
They actually published this in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution today:
“After daylong discussions regarding the possible breakup of the Big 12, a scheduled news conference was abruptly cancelled, fueling speculation that the 12 schools are far from agreement.” There’s no interest or understanding in the SE about colleges west of Louisiana.
LikeLike
many years ago i was working an assignment in nashville. it was before the internet, and newspapers were pretty much it for game results, etc.
in seattle i had been able to read the sunday dallas morning news about two weeks late at the city library. when i got to nashville i went to the library and found they had subscriptions to some forty newspapers east of the mississippi and two west of it. san francisco and la times, i believe it was. no texas newspapers. no denver. no seattle.
LikeLike
Frank;
This is one of your better posts, even if the story turns out to be a rumor. But living within walking distance of Stanford and watching their behavior for the past 35 years I can tell you that your view on Stanford being the fly in the ointment is right on the money. These Stanford folk have the tightest sphincters I’ve ever seen. For them to give the nod to ANY Texas school stretches the imagination. And in the PAC 10, it will only take one no vote on one invitation to kill the whole plan. That no will come from Stanford. Go to Vegas and bet it.
LikeLike
I’m sure the discussion went something like this: “Stanford…Cal…if you two vote no…both will find yourselves in the WAC with your new rival Hawaii”
LikeLike
The instant Cal and Stanford are gone from the Pac 10 will be the instant they are invited to the Big Ten. It may be a logistical nightmare, but athletically they both are very good, if not great additions, and academically they’d more than solidify the Big Ten as a premier academic conference, but really put it over the top into the realms of competing on a serious level with the Ivy Leaguers.
If they were added to the Big Ten, why would A&M turn down an invite? If those three schools were added with say Notre Dame and Rutgers, what would stop the CIC from joining up with the likes of the Ivy League, or something to that effect? Right now, I don’t think any of those schools would go for a joint anything with the Big Ten because of schools like Indiana, Iowa and Michigan State – not that they’re bad schools in any way, but I think the Ivy Leaguers just see themselves as too far beyond schools like this. But with Stanford, Cal, Northwestern, Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin, A&M, Ohio State, Penn State, Illinois, and Minnesota, how could they not consider it? Think about Penn and Penn St working together, or Stanford and Harvard, or Yale and Cal, or Michigan and Cornell, or Princeton and Wisconsin, or Rutgers and Columbia.
I wouldn’t be completely floored at this point if Cal and Stanford are pressured into allowing this to happen, that they wouldn’t evaluate their current options. Again, Stanford especially, but to a lesser extent, I think the same thing holds true for Cal, and that’s that they identify themselves as premier academic institutions on the same level as the best in the world. Compromising that just might not be an option in their heads, and I don’t blame them.
LikeLike
From what I have read on Cal boards (just browsing through) – they seem to be on board and would be upset w/ Stanford if they tried to block an expansion plan that is for the good of the conference (granted – they hate each other anyway).
Stanford and Cal are very good schools and are rivals for both atletics and academics but are in two completely different situations. Stanford is private with huge coffers while Cal is in the UC system – where the state is broke.
Cal needs $ just like all others in the conference outside of SC and Stanford.
LikeLike
Unlike Michigan, Penn State, or even Ohio State, Cal does not have a problem loading up their football team with JUCOs. Cal is a fantastic school, but they seem willing to let a few things slide in the name of athletic excellence. Given the state’s current financial nightmare, I too am having a hard time seeing them as an obstacle to a lucrative expansion deal.
LikeLike
Stanford, Cal, and Oregon. I doubt there will be any serious arm twisting here. This is not the SEC. The liberals and the academics are not mythical entities there. So I have my doubts on that big expansion scenario. The vote has to be unanimous. I say Colorado for sure and possibly Texas but hey, I could be wrong too.
LikeLike
Crazytown. Offline for four hours and there’s a new blog post and over a hundred replies. Adding.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten needs to, nor should they be super flexible or accommodating to Texas. If the Pac 10 will do whatever they want them to, let them go there. The Big Ten can offer more than the Pac 10, meaning they’ve got leverage on Texas. If Texas turns down a Big Ten invite, then the Big Ten should offer one to A&M, who will probably join instead of putting up with the LSN in the Pac 10 (I’m assuming that would be the main reason Texas would join the Pac 10 instead of the Big Ten). Adding A&M would almost certainly get the BTN in all of Texas, and while they don’t have the national brand that Texas does, all of a sudden they’d likely get more exposure in Texas with the BTN than Texas would with the LSN. Texas would have worse national time slots for some big games in the Pac 10, A&M would get Northeastern exposure in important parts of the country like New York and New Jersey. If the Pac 10 expanding starts a title wave and the SEC successfully starts raiding the ACC, what’s going to stop Maryland (the most affluent state per capita) and possibly UVA from joining the Big Ten? If The Big Ten expands with Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, UVA and Texas A&M, (or they grab Nebraska instead of UVA), who’s really better off between the two? A&M would be ahead financially speaking to begin with, and would have tons more monetary growth potential because the Big Ten would just start tapping into DC and New York – once they get them, and eventually I think they will, even if it takes a few years, or even a decade+. All of a sudden, the Pac 10 is a good, but diluted academic conference, and Berkley, Stanford, UCLA and Washington are associated with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech, while the Big Ten stands alone as the premier academic conference, solidifying itself further by adding excellent schools in Rutgers, Notre Dame (more for potential), Texas A&M, Maryland, and a solid school in Nebraska.
On a separate note, that’s why I believe Stanford will vetoe any sub-par academic institution, because academia is its identity. Stanford is considered by some to be the best university in the world. They have an endowment of around $10 million per student! An extra $8 million a year in revenue isn’t so enticing when considering that they’re just another outlier school in a good conference. Other schools, athletics is their identity. Kansas, Texas, USC, probably even schools like Michigan and UCLA are thought of first because of athletics. Stanford measures itself against Harvard, MIT, Johns Hopkins – all East Coast schools, and identifies with them. Diluting the conference by adding mediocre schools AT BEST waters down their identity. Stanford wants the world to know that 1) money doesn’t drive them and 2) athletics CERTAINLY doesn’t drive them.
LikeLike
1) Are you guessing at the Pac 10 allowing Texas to keep the LSN even though they are joining the Pac 10 or have you read it somewhere? The report on Rivals quotes the Pac 10 commissioner as saying that the Pac 10 wants a network and “it would have to be an ‘all rights in situation.'”
2) Stanford does have a large endowment and a rich benefactor for the athletic department (Arrillaga, their version of Knight, Pickens), but even they had layoffs in their athletic department recently. I am not saying that would get the support of the academic side, but I can’t imagine the stanford AD would not seriously consider this plan.
3) I think people are overlooking the “division” concept. From the Pac 10, it is very ideal and overcomes some roadblocks. It returns the conference to the “Pac 8” which some old time alums will like. For Stanford, it could give them cover as they could claim that it’s really an 8 team Pacific Conference and the conference is in an alliance with a southwest conference. De facto, that would be true, if for football a division plays a 7 game round robin and 2 crossover games that don’t count in determining the division champ.
I have only been following the Big 12 as part of confernence expansion but divisions are beneficial for the Big 12 side too. It keeps rival teams together. It also will cut down on travel, which appears to be a concern of A&M. Lastly, contrary to Big 10 desires, having a core of Big 12 schools may make this work better for the Pac 16 because having a core of Big 12 schools in a division would be a more cohesive group. “Assimiliting” into the Pac 10 is less of an issue b/c at the bottom of it, the Pac 10 is only an athletic conference. There is no CIC or other academic links.
LikeLike
1) I’m guessing that if Texas chooses to go to the Pac 10 over the Big Ten, it will because they offered Texas the flexibility to also have the LSN. Otherwise, I just don’t think it would be worth it for them.
2) Regardless of how Stanford’s athletic department stands financially right now, it is about identity for them. They are probably the undisputed best school outside of the Ivy League according to public opinion. To compromise that in any way, like adding TT, OKST, and OK would be compromising what they stand for. I don’t think they’ll be bullied into compromise. They want to bee viewed in the same light as Harvard and Princeton, and diluting the conference goes against what they want to be associated with. Stanford is the kind of school that I could see pulling a University of Chicago and eliminating their major sports programs if being in the Pac 10 was about being associated with great athletics and not about being associated with great academics, because that’s who they are and what they want to be. USC doesn’t particularly care about academic prestige compared to athletic prestige, and that’s obvious, and they’re thought of a football school that has good academics. Stanford is a great school that sometimes produces good football and basketball teams. It’s about their identity, and IMO it’s probably something that they take more seriously than Notre Dame takes being independent.
3) You could be right, but the more separation and distinction there is between the two divisions, the more animosity there’s going to be and you’re going to have all the problems there was in the SWC and Big 12. If the Western schools see themselves as better than the Eastern ones and doesn’t affiliate with them, then Texas isn’t going to be happy because they’re in the same position they were in in the Big 12 from an academic standpoint. The sides are going to clash, and it would be kind of funny, but I could see it breaking up in the coming years and then another Big 12 forming again. One thing that has really separated the Big Ten (biggest and most obvious example) and Pac 10 (good, but not great example) from the other conferences is that there’s always been a connectedness of the members. There’s been cohesion amongst schools. Now they’d be adding a couple notorious schools for bringing drama and selfishness into the fold with enough teams to support them and help them make a noise in conference politics. If Texas and/or A&M joined the Big Ten, they would have an equal say in how things are done, but they’d have no leverage to determine conference decisions. What would they do, threaten to leave and lose out on the CIC, TV revenue, and national exposure? The Big Ten can let them go, or just ignore them if what they want is not what the rest of the conference wants. The Big Ten wouldn’t be dependent on Texas for population or recruiting like the Big 12, especially with New Jersey and possibly New York. The Big Ten sees itself as an exclusive club, and it should to maintain its academic and financial standard.
LikeLike
Well said. Why I think expansion for expansion sake is just not going to happen. The B10 really gets most things right. They are happy to have UT, even A&M, but will not want Tech. They have other options besides UT. They can and should make some concessions to UT (e.g., we’ll hold title game in Dallas every 3 years), but not sell their soul (e.g., you will get an unequal share of the pie). Once you grant a school that power, then they are going to think they can bully everyone in the conference. UT is on top of the world right now, but so was ND in the past. The advantage of the B10 is the stability it brings which allows a great school time to ride through the storms. Like UM is doing now, and OSU did before Tressel arrived. At some point, UT will fall off, maybe not to the place it was in the 90’s but it will fall behind. If ND passes on the B10 now and if Kelly is unable to bring the program back to prominence, they will lose a lot of their value. They already have.
LikeLike
Art good comment. UCLA, USC & UW probably are not interested in OSU or TT. After all there is enough academic dilution with party state(ASU) & OrSU so further pollution with Tier 3 schools(TT/OSU) & Athletics first Sooners seems highly suspect to me. There was a look of talking recently on the collaboration of P10 & B12 TV network so this is probably somebodies SWAG.
LikeLike
I agree with what you said. it was probably someone doing what were doing right here, drawing stuff up on a board. From a Big 12 standpoint, and you have to assume the conference is in its last days, this was a great idea. From a pac10 standpoint Probably just a good distraction/misdirection while they do their due diligence. There is way too much texas and way to much OKlahoma in here for this to be true.
LikeLike
re: “all of a sudden they’d [aTm] likely get more exposure in Texas with the BTN than Texas would with the LSN.”
Art, you seriously have no concept of the Texas market.. The thing about that vaunted Texas market is that it’s very much a “University of Texas” market. There are lots of Aggies, and they’re very loyal (and more than somewhat delusional) fans, but they’re not beating UT in terms of market share anytime soon, and no cable channel is going to change that. Other than straight-up Aggie fans, I don’t know what they would bring in the absence of UT – they are, whether they like it or not (and they don’t, believe me), defined by their relationship with UT. All of their traditions revolve around that rivalry – ALL of them. And speaking of those traditions…
“A&M would get Northeastern exposure in important parts of the country like New York and New Jersey.”
I’m not sure how good a thing that’s gonna be for an institution whose motto is: “From the outside you can’t understand it, and from the inside you can’t explain it.” New York and New Jersey are likely to recoil in horror when they pull out their “squeeezin’ ’em” trick up close and personal…
You may not find it palatable, and may even wish Bob Devaney’s gem above about Texas being “scared sh*tless” contained even a scintilla of truth, but right now, Texas is THE grand prize in this expansion game. And the Big 10, SEC, and Pac 10 will do anything within reason to land them. The trick is what that ‘within reason’ means to each of them. I would think Tech would lie outside that line for all of them, but who knows… I’m still not convinced that report is going to end up being all that accurate.
LikeLike
yes, bob, there is no question that texas is the biggest boat in this corner of the pond right now, but we are waiting to see how buoyant it is with the cargo it has to carry.
(how would i do as the new big 12 commissioner?)
LikeLike
well put…
Like I said, I can’t believe Tech isn’t a non-starter. That’s a whole lotta buoyancy there…
I also don’t get the Oklahoma schools involvement. I can’t really see Texas insisting on those, and I can’t see their inclusion as a PAC 10 idea either.
LikeLike
@bad bob
Sorry, let me clarify. I’m not trying to suggest that A&M will become more popular than Texas in the state of Texas. I’m personally under the persuasion that the BTN will be more popular, and bring more exposure to A&M than the LSN will bring for Texas, primarily because it’s just plain more interesting, and more encompassing.
More Northeastern exposure IS a good thing IMO if you want to become more than some academic institution, but rather become a brand, just like Texas is now. There really aren’t a whole lot of people who care about A&M outside of Texas. How do you change that? More media exposure, especially in the right places. I really do believe that the Big Ten is trying to go national, and build its brand name. It has a very good academic reputation now, but it wants to become a powerhouse like the Ivy League. It’s popular athletically right now, but it wants to have its games being played on ABC or CBS in not just the Midwest, but the Northeast, Southeast, and West Coast. When the BTN takes over New York/New Jersey (which after expansion I believe will just be a matter of time) and if it adds the right teams, the same might hold true for DC, then you’re looking at the BTN as a network that will threaten to go national.
My point was in that post that the state of Texas is more important than the brand of the school the Big Ten gets. While Texas is the better option for national recognition, if the Big Ten can get the BTN on in the entire state of Texas, expanding its market to an entirely new portion of the country is more important than concessions and brand recognition.
In summary, The Big Ten has standards and leverage for Texas and shouldn’t give in much, if at all. A&M brings 80-90% of what Texas does to the BTN. The Big Ten shouldn’t be bullied by someone who will be significantly worse off out of the conference than in it, especially if on an individual basis each member would be marginally worse off monetarily, and in the long-run much better off with less drama involved, (as Texas has been notorious for acting like a spoiled child).
LikeLike
Who thinks Tulane regrets having left the SEC in the 1960’s?
LikeLike
I sure hope the powers-that-be in Washington are in the loop on this deal, because unless the PAC 10 can convince Obama to nationalize the time zones, this deal isn’t happening.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
This is too funny. This isnt about academics. Its about securing television coverage. If Stanford is so full of itself, and so totally ignorant to distinguish the difference, maybe they should leave the Pac 10 in order to participate with more sophisticated folks. I know several people in high places at UT. The issue is alliances with those they have geographic history with. Tech, OU, TAMU especially have long rivalries and form a geographic consortium that Pac10 constituents should recognize. If they are indeed haughty enough to feel that they can dilute these historic values while clinging to their own, then is it they setting the game rules? If UT is indeed setting the parameters for inclusion of partners they are familiar with, who can blame them? Call it political, but any alliance with people, such as Stanford, who feel they must set these standards is not in the best interest of a long term alliance. And by the way, Tech may not be Stanford, but it has more academic clout than many are giving it credit for. One thing that may be mentioned, Tech and UT med schools and facilities are merging on many fronts, and Tech is in line to be the next Tier 1 school in Texas.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “Tech and UT med schools and facilities are merging”?
LikeLike
I can see this from the perspective of the Pac-10 as a whole.
However, from the perspective of Stanford, theirs is a private club. And as a member in a club where one single vote nixes the deal, then they, in theory, have the power to set the rules. Not Texas. I can’t imagine Stanford’s concern being the long-standing rivalries or traditions of Tech, OU, TAMU or Texas. Their concern should be whether they want to open up their club to who’ll they may see as the Clampetts. And knowing that admitting these Big XII schools, they can see a future where a single vote by some future president of Texas Tech–sunning himself among his critters down by the cement pond–would then wield all the power.
LikeLike
I can’t imagine Stanford’s concern being the long-standing rivalries or traditions of Tech, OU, TAMU or Texas. Their concern should be whether they want to open up their club to who’ll they may see as the Clampetts.
Ha! Perfect description for Tech and OK St.
Why oh why did they get in a hurry to fire their coach? Tubby Leach with a rifle riding in the backseat would be a perfect photoshop.
LikeLike
Damn Italians. Take two:
I can’t imagine Stanford’s concern being the long-standing rivalries or traditions of Tech, OU, TAMU or Texas. Their concern should be whether they want to open up their club to who’ll they may see as the Clampetts.
Ha! Perfect description for Tech and OK St.
Why oh why did they get in a hurry to fire their coach? Tubby Leach with a rifle riding in the backseat would be a perfect photoshop.
LikeLike
the SEC and Pac-16 would share a border? weird.
LikeLike
The SEC and Pac-10 may share a state.
LikeLike
An essential difference when talking about Texas/aTm versus Tech. The Aggies and Longhorns have fanatic life-long fans that never even went there. The Red Raiders don’t.
LikeLike
Although I’ve always thought that both schools have far fewer “t-shirt fans” than a number of SEC schools, for example, due to the existence of the Cowboys and OilerTexans.
LikeLike
I know way too many people that went to Lamar and are Horns or went to Sam Houston and are Aggies. I’ve never met a Raider/Bear/Frog/Cougar/Mustang/Owl fan that did not attend the school.
LikeLike
In MIchigan they’re called WALMART Wolverines.
LikeLike
The Maryland equivalent? The “Beltway alumni.”
LikeLike
Random thoughts:
(1) (Reposted from above because I was a moron and posted in the wrong place) CIC?!? Hundreds of millions of dollars of extra research dollars annually potentially left on the table? Just sayin’.
(2) Given the very logical probable divisional alignment, I wonder what UA and ASU think of this. They’re kinda sorta being pushed into a separate division, away from the schools with whom they’ve competed as conference peers for 30+ years. Are they OK with this?
LikeLike
(1) The CIC is sadly not mentioned enough in the media, and it’s probably the best perk of joining the Big Ten. Maybe fans care less about the academic side when they’re not an alum. If you like Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska for their sports, do you really care about their academics?
(2) I’m curious why they wouldn’t want to go with pods. Why would Texas join with the only hope of playing USC regular season would be once every eight years or twice every 16. With a pod system, that wouldn’t be an issue.
LikeLike
Nebraska has made a major research push in the last decade. The CIC would be huge for us.
LikeLike
Geography and Stanford/Cal.
This restores the Pac-16 West back into a Pac-8 before the expansion that Stanford didn’t really want.
The Pac-8 East basically is the Big 12 South with ASU/UA/UC instead of Baylor. That means travel is very easy because most of the conference will be divisional play with a handful of crossover games…
LikeLike
They could go with pods for football.
TTech, OU, OkSt, Colorado.
UT, aTm, AZ, ASU
USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford
UW, WSU, OU, OSU
Everybody would get one fixed rival outside of their pods (OU-UT, AZ-USC, ASU-UCLA, etc.) and when that rival is inside your division, you can have a back up rival.
Texas’s schedule would have aTm, AZ, ASU, and OU every year. They could have a back-up rival of Cal whom they’d play 4 of 6 years. The other ten schools they’d play twice every six years. It’s a pretty solid formula.
LikeLike
Pods are an act of desperation.
LikeLike
The CIC is as much a reason I want Maryland in the Big Ten as its athletics. That, and being associated with the top land-grant institutions in the country.
LikeLike
My random thought on all of this is that someone at Texas had this leaked out as a way of forcing the Big Ten and SEC to come up with offers.
Clearly, this offer shows that Texas has enough control over the situation to the point that the Pac-10 is willing to offer anything (I mean the Pac-10 commissioner, whether this plan would get the Cal/Stanford vote is less than certain). But the Big Ten and SEC should be able to offer more to Texas (ND?/CIC/more money from the Big Ten and more money from the SEC as well as a LSN).
What does this mean for the Big Ten and SEC? It’s time to put forward offers. Delany’s 12-18 month timeframe may have gotten blown up with this story yesterday because the Big Ten presidents are going to want a lot of movement between now and the Big Ten presidents meetings.
As for the SEC, it’s going to have to look really hard at whether to just be reactive or come up with a firm counteroffer of Texas/A&M/TTech/OU or something of that sort I’d imagine…
Essentially, the Big Ten was going to wait 12-18 months (and it still may if it doesn’t believe ND is coming and that Texas won’t come either), but the SEC is far more likely to become proactive now because other than the Big 12 most of its targets are harder to grab ACC schools.
I still think Texas won’t accept any invite until it knows what all three offers are, so we just have to wait and see at this point.
LikeLike
Maybe the P10 leaked it. I suspect Delaney has been milking the publicity. P10 has been ignored. Maybe they want some press. Everyone has been talking about the B10.
LikeLike
I think this may have been the last ditch attempt by the PAC 10 to get into the Texas sweepstakes. Of course, Texas would use all offers to their advantage – it’s like getting multiple teams to bid on one player. The thing is, the Big10 does hold some leverage the others do not. (Notre Dame proximity, CIC, academic reputation, an already established network which has yet to max out its’ own income). Game of chicken.
LikeLike
Well considering who leaked it, I think at least some of his sources were very close to UT; of course there could also have been sources at the Pac-10 who indicated to him that they were contacting UT and the other 5, but still…
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
How many of the monthly B10 “confirmed” invites have been hoaxes since December? The Pac10 said they would know by the end of the year and with the states so high, we should probably accept that as more reliable than internet rumors or media speculation. Further the B10 is taking a year to study expansion and hasn’t made any public announcement after almost 6 months. More likely that there are numerous hi-level discussions which all schools are stating IS happening & that after the story is relayed through 5 people it gets more spectacular each time it is repeated.
LikeLike
I’d like to see the Big Ten get things started by inviting Nebraska & Mizzou now…see they could start conference play in 2011.
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
Another theory on the rumor.
UT and aTm are indeed talking to the Big 10. Lots of moving parts, like McGee mentioned in his “leaked” email to Big 10 presidents, but it’s a serious conversation.
The PAC10 is thinking…if UT and aTm are going ANYWHERE, we want them. How can we keep them from going north?
Set up a scenario where the “favored sons” of the Big 12–not whiner Nebraska, not mediocre Mizzou, not smallball Kansas–are offered a life raft out of the conference together. OU is a great sports school and longtime UT rival. UT and aTm obviously have ties too. Texas Tech is the third wheel here, but if UT and aTm say YES to the PAC10, they bail out little sister. (OkSt doesn’t make a ton of sense to me but they are rich and athletic.)
Now, rather than Colorado being the “villain” who breaks up the Big 12, the five schools who say NO to the PAC10 (most notably Texas and aTm of course) are the villains. “They had a chance but they didn’t want it,” they’ll say. OkSt and Texas Tech supporters will be especially angry b/c those schools will be LONGSHOTS to make the SEC once UT and aTm head to the Big 10.
Rather than see this rumor as a PAC10 offensive, perhaps this is a PAC10 defensive move to slow down the Texas schools from heading north?
LikeLike
I agree that this was a proposal thrown out as the only viable option for the PAC 10 to get Texas. And I think this was the subject of the candid discussion during the Big12 meeting this past week, because the aTm a.d. left complaining about the travel for the students specifically in reference to the West Coast.
I wouldn’t wonder Texas was still trying to get the Longhorn Network off the ground during this meeting with promises of strength in their unity as the Big12, yadda, yadda, yadda. But if both Colorado and Nebraska leave, the whole thing doesn’t work. This is why Dodds said he would be the first to leave (Colorado and Nebraska would) but they would finish it.
LikeLike
Ooops. I mean Dodds said he wouldn’t be the first to leave. Sorry.
LikeLike
Just my gut feeling, but while I think this rumor has a fair amount of validity to it, I also think it’s a “Hail Mary” on the part of the Pac 10 that’s very unlikely to be completed. I can’t believe that a school would be offered membership on a Wednesday and told they have by Sunday to accept. That’s not a realistic offer. Unless these schools have been in contact for a long time (and other than Colorado, we have no evidence that they have been and a lot of evidence that they haven’t) they would need to study the pros and cons of such a move for weeks at least. No school would move that fast.
Now since this rumor is coming out of UT (presumably) and combined with the OSU emails that the Columbus paper has, I can see this being leaked to give cover to Texas to leave the B12 to join the B10. Hey, the Big XII was going to die–we had to move and we didn’t want to go West.
LikeLike
That Sunday deadline comment is clearly not correct. Maybe the P10 would really like to talk about it in their Presidents meeting Sunday, but there is no such deadline.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be surprised if this doesn’t all stem from the Big 12/Pac 10 discussions about a TV deal. With 1 or 2 members (NE & MO) hoping that they’ll get the golden ticket from the B11 and UT, being the school courted by every other major conference that matters, wanting to keep its options open, getting the BXII schools to agree with some sort of deal with the P10, which probably would have included a binding commitment to staying in the BX11, always seemed like a long shot.
So its easy to see how this new deal, assuming its true, could have grown from those talks. Instead of the entire BXII you trim away the teams looking to bolt to the B11 and cherry pick the rest. It sounds like the way they’re going to structure the conference the old school P8 would stay together and boot the interloping AZ schools over to the BXII rump division.
So while the new conference is called the Pac-16, with all the conference championship & TV money that goes with in, in reality you would have two mini conferences (the Pac-8 and Big-8) whose teams in football would play each other once or twice a year during the regular season and then again the championship game. Other than the championship game and 6 less teams this doesn’t seem all that different than the original proposed TV deal.
LikeLike
Awesome blog, Frank The Tank. For what it’s worth, the Omaha World-Herald article by Lee Barfnecht (sp) seems to be misinterpreted. The coaching candidates being interviewed about recruiting connections in Chicago, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee were *almost certainly* for basketball. Nebraska BBHC Doc Sadler has an AC position to fill, and it would make sense for him to start looking at those recruiting areas more if the Huskers were joining the Big 10. There are no football AC job vacancies, so again, the recruiting tidbit likely had nothing to do with that sport.
LikeLike
Perhaps I can shed a little light on Tech’s current and future positioning….and why we are causing so many problems right now.
As an academic institution, Tech is still growing into the shell of a large state school with private donors and public funding. It is a tier 3 university and was content with said label until the SWC collapsed and the Big 12 grew from the ashes.
As others have mentioned, the current goal of the university is to achieve Tier 1 status within the next 2-4 years, while increasing enrollment from 32K to 40K by 2016. Both expansion and Tier 1 status are tied to an effort to force UT and A&M, the two flagship universities in the state, into a fund sharing agreement.
Last I checked, Tech was $10 million away in annual research funding from achieving the benchmarked ~$45 million, and the Chancellor was confident Tech would get there.
As a whole, the academic situation at Tech has been unfairly painted as a step child. The fact is Tech’s law school boasts a higher pass rate on the bar exam than both UT and Harvard. The medical school is growing in both size and geographic coverage. A new research facility was just built on campus, and the school is pouring bundles of cash into it’s various programs.
Now to the politics. The current chancellor Kent Hance was a member of the Texas Senate before he was elected as a representative to the US House in 1978. This guy has political fingers in every part of our state…which is exactly what Tech needs in this kind of situation.
On top of this, there are few key members in the state government that are Tech grads…though I doubt they are the ones causing all the headaches.
No, the real problem is not any one individual..it’s the current academic/political structure in Texas. For a long time, UT and A&M horded most of the state funding, which oddly enough they thought would help build there own reputations as institutions of higher learning. In the end, all it’s done is prevent the other state schools from growing, which has in turn affected public perception of the flagships. Recently, the state has begun to open up to supporting more tier 1 universities, with the goal of achieving something similar to what California has. The schools most able to grow into this mold are Tech and the University of Houston.
My guess is that this is a case of national pressure running into local politics. UT is the main thrust behind getting Tech to Tier 1. I think A&M couldn’t care less. Most Tech fans know that we need UT in order to move forward, otherwise we get lost in the shuffle and our chances at Tier one diminish.
Sorry for the extended remarks. I randomly came across this site, and am glad I did. Great input from everyone.
LikeLike
Thanks for your informative input.
LikeLike
Texas wants Tech to get to Tier I (as long as it isn’t by taking $ from UT). Part of it is synergy, just as the CIC creates synergy. Part is to relieve enrollment pressure. Last year UT enrolled 73% of its freshman under the top 10% rule (if you’re in top 10% of HS class you get in-it got lowered to 8% this session but will continue to be an issue). It gives them very little flexibility in who they admit. Also, they have to take lower quality students from weaker high schools. Right now, the top students all want to go to UT or A&M. For the most part now, the ones who don’t get in are going out of state or to Texas St., Stephen F. Austin and Sam Houston St., the SLC schools. Its beneficial for UT and A&M (and the state) as the state grows for UH and Tech and others to get to be more desirable alternatives.
LikeLike
The fact is Tech’s law school boasts a higher pass rate on the bar exam than both UT and Harvard.
Not to nitpick, and I’m not saying that what I’m about to say applies to Tech, but it was my impression when I was in law school that a lot of lesser law schools taught the bar exam for three years to boost passage rates. So I don’t put a lot of credence into stats like that.
LikeLike
Yeah, thanks that was great information which us Non Texans lack. I have family in the Houston Suburbs and their kids go to UT and Houston. Other than UT and Rice I would not have considered another texas University in their case.
LikeLike
Wow…lots of stuff and great post by Frank and follow up comments! Some stuff I know to be true and other thoughts:
Timing wise, it would be impossible to have a deadline anytime soon at a place like Colorado. The process after receiving an invite to actually accept is long, tedious, and ultimately requires a vote by the board of Regents. They don’t meet very often and won’t vote on anything like this without exhaustive commenting from student and faculty groups. I imagine some other state schools would have equally long and public processes before they could answer the question.
Texas would always prefer the Pac-10 to the Big 10 as long as the money was relatively in the ballpark. They already do wonderfully for themselves without a big TV deal, and they understand as the Big 10 and everyone else understands….you need to be playing games regularly in 1 of Texas, Cal, Florida. Pac-10 adds Cal. Big 10 does not add a desirable geographic region. It’s the whole reason the Big 10 wants to expand, but at the same time the argument against other schools joining.
I’d say this rumor is similar to most in that it was probably a legit conversation among people involved in these sorts of things, but it’s a non-starter in my mind. The OK schools are much more likely interested in the SEC, Stanford would never admit the entire Big 12 South (less Baylor), and the Arizona schools would have zero interest in joining a division with these teams as a whole. Sure a potential TV deal might mean some more money, but again, unless it’s crazy Monopoly money, it won’t be enough.
LikeLike
Why would the AZ schools have zero interest?
Who is the biggest draw for Arizona Cardinals games? The Cowboys. AZ has more in common with Texas than it does So Cal or NW schools.
Meanwhile… while the football competition could be tough… is it any tougher than currently having to beat USC? Is Oklahoma/A&M that much better than whichever current Pac 10 schools are hot in a given year?
LikeLike
Think of any of the Pac 10 schools as extentions of the state of California. log on right now and look at the rosters of a pac 10 school. You will see alot of califonians. In fact a lot of people who cant get in to thier choice ivy or california school go to AZ. So do some from the Midwest as they have relatives in AZ, Cali, NY and FL.
LikeLike
Thinking back to Colorado, who I’m sure is simply hoping to be invited somewhere, I see a really huge opportunity for them to do something pretty remarkable. I don’t see them having this type of visionary leadership, but if the Big 12 is indeed crumbling, rather than be a likely bottom feeder in a P16 type conference, they could be the big fish in an automatic qualifier conference named the MWC. If the Big 12 goes away, I could see the MWC taking their automatic qualifier status based on their make-up of schools AND a really nice and quick way to take extreme political pressure off the BCS by a certain Sen. from Utah. Say Colorado, Boise St and 1 other Big 12 North team join the MWC. The league HQ, football championship game and basketball tournament could all be centered on Colorado, which would have 3 teams in the conference, a large city (Denver), and NFL facility for football and an NBA facility for basketball. Colorado would be in position to lead that conference into the future instead of being a very small fish in a very large ocean in a potential P16….but it’s not going to happen. Maybe the Kansas schools should look into this!
LikeLike
While I don’t think will happen, it’s something I’ve thought of as well. The Athletic budgets in the MWC are closer to CU’s athletic budget than the Big 12 or the Pac-10.
Numbers wise, the MWC would be a better match for CU.
LikeLike
Plus – and I know there are a couple of CO posters that lurk to correct me if wrong – but I believe CO’s main incentive for a Pac move was to have greater access to CA. If they move with 5 others, they are undoubtable going to be in the opposite sie of the conference as CA.
That being said – I think you take the BCS conference gaurantee over an alterative any day…
but if the Big 12 explodes I can see a B12 scraps/MWC getting an auto bid conference.
Ok – done talking out of both sides of my mouth – LOL.
LikeLike
Actually the athletic budget at CU puts CU right around middle of the pack of the existing PAC 10. That may skew a bit by taking the top half of the Big 12 though. You are correct in that one of the hopes for CU was to get out of a conference that is so focused on a facilities arms race, rather than transfer that race to a new conference. Though the increased conference payout should help catch up on some of the facilities (could use dedicated indoor facility instead of just the bubble). Being in the PAC is more beneficial overall for academic reputation AND funding. I recently read an article on how the MWC has the highest athletic subsidy costs per student of any conference (due to the poor tv deal), whereas the Big 12 had the second or third lowest.
However the whole CU has no money thing or is totally broke thing is completely overblown. Not firing Hawkins had a lot to do with State house politics for overall ACADEMIC funding. The AD has been operating at or near the black for the last several years, its just that the budget hasn’t ballooned to the levels of the top of the Big 12. You don’t hear as much about A&M but I think their AD actually has far more debt if what I’ve seen is true.
LikeLike
Just taking a step back and looking at this (rumored) expansion from 10,000 feet…
This seems an awful lot like how the Big XII originally formed, as a handful of schools from a dying conference had a shotgun marriage with a nearby conference. If you look at all of the current relationship problems with the Big XII today, wouldn’t we see a bunch of similar issues repeat themselves in the Pac-16?
LikeLike
Based on history alone, I don’t buy the story either. It is a bit like the Big 8/SWC scenario on steroids.
LikeLike
@ Cliff. As a Pac fan – I am truly afraid of that. I also noted a fear (in the Dirty South thread) of the Pac handing over the keys to TX. I realize that the Pac is in a tough spot as far as NEEDING Tx/aTm much more than the B10/SEC but I dont like the idea of giving them a blank check so to speak (which could be a scenario w/ TT/OK/OkSt involved).
I can’t imagine Scott and the CA schools (and WA to a lesser degree) would allow a new comer to be in a position to be the hammer for conference decsiion making (with 5 new members loyal to them to an extent).
I commented here a ways back that I thought the Pac would get TX/aTm because they can bend to TX concessions and that I could see a scenario with the B12 S – Baylor + CO joining the Pac but now I’m not so sure I like it.
I don’t think that I am reading too much into Neb and Mizz complaints about TX (and this is probably where Hopkins tells me they are full of it anyway) but jumping to a conference that is looking to better the finincial standing of the group as a whole with ownership in a conference network, and still (allegedly) demanding to create its own exclusive network on the side tends to rub me the wrong way….
LikeLike
Cliff’s Notes/Can’t Get Enough/Stopping By:
Your comments about the awkward marriage of two dying conferences and the negative effects of so many new Texas schools is exactly what some posters have been criticizing Nebraska for.
In some ways this new rumor is the argument against ANY megaconference scenario. Just too big, too hard to integrate everyone, too many culture clashes.
I still think any expansion by BT or other conferences will be 2-3 at most.
LikeLike
They are full of it anyway.
LikeLike
I’ve always felt Nebraska’s complaints went toward more of the Texas “the state” as opposed to the Texas “the school”.
Now as Texas “the school” is the lead of “the state” it makes sense to be the object of their ire, but in the end its the fact that one geographical portion of the conference is able to push its own agenda to the complete disregard of the rest of the conference (yes I know the voting records of the other schools, but that only proved my point that Nebraska felt like the only member who took anything but pro-Texas (state) stances).
LikeLike
Just the opposite for me. I’ve been to Texas (the state) and I find it populated by wonderful people. Salt of the earth. Texas (the school) seems to have some sort of power trip encoded into their DNA.
LikeLike
Mirroring a comment I made above:
I don’t see it as a shotgun marriage but a marriage of convenience: she wants citizenship and he wants a tax break so they get married.
In this particular case they want the $$$ and everything else that goes with a megaconference (championship game, larger recruiting footprint, TV, etc) without full commitment. The proposed aliment would keep the old, historic PAC-8 together, create a newish SWC’ish conference they only have to interact with each other a game or two each season, and then play for the rights to go to the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
“This seems an awful lot like how the Big XII originally formed, as a handful of schools from a dying conference had a shotgun marriage with a nearby conference. If you look at all of the current relationship problems with the Big XII today, wouldn’t we see a bunch of similar issues repeat themselves in the Pac-16?”
What issues? The only issues that really hurt the Big 12 is money. Everything else is just normal fans from the same conference sniping at each other. Read a Maryland blog and see how much they snipe at North Carolina ‘running the conference’. Read a Pac 10 blog and see how much they attack Stanford or USC.
The Big 12 has been excellent for schools like Iowa State, Missouri, and Kansas, who have all used Big 12 revenues to stay competitive. Iowa State beat Nebraska in football one year! Missouri and Kansas have been to major bowl games!
Nebraska fans lament that schools they have historically viewed as vastly inferior can beat them when they have a down period. This unhappiness with their lot is transferred to the University of Texas as the symbol of the new conference; the fact that UT just beat them when they seemed primed to return to a title game just adds to the connection. Still, if the money wasn’t so much bigger in the Big 10, they would be unlikely to leave their rivalries behind.
If the 4 Texas schools left the Big 12 tomorrow, the old Big 8 schools would actually be less likely to stick together, because it wouldn’t be profitable in comparison with the big leagues. Money would split them apart. Academics certainly wouldn’t keep them together.
LikeLike
Money is the flashpoint that has revealed the cracks in all of the relationships. But the issues in the Big XII seem quite a bit deeper than in other conferences.
I don’t hear anyone in the Big Ten or SEC complaining about the league being centered in Chicago/Atlanta. I don’t hear anyone complaining about unequal revenue distribution. I don’t hear conspiracy theories that the refs are throwing games to get a favored school to the BCS or to a #1 Tournament seed. I don’t hear dirty laundry aired about partial qualifiers. I don’t hear about schools talking openly about upgrading their academics by moving to a different conference. I don’t hear ANY discussion about breaking up one of the greatest rivalry games, such as Oklahoma-Nebraska.
So, in the new proposed Pac-16, you are again spreading things out way too much. Schools in three different time zones with a big ass mountain range in the middle. Arizona schools losing their rivals for the last thirty years (how many recruits do they get from California?). Adding more schools to the bottom tier academically. Will there be friction over the location of conference HQ, and the location of the CCG and Basketball tournament? And, again, we haven’t even gotten into the Stanford elites and Berkeley liberals and Blue States meshing with the A&M military foundation and Great Plains farmland Red States and the semi-autonomous State of Texas.
So yeah, I see a lot more red flags both in the Big XII and in the proposed Pac-16 than we see in The Big Ten, or the existing Pac-10, or the SEC.
When the next flashpoint comes in 10 or 20 or 30 years, is it the SEC, the Big Ten, or the Pac-16 that’s more likely to be split up, because of some general unhappiness and issues that never were addressed or resolved?
Will USC or Stanford have a wandering eye? Will Texas or Oklahoma have a wandering eye?
LikeLike
“I don’t hear conspiracy theories that the refs are throwing games to get a favored school to the BCS or to a #1 Tournament seed”
Wasn’t it just last year there were a few SEC games where fans and media alike complained celebration penalties gave at least the appearance of favoritism?
SEC fans aren’t looking to move, so they’re certainly not coming on to this blog to complain about their fellow schools. Pac 10 schools don’t really have anywhere to move, so they’re not coming onto this blog to complain about their fellow schools.
Big 12 schools who are looking to move up are coming onto this blog to say “Oh my gosh, you guys are the best. I’m even better than I appear because the guys I’m with now are totally holding me back!” If the Big 12 was making another $10 million a year per school, they would still have these complaints, but they wouldn’t make this forum.
The fact is, they’re all competing to take a limited number of spots. So, not only is it in their best interests to make themselves look good, it’s in their best interests to make the other options look bad. The worse you can make your conference mates look, the less chance they can squeeze you out of a spot!
Schools always complain about their conference mates, but it’s generally left in local radio or message boards. You’ll see them in ‘comments’ sections on national articles, but if you’re like me you rarely bother to read those.
The Big 10 and Pac 10 are both better academically and financially than the Big 12 (the Big 12 and Pac 10 might be close now financially, but the right schools moving over shift the equation). The SEC is better financially than the Big 12. There is no reason for the top half of the Big 12 to want to stay in it except for tradition or politics. Everyone senses that that won’t hold the conference together, so they’re looking for a safe way out. In the process, all the little complaints come out to try and downgrade the opposition.
LikeLike
“There is no reason for the top half of the Big 12 to want to stay in it except for tradition or politics.”
And the “tradition” you speak of is kinda sketchy, since it’s more of a geographic association than truly respecting tradition. See: Nebraska v Oklahoma.
Which basically proves my point. The Big XII was thrown together, and now they are bailing for $$$.
And the Pac-10, because of their geographic isolation and their financial positioning, is somewhat backed into a corner with limited options regarding its Super-Conference possibilities. I can’t fault them for doing everything they can do get Texas, but that does include a little bit of the selling of its soul. And it leaves a lot of questions regarding how the new schools will mesh with the current schools.
Much less so than the discussed options of the Big Ten, SEC, and ACC. If these conferences expand (assuming the ACC doesn’t lose anybody major), the schools that they bring in may have a few outliers. But there won’t be a question about the athletic identity of the conference, or the HQ city, or a battle over the CCG, or the academic mission.
LikeLike
Here are a couple questions I can’t answer in a simple way…
1. Why are ND and UT in talks about always playing one another as incentive to join the B10? ND is independent, and UT could schedule ND regularly non-conference if they wanted, so why is this even an issue?
2. Why would Stanford take Tech/OkSt as the bitter pill to swallow to get UT when they voted against UT years ago?
LikeLike
Texas would be replacing a rivalry with Notre Dame probably.
LikeLike
Texas Tech and Oklahoma State, but not Utah? You have got to be %&@#ing kidding me. Wow. Utah is really getting bent over and screwed in this scenario. If this happens, I hope Utah’s senators genuinely do bring the Sherman Act down on college football’s heads.
Getting left out for a couple of $#!+ schools in $#!+ cities that offer much less in academics, athletics and market just because they’re already part of the club would be the strongest evidence yet that the BCS is a front for an illegal cartel. These are STATE and FEDERALLY funded PUBLIC institutions, remember; not businesses.
Utah already has a better athletic department, better academics and a larger market than a surprisingly large number of current AQ BCS programs, and they’ve had to do it without any AQ money or respect. With AQ conference money, Utah would be doing significantly better than they already are. Utah is taking pennies and turning it into gold; who knows what they’d do with some AQ money.
I don’t buy this rumor exactly as is. We’ll see how it plays out. Utah sure is playing the part of Rodney Dangerfield in all of this noise, though. No respect, indeed.
LikeLike
@ Baron. I understand your bitterness and as a Pac fan I can say that I would prefer both Utah and kansas to TT and Ok St any day of the week.
LikeLike
As a Texas fan, I’d much prefer Utah over OK St.
LikeLike
Pasta fagioli.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten can let this drag out. Let’s say they are telling the Rutgers, Syracuse, etc. that it will be another 12 months until anything is decided.
What’s to stop the ACC from thinking , “instead of scraping up the Big East leftovers after we are raided by the SEC, why don’t we get the Big East teams we really want now”. They then invite RU, SYR, Uconn and Pitt.
As an RU fan I think they and the others would accept an ACC invitation now. RU has been where it looks like Kansas may be heading and wouldn’t want to risk that waiting for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Just to preemptively answer those that would say to the above, “who cares, I didn’t like the expand to NYC strategy anyway”-
A larger ACC that stretched from BC to Florida and included NYC is an attractive home for Notre Dame, making it less likely they would join the Big Ten. Then, if Texas turns down the Big Ten, they no longer have ANY of the three movers that would have drastically increased the BTN revenue.
LikeLike
Except that the ACC may not want Rutgers in that scenario.
Pitt, Syracuse, and WVU would be better fits. All have great basketball programs and historical rivalries with Va Tech, Miami, and BC.
And then it comes down to UConn v Rutgers. I think the ACC would take UConn.
I do think Rutgers would end up in the Big 10… but in a “be careful what you wish for” scenario where they get all the money they could want… and would then revert to being a sub-mediocre football team.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten is going to let anything drag out.
I think this Pac-10 explosion is going to give the Big Ten presidents (as seen by Gee’s insistence that Delany move more rapidly to lock down options) what they need to move this process along and reach a conclusion faster.
After yesterday I’m somewhat of the opinion that we could see the Big Ten make a move in the next few months, perhaps before the football season, since I don’t think the presidents want to wait till next Feb.-March if it looks like the Big 12 will implode well before then.
LikeLike
Phil,
The problem with your thinking is that the SEC does nothing. Lost in this discussion is that the SEC sits on its hands then goes for a team like WVA or UL. If you can not see that football drives this bus, you need a wake up call. Like it or not the SEC is in the catbird seat right now and people on here keep saying they have no chance for this or that. I am not one of them because from an outside observer they have the product right now.
I am not saying this will be the case 10 or 20 years from now, but we are here now and not in the future. Go six deep in the SEC and you are looking at strong football teams. Go six deep in the ACC and you are not seeing similar product quality to ensure ratings. For the CHEAP SEATS ==> RATINGS = REVENUE!! I have been saying from the beginning that once ANY conference passes 12 teams it is about $$ [I personally would like to see the academic argument take first place, but I do not run a university or a media company].
Right now the 2 strongest conferences are the Big 10 and the SEC period! A merger of the Pac 10 / Big 12 would fill out the BIG 3. Anyone left will be prey not predator! The Big 10 has football names as does the SEC, where are the equivalents in the ACC????
The top 2 (Miami & FSU) had their glory in the 80’s and 90’s after that you are looking at Ga Tech (1990), Clemson (1981) and Maryland (1953). Not exactly historic ratings blockbusters the way say tOSU, Michigan, PSU, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, USC, ND etc.. have been over the past 50 – 100 years! I think people that feel the ACC will leapfrog the SEC, or that the SEC will stand by as the Pac 16 and Big 16 happen are in some dreamland.
In the end revenue is driving expansion not academics!
The more I look at this the more I pooh pooh Texas and ND for the Big 10 as being more headache than they are worth..
I also am liking the east coast less as too fractured for real economic gain that preserves the academic reputation of the Big 10.
The more I look at this I think the Big 10 could get Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas (mid western core values) and Maryland & Virginia out of the ACC and call it a day. [yes as an IU and MSU basketball fan adding Kansas, Maryland, and UVA makes me happy]. All are AAU schools, all expand footprints without egos and unequal demands, and all are still in a decent travel footprint.
Not to be an academic snob, but such a action would stand out as making the Big 10 the academic standard (no other conference could claim every conference member as an AAU member). I say let the other conferences lower their standards academically, and let the chips fall where they may.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Is it possible that Texas likes a lot about what the Big Ten has to offer, but doesn’t want to be geographically isolated. Maybe Texas sources leaked the idea of a wholesale move of Big XII teams to the Pac-16 as a way to get the Big Ten acclimated to the idea that it will have to take a chunk of southwestern schools to get Texas.
Instead of the Big XII South to the Pac-16, what about Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Notre Dame to the Big Ten? In other words, maybe this is an attempt by Texas to grease the skids for getting Tech into the Big Ten.
LikeLike
paul, i think there might be something to that. we’ve been getting inklings for a while that texas politicos are mixing up the chemicals to make a silk purse out of tech. if the big ten were willing to bring them in, i doubt we go to the pac-10.
LikeLike
Gee’s email seems to imply that the “Tech problem” will be a big issue, so you may have a point.
LikeLike
Dwelling on this overnight, I think that’s the biggest thing we learned as an actual fact yesterday.
LikeLike
Agreed. Tech could be the issue clogging the gears here. Thing is, I don’t think TTech would get approved to the Big Ten, nor do I think they’d want to add four teams (Texas/Tech/TA&M/Nebraska) from one conference.
I think Texas would have to hope Oklahoma and Tech could get picked up by the SEC, but they’d likely have to be willing to move beforehand, which may not be plausible.
LikeLike
Manifesto – The SEC would have no interest in Texas Tech without UTx being involved.
LikeLike
It might be that the BT have already accept to allow T A&M but Tech is another story. Indeed even A&M is too much texas for me. To add Tech would be a problem. They would be tajkeing a spot forom the covetted ND or Mizzou.
LikeLike
Even after this leak, I think Tech is non-starter with the Big Ten.
LikeLike
We still don’t know how much of a Tech problem the Pac-10 schools have.
While some of the Pac-10 ADs may be enthusiastic about this, we have no idea what the chancellors or presidents think.
This seems to be one of the expansion scenarios that the Pac-10 commissioner’s office has floated only it got traction because of the leak.
So we have no idea what certain Pac-10 schools, i.e. Stanford, think of this.
I can’t think Stanford would be amused being blindsided by a push to admit OU/OSU/Tech. Stomaching ASU for AU was one thing; this is quite another, no matter how you stage it as a return to the old Pac-8…
LikeLike
zeek, it depends on how they handle it. if the west coast schools consider that really it is two different conferences (except when they are sitting in a texas recruit’s parlor or talking to the networks), then it is a case of foisting the ariz interlopers off on another conference.
LikeLike
@glenn: That doesn’t sound like a healthy conference to me.
LikeLike
gosh, no, redhawk. it’s awful. i assume you read this: https://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/06/03/aint-no-party-like-a-west-coast-party-for-real/#comment-67362
that what this cal poster is saying loud and clear.
LikeLike
At what point do Texas’ “problems” stop? If they solve the Tech problem, does the Baylor problem come up? TCU? Rice? SMU? Houston? UTEP? North Texas State? UTSA? Harlingen Community College?
LikeLike
Pingback: Anonymous
I think my favorite part of this rumor is the Oklahoma bloggers and fans, who went directy from “Texas/Missouri/Nebraska should be shot for considering expansion” to “expansion is awesome, great idea”
LikeLike
I think “6 from the BigXII to the PAC16” is reasonable, but I think that this report has the wrong 6.
Scott from the PAC10 said that the PAC would expand based on the Noah’s Arc Principle – Two-by-Two. I think the “paired in-state rivals” concept is really really important to the PAC. AND, the concept of “travel partners” is probably even more important in a HUGE geographical league like this would be.
So, let’s look at the partners …
Texas and TexasA&M – CHECK! In state rivals, paired, make sense together, have a history. Ok, you’re on the Arc!
Oklahoma and OkState – Check! In-state rivals, paired travel, makes sense together, have a history. OK, you’re on the Arc!
and then ….
Texas Tech and Colorado – um no! Not in-state rivals, no history, no common travel really. Sorry, not on the Arc like the Unicorns and the Dragons!
So …. who maybe does make sense …
TexasTech and Baylor – AHHH, puts Texas and California on a common footing with 4 teams each.
TexasTech and TCU – that works as well
TexasTech and UTEP – stretch, but might work – east and west split of Texas looks good on a map like south and central split of California!
Colorado and Colorado State – well, in-state rivals at least, and paired travel (both use Denver airport)
Kansas and Kansas State – in-state rivals, really adds to PAC10 basketball
BYU and Utah – probably looks slightly better than the CU/CSU pair, but I still kind of doubt Liberal Cal can stomach conservative BYU.
———–
I think the “pairs” are important. IF the PAC can get Texas and Oklahoma, they are set for the Financial aspect of the expansion. The last teams will be added for “geographic or political” reason, and the finances would be as critical. Getting the PAIRS right is going to be important. I think getting FOUR teams in Texas is going to really important to UofTexas to be on “equal footing” with California – so I’d lean toward TexasTech and TCU or TexasTech and Baylor being the final pair … but NO WAY the final pair are Colorado and TexasTech.
LikeLike
I understand the two by two culture in the PAC 10, but that’s just not how the Big12 South works…..and maybe that’s why this fails.
LikeLike
I agree that the concept of matched pairs means a lot to the Pac 10. I also agree that CU + Tech is a strained match. While in-state pairs are probably better, there are viable alternatives.
Assuming that if Tech is a must in order to get UT, there are a couple of routes that get you there without straining the Pac 10’s model (I also assume that sectarian universites are not going to get into the Pac 10, so no BYU, TCU or Baylor):
1) Tech could be paired with Oklahoma (the distance is not that great), with Colorado + CSU or Utah and Texas + aTm as the other pairs. OSU and Boone’s billions are left out.
2) Tech is paired with aTm while Texas is paired with Rice (the third tier-one institution in Texas, also, adding Rice would be catnip for persnickety Stanford). Colorado + CSU or Utah is the other matched pair. OU and OSU are left adrift in this model.
There are ways to make this happen and preserve the matched pairs order of the Pac 10.
LikeLike
What’s so bad about Colorado being paired with Texas Tech? Lubbock may not be much further from Boulder than it is to College Station or Austin.
If Colorado is so deadset against being paired with Texas Tech, perhaps the Pac-10 shouldn’t invite it in the first place.
LikeLike
What’s so bad about Colorado being paired with Texas Tech?
Nothing, really.
But it is human nature to try and rationalize things that don’t fit the worldview we’ve constructed.
ASU, AZ, CO, and TT make a natural Interior Quad.
LikeLike
I think Pac 10 sources have been pretty clear that the two schools they are most interested in are Colorado and Texas. The strain is not between CU and Tech as institutions so much as they are a bad pair, not even from adjoining states. That would be, for the Pac 10 schools, a meaningful and unwanted departure from the conference they have always wanted to build. So I think you would be hard-pressed to get unanimous acceptance for a CU-Tech pair. Again, not CU’s “problem,” a Pac-10 culture “problem.”
LikeLike
Agreed that CO and Tech are a bad pair, but I don’t think the Pac 10 is hung up on creating “matched pairs” beyond logistics (easier to schedule, less travel, etc.).
LikeLike
HMMM? Do you not see a problem with all this Texas ??? Oregon, Washington and Arizona would be diminished greatly from the influence of 3 or more Texas school. The State of California has 4 schools but that’s fine. It’s always been a California based league. Speaking of California? Who says they want equal footing with Texas in their own league?
LikeLike
“Utah already has a better athletic department, better academics and a larger market than a surprisingly large number of current AQ BCS programs, and they’ve had to do it without any AQ money or respect. ”
You can’t compare Utah to Texas Tech like this because, from the sound of things, the politicians in Texas have told the burnt orange that Tech has to go along with them and A&M. Therefore, you have Utah up against the wants and whims of the University of Texas. Utah can’t run in the tall grass with the big dogs.
LikeLike
“Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne has called a mid-morning meeting Friday in Lincoln with Husker staff/coaches — I’m not sure if it’s just football staff, or all staff — to apprise them of “latest developments” on the conference realignment front.”
http://my.journalstar.com/post/Husker_Extra_Group/Husker_Extra/blog/big_12_meetings_final_day.html
LikeLike
The Pac-10 might’ve scarred the Big Ten into escalating their expansion. This might be the prequel to an announcement Sunday or Monday.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
There does seem to be a certain tone from some of the Big 10-centric commenters here along the lines of:
Texas to a 16-team Big 10 would be great and perfect and the sun would shine and birds would sings, but Texas to a 16-team Pac 10 means certain Big XII-style doom for a conference foolish enough to give Texas a blank check and the keys to the car along with a fifth of JD.
LikeLike
I think there’s a difference between adding Texas as an outlier vs adding 6 teams from one conference. Perhaps the Big 10 doom and gloomers have simply paid attention to how well adding a voting block has worked out for Big 8 schools.
LikeLike
You mean that 11-vote voting block added to the one-vote Nebraska block?
LikeLike
Wow, kinda touchy today. NU and TEXAS vote together on almost every item in the Big 12 because they are the 2 biggest benefactors.
I have seen that the BTN people would love to have Texas and A&M but don’t want Tech and don’t want Texas to have a LSN and want Texas to get the same deal that PSU, OSU, UW, NW have.
Texas to the PAC 10 with a large group of Big 12 schools could work out great, but the Big Ten posters are expressing concern for one school in a conference to get special treatment (LSN & bringing less qualified schools) just to appease them.
No doubt Texas is big dollars and a great school, but especially in the PAC 10 where money isn’t divided equally, some posters are seeing a recreation of the rapidly collapsing Big 12.
I would be happy for Texas to join the Big 10 or Pac 10, but I think any school joining a conference MUST do so under the same rules as the current members or you end up with trouble down the road. Same feeling that I have about Notre Dame, Nebraska, Texas Tech, etc.
LikeLike
@HH:
I think Patrick sums up my feelings pretty well. It’s not that Texas might go to the Pac10 — we’ve always known that was a possibility. It’s that, according to this rumor anyway, it feels like the Pac10 is willing to invite no less than 3 of 6 schools that they normally wouldn’t touch with a ten foot poll, and one (A&M) that we’ve all said for months now would possibly have huge culture clashes.
I’m not against them going to the Pac10, I just think it’s a bad idea to essentially annex the Big12 South as the sole element of their expansion. I feel I’ve been pretty consistent with this feeling. I’m against 5 Big12 teams to the BigTen as well. I’m also against the theories of the BigTen somehow annexing the entire ACC core schools (UNC/Duke/UVA/UMD), even though academically it’d be a homerun. Same with a raid entirely on the BigEast. I think Delany agrees, when he says he’s not looking to destroy a single conference.
My feelings since the start have been that if you’re looking to move to 16 then synergy is incredibly important. I just don’t easily see synergy and an “all for one, one for all” mentality in a conference that consists of “us and them” from its inception. Nor do I see viability when a conference gives up major concessions, such as sacrificing academic identity or telling teams they can permanently play less conference games or have their own network when the BigTen already has one — all ideas and rumors floated on this board at one time or another.
LikeLike
As a further point — I would accept Tech/TA&M/Texas, but at the cost of Nebraska in this case. I personally just can’t see all four. It would feel like a bad move. But I could be wrong, who knows.
If Tech could eventually reach an MSU level of academics I could see presidents signing off. But it would have to come with that kind of a commitment expected by both parties, as well as an intention to reach AAU status in the future. People on here have said TTech plans to reach Tier 1 status in the future — perhaps joining the BigTen would help that along. I’d have to think so.
LikeLike
yes, mani, i have no doubt that it would help enormously. i’m not that opposed to tech coming. they could be ok, and, with appropriate nurturing should develop pretty nicely, i would think.
no harvard on the high plains, but big ten ok, sure.
LikeLike
sell it to the big ten as kind of a grow-your-own, you know.
LikeLike
Agreed. The Big Ten schools weren’t always as highly thought of. OSU has made a lot of strides in the past two decades to get the respect it has today, for example. Not all the schools have been as consistently regarded as Northwestern or Michigan.
Perhaps the BigTen could take Texas/Tech/Nebraska, which would open the door for A&M and OU to head to the SEC. I like A&M a lot, but that might be a situation everyone could be happy with in the long run.
If compromises are to be expected from both parties, this is probably the ultimate concession for the BigTen. They’d be giving up the AAU exclusivity for a long time, a concession previously only reserved for ND. As you said, they’d be saying in effect, “We’re willing to help Tech get to where it wants to be, so long as Tech is committed to getting there itself.”
LikeLike
bingo. i think all parties would need to see that tech is committed. my very strong guess is that they would seize the moment.
the one wistful thought on my part (in addition to the delight at thinking how much you would like the ags if you had them close) is the thought that the big ten might have a very positive influence on the ags. i’d dearly love to see them join the rest of us hominids.
LikeLike
Hah. Well, I like them as an expansion candidate anyway. The moment they beat OSU I’m sure I’ll hate them like the rest.
LikeLike
mmm . . . i think you would find they have their other moments as well.
LikeLike
more: i like them as an expansion candidate as well.
like water buffaloes, i like them better at a distance.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn
I don’t think Big Ten homers are saying Texas to a 16 team Big10 great, Texas to the Pac16 bad per se. It seems most are saying annexing 6 teams from one conference seems to be a repeat of the Big12 and before that the SWC, both dead/dying conferences.
Most Texas to the Big10 scenarios have the Big10 taking 2 teams & at most 3 teams, from any one conference – not 6. It does, in my eyes, seem to repeat history for Texas. If the Big10 was doing the same, annexing 6 teams from 1 conference, I would think it would be a bad idea.
LikeLike
I could see the Big Ten taking in Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke as a package if it felt it had no better collective option to accompany Nebraska or Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Yeah – one of the reasons I am reserving judgment to say I like this idea. I think I would be more in favor of something similar to TX/aTm, CO/Utah, and some sort of KS/Mizz/OK combo. Not gonna happen but the reasoning behind it is you have 10 already that support Pac plus you add Utah and CO (with the hopes they see things more the Pac way) and only 3 schools total from the B12 South (because it seems that even though they were same conference – the B12 N and S did not have a lot of similar pov’s). This avoids (hopefully) inviting a block of 6 that can throw weight around as new comers in an established hierarchy.
LikeLike
HH, one overlooked aspect of the proposed P16 East is that for nearly 3/4 of the football season, Az and ASU will be on MST (equivalent to PDT), Colorado will be on MDT, and the BXII Five will be on CDT. How the heck to you schedule with those time zone differences, especially when the other half of the conference is on PDT?
You think the new conference is going to want Texas playing night games in the slots where they can have the coastal teams playing during the day? No, they want central time zone teams so they can have programming earlier in the day. A four-hour noon game in Austin in September. Oh Joy. They’d have to pump the Town Lake dry to keep half the east stands from passing out.
And how does Texas feel about just getting two games a year against the coastal schools, while having to play CU, Az, and ASU every year? Not to mention no LSN, and substantially smaller revenues than they’d get in the Big Ten.
Seems like an awful lot to give up for your Red (Raider) Headed step-brother.
LikeLike
mb, you’re not suggesting that (u of) texas has any choice in the matter, are you?
LikeLike
The Big XII is viable as long as Texas is part of it. So yeah, they have a choice.
LikeLike
no. any three or four biggies leave and that place is defunct. think tv.
LikeLike
@ glenn
If three or four non-UT “biggies” leave, then the Pac10 thing will be off the table.
Are you saying that Texas has to do what Tech and A&M do? That would be, how shall I say it, hilarious?
LikeLike
a&m might be grown up enough in the eyes of texas politicians that they would be allowed to go on their own (or buddy with someone else) but i’m getting the impression that texas is expected to mentor/suckle the red raiders the next fifteen-year conference. then uhouston, utep, . . .
LikeLike
Well according to the NU fans, Texas will simply insist that Arizona adopt daylight savings time.
LikeLike
Damn freedom of information act.
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/06/04/e-mails-hint-eyes-are-upon-texas.html?sid=101
Interesting Columbus Dispatch article.
A decision about expanding the Big Ten might be months away, but e-mail conversations indicate that the University of Texas is an object of the conference’s attention. And the school’s athletic director isn’t making a commitment to stay in the Big 12.
Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee sent an e-mail to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany on April 20 saying that he had spoken with Texas President William Powers.
“I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a ‘Tech’ problem,” Gee wrote in an e-mail that was among several obtained by The Dispatch through a public-records request for documents and correspondence related to Big Ten expansion proposals.
Texas Tech is one of Texas’ rivals in the Big 12 conference. Ohio State officials declined a Dispatch request to explain the “Tech” problem.
LikeLike
I put no faith in this merger of BXII S and Pac 10, but assuming it does happen, does that really force the other conferences to do anything. If ND was willing to join the B10 and become the 12th team, that would probably be it. If they don’t, does the B10 need to do anything at this point? Why go the East Coast route if that is your 2nd option? Why couldn’t the B10 simply stand pat for now, continue to make its insanely amount of money and only have 11 teams to share the pie with. Let the Pac 16 dominoes fall and revisit expansion in a few years. What if UT realizes that the merger isn’t working? What if Cal/Stanford don’t like it? Maybe the ACC destabilizes?
I guess my question is, why will an expanded Pac 16 have an effect on the B10. If it can’t get ND in that case, then it just looks like they are being reactionary, and I don’t think the B10 wants to be perceived as being reactionary. The fact is, with the money they make, they don’t have to do anything.
LikeLike
Yes, it does force other conferences to do something, because this is a dollars race. The main reason all these conferences are courting Texas is money. You cannot let your conference have a big gap in money or, eventually, the facilities and aura of the other programs in the richer conference will leave you behind.
By the way, Fox in the one who wins in all and every senario, because they control all of these TV contracts / networks. Whether it is one mega channel or several small ones they can package together, they are using college football to compete with ESPN.
LikeLike
Yes, but you don’t make business decisions simply to chase dollars. You make them to maximize your dollars, now and in the future. Also, we are not simply talking aggregate dollars, we are talking per-school dollars. I do not see how this expanded Pac10 could generate more per-school dollars than the B10 currently gets. Getting a few additional dollars now does not matter unless it enhances the long-term affect. The B10 is in the position to wait until the time is absolutely perfect. The P10 and BXII may not have that same luxury. Most big mergers do not work out. Just another way of saying expansion for expansion sake should not be done. And a P10 – BXII merger does not inherently affect the B10.
LikeLike
A decision about expanding the Big Ten might be months away, but e-mail conversations indicate that the University of Texas is an object of the conference’s attention. And the school’s athletic director isn’t making a commitment to stay in the Big 12.
Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee sent an e-mail to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany on April 20 saying that he had spoken with Texas President William Powers.
“I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a ‘Tech’ problem,” Gee wrote in an e-mail that was among several obtained by The Dispatch through a public-records request for documents and correspondence related to Big Ten expansion proposals.
Texas Tech is one of Texas’ rivals in the Big 12 conference. Ohio State officials declined a Dispatch request to explain the “Tech” problem.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
I don’t think this will happen.
Full Pac-10/Big 12 merger in play
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/22834/full-pac-10big-12-merger-in-play
LikeLike
That would certainly be a massive shift. ESPN has to be involved somehow, so why not just create absurd propositions.
Playing along however, that really looks more like an alliance than anything. It seems to me that if an alliance ever really made sense it would be between B10 and P10 (however they may expand). They already have longstanding relationship (Rose Bowl). Plus, they could share content or ownership of a cable channel because of different time zones.
LikeLike
Long time lurker…fascinating stuff in the last 24 hours. My take on the Pac10 story and Gee’s email concerning the “Tech” problem is as follows.
Delany and Gee have at least 4 Presidents/Chancellors that are waffling on adding Texas Tech in concert with the other 2 Texas schools, ND and Nebraska. The pipes are more than happy to add those 4 listed, but at least 4 Prez’s can’t stomach Tech’s academics. (Remember need at least 8 yes votes from B10 Prez’s for approval)
There is no reason for the Columbus Dispatch to sit on Gee’s emails to UT’s President. Which means IMO they were leaked by OSU to the Dispatch. The timing of the story (coming on the heels of the Orangebloods story) IMO can’t be a coincidence. I think Gee, Powers and Delaney are trying to tell the B10 holdouts that “the train is leaving the station on these B12 schools and if you don’t suck it up and accept Texas Tech you can kiss any worthwhile massive expansion goodbye.” I also, believe that Delaney has played all his cards to the B10 pipes behind closed doors and it’s going to take someone of Gordon Gee’s stature in academic circles to get the 1 or 2 votes from the B10’s holdouts.
The bottom line is I think Delaney and the B10 have tried to avoid like hell at playing the bad guy by causing the destruction of a conference(s), but massive conference realignment is going to go down regardless. If the B10 has to be the “perceived” bad guy so be it.
That’s my take on it. Hell I could be totally off-base, but that’s how I interpret the timing, language and lay of the land as of right now concerning the two aforementioned stories from yesterday.
LikeLike
lobills, what you are saying is what i am fervently hoping.
come one, big ten, don’t let us down.
LikeLike
‘come one’? no more coffee for glenn for a little while. yeesh.
LikeLike
Glenn—
I think it’s obvious that on the President’s end Gee is driving the expansion train. He’s been publicly very vocal about expansion. Gee is also one of the most respected Presidents in the country. When/if it comes to closing the sale on potentially/perceived weaker institutions admittance to the B10 he’s going to be the guy to do it.
This is going to be the case of, as someone in the last blog post pointed out, not letting the perfect get in the way of good. And IMO the UT, A&M, ND, Neb, Tech would be the extraordinarily good for the B10.
Like Delaney said a few months ago in essence “this is a 50 year plus decision not a 5 year one”. Well, if that’s the case I think the sales job Gee has to the other presidents is “over the course of the next several decades we can aid in bringing Texas Tech along to eventually become an acceptable academic peer.”
This obviously is assuming my previous assumptions are correct.
LikeLike
lobills, i think you are right. it’s not like bringing in tech would necessarily be bringing in a permanent underachiever. apparently the texas politicos are willing tech to heights unimaginable, and after some period of adjustment, tech should not be any lower than what the big ten has at present.
if the big ten is skittish about bringing in a bloc (which i think is prudent), maybe tech could take nebraska’s place or a&m’s place if texas political brainiacs are willing to let the ags go sec.
LikeLike
If Gordon Gee is drivin’ that train (Mrs. Gee always brings out the Grateful Dead references), then I wouldn’t set aside the Andy Katz Vandy link just yet. And Vandy would be catnip for Northwestern, which has always been shy about expansion.
LikeLike
TX-aTm-TTech-Vandy-Rut (or MD or VA)?
Vandy for NW (and maybe IU) and an eastern school for PSU. Some money, some demographics, some academic heft.
BTW, if TTech is still under consideration (and that is just speculation, the ‘Tech problem’ email was 6 weeks ago) perhaps that suggests that ND is off the table. Thus the contortions to at least get TX.
LikeLike
pods!
PENN ST
NOTRE DAME/RUTGERS
PURDUE
INDIANA
OHIO ST
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN ST
NORTHWESTERN
ILLINOIS
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
IOWA
NEBRASKA
TEXAS
TEXAS A&M
TEXAS TECH
LikeLike
@Lobills
I agree with your points and took the same message from the article. Specifically, I found the following most telling:
Gee’s initial e-mail to Delany on April 19 said that he is “of the mind that we control our destiny at the moment, but the window will soon close on us. Agility and swiftness of foot is our friend.”
That e-mail was a day after Delany addressed the Association of American Universities meetings in Washington, D.C. Expansion was expected to have been on the agenda.
In the same e-mail, Gee commended Delany on his “brilliant presentation.”
Minutes after Gee sent the e-mail, Delany replied with a thank-you note.
“We are fast-tracking it but need to know the $ and observe contracts,” Delany wrote. “Also need to make sure we leverage this to increase chances of hr additions. Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we executy.”
LikeLike
Probably a lot of truth to what you wrote, Lobills, and, either way, I think it gets resolved this Sunday.
Really not sure what to think of the idea though. If you are even going to consider adding Tech, you have to insist on a road map of sorts to Tier 1 and AAU membership.
The other issue though, from an academic standpoint, is that you are already making some academic concessions for the other four schools, before you even bring Tech into the picture. UT and aTm are great research schools, but neither is bringing in the type of research dollars as an OSU or Wisconsin. Nebraska is an AAU member and seems to have made a renewed commitment to research, but they would still fall in the lower quartile of the Big 10. And then there´s Notre Dame, who brings a big name but would be a drastic outlier in terms of research and initial contribution to the CIC.
When you add Tech on top of that, you are really stretching this expansion thin from an academic standpoint.
Also, here´s an idea about the ¨Tech problem¨ that no one has mentioned. It´s probably a long shot, but there is at least a small chance that we´re talking about Georgia Tech. It has been mentioned multiple times as a potential candidate, is a rival of Notre Dame and would give Texas and the rest of the Big 10 an outpost in one of the fastest growing regions of the country. The ¨problem¨ then could refer to geographic isolation or prying them away free from the ACC. Again, I agree that ¨Tech¨ most likely refers to Texas Tech, but I guess you never know.
LikeLike
michael, we would never refer to ga tech as ‘tech’, unless it was in reference to an ongoing conversation. don’t know how powers’ original email was worded or whether there might have been something understood among them.
LikeLike
@ Michael
I’d actually thought that the ‘Tech’ problem might have been GT not having AAU status, but after checking the dates GT was invited on 4/20 the same day as that email.
LikeLike
When the Big10 started talking about moving south, is it possible they were hoping to see if the Pac10 or SEC would show their hand in order to see how things shook out. Maybe the Big10 was looking to see if the PAC10 would begin the disassembling of the BIG12 in order to free up Texas, TAMU and Nebraska. It also seems to me the SEC is sitting on the sidelines knowing it would be unlikely the PAC10 or BIG10 would academically consider taking OU or OSU. Just some thoughts but the BIG10 did make a concerted effort to talk about the south.
LikeLike
So people are taking seriously the idea that Oklahoma, OK State & Texas Tech have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a unanimous vote by Pac 10 Presidents?
Frank you’ve officially jumped the shark.
LikeLike
Most of us have just run with it in terms of the Pac-10 commissioner floating it as an option.
In reality it solves all the political pickles, but Stanford is 100% likely to put its foot down on OSU and 90+% on TTech and Oklahoma…
I just don’t see how Stanford accepts this expansion without wielding its veto.
LikeLike
come on. they sell it as getting rid of the az schools. two different conferences under the same beach umbrella. doesn’t mean they have to kiss.
LikeLike
I know a Cal fan got you on that line of thinking but Stanford is too smart to get involved in a collective conference of us vs them starting from day 1. That is conference suicide mentality, whether it be now or in 15 years. I gotta belive Stanford is much more forward thinking than that.
LikeLike
sorry. just spotted this.
i fervently hope you are right if this thing goes through. think about it, though. oklahoma. texas tech. oklahoma state. un, huh. that’s enough there. if stanford goes along with these guys, i can assure you that stanford will have nothing whatever to do with the new division.
and, yes, i agree that that is formula for heartache, but i think that is where we are headed.
the cali schools don’t care as long as they clear the two hurdles that are looking them right in the eye. tv money and better recruiting. nothing else much matters.
LikeLike
Stanford is an Ivy League school on the west coast, but its the only Ivy League school on the west coast. They have a great athletic department. But to be great, they have to teams to play. Right now, the Pac 10 is a mix of Ivy (Stanford), great (Cal, UCLA, UW & USC), good (Oregon & Arizona, Ariz St & Wash St), and average schools (Oregon St) and they aren’t making much money.
Assuming everybody in charge at Stanford is smart, since its such a great school, they’d be idiots to stand in the way of the Pac 10/Big XII – Baylor + CU merger. They take in three great schools (CU, UTx, A&M), one good school (Oklahoma), two average schools (T Tech & Okla St) and have the ability to potentially double their TV revenue.
LikeLike
If Stanford vetoes, the other conference schools simply vote to dissolve and start a new league. It’s happened before on the West Coast; remember the AAWU, the Pac-10’s predecessor?
LikeLike
The one problem with dissolving the conference is that I believe both the Pac-10 and Big Ten actually own part of the Rose Bowl.
Not sure what happens to that ownership if the Pac-10 is dissolved, but do you really want to kick Stanford out, while they retain a share of the Rose Bowl?
LikeLike
If Texas politicians would sign off on something like this, I could buy into it. There´d be plenty of friction with a conditional member, but success would be in everyone´s best interest.
LikeLike
New Greenstein diddy…
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/06/big-12-discord-could-accelerate-big-ten-expansion.html
Makes mention that no vote is scheduled to take place Sunday in the Park Ridge President’s meeting. I’m willing to bet Gee deals with the “Tech” problem though. There’s going to be some serious horse trading/pressure put on the B10 holdouts at that meeting. If you’re one of the 7 schools that is poised to in effect hold your nose at a certain school’s academic bona fides for the greater good of the conference and 4 others are resistant…..well, I’d love to be a fly on the wall for that show.
Again my whole take is predicated on the fact that yesterday’s actions were a coordinated effort from Powers, Gee and Delaney.
LikeLike
So your theory is that Delaney, Gee, and Powers leaked the P10 story to force the B10 presidents to take Texas Tech?
a) Not buying it.
b) Wouldn’t work anyway.
LikeLike
Mike B–
Fair enough. And I’d agree with you, but how do you account for the swiftness of the Columbus Dispatch story regarding Gee’s emails to Powers? That story came out almost immediately after the Orangebloods piece. If only one of those stories comes out I wouldn’t have reached this conclusion. Taken in concert they provide a deeper meaning in my eyes.
My contention is that Gee and the other 5 or 6 presidents that are in favor of the UT, A&M, Neb, ND, Texas Tech expansion are merely trying to persuade 1 or at most 2 fencesitters.
I concede I could be totally off-base, but the timing and content of the 2 stories from yesterday led me to this thesis. And what better ammunition would Gee want to approach the aforementioned fencesitters than “if we don’t jump on this that ship will sail to the Pac10”.
Time will tell.
LikeLike
Well, let me put it this way…I’m more sure of b) (it won’t work) than I am of a) it isn’t true.
Delaney is a smart guy, but I don’t think he believes that Jedi Mind Tricks work on University Presidents.
LikeLike
Unless the issue is… let’s step into the pool one foot at a time rather than jump in.
It might not be that the Presidents are against a move. It might be that some Presidents have cold feet about doing it and want to wait.
If so, the need to do it NOW becomes relevant.
LikeLike
I’m not a fan of adding Tech. I’d rather that UT is the only Texas school added.
But, if you made their full membership of Tech conditional, I could be convinced. They need to get a certain number of research dollars and achieve a certain ranking academically. Until that time, they only get a half share from the conference. That’s plenty of motivation. And if they don’t reach their target in 5 year, they are out.
LikeLike
cliff, i think that sounds reasonable.
also, if after five years they don’t pass muster, the texas politicians have no call to gripe. tech had its chance.
and if they pan out. good for all around. especially the state of texas. win win for texas.
LikeLike
That last post on a conditional membership for Tech was supposed to attached to Cliff´s comment here, not at the other place.
Anyway, one last thought:
If there really is a Tech problem – and this is really that big of an issue to the Texas legislature – then the state has to meet the Big 10 halfway. You want Tech in the Big 10? Fine, this is what you have to do.
Big 10 and CIC membership can do great things for Tech and the state of Texas, but if Texas politicians are interested there has to be a commitment to HUGE levels of initial investment.
LikeLike
agree, michael. this could go really well and everybody end up smelling like a . . . well . . . rose bowl.
LikeLike
Another thought that I just had.
What if The Big Ten says, absolutely not to Texas Tech in The Big Ten. But, The Big Ten pledges substantial support to Texas Tech in other ways.
The CIC commits to sponsoring Texas Tech to get into the AAU. With (presumably) 14-16 schools supporting Tech’s entrance, that would be a huge bargaining chip.
Secondly, The Big Ten might commit to play some football and basketball and other games at Texas Tech.
Assume that UT and A&M join The Big Ten and play in a Western Division/Pod with Nebraska, and the Big Ten schools west of the IL-IN border. The schools that don’t visit Texas every year (schools in MI, IN, OH, PA) would commit to a staggered home-and home with Texas Tech for the next decade. Michigan and Indiana commit to a home-and-home in 2014-15 with Texas Tech. Ohio State in 2016-17. Michigan State in 2018-19. Penn State in 2020-21. Purdue somewhere in the middle.
Additionally, some powerhouse basketball teams can plan a road trip. MSU, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Illinois all plan road games or home-and-homes over the next five years. Indiana can play at Texas Tech on Bobby Knight Day.
So even if Texas Tech doesn’t find it’s way to a Super Conference, and is stuck in a Big XII/MWC mash-up, they have some pretty solid academic support to improve, and also athletic support to sell tickets and increase their fanbase. In 10-15 years, this may be enough for someone – maybe even the Big Ten – to take a second look at adding Texas Tech as a legitimate school that can stand on its own two feet, not as UT’s “legacy” add to the fraternity.
LikeLike
RE: The Longhorn Sports Network and Texas A&M
Texas doesn’t have to go anywhere with Texas A&M, though I’ve always thought that is preferable. But regardless, I have always assumed that Texas was working in concert with A&M to figure out their new home. What I didn’t count on is that we have a “Tech problem.”
There are only two ways that Tech problem gets resolved 1) take Tech with us whereever we go, or 2) Texas and A&M split up into different conferences that are unwilling to take Tech, and thereby split the blame.
I think we might be going with Option #2.
The LSN has never made much sense to me. We tried it locally in Austin and it didn’t really work. Admittedly, it was done half-assedly. But even so, if it can’t work in Austin, it can’t work anywhere. What would the LSN show during the summer? Admittedly, there is a segment of the public that would have at least one television in the house tuned to a station that showed the 2006 Rose Bowl on a continuous loop. I’m probably one of those people. But even still . . . .
So I wonder if we’re not using the LSN as a crowbar to get A&M off our leg. Apparently, the LSN is such a hot button issue for A&M that they would go to the SEC without us if the other option were a conference with the LSN. Perhaps that is exactly what Texas wants–A&M prematurely bolting for the SEC (and taking the heat for leaving Tech behind), which would leave Texas free to join the Big Ten along with Nebraska and ND as per the Northwestern Scenario.
LikeLike
I posted an article quoting SEC commissioner Slive above saying local broadcasting is valuable. But I’m with you, it puzzles me.
Here’s the link again:
http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/06/sec_reacts_to_pac-10_expansion.html
LikeLike
Bullet – there is a lot of SEC inventory that doesn’t get on CBS/ESPN. The individual schools can sell that inventory and football re-broadcasts. UF makes an extra $8-10mm of their deal. I understand that Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, South Carolina & Tennessee are all in the $5mm range. In total TV revenue, the SEC and the Big Ten are very close, when you figure in local revenue.
Here’s a link that details LSU’s agreement with Cox cable.
http://www.eyeonsportsmedia.com/2009/10/some-information-on-cox-sports-tvs-sec.html
LikeLike
Thanks for the info. Those are significant $.
LikeLike
And the link below LonghornLawyer is good. Typo on the one further up the thread.
LikeLike
Strictly from a programming inventory perspective, I’ve never understood how LSN could possibly work, even if UT was an independent.
And at least with conference networks you get to split the start-up costs.
The thing about the LSN, if it is a bluff/crowbar, is that the Big Ten (who’ve been operating their own network) and the Pac 10 (who’ve been negotiating with Fox) know it’s not viable.
LikeLike
The Big Ten and the Pac 10 certainly know that, but A&M doesn’t. And that’s what makes me think it’s being used as a tool against A&M (to resolve the “Tech problem”) rather than a bargaining tool with another conference.
Beyond that, A&M doesn’t view it strictly in economic terms. A&M has always been in Texas’ shadow–a fact of which it is acutely aware. The LSN would only extend and darken that shadow. So even if it weren’t an economic positive for Texas, it would still be a psychological and emotional negative for A&M.
LikeLike
Not being in the same conference as UT would also help. A&M in the SEC would give A&M some potential bragging rights. They could at least claim they were in the best football conference. A&M and OK in SEC makes the most sense to me. Of course how you align the divisions gets dicey.
LikeLike
SH – SEC divisional allignment is not a problem. If A&M and OU joined the SEC, Florida State and Miami/Clemson/GA Tech wouldn’t be far behind, so you’d have two new teams in the east and two new teams in the west.
LikeLike
This is what confuses me about the whole “Tech Problem” thing. I lived in Austin for a couple of years, and got to know a number of UT grads, Aggies, and Tech grads. My impression was that although the A&M grads were slightly resentful of the UT penumbra, they kind of did their own thing (Whoop!) and had a tremendous sense of pride in their own University.
Tech grads, OTOH, had a huge inferiority complex, and loathed UT and the arrogance of UT grads/fans. I know Tech has some powerful boosters (Ed Whitacre, for instance), but I just can’t fathom UT flushing a great deal just so Texas Tech doesn’t end up in the MWC, which frankly, is where they belong.
LikeLike
Let’s say the Big 12 / Pac 10 rumor is true and it actually happens. I think the Big 10 still has a very nice expansion option. The Boston to D.C. corridor is a largely untapped college football market. Again, we’re talking about 50 years … not 5. Bring OSU, PSU, Mich., Neb and ND into nyc on a regular basis and interest in RU and Uconn would increase dramatically. I really think the combination of RU, Uconn, ND and the number of Big 10 alumni in the nyc area would be enough to get the BTN on Tier 1 here in nyc. The re-alignment is largely about power, prestige and who you want to rub shoulders with going forward. Infiltrating the Boston to D.C. market would bring plenty of power, prestige and $.
LikeLike
I think the Big Ten desperately needs a presence in one of the growing Southern areas for both recruiting and demographic reasons. The east coast plan is definitely a second choice. I agree that it would be the best option if Texas is off the table, but would it be enough to entire ND to join?
LikeLike
Sub Maryland for Connecticut and you can get the Boston to D.C. market.
LikeLike
The Big 10 may can say that Oklahoma St. and Texas Tech don’t match up with their existing schools, but the Pac10 can hardly claim they don’t match up with Washington State, Oregon State and Arizona State.
If the Big 12 schools would are interested, this would be a great deal for the Pac 10. Otherwise, they are going to find themselves with with a second tier conference (which they have been for the last few years with the exception of USC).
LikeLike
Until things become public, it is hard to fathom how the politics will really fall. If A&M goes to SEC and UT to B10, most fans may be satisfied and not really care about Tech. Does Tech really have enough political capital to stop such a scenario? I don’t see how. I believe they would lose a public relations battle.
Is UT worth it to accept Tech and A&M – yes on A&M but Tech? I think the B10 would risk losing UT and forcing an ugly marriage between P10 and BXII S like the SWC – Big 8 which would likely not work out.
This would free the B10 to again take its time on expansion – or to grab NE now while its free.
If I were UT and A&M, I would rather take my options the general public rather than have Tech have veto rights over where they can go. And frankly, I don’t any scenario where B10 or P10 accept Tech.
LikeLike
aTm to the SEC.
UT to the B10
Tech remains in the still-AQ B12 which adds UHou.
Everyone is happy?
LikeLike
tech isn’t. they hate us so much they think we are married.
LikeLike
Loki – you are assuming that Colorado and Nebraska and Missouri and Oklahoma stay put. Would the SEC take A&M if it was conditional that the SEC didn’t add Oklahoma? Would the Big Ten add Texas? Would Texas WANT to go to the Big Ten without any other regional partners? What stops the Pac-10 from adding Colorado?
LikeLike
I’m not a Texan, but wouldn’t having Tech and A&M along for the ride make the Big Ten a lot more acceptable to UT? It would help with travel costs and keep the other teams from getting a demographic/strategic advantage. The Big Ten would no longer be only a midwestern conference (or a midwestern conference with one outlier in Texas).
If Texas joins the Big Ten and A&M joins the SEC, then wouldn’t this give A&M more of an edge recruiting in Texas?
LikeLike
Perhaps the SEC would be willing to solve the “Tech problem” by taking A&M and Tech…leaving UT to come to the Big 10 with Neb, Mo, KU, RU….
LikeLike
Texas President Bill Powers went to Berkeley for his undergrad. I did not know that before today.
So Texas to P10 is a done deal.
LikeLike
And UT’s former president wound up at UC…
LikeLike
But wasn’t he from U. of Illinois?
LikeLike
Ugh, more emails …
LikeLike
Maybe #2?
LikeLike
So I wonder if we’re not using the LSN as a crowbar to get A&M off our leg.
Ha! Though I doubt TX wants aTm heading to the SEC. More likely TX wants the B10+ and aTm either to the P10 if they must split or to the B10+ with them.
LikeLike
I’ve assumed that, too. But our “Tech problem” may override that desire. And the only way to sever Tech is to get A&M to move first without Tech so that A&M takes the political heat for Tech’s fate.
LikeLike
way it looks to me is that the ags could go to the moon and the politicos would still glue tech to one cheek. we are the meal ticket.
LikeLike
BUT 2 teams are easier for a conference to swallow than a 3 pack would be. I think Tech and UT as a pair, while obviously not as appealing as UT and A&M as a pair, is more easily taken then than all 3.
LikeLike
oh, absolutely. avoidance of a potential bloc is important when assimilating parties.
as the cal fan said, though, the pac west boys have no intention of assimilating anyone anyway, so they don’t care.
LikeLike
Maybe HopkinsHorn can give a good rationale for this, but ever since this process started, I cannot understand why UT would ever want to join the P10 over the B10? The only answer is that the P10 will allow UT to retain an unequal share of the pie. Would they do that? I guess if they had to, but that does not create a healthy conference. Isn’t this why we say the NFL is better than MLB? And why would UT allow Tech veto rights? Tech does not have that kind of political capital?
LikeLike
Growing region with better recruiting. Closer cultural fit to the West than the Midwest.
LikeLike
This is basically it. About to leave for the day but can elaborate more later…
LikeLike
texas almost will not recruit out of state. so no advantage there.
‘closer cultural fit’. which is heavier: elephant or boxcar?
LikeLike
I don’t think P10 is a better cultural fit than B10 – debatable I know, but they aren’t so different that one would make a difference.
LikeLike
you and i are saying the same thing. really, it’s a horse and a horse.
LikeLike
more on that. i’m a contractor and i live extended periods wherever a project rears its head, so i know much of the country from actually living there. lot more places than most people ever get to know.
only two places i felt texas and texans don’t really fit were the south and new england. my guess is that people all over don’t fit in well in the south and in new england, however.
LikeLike
I’m with Loki. By cultural, its the state, not so much the university. UT Austin is very much like a B10 university. That’s why I think the admin actually would prefer B10.
If they are thinking P10, recruiting may also be a factor. They may want to keep the B12 South together so SEC and B10 don’t both get a Texas foothold.
As for Tech, it may just be that there is such a struggle with the legislature for funds, they don’t want to offend anyone.
LikeLike
If the rumors are true that the Pac 10 has already been in discussions with Fox about a new television deal premised on the six-team expansion, the Pac 10 may be in a position to offer a more lucrative package than the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The PAC-10 with Texas might be more than the Big Ten without Texas (might), but the Big Ten with Texas would definitely be more than the PAC-10 with Texas. The PAC-10 is looking more to get to the level the Big Ten and SEC are at now than rise above it.
LikeLike
I’ve always felt that Texas and California — two big, high-growth, states — have felt they had a lot in common (oil, agriculture, defense industries, links to Latin America), but were highly competitive with each other. So I think there is a bit of cultural affinity between the two that maybe is not there between Texas and the Midwest.
LikeLike
From the Dallas Morning News, why Tech got the nod:
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/06/why-texas-tech-got-the-nod-ahead-of-kans.html
Nothing we didn’t know already…
LikeLike
One reason Baylor would never be considered by the Pac 10 – Baylor’s president is Ken Starr.
LikeLike
Uh, that Ken Starr?
LikeLike
Yup, that one.
LikeLike
lots of starrs in the texas firrmament.
LikeLike
if you mean the finance guy, that was ken i. starr. baylor’s creepy lawyer/pres is ken w. starr.
LikeLike
I’m tending to agree with you guys about Gordon Gee and TTech.
If there’s any school that seems to be trying as per the Texas folks who’ve spoken about it in terms of upgrading its academic status, it’s Texas Tech.
If we really are expanding for the next 50-100 years, then I don’t see how we don’t put a lot of effort into having the conference work on making TTech better if it means ND/Texas/A&M/Nebraska is locked up.
And if the Big Ten is struggling this hard to come to grips with it, then how the hell does the Pac-10 think it’s going to pass this easily? Sure there might be schools in the Pac-10 willing to admit anyone for the $, but there’s a handful of schools that will be as hard to push as Big Ten schools on academics…
LikeLike
I’m tending to agree with this as well.
So which Big 10 schools are most likely to be the holdouts if this theory is true?
LikeLike
I would guess that Penn State, while perhaps the most pro-expansion Big 10 school in principle, feels that any 5-team expansion should include an eastern partner (Rutgers or Pitt).
LikeLike
ok. texas, tech, a&m (really lock down texas), rutgers, md/va.
or a&m on ou’s leg and md and va to b16.
??
LikeLike
I doubt Wisc and Mich and NW are that keen on a Tech invite as well. Frankly, Indiana can’t be too high on them either. The only schools I can think of who may be on board would be Purdue, Iowa, IL and MSU.
LikeLike
IL, Iowa and Purdue are extremely accomplished schools. I would not count on them embracing TTech.
LikeLike
Northwestern seems like a pretty obvious guess.
Penn St could have concerns from a research perspective but also about whether or not a Texas Tech addition comes at the expense of an East Coast partner (Rutgers, Pitt, Maryland, etc.)
Ohio St is seemingly ok with it, but you could imagine holdout from the other research giants (Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, and Minnesota).
If the package includes three Texas schools, you could also picture some concern about the center of gravity shifting south (similar to Nebraska´s concerns in the Big 12).
LikeLike
Agreed for the most part.
PSU has been pretty up front about wanting an eastern partner, so there could be some friction if the conference expands by 5 and none are eastern.
Northwestern probably isn’t thrilled about Tech, nor is Michigan. Michigan might even be against Texas for all we know — they were against adding PSU originally as well.
The research giants — Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois — might not be thrilled with the research numbers of Nebraska and Tech.
If I had to guess, I’d say PSU, Michigan, and Northwestern need some convincing with emphasis on PSU and Michigan. It’s more likely that you’ve got half for it and half that are lukewarm for various reasons. Ohio State, at least, seems to be for it.
LikeLike
Despite Spanier’s connections, I could see PSU putting the pressure on dropping Nebraska in favor of Rutgers if Texas has to bring along Tech. PSU would finally get their eastern partner. The Big Ten would get a larger footprint, a more highly regarded school, and an opportunity to plant its flag outside NYC. Between the two schools with a large national following but a tiny footprint – Notre Dame and Nebraska – Notre Dame is worth more to the conference.
LikeLike
@jokewood Here’s how I would rank Penn State’s institutional interests:
1) Getting an eastern partner (Pitt would be ideal, as that would build up all sorts of brownie points with the PA legislature; Rutgers would be only slightly less ideal, and Maryland would be more than acceptable as part of a Southern strategy; Syracuse I think has faded to a fourth-best option from PSU’s perspective.)
2) Enable the conference to get the home run additions of flagship state universities — chiefly Texas, secondly Nebraska, given the obvious link between the schools (and similarity of the fanbases/sports cultures).
LikeLike
Hate to break it to you, Mike R., but Pitt has very little pull in the PA legislature when it comes to competing with Penn State. Penn State’s top ten priorities are state tuition subsidy, state tuition subsidy, state tuition subsidy, etc. All four state schools (Pitt, PSU, Temple, Lincoln) get a similar formula and work together on this.
After decades of free football tickets, a “govt affairs” skybox (bigger than the president’s) and free meals, all the legislators who matter are not about to carry any water for Pitt over Penn State.
LikeLike
Off the top of my head I would say Michigan and Indiana would be VERY loathe to accept Texas Tech. Both voted against adding Penn St., both voted against holding the ACC-Big 10 challenge, and both voted against holding a post-season basketball tournament.
Unless there was an eastern team somewhere in the mix, I would think PSU would be loathe as well.
As a Michigan alum, I would hope the league would just give up on the Texas dream if Tech was a required part of the deal. Not trying to be snooty, but Texas Tech has always seemed like a WAC / CUSA school to me, despite their recent success on the gridiron. Adding Tech would be similar to adding Louisville or Cincinnati in my opinion. (Pretty good sports programs, shoddy universities.)
And frankly, I don’t buy the fact that Tech is on their way to AAU status. Its a tier 3 university right now. There are legit tier 1 universities that are not AAU, (UConn, Miami, Virgina Tech, to name a few, all of which are exponentially better than Tech.) I’m not sure how the whole AAU invitation process works, but I imagine it would be decades before Tech would even be worthy of AAU consideration.
LikeLike
I know my JoePa…he wants Syracuse and Rutgers added to the Big10 pretty much no matter what. Maryland would be nice to have also. Pitt as a number 4. Notre Dame he’d grudgingly say yes to, but only because he’s smart enough to know how much they bring.
But even with that list, I think he’d have no problem with 2 or even 3 schools in the west.
If the Big10 were to try and invite any more than three (out west) or the TT’s of the world though he’d be hellbent against it.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn—
Off the top of my head: Michigan, Indiana, Purdue and Illinois.
Michigan–They’d likely be the biggest opponent on academic grounds. You might think N’western would, but like Vanderbilt it doesn’t matter who they’re affiliated with they’ll always be considered elite. Northwester loves rolling around in the $20M plus of cash to bankroll their athletic endeavors.
Purdue & Illinois–I think they’re going to be against almost any combination of expansion due to competitiveness issues. Especially if you’re bringing in the likes of those 4 big dogs. That just knocks the middling schools all down a peg.
IU–I went there and I’m convinced the leadership would be against anything that would improve both the conference and the school. The leadership has/is that incompetent.
LikeLike
As an Illinois alum, what’s good for the conference is good for the conference. Tech brings nothing with it. UT, Neb, ND & an east coast team are top priorities. A&M to get Texas would probably be an easy sell. Tech would be a non starter. A B10 expansion of this magnitude could mean major $$s for those involved. Take them with you to the P16 and see how that works for you.
LikeLike
I think many here have a rosier picture of how Big Ten schools might vote in terms of Texas Tech than I do. My feeling is that it would harder to figure out which schools would vote yes than which schools would be holding out with no votes.
Just a thread ago we were talking about Vanderbilt, Virginia and Maryland. I think that is the class in which Big Ten schools view themselves. I’m no insider, but I’m guessing they’re not voting ‘yes’ to schools like Tech, OU or OSU just to get Texas.
LikeLike
I think it’s going to be a difficult vote regardless. I’ve just been trying to think of situations where they could squeeze through.
Remember, in this situation Tech might not be required just to get Texas, but get ND as well. I agree there might be no way in hell… but we have to ask “what if”, you know?
LikeLike
Agreed. And I’m not sure that bringing along TTech is the only way to solve the ‘Tech problem.’
LikeLike
Absolutely true. Gee and Co. are just trying to get the holdouts to accept 3 academic no-brainer schools (UT, A&M, ND), 1 middle of the road (Nebraska) and 1 school that they would have to basically hold their nose on…Tech.
If it was more than one vastly inferior school there would be problems with it universally.
Accepting Tech to get the other 4 is a bit more realistic than saying “you have to take on these 3 questionable institutions (OU, OSU, Tech) in order to get UT.”
Gee and Co. are asking people to make an exception for 1 school. Big difference. Obviously Tech would be a significant academic outlier the moment they set foot in the B10. But, all signs point towards Lubbock taking the necessary steps to help rectify that.
Does anyone really believe that a decade from now Tech won’t be a Tier 1 institute given it’s B10 affiliation? And that several decades from now they can’t be on par with Iowa, IU and Mich St? Remember to view this in terms of decades or even a century long relationship. In that light, holding one’s nose in the short term can eventually solve one’s long-term problems with a given school. In this case Texas Tech.
LikeLike
Except that Nebraska is also an outlier, and it’s in a state that is already small and will continue to decline as a percentage of the overall U.S. population.
You can’t have it both ways. If you’re so sure that Texas Tech will move from Tier 3 to one of the top 75 or so schools in the country (which all the current Big Ten schools are), then you also have to account for the fact that Nebraska lags considerably behind and is only likely to fall further.
LikeLike
I do think that a Texas Tech in the Big 10 will likely be an AAU, tier 1 school at some point in the next 10-20 years. But if we’re to think like university presidents (TM Frank), we shouldn’t allow ourselves to gamble on an unknown outcome not likely to manifest itself for awhile. If the members swallow Tech it will be for one reason and one reason alone: to snag UT.
LikeLike
It should be noted that Texas voters in November passed a proposition greatly expanding the funds available to certain schools to bring them up to Tier I status. Texas Tech currently stands to get the lion’s share of those funds, and with membership in the CIC those efforts will be significantly boosted.
That’s not to say that such vast improvement is a foregone conclusion. But it is to say that it’s not just a pie-in-the-sky hope. There are currently very serious (and very expensive) efforts being undertaken in that direction.
LikeLike
Michigan and Northwestern will vote no.
PSU will likely vote against it if there are no East Coast schools.
This is the nightmare scenario for Delaney, because if its a real close vote (7-3), then the Iowa legislature could force Iowa to only vote for expansion if Iowa State is part of the plan.
LikeLike
Northwestern is actually much more likely to vote for it. The brass is new and still feeling their way around and won’t want to be the ones to disappoint Gordon Gee. I’d bet on that.
Also, the boost to the athletic program will be enormous beyond belief, we’re by far the most dependent on TV funding.
Finally, Northwestern has a different brand from the rest of the Big Ten as the Big Ten’s private school and branding wise Tech in the Big Ten does nothing to Northwestern at all.
But I agree completely on Michigan and Penn State. I don’t see Michigan coming around at all regardless of what Gee tries to sell them on…
LikeLike
Don’t count on NW. Their coaches have been the most vocal in opposing potential expansion — have to think they are parroting the company line.
LikeLike
This is also testament to Texas Tech’s trustees’ wisdom in hiring the poliically well-connected Kent Hance as chancellor. He has Tech raking in the lion’s share of state money devoted to created more Tier I universities, and he is working like a pack mule to tie Tech’s athletic future to its big brothers, by leveraging his contacts in the Texas leg, no doubt. Another case of people mattering in this process.
LikeLike
By the way, for those interested in such things, Kent Hance was the Democrat who defeated George W. Bush in the 1978 congressional race in the 19th District. That makes him the only person ever to defeat George W. Bush in an election.
LikeLike
Parsing through this information, I am inclined to believe Lobills’ post regarding Gordon Gee’s leaked e-mails are an attempt to get certain Big Ten holdouts to accept Texas Tech.
Although it doesn’t seem plausible for Texas Tech to be admitted for academic reasons, as noted in finsraider07’s post, Texas Tech is making strides to achieve Tier 1 status, and become an AAU member. Being a part of the Big Ten would only accelerate this process.
So, I don’t think it is beyond the realm of possibility that 8 of 11 Big Ten members accept a package of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Nebraska, and Notre Dame, for the greater good of the conference. In due time, Texas Tech will achieve Tier 1 status and AAU membership, in my opinion.
(Better yet, perhaps Texas A&M will chose to go elsewhere, the SEC or even the Pac-10, freeing up a spot for Maryland or Rutgers or Missouri or some other candidate outside of Texas and the Big Ten’s current footprint.)
LikeLike
Sub in Rutgers or Pitt for Notre Dame if you want PSU’s vote.
LikeLike
What does Penn State have against Notre Dame?
Seriously, I think Nebraska would be left out before Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Nothing. Notre Dame is a great neighbor and a great OOC foe. They do things the right way.
I’m just extrapolating from a couple of Paterno comments.
1) May 09, referring to a third invitation to ND: “They’ve had their chance.”
2) April 10 presser: “I think the thing you have to do though, is when you get married, you better marry someone you love. And that means, someone who appreciates what you want to do. We have got to get people in our conference that are AAU schools, schools that have the same kind of commitment academically.” I think that’s a pretty clear reference to ND.
Also:
3) Spanier is a former chancellor of UNL and would be a solid vote in favor of Nebraska.
4) Institutional desire for an eastern partner.
LikeLike
Agreed. Paterno also has a lot of pull at PSU, more than most coaches or even ADs. He’s been pretty upfront about wanting an eastern partner for a long time. Now, would he scuttle an expansion like this without it? I don’t know. Paterno’s pretty smart, and I don’t think he’d kill a good deal because he didn’t get his wish. But he’d probably lobby for it all the way up to the vote.
LikeLike
Paterno’s the one who openly talked about the Pac-10 moving first (and blowing up everything), so he has a good feel for what’s going on.
However, he’s said before that he won’t do anything with respect to expansion other than air his views formally. He said he won’t stump for anyone to Delany or do anything else.
LikeLike
informally*
LikeLike
I’ve been reading a lot of the Oklahoma boards. All the writers and reporters seem to be trying to really sell the Pac-16 and all it’s virtues the main one being that OU can stay in a conference with OSU and the Texas schools.
The reaction from the fans seem luke-warm at best. It’s like getting a notice that another institution has bought the mortgage on your house. Nothing, has changed, you still live in the same house, and the same neighborhood, with the same neighbors that you like and don’t like….just a different name and address to send the checks to each month.
Most fans if they have expressed an opinion, have wanted the SEC.
LikeLike
Seems like aTm and OU may hinge on a fight between their presidents and their boards/donors/car dealerships. The admins want the academically superior B16 or P16, the funders want the SEC. (And less damn oversight…)
LikeLike
you expect oversight in the p16?
LikeLike
reckon what day they would kick it off?
LikeLike
That really makes a lot of sense for both schools. Seems like it makes sense for the conference as well, but I don’t know the financial particulars. A&M could probably make the move, but could OU abandon OSU. How much power does Pickens have? Seems like most of the state would be supportive.
LikeLike
It could be done. It wouldn’t be easy. The only sticking point would be the Governor has to to sign off on any conference move for either school.
There is an election in Oklahoma for Gov, and it appears the next one will be an OSU grad…so…it would have to be done before the office change.
LikeLike
For OU…those board/donors/dealerships hold a lot of weight. OU sees football, as the leader to get interest in the academics. It drives donations, to ALL areas of the University, not just to the Athletic dept.
I think this is one big common tread OU has with the culture of the SEC.
BUT…I’m not sure there is a passion one way or the other in this realignment stuff for any real “fight”. Which actually is interesting on how it will play out.
On a side note, one reason talked up for the Pac-16 is the road to a conference championship would roughly be the same: Beat Texas, then beat USC (instead of Nebraska) in the championship game.
And that road would be easier than playing LSU, Auburn and Alabama before getting to Florida/Georgia/Tenn.
LikeLike
Frank —
Are you preparing a FOIA request for Illinois?
LikeLike
While I think the B16 is TX’s 1st choice and the P16 their second, do not rule out TX ending up in the SEC. SEC has already basically said they’d let the Horns keep the LSN and bring whomever they wanted. Apparently TX has also made some hefty demands the SEC was having trouble stomaching, such as division or quad alignments, but until this week they seemed to be the most flexible conference.
And before someone comes back with the knee-jerk “Never happen, TX would never accept their academics,” didn’t the Pac Ten offer just blow up similar ‘certainties’ and ‘rules’? Now you guys are speculating that taking Tech might as a package might be a compromise the B10+ would consider, only a day removed from that being a certain non-starter. Too many world views built on false constructs.
Not saying it is likely, but rather a possibility.
One other thing to speculate on, though it isn’t necessarily a part of any decision making:
What outcome is best for college football?
TX to the P16 with a B16, SEC16, and ACC16 is the only way I can see 4×64 ever happening. (Or maybe just aTm to a P16.) IMHO 4×64 is NOT a good outcome. 4×64 doesn’t guarantee they’d pull away or even make it likely, but it does become a risk.
Better if the P10 can’t get any of TX, aTm, and NE. In that case the P10 probably doesn’t go past 14, and we likely have at least 5 BCS (or its replacement) conferences. That keeps 73-85 teams in the big leagues, vs. 64. I’d prefer 5 super conferences rather than 4.
LikeLike
It might shock you, but I agree with you on most of your points.
It should be clear to everyone that Texas is soliciting the most favorable offers possible from everyone and will weigh them and then make their decision. Yes that includes an SEC offer (for LSN privileges and mega $).
Right now, the Pac-10 has floated what seems like an ultimate offer for Texas (among other scenarios, but obviously the most favorable Texas one ran because that’s the one that would happen in all likelihood if Stanford comes around on it).
This means the ball is now in the Big Ten’s and SEC’s court. Does Gordon Gee manage to convince the Big Ten that Tech can eventually become a great Big Ten school in its own right? Can he convince the fence sitters (aka PSU/Michigan/Northwestern, whoever), that this is for the greater good.
Lest we forget, Michigan and Ohio State split their votes last time on Penn State. Michigan and Ohio State are probably coming at expansion from the opposite points of view since Gee seems to really want a deal with Texas whereas Michigan tends to be much more of a traditionalist (i.e. the UNC or Duke of the conference, with respect to ACC expansion).
LikeLike
Michigan seems in a lot of ways the biggest Big 10 traditionalist, a la UNC, but things have changed in 20 years:
1) The “no” to PSU was in some respects a way to mollify Bo Schembechler, who was mightily pissed off that he was kept in the dark about the move. There is no Bo at UM these days. In fact if there was anything UM could do to make RichRod walk, I think they’d do it.
2) Unlike NC, Michigan is a low-growth state and athletically and academically will increasingly depend on out-of-state and out-of-region students and athletes, i.e., it wil be more interested today than it was 20 years ago in positioning itself as a national school.
3) The PSU expansion has been a big success. While this expansion is likely to be bigger and more transforming, positive results tend to tamp down past misgivings.
LikeLike
Michigan is the most national public university of the Big 10 schools.
It has approximately 33% of its students from out of state on a given year, where the typical Big 10 school has between 8-10% out of state. A large majority of Michigan grads leave the state. Most law school grads take the bar in New York, not Michigan. The business school predominantly sends most of its graduates to Chicago and New York, not Detroit.
There have been rumors for years about Michigan going private. It has the largest endowment by far of all the Big 10 public schools.
They would vote to be associated with the right additions (i.e. Texas, Rutgers, Pitt, Cuse), but any perceived blemish on their academic standing will make them vote no.
LikeLike
Remember that there are currently 65 schools in BCS conferences (not includinng Notre Dame). 4 x 16 means someone kicked out of the party, two if ND joins one of these conferences. And that means lawsuits and more angry folks on Capitol Hill.
LikeLike
At first I was stunned by the Pac10 expansion rumor. However as I mulled it over it starts to make sense.
If Fox and the BTN business model are behind this it starts to add up. The BTN has shown the way and the Pac10 wants to follow that path with its own PTN. I believe this is a fully cooperative endeavor. The two networks want the synergies of shared live programming that Fox can bring to a nearly national market. The Big10 would have been charged with locking down the markets in the east and central time zones. The Pac10’s job was to lock down the major pacific and mountain media markets. By sharing live content both networks would be much stronger entries on the basic cable tier.
Extend that thinking further and Texas and select BigXII schools would have to be in the mix for such an alliance of Fox-based networks too. This latest rumor could just be the fallout as political hurdles and the influence of whale-sized donors are now getting involved. Texas wants in… but they will need to find a home for their neighbors swinging the biggest sticks. The natural fit would be to hold the existing BigXII together in some way because some members are not exactly easy entries to the Big10 or Pac10. The big risks are too many schools escape the Texas corral for the SEC, or someone with a lot of clout is left on the outside giving the anti-trust crowd additional footing.
If you look at it in this context it starts to make sense. The Big10 may not care if Texas is in or out. But they would definitely need to be in the such an alliance somehow if Fox wants this to be a national entity. Hence the latest flyer to fit more teams into the picture as part of the Pac10.
A national alliance of all the big hitters outside the ESPN/ACC/SEC universe is needed to make this work. Fox wants a nationwide collegiate powerhouse that has enough shared content for easy entry to the basic cable tier.
The Big Barbasol flagships are getting ready to sail and everybody is scrambling to have their own chair.
LikeLike
Fox already has some of the infrastructure in place with those horrible Fox College Sports networks that serve up such gems as year-old basketball from the World University Games.
LikeLike
Q: Does A&M have a “Tech” problem?
Let’s say that the SEC has heard enough from the Pac-10 / Big Ten and decides to switch from a reactive to an active expansion position while the getting is still good. So the SEC officially invites Oklahoma and Texas A&M while the Pac-10 and Big Ten are still making semi-public gestures. The question is – would A&M be free to take that offer not knowing the ultimate home of Tech? Is Texas the only school burdened with finding a suitable home for Tech?
LikeLike
That is a good question. I don’t believe that A&M has a Tech problem, but a UT problem. The knee-jerk response will be how can you split up Texas and A&M. Never mind, that most hardcore fans from both schools would likely welcome such a switch. I think A&M supporters will welcome the chance to get out of UT’s shadow. However, the higher ups at UT probably won’t want to be saddled with Tech while A&M gets off scott free, so I would expect a simultaneous move so as to split blame – each school is looking after their own best interest.
LikeLike
Simple answer is no. A&M has no Tech problem.
A&M can take care of itself and will, but Texas is the one that will be forced to take care of Tech if they have no landing spot. If A&M goes to a different conference, then they’d probably foist Tech onto whatever conference Texas is aiming for…
That just seems to be the way it is.
Maybe the SEC makes an offer for A&M and Tech without Texas, but that seems somewhat remote.
LikeLike
I think that if A&M moves first, the Tech Problem evaporates for Texas. The Tech partisans in the Legislature will primarily focus their anger on A&M (Tech fans hate A&M more than they hate Texas anyway) as a result of their perfidious and premature departure. More importantly, everyone will recognize that Texas’ position will have changed significantly with the imminent collapse of the Big XII and it will have to move with a speed that may not allow it to take care of Tech.
LikeLike
I would still think though that Texas would want A&M in its conference (and hence Tech also would come along). Now that the Pac-10 and SEC have both floated Texas/A&M/Tech scenarios, it does look like Texas may be able to get its way on the Tech problem.
It is interesting though that A&M really wants to bolt the arrangement. From what I’ve seen, it seems as if Texas wants A&M to come with it to the Pac-10 or Big Ten, but A&M would much rather go to the SEC.
That’s what’s been floated anyways, nothing inconsistent with what you’re saying.
LikeLike
It definitely seems like the AD wants into the SEC. Hopefully the administration can overrule them; we’ll just have to see.
LikeLike
My guess is the BOR is your biggest problem.
Heh, any of them fly to LSU’s graduation this year?
LikeLike
Let me add this thought: collusion between B10 and P10. There is a long history there (Rose Bowl, etc.) Plus, as I understand it, Larry Scott is a prodige (sp?) of Delaney?
In any event, not to be tin-hat about it or anything, but consider this. From B10’s perspective, what’s the worst case scenario re: TX? Answer: TX to SEC.
So, if Delaney can’t get TX, then Delaney wants TX to go to P10.
Delaney talks to Scott, plants seeds (if any seeds needed planting), nudges Scott to “get going” in talks with TX (and other BXII schools) and maybe engineers the leak that came out yesterday.
And we should not underestimate the strength/friendliness of the B10-P10 relationship. Think Rose Bowl’s historical resistance to the Bowl Alliance and BCS and play-off. I think Delaney would go out of his way to do some good for the P10 and vice versa.
Okay, so now let’s get all tin-foil-hatty: Delaney and Scott have a 50 years strategy to maintain the preeminence of the Rose Bowl. To do that, the B10 and the P10 have to expand and both “hit home runs.” So Scott takes the southern BXII (with the huge Texas market) and Delaney cherry picks Neb and takes Rutgers, ND, Syr, and Pitt to get entry into the NYC/east coast markets.
Then 10 years down the road, the B10 Network and the LHN unite and both expand to become the B16-P16 Network (needs a better name — something like “CFB Network” or “American CFB Channel”). Now with BXII south, the P10 and B10, THERE is a channel that can get on the basic tier everywhere in the country.
Vrooomm… ACC and SEC left in the dust and nobody cares about the rest.
I’m not saying I think this is happening, but … interesting to contemplate.
LikeLike
I think that is basically the vision. And look down the road… Notre Dame can stay happily independent and this network would have all their rivals in the fold. They could step in with a new tv contract when NBC expires and the Irish can keep their tradition.
LikeLike
I agree that the best thing for college football, ND and the Big 10 is to maintain Notre Dame as a national independent. As long as Notre Dame can maintain its Olympic sports in a quality conference, that vision will be feasible. The non-football schools of the Big East, joined by the cream of the Atlantic 10, would be just such a conference for the Irish.
LikeLike
oh, yeah… I’m a Pitt-to-B10 proponent. UConn is a terrible addition and Pitt has enough brand-name “umph” to overcome the fact that they don’t add to the B10 footprint. Per some earlier Frank Posts and the thread comments, Pitt adds value. (And I’m just never gonna think adding MD or VA is a good idea. Yuk. Ergo: Pitt).
LikeLike
Maryland and Virginia add more value (and markets) than Pitt ever will.
If the Big Ten could get them without having to add more ACC teams (though North Carolina and Duke would certainly add their own value), I could see Delany telling Pitt and Syracuse “no thanks” and adding Nebraska, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland and Virginia.
LikeLike
Do you really think Delaney can pry Maryland and Virginia away from VT, NC, NC state, and Duke?
Because I don’t. The core group + VT is very tight. Clemson or FSU may be woo’d by the SEC, but I think the heart of the ACC is sticking together.
LikeLike
Kyle – I’m with you on the ACC. I doubt the core basketball schools (Duke, UNC, Wake, NC St, UVa, UMd) are going to make the first move. The newcomer football schools would have to make the first move. While VA Tech is a football school, it may be joined at the hip with UVa since UVa got VA Tech into the ACC.
So it really comes down to FSU, Miami, GA Tech, BC, and Clemson (Clemson is an original ACC school, but its a football school).
LikeLike
I like your thinking. Taking it a step further, aren’t we simply heading to a point where the NCAA becomes irrelevant. The top 64 programs in 4 conferences will control the BCS and all the major bowls, they will have their own bball playoffs, baseball playoffs, etc. The BCS schools can then take on conference and we can get the supreme court to issue the mother of all anti-trust opinions. What a future?
LikeLike
interesting… it’s hard to imagine the conferences and schools abandoning the NCAA; there’s a giant PR “hit” there and I can’t ever see getting inter-conference consensus. If it is a coach’s decision: Meyer says “yes,” Saban says “no,” the OBC says … who knows. But it’s probably a University President decision. Can you see Gordan Gee saying “g’bye” to the NCAA? no way.
LikeLike
I meant it as kind of a joke really. It would really get Congress on you, and you don’t want that. But I’m sure a lot of presidents look at that huge CBS bball contract and wonder why we are sharing that with an institution that has over 300 members and one that is always on our asses.
LikeLike
Doubtful, but only because Texas is by far the most necessary for the Pac-10 to go beyond 12 and the Big Ten really wants Texas.
But I agree with you on one thing. The Big Ten and Pac-10 both would rather see Texas in the other conference (read Rose Bowl) than in the SEC. Perhaps they collude on that.
I.E. Pac-10 and Big Ten keep floating scenarios for Texas until Texas chooses one.
Note that the SEC has said it will mostly be reactive, thus, the Pac-10 and Big Ten should make sure that Texas moves with the first pieces if they don’t want to see it in the SEC.
LikeLike
@zeek.
hmm… I’ve never been convinced about TX to the B10 as a good thing. Yes, good for TV, etc.
But the geography and “fit” are just bad — really far away, not a lot of midwest fans in TX and vice-versa and Texas is just not the midwest (and vice-versa).
Texas to the B10 is, in my view, a tough “sell” for cohesion and that sense of “we’re-all-in-this-together.”
So, I’m not convinced the B10 really really wants Texas.
LikeLike
Fair enough, I don’t necessarily disagree other than on fit.
Right now Texas is in the middle of a three way fight for it.
But this time is for real. Presumably whichever conference gets Texas is going to be its home for the next 50-100 years or until something goes crazy.
LikeLike
I must disagree with you on the “not a lot of midwest fans in Texas” part. Actually, Texas has quite a few midwest fans. I’m willing to bet that B10 games probably draw fairly well in Texas. Texas imports people, and the midwest exports them – a lot come to Texas. Probably not true vice versa.
LikeLike
Delany has been tasked with addressing demographic changes. Southern expansion of the conference is one way to do it. Southern/national expansion of the BTN is another way.
LikeLike
Zeek – just because Mike Slive says the SEC is going to be reactive, doesn’t mean that’s true. The SEC has also been meeting this week. I’m sure the UTx, bring three friends, start the LSN plan has been communicated.
From a combined money, sports & logistics angle, the SEC offers the most. There’s only two reasons UTx would turn down that offer:
1. Academics trumps athletics in their decision to join a sports conference. Doubtful, since UTx was a member of the SWC and is a member of the Big XII.
2. UTx, and the three friends don’t want to play football in the SEC meatgrinder. Having 2-3 tough games per year may be more appealing than 6-7 tough games per year.
LikeLike
Sure but right now Texas has offers from all three.
The Big Bang Pac-10 + 6 everyone’s been raving about the past day or two.
The SEC’s 3 in Texas + Oklahoma, plus LSN.
The Big Ten’s unlikely ND/TX rivalry plan.
Of the three, the Big Ten’s is probably the most favorable for Texas but they might want Tech in too to give them 3 in Texas which would be hard to swing.
I don’t see the Pac-10 being able to vote for OSU/Oklahoma/Tech, no matter how good an idea it seems now.
It seems like a herculean lift to get the Big Ten to get to 8 on Tech, and the Pac-10 is going to go 10 for 10 on all three; that has to be a joke…
As for the SEC, A&M really wants to go there in all likelihood because they’re looking for the best sports fit, or that’s how it’s seemed anyways.
Tech and Oklahoma would both probably put the SEC at the top of their list.
But Texas is probably more willing to go with a ND/TX rivalry or a Pac-16 if they can pull it off.
Sure those two are unlikely, which is why the SEC may end up with the prize by default…
LikeLike
Alan, let’s not get carried away here. The SEC is a great conference and all, but the idea that every SEC game is so much tougher than every B10 or BXII game is simply not true. The SEC has some weak schools as well.
LikeLike
Yeah but in terms of geography/sports programs, etc. Texas is most similar to the SEC schools.
On the other hand, the Pac-16 east would essentially be a stronger version of the old SWC, so maybe that would have more allure to Texas even though it might mean less $.
LikeLike
SH – within the last three years every single SEC has played in a bowl game. Yes – that includes Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky & Vandy.
Traditionally, the SEC has six teams that can (and do) compete for conference and national championships. Eight of the 12 teams have participated in the SEC CG. All teams have been ranked within the last decade.
In the 12 year BCS era, the four SEC teams have won six national championships. With USC about to have their 2004 BCS NC yanked, undefeated Auburn would have to be viewed as the best team of 2004.
LikeLike
Zeek – you’re right the Pac 10/BigXII South – Baylor + CU merger would be the closest thing to the status quo, but more money, for UTx. Most years, its beat OU & get your ticket stamped to the Conference Championship Game.
Regarding ASU & Arizona being pissed about getting shoved into the Pac/Big XII South Division, the conference could throw them a bone by having Glendale as the permanent home for the CCG.
LikeLike
@Alan:
Careful beating that SEC too loud. 😉
I agree with you on the SEC with the national championships.
But I’m pretty sure every BigTen team but Purdue has gone to a bowl during the last three years as well — including Indiana and Northwestern. Purdue has been down, but in the last decade they’ve been to bowl games (2000-04).
7 Big Ten teams have won or shared a conference title in the last decade, and Wisconsin won in 98-99, making 8 if we’re counting BCS’s 12 year period. There are regularly 5 teams in the discussion for conference championship every year, and at least 3-4 that gets consideration for the national championship depending on the year. Ohio State is the only team to make it during the BCS period, but others have been in the discussion leading into the final month of games almost every year (who eventually get knocked out by a fellow BigTen squad).
I can’t argue that the SEC has been better this decade. They have for sure. But it’s not entirely like checkers versus chess here.
LikeLike
“SH – within the last three years every single SEC has played in a bowl game. Yes – that includes Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky & Vandy.”
The same can be said for the Big Ten. Yes, that includes Indiana and Minnesota.
LikeLike
Alan—Re: bowl records….Odd that the BT and SEC are basically 50-50 in bowl games over the last 10 years, with all of the games being on the SEC’s home turf…how do you boys think yopu’d do playing in Soldier Field on Jan. 1st??
LikeLike
Shroomgod – all bowls are NOT created equal. Over the last decade LSU is 2-2 against the Big Ten in bowl games. I certainly wouldn’t trade the victories over Illinois in the Sugar Bowl and Ohio State in the BCS NCG, for the last minute losses in the Cap One Bowl to Iowa and Penn State.
Regarding a January 1 bowl game at Soldier Field, I’ve never heard of it. Its certainly not one of the SEC’s bowl partners. Seriously, its great to talk about hypotheticals, but the Big Ten doesn’t really play football in serious cold either. Your season is over by the 3rd Saturday in November.
Also, I went to the Browns/Steelers game in Cleveland in mid-Decemeber last year. It was 14 degrees and about zero with the wind chill. I didn’t see any Ohio/Pennsylvania natives running around without shirts. They were all bundled up just like me.
LikeLike
“all bowls are NOT created equal.”
God, I love SEC fans. No matter what stat is out there, there is always a ‘but, but, but…’
LikeLike
I’ll argue that the Pac 10 is the toughest conference top to bottom. Not as strong at the top as SEC, B12 or B10, but usually the #9 team can beat any team in the country on a given day. You can’t say that about Ia. St./Baylor, IU/MN, KY,MS.St./Vandy. I remember UW giving LSU and OU fits in recent years. Stanford beating previously unbeaten USC a few years back wasn’t as much a surprise as Vandy or MS. St. knocking off an Alabama or FL (yes I know UK knocked off national champions to be LSU, but that was the best UK team since 1977-it didn’t even look like a UK team).
LikeLike
I certainly don’t want to get into an argument about which conference is better. Just that to say that every SEC game (6-7 as referenced by Alan) is tough compared to only a couple B10 games (2-3 again as referenced by Alan) is just not true. Every conference is tough. In the P10 you have to play every team, that is tough in and of itself.
I’ll agree with you the SEC is the best, but it seems like SEC fans make the argument both ways – when a top team loses to KY, they use that as proof that how tough the conference is, but when a top B10 team loses to Purdue, it is proof that the top teams aren’t that good. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle.
LikeLike
SH – the 2-3 tough game reference was directed to the possibility of a Pac10/BigXII south merger.
Depending on how the B16 set up their divisions, I’d guess UTx would have 5-6 tough games a year.
LikeLike
“From a combined money, sports & logistics angle, the SEC offers the most.”
You keep saying this, but you’re wrong. You’re basing everything on what the Big Ten brought home last year. You’re ignoring the fact that the BTN payout increases every year. You’re also ignoring the fact that adding Texas will increase that BTN even more. You also ignore the fact that in four years the Big Ten will be renegotiating their TV deal with ESPN, which will definitely go up. And then there’s the academic side of things. If joining the Big Ten and the CIC enables Texas to increase their research funding by $100mm, $200mm or even $300mm, that dwarfs anything we’re talking about with academics. Unlikely you say? When PSU joined the Big Ten their research dollars were about the same as UT’s, mid- to upper-$200mm range. Today PSU’s research is approaching $800mm, while UT is below $500mm. If you don’t think that is directly related to the Big Ten and the CIC, you’re crazy.
LikeLike
Pez – you quoted me correctly, but addressed something different. I have never disputed that the Big Ten is an academically superior conference. What you guys have with the CIC is something special. Maybe I wasn’t clear, but I was talking about athletic money, which would be better for UTx in the SEC, as UTx wouldn’t be prohibited from starting their own network. If UF is making $8-10mm per year by selling broadcast rights, I would expect UTx to make at least that much (probably more) if they had their own network.
Now, let me expand upon the other two points I made that you chose not to address.
From a sports standpoint, UTx is a better fit with the SEC, as Hopkins Horn pointed out in an earlier post. UTx competes in almost all of the same sports in which the SEC competes. If UTx joined the Big Ten, would they be required to add non-revenue sports that Big Ten sanctions? Also, baseball is a big deal and revenue sport for UTx and its a big deal and revenue sport in the SEC.
From a logistics standpoint, the SEC is a better fit too. Given the probable division alignment, UTx’s longest divisional roadtrip would be to Stark-Vegas, Mississippi.
LikeLike
@Alan
I agree Texas plays most of the same sports as the SEC and thus would fit well, but I really think Texas sees a NEED to be a good football team.
Thing is while I think the level of competition will be much closer between the SEC & Big10 than some give it credit for (thus in any given theoretical year it should have the same number of wins no matter which conference its in) only one conference will have complete ease and access to Texas recruiting grounds.
The SEC, with Ark, LSU, OU(maybe) etc with regular games in Texas can recruit heavily there and I think be very successful doing so. It would be this way that Texas would slowly return to its 90’s status.
Being a “lone outpost” in the Big10 might actually be to Texas benefit by limiting the number of recruiting losses, but still maintaining a high level of academics.
LikeLike
PSUGuy – Being a “lone outpost” in the Big10 might actually be to Texas benefit by limiting the number of recruiting losses, but still maintaining a high level of academics.
I think being the “lone outpost” in the Big Ten would be Texas’ quickest way back to 90s status with the Aggies and OU in the SEC, the state of Texas would become an SEC state within a couple of years.
Which is why most on this blog have posted it has to be both Texas and A&M from the start.
If the Pac-10 rumor is true, then the ante has just been raised since I don’t see the state approving any other option now that doesn’t include Tech.
LikeLike
Larry Scott has no previous connection to the Big 10. You are probably thinking of Kevin Weiberg who worked on the Big Ten Network at the beginning and worked as a deputy commisionner under Delany. A short blurb from ESPN about the Pac 10 hiring Weiberg.
http://espn.go.com/blog/pac10/post/_/id/7809/pac-10-hires-weiberg-former-big-12-commissioner
LikeLike
aw, ok.. thought I read something about a Delaney/Scott connection on here. Thanks for the correction.
LikeLike
NP.
Another interesting tidbit about Weiberg is he is also a former Big 12 commissioner. So Scott’s #2 man has experience in both the Big 10 and Big 12.
LikeLike
Yeah, but his show is hilarious, as was Seinfeld.
LikeLike
Re where this is going (BuckeyeBeau)
I doubt the Pac 10 reported offer is anything other than the Pac 10 wanting to secure its future.
I do agree if Texas is out, the Big 10 moves east in a big way and becomes the conference of the northeast.
I am looking at this from the demographic and market perspective and because I doubt the ACC schools are in play.
Nebraska seems to be a concensus add. But I doubt Kansas or Missouri are part of the expansion.
The wildcard as always is ND. However, your strategy of adding Pitt, RU and SU might be enough to cause ND to join. It would almost be a ND package akin to the Texas package offered by the Pac 10.
LikeLike
I see the Big Ten taking Nebraska and then folding it in on expansion.
There really isn’t a rush, the Big Ten’s payday will only continue to outdistance Notre Dame’s at this pace, and Notre Dame will always have to worry about its place at the BCS table.
LikeLike
Re Big 10 next move (Zeek)
Adding Nebraska alone as a 12th school makes a lot of sense if Texas is out. That provides a conference game and probably is a reasonably easy vote.
However I take what Delany said about his long term focus on population seriously and while Nebraska is an excellent add it only addresses part of the equation.
So if ND if also out, Frank’s view of a Nebraska, RU, SU expansion to 14 makes a lot of sense to me.
I also believe the “urgency” level has speeded up several notches.
Perhaps my view differs from yours in that I remain doubtful of the UMD UVA option for the Big 10 and also doubt the ACC is really vulnerable to the SEC. Adding Miami and VT greatly strenthened ACC football.
LikeLike
That would make some sense. Now the Pac 10 and Big 10 have each played a hand… it’s up to the SEC to respond.
If the SEC can chip away at the ACC… then the Big 10 can take two more (VA and MD). If the SEC cannot chip away at the ACC, it gets stuck with????
Win-win.
LikeLike
Put me down in the “no to Nebraska” camp.
If the Big Ten presidents are willing to take Nebraska, but not Texas Tech, even with the knowledge that it will cost them Texas, then they don’t deserve to be the premier conference.
50 years from now, Texas Tech will be a better university than Nebraska. Lock.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t go that far.
The Big Ten is a conference full of proud schools with old line prestige. They want to invite universities that they feel are worthy of being Big Ten universities, not universities they’ll have to build.
Then again, I tend to agree with you that we shouldn’t be making a shortsighted move. If Tech is going to be in the Big Ten for 50 years, then certainly it will become a much better institution over that time frame…
LikeLike
I think I agree with both of you. Perhaps TT will be better than NE. Demographics are certainly in TT’s favor. But is it better to be the flagship, or the #3 public school?
However, I think if you can’t get UT, you either take one school or none. The B10 does fine with just 11, they can afford to wait for now.
LikeLike
@SH
TT is located in the upper west portion of Texas in Lubock. While Texas (the state) may have better demographics, the particular portion of Texas TT finds itself in is not “great demographics” IMO.
Combined with the fact the only TT fans are usually folks who went there means these items are at best “nuetral” when it comes to evaluating TT.
LikeLike
Re Texas option (Mike B)
What will be interesting is whether the Big 10 will or can create a counter offer that rivals the rumored Pac 10 offer.
The Pac 10 is providing Texas with a great offer that includes 5 regional schools, plus the 2 AZ schools in their division that I would believe has to be very appealing.
LikeLike
One thing the Big Ten can offer Texas that the Pac 10 cannot (because of time zone issues) is the opportunity to play most of their games in prime time.
LikeLike
c, the Big Ten counteroffer seems to be to figure out the solution to the “Tech problem” as alluded to in the Gee-Delany emails that conveniently dropped last night.
If the Big Ten can accept Tech, then we could offer ND-Tex-A&M-Tech-Nebraska, which would probably be the best outcome for Texas…
3 schools in Texas + guaranteed rivalry with Notre Dame.
But it’s a big questionmark whether Tech can get into the Big Ten…
LikeLike
Re ESPN video update by Joe Schad (Zeek)
He is saying Texas actually would like to keep Big 12 intact.
However:
He is implying that if Nebraska and Missouri don’t agree to stay, the other schools will go to Pac 10.
A lot of focus is on Tech but maybe Texas also wants to be with Oklahoma as well.
I believe affinity and geography are playing a big role here that the Big 10 is not in a position to match.
A lot of comments seem to downplay this aspect of affinity and geography.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5252276
LikeLike
Interesting comparison. But would TTech even be in the discussion without Texas? Nebraska can be an add to the B10 all by itself. Pretty hard to say that about Tech.
And you’re absolutely sure TTech will be a better university than NU in 50 years? I’d say TTech MIGHT be better, but I certainly wouldn’t bet on that. And who knows what will happen in the next 50 years. May be the constantly increasing cost of shipping food will make Nebraska a very desirable place to live – nobody knows.
LikeLike
Not too sure about grocery shipping being of any great advantage for Nebraska. Grapes come from Chile, bananas from Central America, most of your produce section comes from the Sun Belt or Mexico, cereals from Canada, you could go on forever. Nebraska grows beef and corn to feed the beef, for the most part. Diversification of that fact will be necessary as diets slowly trend towards the healthier side as people grow older, but much of Nebraska (the Sandhills) is cattle country and not suited to much else. I can see urbanization reaching a tipping point, in both cost of living and general safety, in such a way that states like Nebraska might ultimately modestly reverse the demographic trends with retirees and people looking for a less intense environment to raise their families in than an urban rat race.
LikeLike
@eapg
The food shipping is simply an off-the-cuff example of how the world could dramatically change in the next 50 years. Not meant to be literal. Another example would be that global warming makes the “Sun Belt” into a desert or semi-arid region and the population shifts back northward.
LikeLike
@Faithful5k.
Hmm… interesting. I had not thought about ND remaining outside. But I agree, a B10-P10 under-the-table “alliance” and eventual creation of a B16-P16 Network would still leave room for ND to be independent. (And I’m with JoePa on this. If ND doesn’t want to join, the B10 shouldn’t want them. They’ll always be unhappy, second-guessing and whining.)
But ND obviously helps gain entry to the NYC market.
If ND says out, who does the B10 add instead? I think we’re left with: MO, MD, VA, UConn, Vandy. All terrible additions, IMHO (tho’ Mizzu’s not awful).
LikeLike
sorry, meant this as a “reply” to Faithful5k above.
LikeLike
I like Georgia Tech. They burned their bridges long ago with the SEC, and are now a football school stuck in a basketball conference. They have a great college football pedigree that is now a bit dusty. Adding GT Tech would also plant a Big10 flag right in the middle of SEC land, while taking a side shot at the ACC. The alumni seem very willing from the message board chatter. My only question would be market-related. Can they carry Atlanta to the basic cable tier?
LikeLike
I like GT as well – at least as a consideration. I would like to hear more pro/cons on them. Pro – they are a great public academic school with strong research (don’t know dollars), they have fairly good athletics and some nice history. Con – not #1 in their own state, is the male/female ration still 75%/25%?
LikeLike
Yes, but they are a very distant #2 to UGA in Atlanta. Way behind in the rural areas. I’ve been to a couple UGA/GT games in Atlanta and there were almost 50% Bulldog fans.
Closer to UGA than Cincinnati is to Ohio St. in football, so they have enough to carry Atlanta, but I don’t know that the B10 wants to be 2nd fiddle.
LikeLike
I am not so sure if the Big10 cares if GT would be #2 in the market. It comes down to whether they have enough pull to hit basic cable in Atlanta. In many of the Big10 markets the BTN was on expanded sports tiers in the first year of the launch. Every time a game was not televised, the cable offices were flooded with calls. Cable lost a ton of subscribers to satellite. By the second year BTN was on basic cable throughout the Big 10 footprint and the game was on. Can GT pull of the same thing in Atlanta? I have no clue. I do know it helps their cause having a huge Big10 alumni base there. If the market studies say they can pull it off I think GT classifies as a “home run” expansion candidate.
LikeLike
The GTers are too smart to play big-time D1 football…..The BCs, NDs, Stanfords, NWs, and Vandys of the world can be good but not great….GT will always be second fiddle to Georgia in its own state.
LikeLike
1] GT is a state school, so listing them with vandy, northwestern, etc is misleading.
2] I think you’re mistaking program size/profitability with athletic success. GT may never have the size or fanbase of UGA, but that doesn’t preclude them for achieving D-1 success.
LikeLike
I don’t think Missouri, Connecticut and Vanderbilt are realistic choices if Texas and Notre Dame are off the table. I would expect the Big Ten to rein in Nebraska as its football “home run,” at least Maryland and Virginia from the ACC, Rutgers and a fifth school (Vanderbilt? Syracuse? Missouri?), with a possibility that North Carolina and Duke would be substitutes for the last two spots.
LikeLike
I actually could see a Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Maryland/VA conference working.
I do think we’d need the SEC to make the move first on ACC schools.
I.E. go to 14 with Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers after the Pac-10 goes to 16. Then wait for the SEC to take 2 from the ACC and then pounce and take 2-4 from the ACC.
LikeLike
Md and Va aren’t coming. Get over it.
LikeLike
Ya know, the ‘Tech Problem’ (LOL, as that label will forever but stuck on them) may have a fairly simply solution without the B10+ having to take them:
B10+ votes on TTech, vote fails.
B10+ votes on other schools and extends invites, including to TX.
TX says, “Hey, we tried, but it wasn’t up to us.”
TTech legislators could still try to force TX to go P16 with TTech, but TX has plenty of legislative power, too.
Perhaps the stalemate is resolved with TX making their B16 acceptance contingent on the conference supporting the Neo-B12 or MWC (wherever TTech and UHou end up) be included as a BCS conference in the next negotiations (or whatever replaces the BCS.)
A lot depends on the Aggies.
LikeLike
FWIW, Gee’s leaked email (as suspicious as the timing was), seems to suggest that Tech will have to come with Texas in that it’s a binding issue.
I mean that’s the plan out of the SEC (Texas/A&M/Tech/OU) and now that’s a plan out of the Pac-10.
So who knows, I don’t think the Big Ten will have a big public vote that they know will fail. They’re too proud to do something like that. This won’t be like the Penn State addition at all. It seems to be that they’ll only dance with partners that have indicated they’ll accept.
LikeLike
I really wonder if the politicians have as much pull as we think. We saw it in the B8-SWC marriage and with UVA and Va Tech, but the economics and general mood of the country are vastly different from back then. State coffers are dry. If a school can generate vast amounts of dollars by moving to a different conference, don’t they owe it to the public to do that? Are we going to be as receptive to the argument that the politicians should be as involved in what most people will view a decision about sports? I’ve said before sports, especially college sports, generate a lot of emotion, and where there is emotion there are politicians. But the conditions of the country are different. I guess we really won’t know until we have a formal invitation for the public to chew on.
LikeLike
The state of Texas’ coffers aren’t so dry; they are throwing loads of $$$ at seven universities to get several of them up to Tier I/AAU level.
And I think the Tech problem would be no problem at all if it weren’t for Kent Hance being the chancellor there. His political experience and connections (more extensive and personal than Powers, even) are the only thing keeping Tech in the conversation.
LikeLike
If Tech ends up in the Big Ten, Kent Hance will be the official MVP of expansion. Close 2nd and 3rd would probably be Delany/Gee, but still for Tech to be able to demonstrate its influence this powerfully is impressive.
Able to bend the Pac-10 and SEC scenarios and possibly even the Big Ten; we all thought just A&M and Texas had that power…
LikeLike
well, but tech’s influence is 100% reflected light. at least a&m has some sparkle of its own, but tech is just moonlight.
LikeLike
tech is like a powerful man’s wife. when he’s horny she gets whatever she wants.
LikeLike
you know, tech should embrace that. ‘red raiders’ has always been a dippy name. here come the texas tech problems!
has a ring to it. for sure.
LikeLike
Wait’l they try to “Get Their Guns Up” in Ann Arbor. All the Tech fans will end up in paddy wagons for encouraging gun violence.
LikeLike
Fiutak weighs in on the chaos: http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/Big-12-teams-targeted-by-Pac-10-Big-Ten-060310
LikeLike
This is Jim Delany’s Super Bowl. He’s not about to blow it in the fourth quarter and be forced to hand the reigns of the BT over to Gordon Gee. Any holdouts weary of bringing in TECH are going to an education about the ramifications of failure. I think the Big Ten is going to get their Big Fish, even if they have to bring a guppy or two along and nurture them to prominence.
LikeLike
Uh, I think Gordon Gee is about to take over the process.
He’s been content to let Delany handle everything while everyone’s been talking about Big Ten scenarios.
But this Pac-16 has the potential to get Gordon Gee to essentially reboot the process at the presidents meetings.
There’s no way expansion won’t be topic #1 and how to get the schools they want as the #1 issue, especially with how the Pac-16 talk has erupted over the past couple of days.
But I’d probably feel better with Gordon Gee telling Delany to step on it. Gee’s looking at where the Big Ten will be in 2050. He’s probably got the best vision for it, and there’s no way he won’t start to move the process along if he feels it’s falling off the rails.
LikeLike
I think you both have the Gee-Delany relationship slightly wrong, personally. I don’t think Gee’s looking to usurp the process from Delany. Quite the contrary. I think Gee’s bought into Delany’s vision enough to where Gee’s telling him, “I’m in. But you better stop screwing around with teasing people and *get it done*.”
Moreover, he’s probably been a vocal advocate in these meetings. Gee’s respected, but it’s not like he’s the alpha dog in the BigTen. All the other presidents are plenty powerful in their own respects as well. Gee, however, will provide a respected voice trying to quickly shepherd the lot of presidents onto the bus. A bunch of old people who aren’t used to moving quickly on things at that.
Remember, Delany works for the presidents. He can’t force them into anything, even if he has a lot of clout. Gee is an equal, and perhaps can gain more influence. Moreover, Gee’s a hell of a politician. Having Gee in Delany’s corner is huge for Delany.
LikeLike
Yeah but it’s different with respect to a topic of expansion.
Penn State still feels like it’s the new guy (as per JoePa, not wanting to rock the boat that much on expansion as he’s said before).
And Michigan will be the most likely to vote against expansion (unless it’s just ND and stop at 12).
Thus, of those three, only Gordon Gee is going to buy into Delany’s expansion.
Sure there will be other presidents speaking out for it, but a lot of them are newer than he and feeling their way around (i.e. Northwestern).
LikeLike
Er, Penn State may buy in, but Gee will have to take leadership in terms of advocating for it…
LikeLike
JD needs Gordon Gee, whose reputation is stellar, to be his advocate with the other 10 Big 10 presidents. Its not a matter of handing the project over to Gee; its a matter of JD and Gee working together to realize a vision.
LikeLike
I agree Delany is unlikely to screw this up. But, I think he has presented the presidents with all the information and game theory he can. It’s in their hands now and it’s highly likely a couple of them will need to be convinced.
And their objections will be academic in nature. Who better than a former president of Brown and Vanderbilt? Gee may come across as an uber-nerd, but that guy is one damn good president who others in that room will listen to. Will they be convinced? Who knows. But, make no mistake if we’re at the counting votes stage Gee is the one doing the horse-trading in that room.
LikeLike
Gee is the only president in the Big Ten who would have the willingness and stature among the other presidents to sell at least 7 others on a Big 16 with Tech. He could sell a vision of Tech ascending to AAU status as A&M did and eventually becoming comparable to A&M today (obviously a very difficult climb and A&M didn’t have to really climb anywhere from the early 90s, it was mostly a prestige issue), but Tech has to actually climb the prestige/research/buildup etc.
But they seem to be willing to do it. The legislature wants it. Even Texas seems to want it (maybe feels forced but still).
So that’s where you need Gordon Gee; he has to be the closer if Delany pitches an idea that Texas and ND feel comfortable with but some schools don’t (i.e. Tech as the 5th…).
LikeLike
You make a good point here that I think needs to be heeded: it’s not like the climb upward for a university is an easy one. As much as people talk about becoming a Tier 1 school, it’s not like you can just throw money at something and make it happen. Let’s not forget that Tech is less than three years removed from this:
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/highereducation/entries/accreditation/
To think, a few weeks ago people were debating about the academic merits of Nebraska and Missouri and now we’re talking about Tier 3 schools.
LikeLike
I’m not implying that there is any animosity between Delany and Gee. In fact, they seem to get along great and are clearly ‘simpatico’ in their visions for the BT. I’m just saying the ramifications, personal and institutional are stratospheric that a hyper-competent ‘type A’ like Delany is not about to let this thing go south on his watch. -SOUTH, maybe but south, never!
I also think that the Big Ten’s prospects for success are helped by a weakened UofM. Michigan’s self inflicted wounds of late may have taken some of the wind out of their sails and made them more open to compromise.
LikeLike
You are right about Michigan.
Michigan is the most traditionalist of the Big Ten universities and would be the one that would push back hard on the expansion push. But right now, they’re a bit weakened in influence (very marginally though since UofM is obviously one of the most powerful schools in terms of sports/academics). So yeah if there was a scenario that Michigan would vote against, it makes it less likely that they would even really attempt to rally 3 others against it.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t completely put it past Mary Sue Coleman, Michigan’s president, to make a bold move. She voted in favor of the controversial Michigan stadium expansion, choosing money over tradition. She reportedly took an active role in the recruitment of Rich Rodriguez after other options fell through. Regardless of the outcome of that hire, it does reflect a willingness to go outside the traditional comfort zone. MSC has also watched over an incredible fund-raising drive at Michigan and definitely recognizes the value of money to educational institutions. As the school’s first female president, she has broken some of the stodgy Michigan mold. I would still put my money on her opposing it, but I am not sure that it’s a given.
LikeLike
The pushback from Michigan will come back from the academic side, it has nothing to do with football.
Its also important to note that OSU has carried a lot more debt through financing its impressive facility improvements over the past ten years, and they want maxmimum television revenue to service the debt payments over the next 20 years, especially if interest rates go up.
LikeLike
You know, the leak of the Pac-10 report was the best possible thing for the Big Ten.
It is obvious that it was really premature (i.e. no one signed off other than the Pac-10 commissioner) as one of several scenarios, and it happened right before the Big Ten president meetings. If there was ever anything to light a fire under the Big Ten’s 12-18 month schedule, it’d be a Pac-16 threatening to take away the Texas-ND scenario…
LikeLike
I agree. If they could have hitched a ride on a time machine to Monday morning they would have.
LikeLike
You know, I’ve gotten to thinking. What if A&M has pre-emptively shot down any Big Ten invite? I don’t think we’ve seen a single thing confirming or rejecting a Big Ten invite (heck Byrne seems to totally avoid talking about how travel would still be worse than the SEC in the Big Ten but a bit better in the Big Ten than the Pac-10), but what if they’ve said they only want to go to the SEC or Pac-10.
Then Texas could be telling the Big Ten that it has to bring Tech along because Texas doesn’t want to be a random southern outpost.
Then we’re looking at Tech/Texas/ND/Nebraska/Rutgers.
That would probably be good enough to bring Penn State on board.
I’d see the vote being a squeaker but Penn State making the difference.
Yes Michigan would vote no, but I think Ohio State and Penn State supporting it would give enough cover to Northwestern, etc.
LikeLike
failed add the first time
LikeLike
Interesting letter to Check out. From both the ISU AD and President.
http://www.gocyclones.com/news.php?ID=2906
” However, we also recognize that the long-term viability of the Big 12 Conference is not in our control – it is in the hands of just a few of our fellow member institutions.
Iowa State and several other members of the Big 12 Conference are especially vulnerable under some of the re-alignment scenarios currently circulating, particularly one involving expansion of the Pac-10. We are doing everything in our power to represent the best interests of Iowa State in these discussions, but we also are sensitive to the huge uncertainty that has been created and recognize that the situation could evolve in directions that are not aligned with our interests. “
LikeLike
Iowa State will begin to pull political strings in the Iowa legislature now. Count on it.
It may not work, but they will certainly try.
LikeLike
The Iowa State Legislature has stayed out of athletics in the past, and since the U of I Athletics Dept. is self-sufficient (and ISU isn’t) there isn’t much they could do other than to try to hurt the academic side to force Iowa to do something. And the Iowa AD wouldn’t cry if ISU fell down to mid-major status.
The Cedar Rapids Gazette had a chat with their columnists this afternoon and they thought that there was nothing the legislature would or could do to help ISU.
Iowa just isn’t Texas or Virginia. And ISU just doesn’t have any cards to play.
LikeLike
You dont see that every day….
LikeLike
Frank,
some points as I have been silent for awhile..
a) I said early on the Big 10 would poach maryland, I still see this as a strong possibility.
b) I argued early on that texas would wind up in the Pac 16, this seems like where the conversation is going.
c) I argued for kentucky to the big 10, I am still not sold that this is not a possibility.
d) I argued early for the BIG 3, and the collapse of the lesser 3 (Big 12, ACC, and Big East).
This said ESPN just reported on OTL that the lesser conferences would be “insignificant” in the age of mega confererences.. which was a point I made many post ago.. basically the BIG 3 (BIG 16, PAC 16, and SEC16) would sew up 80 – 90 % of the market, and form a new organization. I know we have discussed academics over and over and I am in no way understating the “research” end of the Big 10’s desire, but as I stated early on by going with the value of “entertainment” money driving this whole expansion conversation.
I said early on that once we get past 12 in any conference, we are in a new world. I go back to my argument of the total collapse of the ACC and that is where the Big 10 and SEC will go to expand..
Big 10 has 5 slots to fill to get to 16..
Nebraska, Maryland, Kansas, Missouri, and Virginia
SEC has 4 slots to get to 16..
UNC, NC State, Clemson, and Florida State
Pac 10 has extended invitations to..
Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, OSU, and Colorado
the “best” of the scraps would form “regional” secondary conferences that would compete when the BIG 3 for a shot to send a “fourth” team every year in a playoff system. Looks like it is playing out as I said early on..
LikeLike
Don’t see UNC having any interest at all in the SEC; I also see it going in tandem with Duke.
NCSU in the SEC is a good fit, though, particularly for an institution trying to use the football angle as a way to get out of the dual blue shadows at the other ends of the Research Triangle.
LikeLike
vincent..
duke has no football value..
from day one everyone has agreed that football revenue is driving the “super” conference agenda..
duke has a 30,000 seat stadium that they can not fill, and have no TV value for football..
tell me why they would add value if we go to the BIG 3??
“show me the money” for duke.. then I can buy your argument. I know alot of UNC donors, they would have no problem leaving duke behind.. and duke is not a state school so it would have no support at the state house.
LikeLike
I like UNC, wonder why if UVA/MD are possible targets, the B10 would not have them on the radar. Growth area, strong brand, great academics. Wouldn’t you much rather have them over Missouri? Plus one of the oldest rivalries in the game – against UVA.
LikeLike
The pluses of Duke are fairly clear. A) Academics. They would be the single best add of any candidate school by academic measure. IMO that alone would get them in. They’re in the University of Chicago’s sort of class academically. B) They’re top notch in research and growing quickly. Given their potential value to the CIC (and vice versa), this is another reason to take Duke. C) They’re obviously top-notch in basketball. Football may be #1 in revenue, but if you can get the best basketball program in the land, I think you have to consider it. (I think you can probably see this better than most, duffman, given your appreciation for the attractiveness of Kentucky.)
UNC offers a similar package, actually. Excellent academics, though not quite at Duke’s level. Very good research numbers, (though not quite at Duke’s level). Excellent basketball–(I’ll leave it to those of you in North Carolina to argue if they’re at Duke’s level or vice versa). And evidently, Duke also offers some interest in the New York area.
What UNC offers beyond Duke is being a state school with more alumni and better (though not great) football. And it’s the flagship for a growing state.
I think the B10 would take either of these schools quite readily.
LikeLike
Good discussions above about potential ACC schools being targets (above UVA/MD as noted by Frank). This brings up a good question as to what the ACC will do. Assuming it doesn’t immediately lose any schools, does it expand? What if P10, B10 and SEC expand? The ACC lost a lot of its identity in the last round of expansion, so I wonder if further expansion for them is a good idea. Or would it simply cause the top schools – UVA, MD, Duke, UNC, GT, FSU, Miami – to start looking for better homes? A lot of those schools would seemingly fit into the B10, but it can’t take them all – unless you go with Richards 20 school conference. Va Tech and Clemson would be perfect for the SEC, but I have no clue why the SEC would want them. Perhaps the conference is in relatively good shape which is why Frank believed early on they wouldn’t be touched.
LikeLike
DD,
it was in my argument for kentucky in the first place..
the president is MIT grad that wants UK to be top 20 research school in 20 years..
UK in the Big 10 would have one of the biggest stadiums in the Big 10 for football and they will sell it out for a team that does not do well in football. (it currently seats close to 70,000 – and plans already exist to go to 80,000+) and unlike duke, they can fill it when they are not winning.
as a plus you the basketball program and having IU, MSU, and UK in the same conference would be stellar.
plus it is a state school that dominates the state.. so you add senators and congressmen to the Big 10..
Duke.. while excellent academically, do not add a state flagship school with a strong football program…. and if split from UNC, would go downhill in basketball quickly.. IU, UNC, UK have won MULTIPLE NC’s in basketball with MULTIPLE coaches.. Duke can not make this claim..
LikeLike
B10 won’t consider UK. They, along with South Carolina, probably have the most loyal football fans in the country. But they aren’t that big a research school now. They traditionally have not been competitive in the SEC although they have gotten better in recent years. The gap in speed between UK teams and the top teams made it look like I-A vs. a Division II school. There’s still a gap, just not as big. And there have been some nasty scandals in basketball. I just don’t see the B10 wanting to take that on. And I grew up a UK fan and have some family ties there, so I’m not denigrating UK, its just the facts.
LikeLike
Duke has a lot of plusses on the academic side of course, and its also one of the all-time leading college basketball programs. I know this revolves around football, but basketball provides a lot of inventory for a conference network or TV contract. That can’t be overlooked.
LikeLike
I think the ACC survives.
LikeLike
ez,
the socon is still around, but it does not wield the power it once did. I see the ACC the same way.. There will be an ACC but it will be a conference of small private schools like Duke, Wake, Tulane, etc.. see also the old Magnolia conference.
but the big state flagship schools will find new homes in the Big 10 and SEC..
LikeLike
Rice to the ACC?
LikeLike
If the 3 16 Superconferences evolved as many on this board believe then ND would, in my opinion, definitely join the ACC. Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, UNC, UVA, Duke are a great core group. Even if MD, FSU, Miami are stripped out. Then add Fredo, NC State, Clemson and you will have an excellent 10 member league. I hope that it plays out this way if there is this seismic shift as this board believes.
By the way, I am sorry for bringing up such a hopelessly quaint and probably naive question — but is integrity a criterion when you evaluate potential members of your club? How and why any conference would voluntarily admit Kentucky to its sports conference is — crazy. Calipari, 2.15 gpa, and endless stream of “one-and dones” a historical leader in NCAA probations, really? You would voluntarily admit Kentucky? Is it an Ashley Judd thing?
LikeLike
Ashley does kind of make it worthwhile.
UK is not a leader in probations (see Auburn, A&M, SMU and Wichita St.). UK hasn’t been caught that much, but they have had some really bad ones. Its the quality of the violations, not the quantity that would concern the B10.
LikeLike
rich2,
the point on kentucky goes back to conversations on this blog early on. when we looked at many different schools and how they fit..
As a person who can remember when the basketball rivalry was IU vs UK, not UNC vs Duke. At the time of the debate we were discussing established programs AND future programs. PSU has grown into the Big 10, point was made for an sec raid by taking UK..
The current UK president is a research guy that went to MIT. The long term goal is top 20 research in 20 years.. while not there now.. the point was to identify future schools that would fit the Big 10 and put them in now..
this blog has been good about not being nasty with comments.. so please try to refrain from mean spirited comments.. the point was long term research goals with good sports numbers made them worth looking at (especially in expanding the big 10 footprint).
We are in the age of one and dones, it is not exclusive to UK – nor is problems with the NCAA. My personal feeling is it goes on at all schools but it is easier to look the other way when it is your alma mater.
I live in Big 10 footprint, and I know firsthand some issues with some of their programs that have never been pursued. As a fan no one wants to see their own school be the bad guy, but to think it does not happen everywhere is the naive and quaint thinking.
please keep this blog with good thoughts and comments. do not let it degrade to the name calling you see on so many blogs..
thanks..
LikeLike
Here’s a statement from Iowa State’s president and AD that was put up on the school’s official athletic website. They don’t sound very confident:
http://www.cyclones.com//ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=10700&ATCLID=204955238
LikeLike
Yeah, they also mentioned the elephant in the room, the Pac-16 scenario that blew up yesterday.
At this point, it’s a done deal, Nebraska seems like it’s pretty much in the Big Ten, it’s a question of whether we go 1, 3, 5 with them, it seems to me.
And Texas has made it clear it’s ready to move once dominoes start falling, and after the Pac-16 scenario which pretty much gives Texas everything it could want, there’s no doubt that Texas is in play, which means the Big 12 could crumble as soon as one team leaves and there’s a scramble for the exit by teams with options.
At least Iowa State is thinking about what might happen even if there’s nothing they can do about it…
LikeLike
Here is where ISU fans are placing their hope.
Michigan, Northwestern and one other school are adamantly opposed to expansion.
In this scenario, Iowa is the critical seventh vote. If they are, that is where ISU could attempt a political powerplay similar to Virginia Tech in 2003.
LikeLike
You don’t make a statement like that unless you’re very, very worried. The Big XII is on death row right now, hoping for a reprieve from the U of Texas President.
I think the B10 would forgo expansion rather than take ISU.
LikeLike
It would be ironic if Tier 3 Texas Tech — which a certain Missouri politician derided not so long ago — was taken into the Big Ten and Missouri was left out.
Feel bad for the ISU folks, though. I spent two years in grad school in Ames; it’s a nice college with good people that invariably seems to get a bad break where athletics are concerned.
LikeLike
Wow. That has to be seen as confirmation that the P10 offer is legit. Here’s hoping Delaney can make gold out of chaos.
LikeLike
I concur with “wow”… I read snippets before just now. Reading the whole letter definitely gives some legs to the rumors.
LikeLike
Pingback: Show Rewind 6.4.10-Big XII Rumors, Angry Louisianans and J&J Go Viral « The Jack & John in the Morning Blog
The Iowa State letter is just the lattest and most explicit in confirmation of this story: before hand, the Cal President intimating something revolutionary might come out of the Pac 10 meetings this weekend, the pac16 report, UCB’s AD Bohn confirming it, the tension of the meeting on thursday, Texas’ President darting out because he had a plane to catch (remember B12 commish said he wanted to see who was on the plane, guess he found out) Washington confirming that huge options were on the table and now Iowa State has basically confirmed the issue, given us a notion of how contentious the meetings were and how brow-beaten some of the schools must feel.
There are still lots of moving parts, but this thing is being considered and seems very real – more real than anything that has come out the past year.
The big 12 is not long for this world, the Big East football as well is likely not long for this world, the wac, mac, sun belt etc are condemned, and the Mountain west remains the only real middle class team and after they add Boise on monday, will be in quite a buyers market for anywhere from 2-6 teams.
LikeLike
Is this where we are at now? Texas says they will stay in the Big 12 if it can start the Longhorn Network and air tier 2 and 3 content on it. Nebraska says they will stay in the Big 12 if schools will not be allowed to market their own network and all tier 2 and 3 content is property of the conference. Can Nebraska and Texas negotiate an agreement to save the Big 12? Will Nebraska decide the Big Ten is best place for its small home market, large national brand to prosper?
LikeLike
It’s not just NU and Texas. Oklahoma, A&M and the rest of the league are very concerned about the impact a Longhorn Network would have on any potential network contract. Smaller schools like Baylor have been fighting for greater revenue sharing: the network only widens the gulf.
Nebraska fans haven’t felt comfortable in the Big12 since its inception, and most of that is due to cultural differences, not economic.
LikeLike
ND could join B10+, but only by themselves?
http://iowa.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=804&tid=134146708&mid=134146708&sid=940&style=2
Could explain the Osborne meeting this morning, and matches with TX’s supposed desire to stay in the B12. Not buying it, yet. But perhaps ND by themselves joining to go to 12 could allow for just 7 conference games (3 annual protected, 4 of the remaining 8 per year.)
LikeLike
I just don’t see the Big Ten presidents allowing Notre Dame to be bigger than the game and set its own rules.
LikeLike
Agreed. Notre Dame doesn’t get to come in and start making demands. Nor do I see why they would want to do something like that.
LikeLike
I don’t believe this report for a second.
However, if Texas was off the table, and ND said we’ll join provided you stop at #12, I think the Big 10 would take this deal.
LikeLike
After seeing that Texas just got invitations for almost the entire Big 12 South from the most conservative conference out there, IF ND were willing to give up independence (and I could see this only IF they believe all major conferences will go to 16 and they will somehow be left out), the Irish will insist upon bringing all some “friends” as well.
That’s how I see it anyway.
LikeLike
Could the Catholics save the college football world from conference Armageddon?
LikeLike
Interesting ESPN video update by Joe Schad
Suggesting Texas prefers staying in Big 12 but unless Nebraska and Missouri agree to remain, the 6 schools are going to the Pac 10.
Perhaps that means Nebraska gets an invite this weekend from Big 10 as Frank suggested if the Big 10 can’t match the rumored Pac 10 offer.
The Pac 10 offer of 6 regional teams including not just Tech but Oklahoma (plus the 2 AZ schools) seems like it would be very attractive. This may be about more than just Tech.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5252276
LikeLike
Well, if Frank’s sources are correct and Neb has been given the under-the-table-double-wink-garauntee that they will be invited….they would surely choose the B10 over an intact B12 I would think….so the dominos still may be falling shortly.
LikeLike
There’s a theory out there that this is all an attempt to call Mizzou and UNL’s bluff, in essence saying “commit to the Big 12 or we’re leaving.”
Honestly, that makes no sense to me. It’s like telling your wife you’re leaving her for another woman and her response is “Stay with me or I’ll marry someone else too.” Once you’re out the door, you don’t really care what happens to them. In fact, you’re happy they’re taken care of.
LikeLike
Re “bluff” (Josh) and (Stopping By)
The way I see it, Nebraska and the Texas schools are not bluffing. If invited, Nebraska will get a significant revenue increase and be associated with excellent Big 10 schools and the CIC.
The Texas 6 retain key regional teams, get bigger payout, benefits of conference channel and are associated with Pac 10 schools which is a major upgrade.
The offer to Nebraska is perhaps the desire to cushion the blame for the end of the conference and the fact that several schools are going to be left out.
LikeLike
agree. What the big12 6 are doing is using nebraska as an excuse. They will let nebraska take the heat and still get what they wanted all along: more money and the stage. Politics at its best
LikeLike
Why would the PAC 10 leak an offer as a bluff to benefit the Big 12?
More likely, the PAC 10 feels that Texas has been talking to the Big 10 and is playing a chip the Big 10 doesn’t have — TTU as part of the deal.
LikeLike
Could Iowa ST have influence outside of its potential influence over Iowa? Because of its election role, Iowa (the state) has some disproportionate influence over national affairs than other states. Major conference realignment is definitely a national affair. So with that in mind, can we start seeing some Congressional meddling. This realignment is going to happen just as potential candidates start visiting Iowa – at least for one party.
Just adding more fuel to the fire. I don’t think anyone other than Iowa St grads cares much to what happens to them.
LikeLike
Hilarious paradoy
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/4/1500646/the-rumormill-the-big-xii-to-pac#storyjump
LikeLike
except I can’t spell parody
LikeLike
life is goof.
LikeLike
Nice! Thanks for the link.
LikeLike
Bohls:
>>
If Nebraska’s board of trustees, who meet June 12, vote to stick with the Big 12, it could totally quash the Pac 10 options. The Cornhuskers definitely want to join the Big Ten, in my opinion, as does Missouri, but haven’t been invited yet.
The Big 12 figures to call ‘em both out and demand a position.
I am also told that a linkage between Texas and Texas A&M may not necessarily be set in stone, and that quite frankly stuns me.
<<
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2010/06/04/big_12pac10_rum.html?cxntfid=blogs_bohl_games
LikeLike
Does Bohls actually believe the stuff he writes? I don’t know what to think about Missouri, but why on earth would Nebraska be part of this dustup without some sort of assurance (disregarding semantics about invites, official invites, applications, etc.) that they had a place in Big Ten expansion? That’s not to say that it couldn’t be withdrawn in some combination of events, but Nebraska doesn’t have any part in causing the Big 12 meetings to resemble a Chinese fire drill without some reasonably secure knowledge of where they’re headed.
LikeLike
I’ve caught Kirk Bohls in a lie. Or at least a greatly exaggerated statement of his own ability to predict the future.
Here is an excerpt from the link above:
“My 9 Things column a few weeks ago suggested a merger or TV alliance with the Pac-10 would be the most likely scenario for Texas and A&M, and Orangebloods.com, to its credit, nailed it down this week, saying the Pac-10 is prepared to invite six Big 12 schools and form an eastern division including those six, Arizona State and Arizona.”
Ah, brilliant! He called the Big XII-Pac 10 “merger” (though “merger” is hardly the word I’d use). Bohls is awfully proud of himself, patting himself on the back and all for predicting this.
But here is the excerpt from the column he is citing:
“A television alliance between his league and the Pac 10 “has some definite possibilities,” one Big 12 athletic director told me last week, but he doesn’t see a full merger between the two conferences mostly because of the travel demands of a 22-team union. But couldn’t branching off into divisions solve some of that and hold down travel costs as well as missed classtime? Remember, if the two leagues merged, they would bring together 16 states that total more than 100 million people. That’s a lot of television sets. And maybe the two leagues could get back at the Big Ten for causing all this chaos and arrange a Pac 10-Big 12 matchup in that little Rose Bowl game. A guy can dream, can’t he? More likely, I could see that television partnership where every Big 12 school played at least one Pac 10 school in football and basketball.”
Sounds like he’s dismissing the very possibility of what might be emerging.
(Link to prior column: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/bohls/entries/2010/05/16/9_things_and_on_21.html)
LikeLike
You didn’t go back far enough:
http://www.statesman.com/sports/nine-things-and-one-crazy-prediction-662277.html
1. Don’t get overly worked up by rumors last week that it’s a “done deal” that Missouri will leave the Big 12 and join the Big Ten. It’s not a done deal, or even close.
If the Big 12 were to lose only Missouri, I’m hearing the Big 12 would go hard after the SEC’s Arkansas, which might be willing to listen. Texas will never leave for a destination without Texas A&M, and should more than two schools leave the Big 12 for other conferences, I’m convinced the Longhorns and Aggies would work toward joining the SEC or perhaps try a far-flung, Pac-10 arrangement of 16 teams, with the two schools from Texas and Arizona and maybe Texas Tech making up a South Division.
LikeLike
Of course about a million people had already made that guess, so he isn’t some insider visionary.
LikeLike
You right, I didn’t go back enough(so, sorry, Kirk, you’re not a liar! You rock!), but you’re also right in implying that Bohls seems to be patting himself on the back for being some sort of genius when I think everyone on this board has contemplated some sort of 16-team Pac 10 configuration at some point or another.
LikeLike
My 2 cents:
If the Pac10 gets Texas (and A&M, TTech, OU, OSU, and CU), the Big10 would be strongly incented to absorb the AAU schools of the ACC to go to a Big20, whether they add ND or not.
The reason is because, while even a Pac16 with Texas wouldn’t surpass the Big10 (and SEC), an SEC that manages to consolidate the south by adding the best parts of the ACC would. Now, granted, no combination of ACC schools would be the same as adding Texas, but if the Big10 adds the ACC, ND would have no place to go (they definitely aren’t heading to the SEC), and games against former ACC schools as well as their traditional Big10 rivals may be enough to compel the Irish to join.
So what would the Big20 look like? I believe the core 4 ACC AAU schools of Maryland, Virginia, UNC, and Duke are a given as well as GTech & Miami. Then, UNC may force the Big10 to take in NCSt (academically, an OK move, since I expect both NCSt & Miami to become AAU soon), but they wouldn’t add much more TV-wise). That leaves 2 or 3 spots left (depending on whether NCSt. joins or not) which will be filled, in order of preference, by ND, Nebraska, Rutgers, or Mizzou.
The SEC picks up VTech, WVa, FSU, and Clemson to go to 16.
Wake & BC are left to fend for themselves (likely going to the Big East).
The Big10 gets their southern recruiting grounds without compromising their academic brand and stays contiguous geographically, the academically good ACC schools get to join the CIC, and the SEC adds some good football schools. Everybody wins (except Wake & BC).
What’s more, with this setup, half or more of the national title contenders in football will funnel through the Rose Bowl, and between them, the Pac10 & Big10 will have about half the members of the BCS. The stage is set for a plus-one NC game between the winner of the Rose Bowl and the winner of the SEC-vs-the-best-of-the-rest game (likely coming from the remnents of the Big12, MWC, or ig East).
Oh, and don’t be surprised about Stanford allowing in TTech, OSU, etc. The Pac10 is desperate for more money, the California state government is broke, and Stanford’s endowment took a massive hit during the recent downturn. As I’ve stated before, Stanford has recently had to cut athletic support staff and Olympic sports programs. If the choice is between laying off staff and cutting sports or allowing in schools that are the caliber of schools they already have in conference (Oregon State and WSU), I think it is an easy choice.
LikeLike
I’m getting the impression that if ND were to simply join the B10 and nothing else, we would all just go meh. Four months ago that would have been huge news. You see what you started Frank.
LikeLike
richard,
in a BIG 3 you only need 48 schools.. anything else is overkill..
so you are looking at (3) 16 team conferences [not 20 team]..
so you see 5 teams to the Big 10 and 4 to SEC, just think this way..
(think of magic numbers 2,4,6,8,12,16 – in terms of bracket parings.. with emphasis on 4,8,16)
once the Big 10 and sec get to 16, it is the laws of diminishing returns..
ps.. I see no way that WVA winds up in the sec, what value do they bring?? the same could be said for Va Tech
I see UNC and NC State there first.. mike silve is a smart and competitive.. to think he would pick up WVU or UL, or another such team is HIGHLY unlikely.. unless you can show some serious reasons why he would? floor is open..
LikeLike
The SEC operates on a different revenue model; a more traditional one where the brand of the team & ratings matter more. I’ve no doubt that the SEC desires the NC and Virginia schools, but what if Slive can’t get all of them? If the SEC is stuck at 15 (and the good Texas schools are scooped up by the Pac10), I see them taking WVa to make up the numbers.
BTW, thinking it over further, I see the Big10 making a play for FSU, Miami, and GTech (as well as Maryland & Virginia). The key will be what UNC wants to do. Can they keep the schools on the fringes of the ACC from defecting? If not, do they choose the Big10 or SEC? Would they care about bringing NCSt. and/or Duke along (Big10 may have trouble with NCSt.; Duke would have trouble with joining the SEC). In any case, I don’t think 20 schools in a conference means diminishing returns. Having your own cable network means that you can get returns on scale instead. Plus, 3 top conferences of 16 just wouldn’t work, because they wouldn’t make up a majority of the FBS. 4 conferences of 16 would, as would 3 conferences with some more than 16.
LikeLike
Now I simply just want to see Texas, Nebraska, UVA, UNC, and Miami join the B10. What a conference that would be. Look at all the positives – great football, great basketball, some good baseball, a few good lacrosse teams, good soccer teams, great academics, cover basically the eastern half of the country, surround the SEC, and get to tell ND to piss off – you are no longer needed. Of course, I’d probably also dump NE for FSU. Funny a couple months ago, I would have thought that is just a simple pipe dream. But now I think anything can happen – who knows? I know still a pipe dream.
LikeLike
Here’s another crazy idea (for a Big16):
Add Nebraska; persuade Miami, FSU, & GTech/Rutgers to join. Adding the southern ACC schools & Nebraska persuades ND to join.
The pods would be
West
Minn
Iowa
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Midwest
Northwestern
llinis
IU
PU
Mideast
OSU
MSU
Michigan
ND
East
PSU
Miami
FSU
GTech/Rutgers
Everybody rotates between playing their neighboring pod on their right and left (East plays West half the time. 7 conference games. ND would be happy with only 7 conference games (maybe OSU & PSU as well), especially since they get to regularly play southern teams as well. The old Big10 teams can still schedule non-conf Big10 games (Michigan-Minnesota; maybe MSU-Wisconsin as well). In fact, everybody get to play the southern teams except the IL-IN quartet (but they get to play the old Big10 teams as well as ND & Nebraska) at least half the time. The southern teams (who want to upgrade their academic image) get to join the CIC (I expect FSU & Miami to become AAU soon as well, joining GTech in that club).
LikeLike
I can’t see the Big Ten presidents spurning Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina for Georgia Tech and two non-AAU members if they go the ACC route.
LikeLike
I’m sure the Big10 desires them, but if Maryland won’t leave without Virginia & Duke, Virginia won’t leave without UNC, and UNC won’t leave without NCSU (and Duke), then what do you do? You could take all 5 (though I’m not sure the Big10 would be interested in taking 3 schools just to lock down NC, which isn’t Texas), but only in a Big20 scenario.
LikeLike
One of the few times I agree with Richard. Which is why many alums are strongly advocating a pre-emptive strike for ND to the ACC. If we can create a home-and-home with Texas and USC, keep Navy, drop the Big Ten+ games(including Michigan) and then played an ACC schedule, it would be ok.
LikeLike
Intercepted text message!!
From: Pac10 Commish
To: Big10 Commish
Delaney, how’s my @ss taste?
LikeLike
The way I know that the Pac-10 rumor has some legs is that it has overshadowed arguably the only genuine leak of this entire exercise: the Gee-Delaney email exchange. The key point of the article is the date. Gee sent his email on 4/20 (giggle), more than a month ago. We can only guess at any subsequent exchanges or actions. Did Gee fail to get enough “Tech support”, leading to this option? Did Texas leak (or, if you’re in a Nebraska state of mind, fabricate) this rumor in order to increase bargaining power?
One point is clear. If true, this offer is effectively the blank check option from the Pac-10 to Texas. It gets to pick whatever 5 other schools it wants (and can get to come) with no restrictions from the conference. Presumably, Texas will also get the benefits of the Pac-10 revenue sharing setup, which is even more lopsided than the Big XII. If legitimate, Texas can now go to the Big Ten (or SEC/Big XII) and see if they can come up with something better.
Personally, I have serious doubts that the Big Ten can match the offer financially. While the average school is the new conference would certainly make less than the average B10 school, Texas (and USC) would likely make more.
LikeLike
I’m not sure why the B10 would want to. By all means make concessions to UT, but don’t totally sell your soul. There are plenty of ways to expand in the future. Plus, I have a feeling this Pac 10 merger (if it really happens) will not work out quite as well as they think. I just don’t see an expansion of that sort working out long term. Just a hunch.
LikeLike
sh,
it goes back to my original argument..
the big 10 and sec operate on share and share alike
texas, (and ND) are not of that mentality..
the jump to the pac 10 would let TEXAS and USC be the Sun and Jupiter of their conference, this will not happen in the Big 10 or sec selling their soul as you observed so well.
LikeLike
i agree, sh. i would give it fifteen years max. and then texas, a&m, tech, okla, ok st, colo, ariz, az st would all go as a bloc to their next fifteen-year home.
LikeLike
Rotating conferences. Not a bad idea, maybe we can set something up like the English Premier League. Bottom two B10 go to the Big East while the top two join the B10.
LikeLike
@M – I actually don’t think that the financial argument holds for Texas. If UT wants the most money possible, then it will go to the Big Ten or SEC (in that order), even with equal revenue distribution. If UT wants some more money than it has now along with bringing in some friends that might avoid political headaches, then it will accept this Pac-10 invite. That seems to be the choice for Texas.
LikeLike
The Pac 16 would have a footprint in states they control of 85+ million people, or the same footprint as a big 10 with texas, mizzou, nebraska, they also will be negotiating all their media rights. There is nothing that tells me they wouldn’t get their network on every cable provider in Texas and California. They would have the option of putting all content on their network, they could be looking at a deal with a fox that obviously wants in as evidenced by bidding up the ACC, ESPN/ABC would lose so much content if they lost both the pac and big 12. They are going to get a monster deal. Selling Texas, Oklahoma, USC, UCLA is not small potatoes.
Also, if Fox is the partner in their network, what is to stop the pac and big 10 from becoming a combo – you put the pac 16 on in the midwest and put the big 10 on in the west/southwest/northwest.
The Pac 16 will be generating close to Big 10 money almost right away, owning texas and california versus smaller states that still have some competition like Notre Dame, Pitt, etc. tells me they might be passing the Big 10.
LikeLike
Texas + Pac 10 is a lot of people
Texas + Big 10 or Texas + SEC is even more people. The people in those regions also follow their college sports a bit more closely, resulting in higher ratings.
So, if it was completely about money, they would choose one of those conferences. However, they’ll do just fine financially in the Pac 16.
LikeLike
PAC10 has a bad deal today because people in that region don’t watch as much CF. That won’t change much in the next 10 years either
LikeLike
Based on Alan’s numbers, the SEC would seem to be the best financially (at least in the short run). If FL can bring in $8 million in local revenue, that’s $25 million vs. the $22 million in the b10.
The SEC shares the base TV, but not the local rights.
LikeLike
It depends, the Big Ten Network’s payouts are going up nearly exponentially. It’s not unrealistic to assume that the Big Ten would be paying out $40M per team in 5 years with Texas/Notre Dame.
Of course you can make a similar argument for the SEC for the Longhorns (that it would grow a lot larger just with that addition), but still, I doubt it’d be as good as Texas/ND in the current Big Ten.
LikeLike
Tramel:
>>
I don’t know for sure. I wasn’t in the room. But I’ve talked to people who know what they’re talking about. And this is about Nebraska.
This isn’t about Missouri. Nobody cares about Missouri. Stay, go, drop football, get mad all over again that the Insight Bowl invited Iowa State. Doesn’t matter.
If only Missouri leaves the Big 12, the league is fine. Heck, the league thrives. TV revenues wouldn’t go down, plus there’s one less mouth to feed. Heck, the NCAA might even give the Big 12 a waiver and let it keep the football championship game.
This is about Nebraska. Everybody cares about Nebraska. Nebraska helps make the league go. Without Nebraska, Texas’ and Oklahoma’s enthusiasm for the Big 12 wanes.
Which is why I believe Beebe gave Nebraska chancellor Harvey Perlman a deadline Friday. Stake your claim. Are you with the Big 12 or not? Are you staying or are you waffling?
<<
http://newsok.com/article/3466077
LikeLike
Re Tramel article (Mike)
Consistent with Joe Schad video linked above.
This is really brilliant. Like a great novel that is racing toward a conclusion or perhaps defining chapter, except it is real.
LikeLike
I agree 100%.
Just look at the Big 12 North. That division in terms of TV ratings is entirely carried by Nebraska. Nebraska is the key cog in all of this.
LikeLike
Now that this story is blowing up its getting a lot of discussion on the main sports radio channel the Fan in Denver. Kind of painful listening the local hosts “analysis” for anyone who’s been following this stuff for months through this blog and the other discussion channels, lol. Looking forward to the next set of hosts though since one is (recent) CU college hall-of-famer Alfred Williams to get his take.
LikeLike
the fan? how does this effect the Denver Broncos?
LikeLike
Wait, wait, wait…. I thought everything hinged on Texas?
What happened to screw Nebraska we could replace them with TCU?
Now traditions are really important and Nebraska should respect them and care? What? When Nebraska wanted to continue playing Oklahoma every year on the day after thanksgiving to preserve tradition they were told no, now you’ll play Colorado and only see Oklahoma every few years.
The only reason Texas wants to save the Big 12 is to preserve the LSN. Are OU and T A&M going to allow them to have an LSN and not help develop a conference tv network?
I still think almost everything hinges on Texas, but if it does actually hinge on Nebraska the Big 12 is dead.
This conference is so unstable and has so many individual interests it is bound to fail Sooner, Longhorn, Aggie, Husker, or later.
LikeLike
Well if Beebe gave Nebraska an ultimatum, then he probably should start packing the boxes now because Nebraska isn’t going to stay in a conference where everyone is on the verge of bolting.
If anything, it appears like a plant by an Oklahoma guy to absolve his school of any blame for a Big 12 breakup.
The disintegration of the Oklahoma-Nebraska rivalry is really unfortunate for college football fans.
LikeLike
Well, if they want they can play it annually now!
Oklahoma usually has one of the more difficult non-conference schedules anyway. So if there isn’t bad blood, it will probably get renewed.
Of course, we don’t know right now if there’s real bad blood.
LikeLike
You figure Neb is more important than Mizz but just thinking out loud if some of these dominos start falling……Missouri fans will lose their mind if they don’t get that B10 invite they have been banking on.
Not a Mizzou fan but would the SEC take them if the B10 does not?
LikeLike
Seriously!!?? This post is less than 24 hours old and it has almost 600 comments!! Frank, you may want to start writing BTEI #23 now.
Also… adding.
LikeLike
LOL – Yeah Frank – it’s time for another article already!
(joking of course – just in case other’s sarcasm detectors are in the “off” position)
LikeLike
The speed at which recent news and speculation is moving I wouldn’t be surprised to see a new post in the next couple of days.
LikeLike
What does the P10 do if UT does not join? From what others on these boards say, they are struggling financially. And I think it is clear that there is much $$ for the CA public schools from the state. So presumably, they need to expand before their next TV deal. Does adding CO and UT add that much value? BYU seems to have a lot of value, but a lot of potential negatives (really in cultural fit). If the P10 can’t get UT, I would think they would be open to the following schools: UT, CO, BYU, Kan, Miss, OK, and A&M – though I don’t see OK or A&M going there.
LikeLike
Well I used UT for Texas and UT for Utah.
LikeLike
If the Pac-10 can’t get 6 (including Texas/A&M), then it would add 2 and a CCG. A CCG would make a 2 team expansion be guaranteed to payoff even if it was Colorado/Utah and you weren’t sured how big the markets they really deliver are due to professional sports and competition (BYU), etc.
It’s nearly impossible to see a Pac-10 bigger than 12 teams though without Texas…
LikeLike
My guess is it would be something similar to Utah/CO and KS/Mizz if they decided to move forward with expansion without TX/aTm.
Those schools pass the academic smell test + provide decent markets for TV footprint. Nothing the Pac does is a HR w/ TX though. I’m for making concessions for TX to get them to the Pac just not necessarily a “blank check.”
LikeLike
I think it’s Texas or bust for the Pac10. As one commentator noted above, the Big10 wants Texas, but the Pac10 needs Texas. Adding Colorado, adding Utah, adding a championship game; all these steps hardly move the needle at all. Adding Texas is orders of magnitude better for the Pac10, which is why I think Texas eventually goes there, because they’re willing to give Texas pretty much all they want.
LikeLike
Which is why we might end up seeing a P16 add of Utah, CO, KS, TT, TX, and UHou before this is all over, if OU and aTm do go to the SEC.
LikeLike
That’s assuming the SEC wants them. Oklahoma’s not a populous state.
LikeLike
I knew, if I read through 700+ comments, that there would eventually be a mention of UH’s chances of getting into the Pac-Whatever.
LikeLike
Yes, and I recall your mocking derision when I suggested months ago that TX could be looking to bring several local schools to a P16, based on several rumors. You particularly scoffed at OU, TT, and UH. Where lookie here, 2 of those 3 are included.
LikeLike
You’ve predicted anything and everything at one point or another, so you’re bound to be correct no matter how this turns out.
(And I hardly think the inclusion of Tech is based on any sort of proactive altruistic motivation on UT’s part.)
LikeLike
Those weren’t prediction but possibilities. Primarily in response to posters saying, “X will never happen.” As a designer, I like to say, “Well actually, it might, and here’s one way it could.”
LikeLike
A few of my observations & opinions:
(1) No three schools seem more certain to end up in a very undesirable conference than Iowa State, Kansas State, and Baylor. Although they’re perfectly respectable universities, they almost completely lack qualities that would make them a target of other leagues, even the Mountain West.
Other schools also appear vulnerable to being left behind (i.e., most of the Big East, Kansas, Missouri), but even those schools have a realistic chance of being invited by either the SEC, ACC, or B10.
(2) How desperate must the Pac-10 be if two of its members (Az and ASU) are willing to reduce their games against their league rivals from the past 31 years to just 1-2 games/year? How badly must it want UT if getting them requires Tech, OSU, and OU, especially when more academically-desirable schools like Missouri, Kansas, and Utah would be ignored?
(3) The idea of the SEC taking ACC schools does not sit well with me. As a Florida State fan, I’ve enjoyed FSU’s association with Georgia Tech, UNC, Wake, Duke, Maryland, and UVA. Heck, whichever ACC school is considered the weakest link academically is still a pretty strong link. FSU, NC State, Virginia Tech, and Miami each have serious aspirations for AAU membership, and their affiliation in the ACC has proven to be anything but a hindrance to those goals. How’s that working out for SEC schools? In the SEC, it seems like being number one in football is the only thing that could possibly matter. My gosh I hope Clemson, FSU, and the other potential targets see right through that, leaving the SEC to go for OU, OSU, and WVU, schools which would fit right into the shameless SEC.
LikeLike
This is why I feel GTech, FSU, and Miami (and Duke, UNC, UVa, & Maryland, naturally) would be more receptive to the Big10 than the SEC if they feel the ACC will fall apart.
LikeLike
You have almost the same situation with the BXII S merging with the Pac 10. You could see a lot of ACC merge with B10, with an east coast division of old ACC and PSU and a division of old B10. Could sell itself as the premier academic-athletic conference in the country without their being any doubt.
LikeLike
michael,
point 1.. totally agree
point 2.. not a big deal, AZ and ASU were late to join the pac 10 so less likely to feel bad about it.. especially if it opens up texas to recruiting for these two schools.. i would agree if the two were USC and UCLA, but not so much for the AZ schools..
point 3.. it may not sit well, but i can see an SEC / ACC marriage (with a big chunk of my family that calls Tallahassee home, and has since Florida became a state) I think they would like to see a strong academic and athletic conference that is southern. I keep saying that when looking at redrawing regions.. using a line drawn at the top of North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas makes sense..
As i said early on.. living on the border of multiple conferences makes me much more aware of each..
ps.. your comment “fit right into the shameless SEC.” – lets try not to resort to name calling here.. leave that to other blogs..
LikeLike
I am with you Michael. I just not buying the SEC raiding the ACC and for that matter I think while its a better shot that the Big 10 does it is still a long shot. The ACC has expansion options if and when Conference Armageddon strikes with the Big East football teams that don’t got to the Big 10 that will actually help to fix the BC problem with the likes of Pitt, UConn and Cuse. Because basketball is so important these schools fit in nicely both in academics and sports though football lags with 2 of them. The money right now is not that far off between ACC schools and SEC schools.
To the important school, FSU. This might have changed but FSU makes more in local syndication and replays than UF does/did and given that FSU should return to a perennial power the money for FSU in either conference will be about the same. Miami has seemly forgot they are the richest talent area in the country and stopped recruiting while FSU now has on staff 2 of if not the best south Florida recruiters on staff one they stole from a SEC power school in a lateral move. This along with the general improvements in the AD department as well the aspirations on the academic side I just can’t see this happening unless the ACC blew up.
I am also not buying GT going back to the SEC when part of the reason the left is still going on. Shady recruiting practices and the inability to report other member institutions to the NCAA.
I can’t pretend to know anything about Clemson but if they are the only one to leave Pitt or UConn more than makes up for them.
LikeLike
Well, if the Pac 16 forms a successful cable channel and the Big 10 and SEC can’t get any ACC teams, then maybe the Pac 16 will be the most valuable conference in a few years.
LikeLike
I am in the camp that this is a marriage made in hell. But, even if successful a Pac16 still have a shitty time zone and will only have 3 true national brands. The Big 10 on the other hand already has 3 national brands and will almost certainly add a 4th in Nebraska and possibly a 5th in ND.
LikeLike
There’s more than enough central time zone schools to always have a game in prime time for the East Coast.
The differences in time zones are good for the tv purposes, as every school gets to be in what it considers ‘prime time’ more often.
On football Saturdays they can have games at (Eastern time) 12, 3:30, 7, and 10:30, broadcasting live games all through the day.
LikeLike
With the Time Zone I was thinking more for any 1st choice ESPN/ABC deal. The afternoon is already locked up with ACC and Big 10. Eastern/Central prime time is locked up with SEC plus big game of the week. I am sure ESPN/ABC will still overpay like they have done with the SEC/ACC for the Pac 16 but for Eastern/Central prime time they will have a lot of competition to overcome and I just don’t see a place for them earlier in the day there. They can always go to Fox but a relationship with ESPN might be too important to chance when half the voters take there cues from them.
LikeLike
‘And so that’s what it appears PAC 10 commish Larry Scott has done, which is why I now believe that it is the Big Ten that leads for the Longhorns. However, a firm offer for Texas Tech that is contingent upon the Longhorns coming along is a very strong play for the PAC 10, and in time, it just might do the trick.’
from an interesting article on barking carnival.
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/04/merger-tactics/
LikeLike
Good find.
LikeLike
Taking on TTech and recreating a SWC as in the Pac-16 East might do it for Texas though as they point out.
I think the Big Ten may have been in the lead, but it was for a theoretical ND-Texas double offer that was never that concrete; the whole 7 game conference schedule seemed as if it was more an idea than something that could ever come to pass. That never materialized because you still have to convince Notre Dame, which no one has done yet.
LikeLike
Interesting SI article talking about the Texas options. Has a link from 11/08 describing the LSN.
http://www.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/writers/andy_staples/06/04/texas_expansion/
If you read to the end, can’t you just see Dodds with the 5 hats?
LikeLike
Link:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/06/04/texas-expansion/index.html
LikeLike
A perfect storm on the horizon. I think it is safe to say that the BXII is on its death bed. The P10 has basically said that it wants six schools so long as one of them is Texas. A&M may want no part of the P10. Is it possible, that the SEC and the B10 are conspiring here. Doesn’t the B10 really just want UT and doesn’t UT simply want out from having to carry Tech’s water. Does the SEC want a Texas school, knowing it won’t be UT? Do they then want OK for its national brand and to make it an even 14. Is there now political cover for UT, A&M, and OU to go its separate way – the conference was going to die, so we had to maximize our value. The two best conferences just got better and richer, without having to resort to a 16 team mega-conference.
LikeLike
This might just be my distaste for the SEC and UF talking so take what I am about to say with this in mind. I truly believe that the SEC would prefer schools like A&M and Clemson over a UT but would love to get UT just to get them. UF in the past has blocked FSU entrance into the SEC when we where starting our huge run and they dropped Miami as soon as they became good (I believe but am not sure that they blocked Miami from joining also). What I am getting at is they like the schools that have a great history, still have a top 10 to 25 caliber team but do not actually contend for MNC and Conference titles. That way they can brag all up and down about the meat grinder when in reality these are the teams the top tier should and mostly does feast on.
LikeLike
The SEC cut checks to the member schools today.
http://blog.al.com/solomon/2010/06/sec_payouts_up_57_percent_in_2.html
LikeLike
Frank’s article was talked about on Omaha’s local sports show:
http://1620thezone.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4708893
It was brought up in the opening discussions on today’s show. The specific mention begins at about 20:30.
🙂
LikeLike
It appears most of the show is about conference expansion (no surprise there). I haven’t listened to it all yet, but it includes interviews with ESPN’s David Ubben and Chip Brown. This site might get mentioned again.
http://1620thezone.com/pages/727732.php
LikeLike
Just an update: AD Joe Castiglione of OU was just interviewed on CBS here in OKC and said he’s had no discussions with the Pac-10.
LikeLike
and Dean Blevins was on WWLS and he said it’s a done deal, and the Big 12 is dead.
LikeLike
So is the Orangebloods story just Larry Scott and Weiberg bluffing?
LikeLike
Here’s the specific quote from Castiglione:
“We haven’t had any conversations with the Pac 10, and I hope we don’t have to because we want to make the Big 12 work and keep it strong and viable and positioned well for the future. Now, I’ve said also that if something does change, you know, it obviously behooves Oklahoma to develop the kinds of contingency plans or options that would help position our university going forward.”
LikeLike
OU hasn’t had any discussions with the Pac 10 because OU has had conversations with UT and A&M about the Pac 10.
LikeLike
ESPN says TX has agreed to drop their cable network if they join the P16. That probably gets aTm on board.
Last chance for Delany?
LikeLike
My guess is the votes aren’t there for Tech, so the Big Ten won’t give an offer. They’ve been talking about that since late April, so it’s likely that they can’t get it together.
That said, I still find it hard to believe that the Pac-10 got it all together so fast…
LikeLike
We only think it is fast because there wasn’t a lot of focus on Pac vs Big Ten…..who knows how long this has been discussed…
LikeLike
i’m betting the tech concession is brand new and is the horsepower behind the whole deal.
most of you won’t know, but chip brown and his co-host sean adams have been extremely bullish on texas to the pac the whole way. one reason they were given the story. also the orangebloods owner has a history of striving to get attention. if this story was a pac-10 leak, they chose well where to break the news.
LikeLike
also the orangebloods owner has a history of striving to get attention
Not an Orangebloods subscriber myself, so I wouldn’t know, but would the striving for attention include publishing something of questionable veracity just to get eyeballs?
LikeLike
Well, where is Texas Tech more likely to receive the votes?
The Big Ten, which requires just 8 out of 11 schools to approve membership?
The Pac-10, which requires all 10 schools to approve membership?
LikeLike
Well, the Big 10 is financially healthy and is about to get more healthy, no matter who they add.
In the Pac 10, even Stanford is having to make serious financial cutbacks to athletics.
I thought all along the Pac 10 would offer a spot for Tech, but I never thought they would offer the 2 Oklahoma schools a spot, partly because UT doesn’t have any political care if they’re taken care of. If they’re offering them a spot its probably because they want that brand name for national ratings.
So, we’ll see if this is true.
LikeLike
m(ag), i think they want 16 schools so they can peel off 8 into a separate unit to appease stanford. oklahoma schools are closer to austin than the kansas schools, ou has name recognition and title game cachet, and kansas has scandal problems.
LikeLike
Yeah, early on in this process we were coming up with different scenarios. I generally had the Pac 10 offering to take Colorado, the 3 Texas schools, and then 2 of Kansas, Missouri, Utah, Nebraska, or even New Mexico.
I thought there was an off chance they would make another exception for Oklahoma, but OSU never entered my mind!
LikeLike
@ Playoffs – This is good news and makes me feel better about the move if true
LikeLike
What do you think the Big 10 could offer?
At this point I think any move that doesn’t involve Tech will get legislative attention (I didn’t think that yesterday).
So could they offer to take the 3 schools together? Is there anything else UT wants that hasn’t been reported?
In any event, I hope we don’t stay in the Big 12. While I’d prefer the Big 10, I’d be unhappy if we stayed in the Big 12 with this offer on the table. If we could drop OK State for Utah, Kansas, or even Arkansas, that would be even better.
LikeLike
I don’t see how the Big Ten can compete with that offer without going for Texas/A&M/Tech/Nebraska/Notre Dame.
But the votes probably aren’t there for Tech.
And Notre Dame? Good luck trying to get them back into this…
LikeLike
Well, where is Texas Tech more likely to receive the votes?
The Big Ten, which requires just 8 out of 11 schools to approve membership?
Or, the Pac-10, which requires all 10 schools to approve membership?
LikeLike
Yeah, but there’s one difference.
The Big Ten has a lot of choices for schools to go above 12 teams.
As discussed before the Pac-10 doesn’t. The Pac-10 can take Colorado + 1 to go to 12, but then the only way to go over 12 is to take Texas + 3.
So they can do the good old “shove ASU down Stanford/Cal’s throats” only they’d do it 3 times over this time for Texas…
LikeLike
But if there is one thing that’s beneficial I suppose, it’s that the Big Ten presidents will probably make a decision this weekend about whether it’s worth continuing to go after Texas or not. Perhaps we’re not that far down that road, but we might actually be since the Tech problem appears to be dominating the zone right now.
LikeLike
And if inviting Texas can’t be worked out, Big Ten presidents will try to decide how to lure Notre Dame without compromising the conference or appearing to sell its soul to South Bend.
LikeLike
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/4/1500646/the-rumormill-the-big-xii-to-pac
LikeLike
LOL. Love it.
LikeLike
oh that is pee in your pants funny!
LikeLike
Awesome. I could visualize Iowa State rolling up like Stephen Hawking.
LikeLike
I’m vizualizing Texas as a buxom six-foot blonde, Iowa State a scrawny 4-foot-11 brunette.
LikeLike
Six Foot? a little too tall, in my opinion. But I guess I’m more partial to the 5-foot-5 to 5-foot-8 beautiful girl next door Nebraska. Maybe looking like Emmanuelle Chriqui. 🙂
But seriously, that was a pretty funny article. Kind of puts the Big XII drama in perspective.
LikeLike
A rumor going around is A&M’s AD talked with his coaches today and said they received an invite from the PAC-10.
LikeLike
Kirk Bohl’s twitter
“I’m told A&M AD Bill Byrne has told his staff, coaches the reports the Aggies may go to the Pac-10 are true, but he didn’t return a call.”
LikeLike
More to add to the list. Thanks for posting. It seems that the cork is popping off.
LikeLike
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
just read an andy staples piece on all this, and i like staples, but is anybody else sick to the death of dating/marriage/bar-hopping analogies?
LikeLike
There has been so much conjecture and speculation that almost all possibilities have been thrown at the dart board, but I find it interesting that this Barking Carnival post of 22 Feb. (over 3 months ago)looks like it might have nailed it months ago.
[url]http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/02/22/logic-defied-texas-destined-to-pac-10/[/url]
Predicted 6 teams to the PAC-10 from the Big XII to satisfy travel concerns and TT being forcefully tacked in due to Texas political pressures.
“Only a Big 10 attitude will keep the Big 10 from leading the superconference M&A frenzy. “
LikeLike
From Dean Blevins, news9 in OKC sports director, an ex-OU QB, and big time OU insider has a blog up. Not as direct as when he was on the radio this afternoon, when he said “the Big 12 is dead” and the Pac-10 invites are real.
http://okblitz.com/Article.aspx?id=22399
Money Quotes from his post:
3. The Big 12 meetings were a sham in that the six Pac-10 invitees could not discuss Pac-10 invites in the meeting with rest of Big 12 who would be left hanging.
10. Someone’s lying. All the big wigs at the Big 12 meetings in Kansas City say they’ve not talked with the Pac-10. Right. Biggest deal ever and no interaction?
4. Texas is big enough to hold the others hostage. Money, name, wins, TV markets in Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Austin.
LikeLike
“Texas is big enough to hold the others hostage”
“OSU and OU will be together in any scenario. Oklahoma politics will not allow OU to go anywhere without OSU.”
If these 2 things are true, then Oklahoma and OSU fans should place calls of thanks to Texas! I don’t think the SEC would have taken them as a pair, and the Big 10 certainly wouldn’t have. I know they will curse Texas if it decides to go elsewhere.
LikeLike
I’m not sure how true the OSU and OU part is. It would have been ugly to split up, but I think it could have been done. I think the Pac-10 deal is a way to avoid that fight.
Blevins on the radio said, that OU and Texas were joined at the hip, as OU doesn’t want to lose another rival like when they lost Nebraska.
He also said, that OU never talked to the SEC, and that was never a consideration. (it was an OKC radio show…so no mention of A&M talking to the SEC)
LikeLike
OU AD has been quoted in the last month as saying they can’t leave OSU behind.
LikeLike
Also this money quote:
Would Texas flee to SEC? Texas athletic director DeLoss Dodds said “the SEC doesn’t fit our profile.”
LikeLike
What if Texas,A&M and TT go to the P10 and then the Texas legislature votes to secede from the Union. U of A and ASU will be checking papers at the gate.
LikeLike
What if Texas,A&M and TT go to the P10 and then the Texas legislature votes to secede from the Union. U of A and ASU will be checking papers at the gate.
If that happens, AZ will probably have seceded first.
And if they stay in the union Gov. Brewer will be President in 2013. Good move for the B12 South…
LikeLike
It boggles my mind that the Big Ten wouldn’t swallow hard and take Texas Tech if it meant not only getting Texas, but also, most likely, getting Notre Damel. If the Big Ten doesn’t get Texas, getting Notre Dame becomes much more difficult.
I fear the Big Ten is proving its stereotype to be accurate yet again and as a result they could end up with nothing.
LikeLike
boy, it is getting to be decision time for the big ten. what is brilliant about this is the pac did something the big ten CAN’T do. and that is peel off a couple of unwanteds into a separate division to appease the most recalcitrant of the old guard. the big ten has no unwanteds. that’s what is so appealing about the big ten and is also the source of their undoing.
LikeLike
Lets wait until at least official invitationas are handed out or even accepted first. Remember the ACC expansion morphed after the invitations went out. These are all rumors and probably only portions of the truth.
LikeLike
more: the big ten could easily upstage the pac schools and bring in texas and possibly notre dame, but the pac schools know the big ten won’t do it. the pac schools don’t care if bin-ladin univ is in the ‘other’ division and the big ten has no such luxury.
the fact that the pac-10 is horribly schizoid already turns out to be a key advantage. who would have thought?
LikeLike
Depends on whether “bin-laden univ” is only Texas Tech, or Oklahoma/Oklahoma State.
Texas/Texas A&M/Texas Tech/Nebraska/Notre Dame I can going to Big Ten.
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State I don’t.
LikeLike
if the big ten can stomach tech, this thing is do-able and texas legislators can pat themselves on the back. because they don’t give a hoot about the oklahoma schools.
the brilliant thing about what pac did was pit texas vs texas legislators with the tech inclusion. the okla schools are stuffing.
LikeLike
the brilliant thing about what pac did was pit texas vs texas legislators with the tech inclusion. the okla schools are stuffing.
I highly doubt that. This has been in the works for awhile. There were several rumors on message boards from posters with good track records that suggested TX wanted a local quad/block of schools. TT, aTm, and OU certainly fit that bill, keeping rivalries in conference and travel low. OSU appears to have been thrown in to keep OU. Then you had the report from that guy who heard Powers speak in W. Texas about not leaving Tech behind.
Whether this was plan A or B, it appears the B10+ wasn’t in a position to match or top once the P10 capitulated to most of TX’s demands. TX gets the B12 South but gives up the LSN. Everybody made compromises, everybody gets benefits.
Now the leak may not have been to TX’s liking, unless they leaked it themselves. And until there is an announcement, TX could still end up in the B16. But that sun looks to be setting fast.
LikeLike
pn, do you have any faith that this arrangement will last? doesn’t it smell exactly like the nineties with some more suckerfish?
LikeLike
So far, no, it doesn’t feel like last time. Then we were in a scramble without near as much leverage and the clock working against us. This time I’m convinced that TX has been working with at least 3 conferences seeking the best deal. It ain’t shotgun, it is choice. If this goes through the P16 will be an equal, not surpassed. The B12 struggled with recognition and placement, this will not. Win the Rose Bowl and you’re probably in the Plus One playoff. Once there’s a Plus One, it will evolve to at least a 4-bowl 8-team playoff. Even Delany has admitted this, and proposed a Plus One a few years ago that the B10+ presidents shot down then.
Once this is set, do you really picture TT, OK St, CO, or any original P10 schools ever bolting? Nope. I guess OU and aTm could be tempted by the SEC at some point. TX has their choice, they are going to get it right and then stick with it. So instead of having 8 of 12 willing to be lured away, the P16 will only have a risk of 2 or maybe 3 ever changing their mind. Much more stable.
OU and aTm have a clear choice. If they go with the P16 they’ll probably stay.
Then again, nothing is official yet. 72-hours from now TX may be heading for the B16. We’ll see.
LikeLike
@ Playoffs Now!
“Now the leak may not have been to TX’s liking, unless they leaked it themselves.”
What part of Chris Brown, Orangebloods, don’t you get? He isn’t doing anyone’s bidding but that of Texas. He would have to be out of his mind.
LikeLike
eapg, it was the pac-10 that gave that info to orangebloods.
pn, exactly what opportunities does texas have with those two schools in tow? i say pac/sec only. unless, of course, the big ten does the smart thing here.
now, maybe something like this is exactly what we want. i don’t know. i’m guessing deloss’ interest in texas begins and ends with the athletic dept, but that might not be true. if he doesn’t care about our academic and research interests and if powers is more loyal to cal than to us, i can see us (the school) getting royally screwed here.
as far as stability out west, what happens if we discover (as has always been my contention) that we aren’t really included in the pac conference, just being used for tv and recruiting purposes, do you really see us content there?
LikeLike
I was a student at the end of the SWC and the beginning of the Big 12 and I thought it was a lousy idea from the very beginning. Not because of any ‘culture’ nonsense, but because it didn’t have enough people to compete with the other big conferences.
Now the state of Texas by itself has grown rapidly over the past 15 years, enabling the conference to be stronger than it appeared to me at the time. Still, that only made the differences worse. There are too many programs with very small, regional followings in the same conference with teams that have a big national impact.
The proposed Pac 16 would be much more balanced.
California: 37.0 million people 4 schools
Texas: 24.8 million 3 schools
Washington: 6.7 million 2 schools
Arizona: 6.6 million 2 schools
Colorado: 5.0 million 1 school
Oregon: 3.8 million 2 schools
Oklahoma: 3.7 million 2 schools
California: 9.25 million people per school
Texas: 8.27 million pps
Colorado: 5.0 million pps
Washington: 3.35 million pps
Arizona: 3.3 million pps
Oregon: 1.9 million pps
Oklahoma: 1.85 million pps
7 schools (almost half) are in the Texas schools’ league. That’s much more balanced than the Big 12 ever was. Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa (representing 1/3 of the Big 12 schools) all have lower populations than Oklahoma. Here, Oklahoma has the the smallest population.
This is definitely not as balanced as the Big 10 is, but it’s much better than the Big 12 currently is.
And using 2030 population projections:
California: 46.4 million 4 schools
Texas: 33.3 million 3 schools
Colorado: 5.8 million 1 school
Arizona: 10.7 million 2 schools
Washington: 8.6 million 2 schools
Oregon: 4.8 million 2 schools
Oklahoma: 3.9 million 2 schools
California: 11.6 million pps
Texas: 11.1 million pps
Colorado: 5.8 million pps
Arizona: 5.35 million pps
Washington: 4.3 million pps
Oregon: 2.4 million pps
Oklahoma: 1.95 million pps
This is still a much better curve than the current Big 12. 7 schools in the Upper class (11 million pps), 5 schools in the Middle class (4-6 million pps), 4 schools in the Lower class. You’ll also notice that the divisions are pretty equal here, which is totally different from the Big 12.
Now, switching in a school for Oklahoma State would improve these numbers, but politics means that’s likely impossible at this point. And the name brand of Oklahoma does bring something extra.
In some of the early threads, I did similar calculations for the Big 10 and the SEC. When you do that you see why Big 10 is the conference of equals. The Big 10 schools have less population differences than the other big conferences. That’s what makes it easy for schools to pool everything together. That’s what develops the ‘culture’ of looking at each other as equals.
LikeLike
@ glenn
“it was the pac-10 that gave that info to orangebloods.”
Even if true, it doesn’t matter. It wouldn’t have seen the light of day without the blessing of Texas, unless you think Chris Brown doesn’t like his job.
Really, give it up. You don’t have plausible deniability here.
LikeLike
eapg, no, no, no.
chris works for ketch, who is pretty much disliked and ignored by belmont in general.
i don’t know his relationship with the texas program when he was in dallas (morning news has been pretty anti-texas for years, now), but his hiring on with ketch didn’t endear him one bit with belmont.
i listen to him and sean adams a fair amount and have never been able to discern much from either of them regarding their opinion of texas. i like them both, particular sean, but neither has any texas background and they could easily just see that as a job.
don’t assume chris brown gives one hoot about texas. he might or he might not. and his job doesn’t hang in the balance either way.
LikeLike
@ glenn
He works for a recruiting site, covering Texas. You cannot believe he can do that without maintaining an extremely cordial relationship with the athletic powers that be at Texas. But please, continue to flail around for some reason to point a finger elsewhere.
LikeLike
pardon my saying so, eapg, but your head bolts are overdue for re-torquing.
i assume you are not close to the texas situation. the animosity between ketch, in particular, and belmont is not imagined. the orangebloods guys are pro-texas, i assure you, at least in appearance. i think they actually do like the program. but there is no love lost, i assure you.
now, i’m through speaking with you on this. there are much more consequential fish to fry.
LikeLike
Heh. Always with the personal ad hominems. See if Beebe can herd the fish onto his plane and fry them there.
Nice talking with you also.
LikeLike
what the big ten can do if they will is counter with a revolutionary approach for them. bring in one real member, notre dame, and four junk members that don’t get access to the cic. texas and three others to form the ‘junk’ pod. michigan is now happy and texas politicians have successfully shielded any state school from real success. everybody is happy except texas. perfect all the way around, huh?
LikeLike
grrr…
hmm… how to say this politely. Things have gotten very warped if folks are going to start claiming FAIL for a B10 expansion that does not include Texas.
Despite the obvious pluses of markets, tv, money, etc., Texas is NOT a B10 school and would be a terrible fit.
I say it again: Texas is a horrible addition to the B10. And I don’t care about how much money Texas brings to the B10. Geography matters!
I think there is bigger strategy going on here and some of it may be “seat-of-the-pants.”
What Delaney succeeding in doing with all the leaking and trial balloons about Neb, Mizzu and Texas was to PUT TEXAS INTO PLAY. That is, Texas is no longer an immovable object. (Interestingly enough, now OK is also in play. No one even speculated about how OK fit into the conference realignments.)
Now that Texas is “in play,” them going to the P16 is just fine from the B10 perspective. We’ll see them in the Rose Bowl!
I really see a B10/P10 synergy in this process.
Back to my point: B10 expansion is not a failure if Texas goes to P10/16. adding Neb, Mizzu, Rutgers, Pitt and Syr is an absolute home run for the B10. (yep, note the absence of ND … ND is not essential either for making B10 expansion a home run).
Why? this is a 50 year plan. The P10 already opened up the idea of cross-conference alliances for TV deals/negotiations. So, P16 + B16 alliance in the next few years = ginormous $$$. The Rose Bowl Conferences will win out in the end (or so I envision Delaney thinking).
LikeLike
BB,
you are not alone, the more i see this the less I like texas and ND for the B 10….
I am still not sold on mediocre football in the NYC/NJ market where it has to compete with pro sports for eyeballs..
bring on the huskers, tigers, jayhawks, terps, and cavs….
LikeLike
http://www.columbiatribune.com/weblogs/behind-the-stripes/2010/jun/04/big-12-meetings-thats-a-wrap/
“Now, why exactly did Beebe skip Thursday’s press conference when he had little to actually discuss on Friday? From what I’ve gathered talking to people in the Big 12, the league was flustered by the Pac-10 report, then further agitated that Colorado AD Mike Bohn went rogue and gave the Orangebloods.com story some credibility with his comments to the Boulder Daily Camera. (Side note, upon arriving in Denver Thursday night, Bohn was bombarded with questions about his comments to the Boulder paper. Later, he re-confirmed to the writer everything the initial story reported.)
Texas President Bill Powers, the designated spokesman for the board, was originally expected to address reporters on Thursday and again on Friday but apparently ducked out of town to catch an earlier flight.”
LikeLike
It’ll be the biggest let down of the year if we still have to wait until December for the expansion announcements. With all that is coming out now, waiting 6 more months would horrifying.
LikeLike
Bohn is definitely not a heavy weight when it comes to the AD’s in the Big 12, CU fans are very much aware of this. A lot of us were pretty upset that Bohn said anything till it was a done deal. However, I’m wondering if some of the speculation that is out there about his comments might be correct. If there is a lock among any of the schools accepting that invite its CU (we’re probably going regardless of who else joins us), and we have a vested interest in making the resulting payday from the expansion as big as possible, so I’m wondering if Bohn didn’t get the hand wave from the PAC 10 to give a vague semi-confirmation in order to maybe put some pressure on the fence sitters and stir the waters a bit. I’m sure it wasn’t very popular with his fellow ADs, but he might have agreed to take the bullet in order to build some momentum for the deal.
LikeLike
I’m not plugged into anyone “in the know” on these matters but, after reading these blogs for 6 months, it would seem almost impossible for me to believe that Delaney did not know the PAC10 offers were coming (if true). IMO, I believe JD has already been in discussions with Texas for some time. The PAC10 probably senses a final decision from Texas(probably yes) was close and made their offer to give Texas another workable option. If it takes alot of “give aways” to get Texas, I don’t want them in the B10. Concessions to Texas would disrupt the whole conference for a long time to come and put Texas on a pedestal they don’t deserve as a B10 partner.
LikeLike
yep, as my comments above indicate, I concur about Delaney knowing this was coming.
LikeLike
PSU69 I hate to admit that a newbie to the BT might be right but certainly these playmakers are talking to each other as the FOIA emails clearly indicate. BT/P10 ties run deep with the Rose Bowl as an example. BTN Kevin Weinberg to the P10 to start a network is another example of close ties. I’m starting to think these two conferences are working closely together trying to fit the pieces together for the ultimate dual 16 team conferences, that is sharing information as to who they want, carving up anything between them. If the BT/P10 is expanding to 16 as indications are, can ACC expansion/raid of Big East be far behind? SEC must see the wringing on the wall too.
LikeLike
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0605-big-ten-expansion–20100604,0,1453243.story
“Big Ten presidents and chancellors will huddle Sunday at conference headquarters in Park Ridge. Delany has said that “no votes” will be taken related to expansion.”
So here is a senario…. Big 12 has theoretically given NU and Missouri a deadline (of god knows when), and the OWH reported that the PAC 10 would like answers by Sunday / same day as the Big 10 Pres. meetings.
Say the Big 10 is true to their word and doesn’t vote. Then Nebraska and Missouri would committ to the Big 12 becasue they don’t want to be left out. Texas / OU etc. tell the Pac 10 thanks, but no thanks. Status quo remains and the Big Ten will go back to wooing Notre Dame every 5 years.
Or say the votes have already occured, or happen this weekend despite the claim that they will not. NU, Mizzou, and others (???) are approved (for all we know applications have already been floated) and they tell the Big 12 they are out. Then the TEX / OK / COL 6 go to the Pac 16, and by Monday….. 3 days after the Big 12 meetings end, there are only 4 teams left. Would Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State and Baylor still play in Jerry world for the Dr. Pepper Big 12 Championship?
I know everything is still fluid, but damn does this look like it will happen shortly. Reports of Nebraska playing in the Big 10 for the 2011 season would go all the way back to February when Bielima (Wis fb coach) tweeted that they were working on bringing Notre Dame and Nebraska to Camp Randall. Lots of closed door meetings lately. /TIN FOIL HAT OFF/
LikeLike
Saw some article or post somewhere that claims if 50% of conference quits its considered dissolved under NCAA bylaws. I’m not sure if that is true or not. It does raise the question if being “dissolved” would eliminate the buyout clause or if that would still require 8 votes.
LikeLike
What I am certain of is that if you are down to 5 members, you lose your automatic bids to any NCAA tourney. You have to have 8 qualifying members, 6 of whom have been together for 5 years for basketball. I believe it is only 2 for other sports. There is a 2 year repreive, so you only lose your autobid for 3 years. I’m sure “dissolved” from the point of buyouts would be determined by the conference documents, not NCAA rules.
LikeLike
Technically, doesn’t Nebraska have to apply to the Big Ten? So they may just be confirming yes votes, rather than actually voting. Maybe Monday Nebraska will announce that they’ve applied to join the Big Ten and then the voting begins. This timeline would make sense given the Osborne meeting this morning.
LikeLike
Yes, technically they would apply to the Big 10. Maybe that has already occured, maybe they are going to ask them to apply.
With all of the closed door meetings and crazy reports flying around one would hope that the schools have passed the stage where they ‘might’ be invited.
LikeLike
With all the information that gets leaked, I would be shocked if a school applies in secret and it is kept from the press for more than a few hours…
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure the 2010 season can’t really be changed at this point, but everyone would be out for the 2011 season.
What you would see would be a special ‘expansion committee’ of Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, and Iowa State that would look into adding members who would join in 2011. I’m pretty sure the other 8 members would rubber stamp their recommendations!
LikeLike
There’s no going back this time. What I think would happen is that they’re going to discuss what kind of offer they could make to Texas/Notre Dame.
Delany (and probably Gee) are going to figure out if the Big Ten has the votes for Tech (which is probably a no), and then they’ll outline alternative scenarios such as taking Nebraska/Rutgers/Missouri and then going after ACC teams after the SEC strikes the ACC.
Either way, the Pac-10 thing is somewhat of a godsend because it’s going to force the Big Ten to make some decisions even if there are no votes.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is the key for Texas and Texas Tech.
We all agree that Texas Tech does not pass the smell test with the Big Ten. We also agree that there are a few members not too crazy about expanding to begin with.
The prize has always been Notre Dame. To get Notre Dame (a home run) requires getting Texas (another home run) but requires taking a sacrifice fly (Texas Tech), you do it. You get one out BUT two home runs.
To make it more agreeable, there should be a detailed five year plan, detailed ten year plan, etc for Texas Tech on how they are going to get to Tier 1 and how they are going to get to AAU level.
To appease Penn State, seek Maryland or Rutgers as an eastern partner.
This gets you to 15 schools. Leaving room for Nebraska or whoever.
What is also important but neglected was what Gordon Gee said in his e-mail. He made reference to a brilliant presentation that Jim Delany made at the AAU meeting in DC. Does anyone wonder what the presentation was about?
Going back to a comment attributed to Jim Delaney about thinking outside the box when considering college athletics. Also one of the college presidents (think it was Nebraska’s) said that he heard that the Big Ten could expand to as many as 24 schools.
Could that presentation be on how a conference like the Big Ten could be a corner stone to creating an association of like minded research institutions away from the NCAA.
LikeLike
Invite TTU for BT athletics only, not the CIC, with a caveat of 5 year improvement requirements, then boot them after they fail to perform. How’s that for thinking outside the box! Better yet, sue the Tx legislature if they meddle in conference realignment.
LikeLike
In a Kirk Bohl piece yesterday, he stated that the UNL board of trustees meets 12 June. The speculation is that at that meeting they will confirm yea or nay on staying in the Big 12.
IMO if the Huskers don’t have a firm invite from the Big Ten by that date, they have no choice but to commit to the Big 12. If speculation below that the Big Ten somehow has facilitated the Pac-10 offer in order to keep Texas out of the SEC, it would seem to behoove the Big Ten PTB to extend the invite to Nebraska and get the ball rolling.
“He who hesitates is lost.” I think that was the gist of Gee’s e-mail to Delany. Gotta get this party started.
LikeLike
hmm… why would NEB and MO pay any attention to this hypothetical deadline? What happens if NEB and MO just let the deadline pass? Seriously … what is the “stick” that the BXII wields that forces NEB and MO to make a decision by some deadline?
LikeLike
@BuckeyeBeau
The only stick Beebe can wield is if he manages to get 9 of the 12 schools to agree on harsher penalties for leaving. This outcome seems very unlikely given that only 4 schools have not been seriously mentioned as targets (Kansas, KSU, ISU, Baylor).
LikeLike
I think the chaos that was the Big 12 meetings pretty much slams the door on higher exit penalties. Beebe talks about some “process” being in place, but won’t elaborate, so you have to doubt the majority of the conference voted themselves a bigger fine for leaving, should it come to that. The only “stick” left for Beebe to keep the conference together is what’s already been floated. Texas will go to the Pac 10, not the Big Ten, if the Big Ten invites Nebraska (Missouri). That’s not a threat Delany can take lightly, if acquiring Texas has been the focus of his efforts. With the e-mails brought to light, and his southern exposure strategy put forward, Texas being the focus is a fair bet. It’s probably not any more complicated than that, and Delany and the Big Ten have a decision to make.
LikeLike
interesting… that puts a sharp point on the question of Delaney’s position regarding TX.
TX to P16 may not be so bad; might make money for B10 Network down the road if you consider possible network alliances and cross-placement of inventory. P16 Network exchanges re-runs of TA&M vs. WashSt for MSU vs. Purdue and everybody gets live baseball and lacross.
LikeLike
Just a thought on my part . . .
The Big 10 talked with Texas but could not reach an agreement (tv network, Tech problem, travel logistics, etc.). The last thing the Big 10 wants is for Texas (or other Big 12 South teams to go to the SEC). The Big 10 talks with the Pac 10 and now the Pac 10 looks to invite most of the Big 12 South.
In the end, the SEC is going to feel pressure to respond. SEC expansion eventually leads to the downfall of the Big East (no Big 12 South teams are available). ND now is looking for a new home for it’s olympic sports and is forced to join the Big 10.
In the end, the Big 10 can’t get Texas(or maybe doesn’t want Texas) and by helping the Pac 10 get Texas, the Big 10 in return finally gets ND.
LikeLike
Is anyone thinking that this is the second best outcome for the Big 10? The best outcome of course is Texas to join but if this is not possible I can’t think of a scenario that works out better for the Big 10. It kills off a powerful rival conference that had 3 of the top 10/15 best national brands. It prevents its biggest rival the SEC from taking any of these brands as well as killing any idea of the SEC making a grab for the Texas market Baylor, TCU and/or Houston are just not doing it. It weakens the Pac 10 claim of academic excellence as no school the Big 10 takes will have the rep of TT, OkSt or Ok but at the same time keeps the Big 10 on tv with 2 of the big 3 recruiting states because of the rose bowl. If the SEC does expand its choices are the unwanted of the former Big 12 or the bad academic schools of the Big East that can only help push ND to the Big 10.
If the SEC does make a grab at the ACC, which I personally doubt possible outside of maybe Clemson, it gives the Big 10 a chance at schools like Duke, Maryland, Virgina, GT, or the sleeping football giant UNC. If UNC is possible in just a couple of years they might be seen as just under Texas as a get, fast growing state that granted will never be Texas, great research numbers, either 1 or 2 as a basketball brand, and a football program that will take off if they can become a contender as they already have great ratings given there on field performance.
Here is my guess on who the 5 will be given that I believe the ACC is off the table.
Nebraska- They have to do it to make the splash.
ND- The death of 2 conferences and the possibility that OOC games drying up in the contracted college football universe gives cover to the school.
Rutgers- Need a new high population state to expand too and all the other reasons given.
UConn- I know they are not AAU but it seems they will be in the very near future. A top 10 basketball brand and the football team is fast improving and see no reason why that will not continue with Big 10 money. Also a play for the NYC market in a decent sized state.
Pitt- I believe there all around package makes up for being a redundant market. Plus it keeps them from joining any expansion from the ACC or SEC and in anyway splitting the market. It also helps to push ND to the Big 10. This spot might also end up with Mizzou if the new sets make more sense. Cuse which I just don’t see what they bring that UConn doesn’t except AAU membership. Vandy which I think is a long shot and don’t see adding that many sets in Nashville let alone TN.
Now if the ACC really vulnerable UNC would be my first choice if I was the TPTB.
LikeLike
The only hole in your argument here is that if the big east was destroyed, ND could still remain independent in FB stay with the all catholic all basketball 8 members (Gtown, St. John, SH, Vill, Prov., ND, Marq, Depaul)of the big east with a couple additions (Xavier,SLU?) for their olympic sports
LikeLike
IMHO, ND is really really not essential to B10 expansion and future mega-profitability. Particularly if the P10 picks up the BXII South, a cable network alliance between B10/16 and the P16 is on every basic cable tier in america.
LikeLike
The B-10 could just hold and see what the reaction is from the P-10. If the P-10 has to dissolve and reform to get the P-16 deal done then you offer Cal, Stanford, Rutgers, Virginia and Maryland to join and become the Big Ivy.
LikeLike
Frank: I’d love a post solely on the point of how the conferences exist legally (to wit, their corporate statuses) and some info on dissolution and reinstatement.
Someone above vaguely stated that only a majority vote was needed to dissolve a Delaware Corporation. I took that as a reference to the P10’s corporate state and the “solution” to the P10’s unanimity problem.
would love more info on this. (not that you aren’t busy enough).
LikeLike
that should read: “the P10’s corporate status”
LikeLike
Wonder what the reaction from the Domers is to all this.
LikeLike
To which part? I can speak only for me.
1. The PAC-1x raid of the BXII South and Colorado?
That’s brilliant. Considering how bad USC will get hammered by the NCAA, and how UDub is only now starting to rebuild in a post-Willingham era, they had to do something huge. I didn’t think Stanford would go for it. However, if you look at it as an alliance between the classic PAC-8 and a new and improved SWC, I don’t see how anybody from the PAC-10 will have a problem. Stanford gets to be free of UA and ASU, AU and ASU get heavy Texas exposure, and Texas gets a new more diverse SWC without near the deadweight of the old one. The only one who really gets a raw deal is CU, but who cares about them?
2. Pete’s suggestion? It’s moot. Stanford will play ball knowing the consequences…and knowing there’s a huge pile of Texas money coming their way.
3. Current state of comments on here? Y’all have lost your minds. Seriously. When I first got here, Big Ten folks thought they could get whoever they wanted. Turns out there aren’t many Big Ten worthy teams out there.
That’s why it has become Texas or Bust. AAU teams like Mizzou and Nebraska don’t have impressive enough academics for the Big Ten. East Coast schools are either aren’t in the AAU (UCONN), have inferior research (SYR), stink at sports (Rut), or are too dang close (Pitt) for the Big Ten. Southeastern schools aren’t in the AAU except for Florida who’ll never leave the SEC, Vandy (i.e. the Northwestern of the South), and tiny GTech.
Now that y’all are starting to realize that getting Texas would mean handing the Texas Legislature a blank check, now I have an inbox full of off the wall plan Bs.
Raid the ACC? Please, I can’t take a plan seriously that involves schools that don’t have fans posting here. The fact that Maryland’s AD finds it laughable is just icing. Take FSU? A non-flagship non-AAU school? Take two more NUs in Miami and Vandy and a practically public NU in GT?
What happened to the mighty Big Ten who was going to change the landscape? It got tripped up by its own high standards, it seems.
4. Will this scare ND? Doubt it. The Pac-16 plan seems more back to the future. Out west we’ll have a SWC/PAC8 alliance, and the new BXII-leftovers combining with the MWC and BSU to form a second tier. Who’s the Big Ten going to get to goto 16? Nebraska, Mizzou, Pitt, Rutgers, and Kansas? Hardly earthshatterring guys, sorry. With the financial situations of the SEC and ACC I don’t see them going to 16. ND will stay where it is.
LikeLike
I think your comments are a bit off.
A lot of us from the beginning have thought only Nebraska/Rutgers/Missouri were going to happen, and some of us only think Nebraska has the all around resume to fit the bill.
The 16 team plans were a crapshoot for Texas or Notre Dame but most of us thought they were way less than 50% likelihood, so I have no idea where you’re getting that we all thought the Big Ten would be able to get what it wanted.
In any case, I still think taking Nebraska and sitting at 12 is a successful expansion. Wait 5-10 years for Rutgers to develop into a team that can fill a 60-70k stadium (if it gets there) and then look into it.
One other thing, I don’t really see why Stanford will stand by and just accept this Pac-10 proposal. Tech, OU, OSU? I’ll believe it when I see it.
Even the argument that they’d be in the Eastern division and the Western division would be the old Pac-8 doesn’t really strike me as making sense. The presidents would still have their meetings, etc. and other sports would have way more interaction, including the Olympic sports they all pride themselves on…
It’s not as if being in separate divisions doesn’t mean that the conference has just added 3 absolutely abysmal schools from the standards of a Stanford.
Count me as one who would be shocked if Stanford stood by and allowed this to happen. Sure USC could get their way with ASU, but that was different. We’re talking about 3 schools in the great plains that will never be even passable in Stanford’s eyes, even division play won’t fix the fact that the 16 will be linked in the public’s eyes.
LikeLike
I have to say, I started this process out as a strong supporter of inviting Notre Dame to join the Big 10. I have some friends who attended both Notre Dame and Big 10 schools, and while they are definitely Notre Dame fans first, they also consider themselves Big 10 fans. However, it’s been quite eye-opening to see the – I’m sorry, I’m trying to find a less sensationalistic word, but I’m not finding one – bile that’s been spewed by Notre Dame fans toward the Big 10. FLP_NDRox, I’m not including you in that, but even your posts have definitely shown some antagonism towards the Big 10 itself, more than just towards the idea of joining the Big 10. I guess I can understand how some frustration might grow from seeing discussions of how your school might be “forced” to join up.
My thinking at this point is that too many Irish fans *will* feel that they were forced to join and resent it, and who wants that, on either side? That’s not to mention the obvious institutional inconsistencies between ND and the current Big 10 schools. So I think you’re right, I don’t see a ND-Big 10 marriage ending well at this point. It’s a shame, because I, and many other people I know, really liked the idea.
If for some reason it does come to pass, I hope that Irish fans, and particularly alumni, will be able to come to terms with it eventually. The one thing that I really haven’t been able to understand is the people that say that they will no longer donate to the university if the Irish end their independence in football. When who your football team plays becomes more important than the success of the University and its students, that’s just messed up. I was at Miami University when they changed their name from Redskins to Redhawks, and I heard some people saying the same kinds of things. Frankly, if that was their priority, then I was glad they were removing their influence from the university. (Although from what I heard, things were pretty much back to normal in a year or so.)
LikeLike
@ Zeek
I would hope it goes without saying that I wouldn’t include you in that. You’ve always been among the most level headed posters in the time I’ve been reading.
I think Nebraska would be a solid addition to the Big Ten+2. I don’t know how the Presidents will handle Nebraska’s admissions policies. That said, the huskers would be a good conference add, and a great BTN add.
Furthermore, you may be right about Stanford. I don’t know if they would have been amendable even to a PAC-12 this time last year. But now I think circumstances have changed. Their UC compatriots *need* the money and fast. USC, the cash cow, is about to get sanctioned, and the league is going into TV talks with two wounded LA teams, a recovering Seattle teams and no CCG. I can easily see the other Cali schools at minimum threaten conference dissolution in the face of a Stanford veto. A SWC off-shoot gives the Cardinal a face-saving out. I think they’ll take it.
But, you gotta admit, there were more than a few folks on here who gave the opinion that BTN was the solution for all issues for months and the reason any school propositioned would be stupid for not immediately complying with any Big Ten demands.
@ NeutronSoup
I wonder about your ND friends. Did they do their undergrad there? Yes, it matters.
We are fully aware you don’t understand us and find it nearly impossible to believe you like us. The Western conference’s treatment of us is part of our lore, and we’ve seen your refs in the present. We also know how your beloved heroes, Woody, Bo, and JoePa feel about us. Unlike you, we are very aware of how utterly dissimilar our schools really are.
I have no ill will toward the Big Ten. It educated my extended family. It brought my parents together. Sure, I have my issues with higher education, but those are general, and not specific to the Big Ten.
I think you are wrong about one big thing. I doubt ND fans will feel forced. If ND joins the Big Ten, we will feel betrayed. Betrayed by our leadership who took an easy way out, and sold out the legacy of the school we know and the greatness of the school we should be for a few pieces of silver.
I don’t know what Miami stands for. I think it’s just a school here to educate folks. I’m not sure if its public or private. It has some nice buildings, I’m told, but I never made it on campus on my solitary visit.
Notre Dame’s alums don’t just want ND to be a great school, or even the best school in the world. We want it to be a shining city on a hill, an example of how the right way is the best way. Note that we are painfully aware of how far it has to go to get to that point. Unfortunately, we also know that the only way we have to make our opinion felt is financial.
I do not believe that joining the Big Ten is in Notre Dame’s long term best interest in becoming what it should be. My only vote is my donation.
LikeLike
First off, I just want to say that more than anything, I respect your beliefs and opinions, and all I’m doing here is trying to share my own in the hope of greater understanding. I’m certainly not trying to convince you that you’re wrong or that I’m right.
My friends did go to ND for undergrad and I have definitely gotten the sense that it’s quite a bit different from other schools for that, so your point about that is well taken.
I believe in trying to bridge differences. I believe that the best way to effect change is to get to know the other side and work to find common ground. Your metaphor about seeing your university as a “shining city on a hill” is striking, but it also carries the implication that the world outside of the hill is in darkness, and it’s a shame that many ND people out there seem to feel that way. I may be misinterpreting that, and if so, I do apologize. It’s just more black and white than I prefer to see things.
I guess this discussion is starting to go beyond conference realignment, so I’ll curtail my post, but whichever way things end up going, best of luck to you all.
LikeLike
Could this be Texas going to the PAC 10 because the Big 10 doesn’t have the room?
Texas really wants to keep playing Oklahoma and Texas A & M…. and Oklahoma needs OSU…. and Texas may have some political pressure to bring Texas Tech. 5 schools right there.
Big 10 has the choice to take the ‘Texas 5’ or they can try to get Notre Dame / Nebraska / Missouri / Rutgers / and ?????
Tech has trouble with the acedemic votes in the Big 10, and they really like ND and Nebraska (who wouldn’t fit with the ‘Texas 5’)
If OU and A&M broke off and went to the SEC…. Texas / ND / Nebraska to the Big 10…. what happens to OSU and Texas Tech (causing political trouble for UT / A&M / OU)
Maybe these problems have been discussed and negotiated already and we are now seeing the solution?
LikeLike
Yes. The Big 10 simply won’t take Tech and the OK schools. This way, UT gets to keep its rivalries and join a bigger conference.
Still, I don’t think this is in any way a done deal.
LikeLike
If this P16 goes through, MO may soon be begging the ACC. Assuming the B10+ grabs NE and can’t get ND, the play may be Vandy, Rut, Syr, and CT to accumulate enough NYC area niche schools. Or VA and/or MD may still be targets, and even if ND does join there are plenty of scenarios that leave MO out in the cold. If the SEC gets some ACC schools then there probably are openings for KS and MO. But if the SEC can’t crack the ACC, the SEC may well take KS but skip MO while the ACC has better targets to get to 16. So MO could be stuck in the central leftover conference.
Odd thing is, if the SEC can’t steal ACC schools, their may be enough academically qualified schools for the ACC to not have to compromise the way the P10 appears it will. Probably only gets it to 14 in the east, but they’d have a shot at KS and MO to round out unless the SEC takes KS (good possibility of the latter.) If ND goes to the ACC then Baylor and SMU have a good shot to give the conference a Texas foothold and help lure ND. Both are excellent academic schools, just not in the heavy research mold. Add them to Wake and BC and you’d have 4 similar institutions to ND (5 if you consider Miami.)
LikeLike
My guess is we’re down to 2 openings in the B16. NE and Rut are probably in, Vandy likely close behind, then it may come down to 2 of ND, MD, VA, CT, Syr, Pitt, MO, and maybe GT, FSU, or Mia. Though perhaps ND could veto any of the safe 3.
LikeLike
I should add, if ND still says no, CT may have a real shot despite its lack of AAU membership. If ND and the ACC can’t be crackedNE-Vandy-Rut-Syr-CT is my bet right now. 1 football star and solidify as much of the greater NYC market as possible, with some New England penetration. Be the undisputed conference of the North.
LikeLike
Vandy is not getting an invite to the B10.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
where are you, hopkins? dinner with the in-laws?
i’m curious your take at this point. all sanguine? spooked?
LikeLike
Away from the computer all day taking out-of-town friends around SoCal. Reading through the comments, adding some snark where necessary, and trying to see if I have any original thoughts left when I reach the bottom…
LikeLike
You’ll never reach the bottom. It;s growing faster than you can read.
LikeLike
I did! I really really did!
LikeLike
After some thought, I think that if the situation requires the Big Ten to take Tech, A&M, and Texas as a group they should do it. Athletically, the group is fine. Academically it requires some defense. In my view, Texas is perfectly capable of supporting 3 major research institutions. If the state is willing to dedicate to raising Tech to that level, then I think it’s capable. (For those of you who think that it takes a long time to raise a universities standards up, there is some truth in that. However, with enough money you can buy off enough good faculty to come to your school and build the facilities. Arguably this is how Texas was able to become the school it is in such a relatively short period. They are (in)famous for poaching top researchers from other schools.)
Until that point, some might argue that having Texas Tech in the conference hurts the overall academic standing. From a research perspective, this makes no sense. A research collective like the CIC is almost strictly additive. In other words, a 15 member CIC without Tech would be no worse than a 16 member CIC with Tech. While that school may gain more substantially than it contributes, research is not a zero sum game. Every time a Tech professor collaborates with a professor somewhere else, everyone wins. The only plausible argument would be is if Tech in effect takes the place of another more worthy school.
The other part of academic reputation is public perception. Tech doesn’t hurt in this are either, because opinion tends to focus on the best in the conference. When the phrase “Ivy league education” is spoken, they don’t mean Dartmouth. When the ACC is commended for their academic prowess, no one thinks of FSU. In short, if the Big Ten pulls this off, every pundit, politician, and professor will think “Wow, they got Texas and Texas A&M”, not “Wow, the worst school in the Big Ten just went from Iowa to Texas Tech”.
If the deal requires Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, I would pass though. While these schools might be about the same level as Tech now, they seem much more likely to stay that way.
If the Tech-to-Big-Ten scenario happens, there needs to be a new word to describe the Missouri governor’s statements. “Ironic” just seems woefully insufficient.
LikeLike
m, one man’s brilliant hire is another man’s poaching.
texas has been strong a long time but does continue to seek improvement, that is true.
i have no idea how long it would take tech to hit some sort of stride and i have no clue whether they are really serious about it. i have no doubt they would like to be taken as good. what i don’t know is if they are willing to do what it takes to actually be good. i want to think they do.
i am extremely pleased you are ok with doing this. i assume this is what it will take.
i agree that a research consortium bears no resemblance to a chain. weakest link concept doesn’t apply.
let’s hope for a happy resolution here. we are so close, you know.
LikeLike
Yes, this is basically what I’ve been saying as well. The Big Ten should take Texas Tech along with Texas and Texas A&M, and work to raise the academic level of Texas Tech. Certainly being part of the Big Ten and CIC will help.
As for the fourth and fifth teams? I don’t care so much. Nebraska and Notre Dame would be the first choices. If the Big Ten needs a eastern school, perhaps Rutgers.
LikeLike
“Texas Tech: Dartmouth of the Big Ten” would be a good school slogan.
LikeLike
funny, jokewood. ‘f’ and ‘d’ are side-by-side on a qwerty keyboard.
LikeLike
This talk about the Big10 making academic exceptions (Texas Tech) has to stop. Repeatedly, the Big 10 has emphasized any expansion will involve the University as a whole, and not just the athletic department. In the Big 10 I am sure the university presidents are proud of their athletics, but when they compare egos, or the size of their cigars, their real pride starts and ends with being part of excellent group of research institutions. Ignore USN&WR rankings, the group portrait of the entire conference just screams Lab Nerds! (large research). Check out the Big 10 schools on the Academic Ranking of World Universities, or NSF’s total research expenditures. Unlike any other BCS conference there are no significant outliers. This club is pretty exclusive. The baseline is Iowa, a small population state, that still pulls its weight. I do not see university presidents making any major exception… except for Notre Dame. This is especially true since the research dollars we are talking about make all this tv money seem like pocket change.
Academic Ranking of World Universities (Worldwide Rank)
17 Wisconsin
22 Michigan
25 Illinois
28 Minnesota
30 Northwestern
38 Texas
45 Penn State
62 Ohio State
67 Purdue
86 Michigan State
89 Texas A&M
93 Indiana
101-151 Iowa
303-401 Texas Tech
NSF: Total Research Expenditures (2008)
Nat’l Rank
3 Wisconsin $881,777
4 Michigan $876,390
10 Ohio State $702,592
11 Penn State $701,130
13 Minnesota $682,662
20 Texas A&M $582,365
29 Illinois $501,279
30 Texas $493,294
32 Northwestern $483,881
36 Purdue $429,988
39 Indiana $411,939
50 Michigan St. $356,767
63 Iowa $293,564
166 Texas Tech Big 12 $57,902
In addition you can look back into the NSF archives to see how research spending has changed over the years. An interesting benchmark is to look back at 1989 dollars, as Penn State was invited to the Big 10 in December of thatt year.
LikeLike
ooops…. I was cut off
Anyway… going back to 1989. If you look back to when the Penn St. was asked to join the Big 10, all schools continue to grow in research. Texas schools have actually lost ground. In part this could be because it is a stated goal of the state of Texas to raise several schools to high level research status. Not only are the flagship schools of Texas and A&M in tough competition for federal research dollars, but they are also competing in-state with schools like Tech, Houston and several satellite research centers around the state. This makes it even harder to imagine that Tech will catch up to the Big 10 standards anytime soon.
NSF: Total Research Expenditures (1989)
Nat’l Rank
5 Wisconsin $285,982
6 Michigan $280,905
7 Minnesota $258,614
8 Texas A&M $250,706
11 Penn State $219,930
14 Illinois $210,590
17 Texas $193,337
22 Ohio State $173,485
34 Purdue $124,323
39 Michigan St. $121,456
40 Northwestern $118,991
45 Iowa $105,900
60 Indiana $81,793
119 Texas Tech $33,926
LikeLike
I agree with you, Faithful. The Big Ten is a tight-knit group of universities. I’d be shocked if they voted to take Texas Tech for the sake of football.
LikeLike
Or look at it this way.
In 1989 Texas A&M was ranked 8 in total research, ahead of Penn St. at 11
In 1989 Texas was ranked 17 in total research, ahead of Ohio St. at 22
From 1989 to 2008, Penn St.’s research dollars increased by $481,200/yr
From 1989 to 2008, A&M’s research dollars increased by $331,659/yr
A difference of $149,541/yr
From 1989 to 2008, Ohio St.’s research dollars increased by $529,107
From 1989 to 2008, Texas’s research dollars increased by $299,957
A difference of $229,150/yr.
In the football world of conference shakeups Texas is clearly the sexiest option around with that $120,000+ per year athletic budget. But these research increases swallow that big number in less than a single bite!
LikeLike
I wonder if some of the lost ground relates to the Superconducting Super Collider Project that was canceled in 1993. It was starting to be built in Texas. I know A&M was to be involved in it and took a hit when it was canceled. I believe they had hired faculty specifically to work with it.
UT probably also took a hit. The wikipedia article for the SSC lists a UT physicist as project director.
The wiki article lists 1988 as the year it was awarded to the state of Texas, so there was probably a spending boost in 1989 that was included in NSF numbers. I started school after it was canceled, so I don’t have any first hand knowledge. I do remember several people lamenting what a loss it was for the university.
LikeLike
Just to be more clear, even if the numbers didn’t affect 1989, it was definitely a stumbling block in the mid 1990’s for the Physics department and perhaps other departments as suddenly they were out a major project and had to suddenly reorient themselves to new research projects. I’m not sure they kept all the professors they had attracted when the SSC project was still active.
LikeLike
The SSC project was expected to go to Chicago, where Fermilab is already based and where a lot of researchers in the field already worked / resided.
George HW Bush, then president, hijacked the project for Waxahachie, in his home state, even though in doing so, it would cost more.
Ultimately, in fact, spiraling costs were the major reason for its ultimate cancellation in 1993, after some two billion had already been spent. Now, of course the Europeans have built CERN, which is the best facility of its type in the world.
It’s likely the project would have been completed had Chicago been chosen as the site, (and it would have been larger and superior to CERN).
LikeLike
I probably chose an awkward way to present my case but I really just wanted to point out there is a very large gap in Tech’s current status vs. the Big10. I certainly didn’t mean to diminish the research of A&M and Texas in any way at all. In fact from the very start both schools have topped my list as my favorite adds to the Big10, without any regard to football at all. It is just my feeling that like-minded research institutions will be the very best candidates for this expansion. The football side…. that is just for fun.
I may have been better off just saying it can be a lot easier to focus research efforts behind a single state flagship as is the case for most Big10 schools. I greatly respect the mission to raise the level of research across the state of Texas. In fact if you dig through the NSF data you see there are a lot of new mouths to feed, as new research satellites show up on the year-to-year lists throughout Texas. I am sure Texas is trying to emulate the California system where the research dollars being spent in all corners of the state are just incredible. However, even in a state the size of Texas there is only so much research funding pie to go around. The current flagships need to maintain or improve their status. That just leads me to doubt some of these suggestions the Big10 will invite Tech based on a “promise” to fast track its way to a high-level research reputation.
In fact, here is a link (if I can make this work), detailing the Texas plan to raise seven institutions to Tier 1 research status.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6964851.html
In this article Texas Tech’s stated goal is to increase research funding to $150M/year by 2020. Compared to the 2008 data that would be an increase of $8M/yr. In comparison the Big10 schools averaged an increase of $20M/yr from 1989 to 2008, with Iowa’s average increase coming in the lowest at $10M/yr. Ambitious as it is the gap will just not be closing with this plan.
LikeLike
BTW, while $2 billion was invested in the project, there was never any actual research done, as the project was canceled before completion. Hence, I can’t see how this would have affected research money.
LikeLike
@djinndjinn
GHWB wasn’t president when Texas was awarded the SSC, so he hijacked nothing.
LikeLike
@Djinn
It was more Speaker Jim Wright that got the SSC moved to TX. with some help on the Senate side from Phil Gramm. (Bipartisan Pork) Bush fought efforts to cancel it during his presidency, but he didn’t move it there.
LikeLike
This is getting way off topic, but for what it’s worth…
Like politicians from other the other states under consideration for the SSC, Wright and Gramm obviously supported the SSC project and the money that would be spent in making it, plus the jobs produced by the project. I’m sure they were leaning heavily on the project. However, they didn’t make the site decision.
Originally, the decision was supposedly to be made by the URA (Universities Research Association, composed of scientists from over 50 universities), which managed the construction of Fermilab and was highly competent. However, Reagan wanted DOE and DOD oversight and appointed Alvin Trivelpiece to oversee the SSC and create an open competition for the location overseen by an independent Board of Overseers (BOO). My understanding is that the DOE and DOD controlled many of the decisions regarding the project, (many not always popular within the scientific community.)
In any event, less land and less contruction was required in Chicago compared to Texas. Further, all the existing infrastructure was there. (There was nothing in Waxahachie.) Many of the scientists were based in Chicago, in fact, the URA itself was based there. So it was very much assumed that Chicago was the obvious frontrunner in the project.
However, after years of study, the Board of Overseers (BOO), controlled by the DOE and DOD, made the decision to locate the SSC in Waxahachie, Texas on November 10, 1988. George HW Bush had been made president-elect two days earlier.
Coincidence? It wasn’t felt that way at Fermilab or in Chicago. Bush was VP and president elect, controlling both the DOD and DOE, which controlled the decision-making committee (BOO).
Subatomic particle physics is not at all my field (though it has been, at one time or another, a peripheral avocational interest). However, I remember this time fairly well because I was living in Chicago at the time and dating a woman from Fermilab.
LikeLike
It’s even starker when you look at ARWU scores combined with TARU numbers.
The average FBS college scores 19.32
(public-18.49; private-24.35)
The average BCS member is 27.35
(pub-26.64; priv-30.87)
The average non-BCS member is 9.68
(pub-9.35; priv-12.38)
The average BCS AAU member is 38.80
(pub-37.54; priv-44.90)
The average BCS non-AAU member is 14.42
(pub-14.49; priv-14.04)
So when Big XII AAU members like NU-17.0, MU-15.2, KU-16.2, ISU-17.8 or Big East SU-11.9 are similar to just an average BCS non-AAU member…
Conference average:
43.50 Big Ten/CIC
43.13 Pac 10
41.45 Big Ten w/out UC
25.39 ACC
19.44 Big East
19.03 Big XII
17.56 SEC
13.69 MWC
11.93 C-USA
9.90 WAC
8.58 MAC
7.91 SBC
18.50 ND
LikeLike
TTU is at 10.6, U of U,er Utah is 28.3 and Hawaii is 21.6. Recruiting pitch to prospect Road trip to Honolulu or Lubbock?
LikeLike
Do you have a link?
LikeLike
these are the basic links for TARU & ARWU. Several people including myself have posted these links and others over the past few months in response to Frank’s other articles so we are sort of retracing old ground. But since you would have to scroll though 1K of comments per article …
http://mup.asu.edu/
http://www.arwu.org/
http://chronicle.com/section/Home/5
LikeLike
Taking Texas Tech is a bad idea. Beyond it academically being a bad idea, it would repeat the mistake of the Big 12, where the Big 8 schools thought they were expanding to take the TX schools but were actually getting swallowed up by them. Texas would have a solid voting bloc to block everything the original 11 schools wanted to accomplish.
One thing that people always say about the Big 10 is that it’s full of team players looking out for the good of all conference members. That’s one reason Delany doesn’t want to take a bunch from one conference. Take three or five former Big 12 schools, and we’d have a cultural problem of a group of schools thinking themselves as different from the rest.
The Pac 10 is in the process of repeating this error. Texas has no intention of joining the Pac 10. They’re interested in taking over the Pac 10. Maybe they’re OK with that if it brings in more money for everyone. But that’s what UT wants.
LikeLike
This is easy. If the B10 is actually serious about expanding, they ought to and will take Nebraska. And, likewise, that’s a win-win for Nebraska. So I can’t see any scenario that Nebraska takes a blood oath to remain in the Big XII unless they know for sure that the B10 won’t take them. And I have to really doubt that to be the case.
Ergo, the Big XII is looking at imminent collapse, presuming that SOME Pac-10 offer is forthcoming.
Thus, the B10 needs to decide sooner rather than later whether it’s content to just add Nebraska and call it a day or, alternatively, hold its nose and also add the Texas teams +.
LikeLike
Nebraska isn’t taking any blood oaths. May have to survive a showdown between Delany and Texas, if Texas decides to go scorched earth on us, but after that, should it resolve in our favor, it’s happy trails. Texas can go Pac 10 or test their anyone can replace Nebraska in the Big 12 theory. Won’t matter to us.
LikeLike
agreed. no reason for NEB to take any oath. there is nothing the BXII can do if NEB refused to take the oath.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten doesn’t get Texas they cannot keep pace with the SEC or the P16 in recruiting and will sink like a rock in the next ten years. The east coast brings zero, zip nadda in terms of recruits and it will be the end of the Big Ten if they go in that direction. With conferences this big most recruits will stay ‘in-house’.
-And Basketball doesn’t pay the bills.
Delany knows this and will convince the others to go along or risk losing the Big Ten Network’s golden goos) to the P16 Network.
LikeLike
I completely agree.
If the Big Ten gets no Texas schools, then I think it needs to figure out how to get Florida State and Miami into the fold.
Maybe Nebraska, Notre Dame, Rutgers, FSU & Miami would do the trick?
LikeLike
Actually, someone posted a website that showed the number of NFL players listed by home state. Despite having very low recruiting numbers states like New York (and other eastern, northern states) put a lot of people into the NFL.
Just because an 18 year old is big and fast for his age doesn’t mean that’s how they’re going to end up.
“Recruit ranking” for a sport like football, IMO, are seriously flawed.
LikeLike
completely disagree. Texas has a great school/program but a terrible addition to the B10. As long as the B10 Network keeps making money, the B10 is NOT falling behind. Recruiting is now national; all the B10 schools SUCCESSFULLY recruit in FL, TX and CA.
LikeLike
I wonder if some crazy realignment scenarios would produce more independent schools. Maybe Texas decides they don’t want to share any media revenues and decide to get the Longhorn network up and running. They go independent.
Maybe instead of Texas, the Pac 10 gets the other five rumored schools plus Utah. Missouri goes to the Big Ten. KU, KSU, ISU, Baylor all join the MWC or maybe CUSA in some combination.
For whatever reason the Big Ten ends up not wanting Nebraska and the Huskers don’t want to join a lower conference so they go indy. Now you have Texas, Nebraska and Notre Dame operating as independents. Three pretty big players. I wonder if Nebraska could get their own TV deal like ND. Maybe not as lucrative but better than the MWC or CUSA or some hybrid Big 8.
Maybe some other schools decide this is a way for them to go. Perhaps they tire of conference politics. Maybe Miami, FL. Maybe BC decides it’s had enough of the ACC. If the Big East collapses, maybe West Virginia decides independence is better for them than the ACC option. Same for Cincy and Louisville. Don’t forget about Army and Navy.
Now you have a de facto league of schools that would probably play each other often. Maybe these schools, sans ND, could cobble together a pretty sweet TV deal.
LikeLike
I don’t think BC is at all unhappy with the ACC. Spare me the, “Who wants to watch BC play Wake Forest or Duke?” argument. Who would want to watch BC play the lousy Syracuse teams of the past decade?
BC likes the way it fits in with the other private schools in the ACC, not to mention the other academically strong ACC schools.
Let’s not forget the whole reason the old independents like BC, Penn State, Pitt, WVU, Miami, VT, FSU, South Carolina, etc. ended up joining conferences is that they provide so much stability. If PSU, FSU, and Miami, annual Top 10 finishers in the late 80’s/early 90’s, couldn’t make it as independents, there’s no way Nebraska could, much less BC. With whatever realignment occurs, I doubt Notre Dame will survive as an independent, either.
Army and Navy are different. Money is no object for them because they’re funded buy… all of us. Competing for a conference title means nothing to them. They have bowl tie-ins of their own, and their ultimate goal is to beat each other and Notre Dame. That’s it.
LikeLike
Rich, I think Nebraska could get their own TV deal, with a national cable channel. Think like a TNT, YES Network, FX. Even Fox national may be willing to take on the responsibility of the Huskers’ home broadcasts to fill their Saturday programming voids (mostly nights in September) for the right price (less than the cable networks, I am guessing, but with bigger exposure). Quite simply, Nebraska could deliver ratings for these kinds of Saturday day or night destinations that would make it worth everyone’s while. (As an aside, Nebraska has *loosely* discussed starting their own network for the last couple of years…)
But I doubt those things would ever happen. They’d have to find a conference to take on their 20-odd sports (more Olympic sports than Texas, I believe), which would be a challenge. Plus, the NCAA would try to make it difficult for a Nebraska or Texas to go indy in football, wouldn’t they? Otherwise, what’s to stop Alabama and USC to do the same in football for the sake of $$$$? Or maybe the NCAA wouldn’t care…? All hard questions to answer. I’ve actually thought a lot about the prospects of Texas and Nebraska going independent in football in recent months, because I think they financially could do it. There’s no question Texas could. People would be surprised by what Nebraska could do on that front as well. That said, I don’t believe either school really wants to do such a thing at all. Texas may float the idea more than other schools; yet, I don’t think they REALLY want to go through with it. We’ll know more in a week!
LikeLike
BTW, Rich, the defacto league is an interesting angle. But I don’t think enough schools will be able to find a conference home for their other sports. All in all, the “remergence of the college football independent” is fun to think about (there were once a ton more), but I think we are just kidding ourselves. It’s not going to happen. In fact, it’s fastly trending in an opposite direction.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten takes Texas, A&M, T. Tech, Nebraska, and Rutgers, then the Big Ten wins the expansion game–in all areas.
Recruiting is drastically improved via games in Texas all the time. Two new traditional powers are added with UT and Nebraska, ensuring an even stronger boost in TV revenue. Big Ten teams play just outside the Big Apple 4 times a year and gets on cable there, too. Texas Tech would be odd-man out as the only non-AAU member, but Michigan State wasn’t an AAU member, either, for its first 14 years in the league. Purdue, a founding member of the B10, wasn’t AAU until the 50’s. So there is precedent for non-AAU schools in the Big Ten, and Texas Tech could get there eventually, too.
And why must Oklahoma be included, anyway? Did Texas and OU not play decade after decade in Dallas despite being in separate conferences?
The Big Ten would miss out on Notre Dame, but considering who they’re getting instead, who cares?
The school I’d feel the worst for is Pitt. They’re inarguably well-qualified academically, more so than just about any candidate besides Texas. Athletically they’re not merely acceptable but intriguing. Unlike ND, Pitt has been fully interested all along, more so than at least half of the schools on the B10’s rumor list (Syracuse, the 3 Texas schools, ACC schools, Vandy). Everything about them screams “Big Ten,” except for the fact that it’s west of State College, not east like Rutgers.
LikeLike
If they get Texas, they win.
LikeLike
i have a suggestion for texas. tell the pac-xx that we will come if they drop two of the new schools. any two that won’t cause political heartburn. see if they bite.
i’m betting no. sixteen or no deal.
LikeLike
I am honestly ashamed to read through some of the idiocy in these comments. They are overrun by armchair warrior fans who forget we’re talking about colleges and not strictly about sports. My favorites are the fools who think we are moving towards some BCS conspiracy where five or however many regional superconferences will exist. The 12 institutions in the Big XII can’t even agree on what to order for lunch, and you think 100+ institutions are conspiring to form superconferences?
I also like how the superconference theorists think School A will fit nicely into Conference X, with total disregard to the fact that School A actually gets a say in the matter.
The Big Ten is not the SEC. Academics are at least as important as athletics in Big Ten country. It’s what makes us different and gives us our swagger, that we haven’t forgotten this is *college* athletics. In Big Ten country, we don’t need to sell our souls for financial supremecy, we already have it. And we don’t take 400 JuCo transfer to round our teams. We have integrity.
UConn is not getting into the Big Ten. Neither is Kentucky. Neither is any school in North Carolina. I have a lot of money, and I will bet it all and give you odds.
The best part about the Big Ten conference is that our institutions exist in perfect harmony. We don’t make special accommodations to stroke egos, and I will also say with 100% certainty that Texas isn’t getting in unless they fall under the same rules as every other school in the conference. It just won’t happen. And if the Pac-10 lets them in with the existence of the Longhorn Sports Network, then the rest of us in the Big Ten will continue to point and snicker that Texas made an entire conference of schools its bitch.
LikeLike
YES! Finally, a voice of reason!
Texas DOES NOT FIT in the Big Ten, unless they are willing to let go of everything Texas.
As a Husker fan, the Big Ten loses its luster a bit with The Horns. Even though I would LOVE a NU vs UT game every year.
LikeLike
Relax JustJoe. I think we are all having a little fun on this board and just trying to get some discussion going. There is a vacumn while we wait for actual news, so we are filling it with hypotheticals, discussing who fits better and where. But let’s be clear, the B10 started this whole process.
LikeLike
We should have all seen this coming when Slive talked about how good a job Texas, A&M, and Texas Tech was doing, and we were like, what Texas Tech?
Texas probably gave everyone an ultimatum that the three are going together. The SEC obviously bit by offering Texas/A&M/Tech/OU.
The Pac-10 created this Pac-16 scenario that would satisfy both political situations in Texas/OU.
The Big Ten seems to not be participating in this round, and my guess is that no one is willing to sign on to Tech. Perhaps that may change now that the Pac-10 has explicitly laid out the scenario through this leak, but I don’t know.
Delany/Gee will have a stronger hand to play for sure this weekend though in the Big Ten presidents meeting if they can say they’re about to lose Notre Dame and Texas. That probably wouldn’t be enough to get Michigan to go along, but would it be enough to get 7 other presidents? Who knows.
I think Texas to the Big Ten was on life support before this, so it’s probably better that we get some resolution of this sooner rather than later if the Big Ten can’t make an offer that includes Tech as Texas seems to be demanding to solve a political thorn.
LikeLike
And would this even be enough for Texas?
I mean the Pac-10 now has a scenario on the table for a SWC essentially but much stronger since it would have a lock on Arizona/Colorado/Texas/Oklahoma which is a rather nice Southwest Division (Pac-16 East) if you’re Texas.
If the Pac-10 can get all of its presidents to sign off on Oklahoma/OSU/TTech, then I think the Pac-10 definitely has the pole position to grab Texas because they’ve essentially offered to create a viable long term SWC for Texas in a Pac-16 East.
Yeah the Big Ten would offer the CIC and more $, but even 2 other schools in Texas wouldn’t reduce the remoteness of Texas from the rest of the Big Ten footprint if Notre Dame and Nebraska were the additions outside of Texas.
LikeLike
I know I am nitpicking but as a west coast guy and Pac fan, I hate the “east” designation to the conference. I feel much better with a West and Southwest named divisions.
I know, I know….but still….
LikeLike
For California and NW division:
Coastal Division
Pacific Division
Oceanic Division
For the other 8 teams:
Interior Division
Well, I’m not a big fan of Interior Division. Any other ideas?
LikeLike
Pacific and Non-Pacific?
Wet and Dry?
LikeLike
The Longhorn Division.
LikeLike
How ’bout the Longhorn Red-head Step-child Division?,… abit long,…but…
LikeLike
. . . accurate.
LikeLike
I’ll recombine: how about Western and Pacific Divisions?
LikeLike
Personally I think the divisions need to be Pacific (8) Division and South West Division.
Descriptive and it also reminds people of history…
LikeLike
PSU Guy – you beat me to the punch. I vote for the old school division names (Pac 8 & Southwest) too, although they although they almost certainly need to rename the new conference/alliance/confederation. The Western Alliance (TWA) was thrown around earlier. Why not use it as the name for the new conference?
LikeLike
good (i didn’t read down far enough). And, for short, you’d end up with the PacPac and the PacSouthwest.
LikeLike
oops, can’t read. I would think the Pac Southwest (including the two AR schools) might be miffed if the original 8 went by their old name. IMHO.
LikeLike
@ PSU – I like the Pacific and Southwest monnickers. I’ll put the call into Scott. LOL
@ Alan – I don’t like changing the name of the conference though. I know its all semantics but the Pac has been around longer and technically, if this is true, the 6 would be joining the Pac – not creating a new conference ala the B12. Put it like this – if the SEC added 4 ACC teams, would you want to make a change to the SEC brand name?
LikeLike
they could name the 4 pods..
Blinky
Pinky
Inky
Clyde
somehow it seems right the way the whole conversation has gone..
LikeLike
Stolen from someone else on the internet:
Surf N’ Turf
LikeLike
I’m just reiterating what most have concluded above, but if the PAc 10 offer is legit, and I think it is, the Big 10 only nabs Texas by offering Tech and Notre Dame. (oh, and A&M too, but they’re a given.)
LikeLike
If that’s the case, and if the “Tech problem” (the one thing we can absolutely be sure isn’t just idle speculation) is a nonstarter for the Big Ten, then we’re rapidly approaching resolution.
LikeLike
OK, I’ve waded through everything.
I think I have one original thought that hasn’t been expressed above, and this is predicated on the belief that the Pac 10 rumor on the table is accurate.
Perhaps, counter-intuitively, because of the Pac 10 offer expansion might slow down and take longer than anyone seems to believe?
I’ve had discussions with the main guy, Peter Bean, over at BON about the quickness with which Texas might need to act. I have been of the mindset that Texas needs to pounce pretty quickly in the process or risk being left behind or stuck with unwanted (SEC) options, while Peter has argued that Texas, holding the most cards at the expansion table, can, and should, wait as long as possible before committing, while exploring the feasibility of other options (LSN and other distribution rights) in the interim.
My fear of waiting too long has been predicated on the belief that, if Texas said no to both the Big 10 and the Pac 10, both conferences would move on, invite others to get to the presumed magic numbers (14-16 for the Big 10; 12 for the Pac 10), and leave Texas behind, no matter how attractive Texas might be.
But I never anticipated this offer from the Pac 10. As most have noted, it is absolutely perfect for Texas (but for the CIC issue), as it unexpectedly solves the geographic issues with the 8/8 natural split. And if Texas winds up in the Pac 10 in this scenario, I’d be quite satisfied.
But what if Texas says “no”? Or, more precisely, Texas says to the Pac 10, “maybe, good idea, let’s ponder this for a while, no rush”. What the hell is the Pac 10 going to do? The Pac 10 has seemingly played its ultimate hand. There’s nothing more it can do to sweeten the pot for Texas, and, now that this offer is public, it seems inconceivable that the Pac 10 could suddenly retreat to a mere CU-Utah pair to get to 12 schools. It’s the Big XII Six or bust for the Pac 10.
So, since it seems that no Plan B exists for the Pac 10, Texas might be in a position to hold off on accepting Plan A, as attractive as it might be, for a while if Texas feels the need to thoroughly explore all available long-term options.
LikeLike
But there’s no reason to believe that A&M and OU would wait for Texas if Texas says that it wants a longer time period than necessary to make the decision.
A&M and OU probably have issues with the LSN and may start to look at the SEC a lot more closely if Texas tries to overplay its hand.
Right now, Texas got the ultimate scenario out of the Pac-10, so the only thing they would wait for is an ultimate scenario out of the Big Ten or SEC.
I could see A&M waiting with Texas to see if the Big Ten can offer something, and both OU and A&M would probably want to wait to see what the SEC offers.
One other thing, a waiting approach only works as long as no one leaves the Big 12. But if the Big Ten thinks that Texas is not interested, then Delany will probably invite Nebraska, which would set off the chain of events forcing Texas’ hand.
LikeLike
If Texas were inclined to milk the clock as long as possible, I suppose the issue would be whether it would be worth it to possibly lose A&M and OU to the SEC while it looked at other options, knowing that the Pac 10 would still probably be there (and happy that the “OU Problem” had vanished) at the end of the day.
Again, I think it’s doubtful — I’d personally take the offer on the table (or a better offer from the Big 10) rather than wait to see what the future holds . . . unless the projected numbers on the LSN are so stunning that Texas has no choice but to try to make it work, even through independence.
LikeLike
“If Texas were inclined to milk the clock as long as possible”
Hard to go past 0:01…
LikeLike
Good luck against Rider tomorrow, BTW.
LikeLike
:facepalm
Thanks.
LikeLike
Just a conspiracy thought.
What if this was leaked to force an SEC offer to A&M and/or OU? If they accept then Texas is free and clear to join the Big10 and they weren’t the first ones to move.
LikeLike
a whole lot of high stakes gamblin’ goin’ on. If the PAC 10 offer is legit, what a BRILLIANT move by their Commish!
LikeLike
if my reading of the situation is on target–big if, of course–then ou is not a problem but a necessary part of the solution.
if ou and another other of the five went away, the pac boys would have to replace them with somebody or stanford would balk. the ou schools being close are perfect.
LikeLike
@HH – I don’t think I can agree with you that there is no plan B for the Pac. If we are to operate under the assumption that latest rumor is true – then that is probably what the Pac has determined is their best play (plan A so to speak) in the current environment.
If that falls through then there are a series of potential Plan B’s. IMO, they are ready to move forward with a network regardless of who they actually get to join in this round (for argument’s sake – lets say CU and Uath, but it could be others) of expansion. The ACC has proven that you can receive a solid nat’l network TV contract in this economy that provides a great return. If the Pac gets even 80% of that annual ACC deal then all members essentially double their annual payouts even with the two add’l schools (average even though there is an unbalanced ditribution in the league) + they lay the foundation for add’l revenue to be generated from a conference network.
Plan B is not their end game however. W/O TX now – the Pac doesn’t go to 16 which leaves the door open for them later if they decide to wait it out now. Regardless of Beebe’s stance for unity – CU will go to Pac and Neb to B10 so the destabilization/destruction of the B12 is coming eventually. As long as their is a renegotiation clause in the new nat’l network deal for new teams – they would still be open to bringing in add’l teams later that bring value and they would still be in and trending to be in MUCH better shape then they are today,
Although we are FAR (or around the corner) from knowing what comes next in expansion – I must say that Scott has me a believer in a bright future for Pac exposure (TV and bowl alliances) which I could never in good faith say with Hansen (who happens to be the worst
AD ever).
LikeLike
Plan B is not their end game however. W/O TX now – the Pac doesn’t go to 16 which leaves the door open for them later if they decide to wait it out now.
It’s late, but I think we’re more or less saying the same thing — regardless of whether there’s a “Plan B,” Texas might be able to say “no” now knowing that the door would almost certainly be open down the road.
LikeLike
It is late – I think we agree. I took the “no plan b” statement as an all 6 or nothing type scenario.
LikeLike
The only reason to wait is to see how your Network might pan out, so waiting would not make anyone else happy!
I’m sure they know the SEC’s best offer.
This would be the Pac 10’s best offer, and it’s a better association than the SEC.
They’ll get the Big 10’s best offer soon enough, if they don’t already have it.
At this point, I’ll be happy to have next year be the last year in the Big 12. Start play in 2012 in either the Pac 16 or Big 10. Get the integration process started as soon as possible.
Do you really want to spend 2 whole years as a lame duck in the Big 12 while you’re still picking conferences?
LikeLike
I agree with all this.
UT only has so many options:
1) Stay in the Big 12, hope it only loses a couple of replaceable members
2) Join the Pac-10
3) Join the Big 10
4) Join the SEC
5) Go Independent
If you don’t like 2…and you don’t like 4….you are now down to1, 3 & 5. If you think the Big 12 crumbles like I do…1 is out as well.
I realize HH thinks “Join the Big 10” is the the best option, but travel, distance, and the Big 10 not being able to take Tech, A&M, and OU+Okie St. kinda rules them out if UT needs/wants to go as a group.
If UT waits too long they only end up with 5: Go Independent
UT has 5 choices. Pick one.
LikeLike
HH,
your comment..
“But I never anticipated this offer from the Pac 10.”
I made this exact scenario early on in this discussion on this blog (I think I had Kansas instead of Texas Tech) and everybody kept shooting me down saying it would never happen. I am not trying to say I told you so, but I am trying to point out that sometimes we see what we want to, not what it looks like from a distanced view.
I have stated early on that I live on the border of several conferences so I have been able to see multiple conferences for a majority of my life. I stated early on that Texas and ND would not be in a Big 10 expansion not because this is what I wanted, but because this was what made the most sense from an objective view away from a single conference.
This being said, I think the Big 10 can get Kansas now (as folks are becoming aware that it may be hard to include Kansas State). The Big 10 picks up these 5….
Nebraska (still #1), Missouri, and Kansas from the big 12
Maryland and Virginia from the acc
The Big 10 picks up 5 of the better academic and athletic schools..
but most importantly they pick up control
before we all say no way.. think this through.. and I want to thank Frank for his early comment on this blog.. the word is RESEARCH!
Suppose you are the Big 10 and you want to dominate research long term. I said this early on that one needs to pick only state flagship universities (I keep catching flack for this but I stick with it because it makes the most sense). Each one of these 5 are all the flagship university of the state they reside in.
Frank has taught me early on to see that research and education are not one in the same. This is an important thing to understand and why I understand why my alma mater is not a candidate for expansion (they are excellent in liberal arts but are not concentrated on research). So the biggest bang in research $$ come not from the private sector but the government. This means that the long term strategy to dominate RESEARCH is to gain a political edge.
Now look at my 5 picks from this angle….
1) All five schools are the state flagship university
2) All five do not overlap political lines
3) All five are already AAU members (a research home run)
4) All five expand the footprint and can dominate markets
5) All five can field competitive athletic teams
Now look at these picks from a political funding angle for RESEARCH
1) You pick up 10% of the senate (biggest bang for the buck)
2) You add 10% of the US states to lobby for your cause, including the DC corridor via Maryland and Virginia.
3) You do not ruffle feathers so you can come in under the radar (ie when lobbying votes, it plays to your advantage NOT to be tied to the BIG 4 [CA,TX,NY,FL] so you wield power, but it does not appear concentrated to the big states that always want to have their way.
Frank.. If research is a big deal I open the floor to folks to tell me why this is not the best strategy to allow the big 10 to DOMINATE!!
I only ask that detractors offer strong data to support their positions, not just wishful thinking.
thanks
LikeLike
Frank,
the last post was supposed to attach to Hopkins Horns post.. but it did not do so.. aaarrrggghhh!
LikeLike
Good post. Just to counteract some of the negatives that get thrown Nebraska’s way:
http://media-newswire.com/release_1111861.html
Seems to me to be an area that’s going to get a lot of attention, and a lot more federal dollars in future. And yes, I know other schools are doing this sort of thing, including Texas, so save the pissing contest.
LikeLike
Algae may be to UNL what ethanol is to ISU (or the U of I).
LikeLike
A million monkeys on a million typewriters, with the exception that those monkeys eventually produced something that was, in fact, accurate.
LikeLike
HH,
are you saying that Nebraska is a bunch of monkeys? not very nice comment, nor accurate.
on a side note.. if the Pac 10 gets OSU, they would have 2 of the only 5 Sun Grant Universities in the country..
Pac 16 Oregon State & Oklahoma State
The Rest : Cornell, Tennessee, and SDSU
LikeLike
It’s that famous Texas tact. 😉
LikeLike
Sorry duffman, this long-term Big Ten fan would vomit if we added three mediocre universities from smallish states.
I would much rather add one lousy university (TT) to secure two good ones.
LikeLike
Mike B..
then you have taken the Big 10 down a road they can not return (sorta like you can not get partially pregnant). I for one am fine with Nebraska, and Mizzou and Kansas are already AAU. If it is about academics over athletics how can anybody in the Big 10 “vomit”.
By making the statement you are saying research is important, but we really want the money from athletics. In this case it is one or the other, unless the research has been a smokescreen all along, and you feel the Big 10 is better going down the rabbit hole for the sake of college football?
Point blank.. which matters more..
a) academics
b) athletics
HINT: if you chose b) you have decided that the Big 10 academic argument is all a sham, and that we are no better than any other conference.
LikeLike
@duffman
Nonsense. 50 years ago, UC Irvine didn’t even exist. Now it’s a top 50 University. In 50 years, TT will be a better academic institution than Nebraska or Mizzou, who are basically just grandfathered in to AAU status. Otherwise, they’re well below average for “flagship state schools”.
LikeLike
interesting what you and peter say about holding off. particularly since peter (and paul and mary, too) are so committed to moving west.
not only would it improve our opportunity to investigate the longhorn network, but it would continue to pressure the big ten holdouts.
hop, i have a question about independence. if we were to go independent for a few years, is that conceivably a route toward ridding ourselves of leeches or do you envision the politicos simply jumping us at any turn in the future regardless?
LikeLike
I don’t want to put words in Peter’s mouth, but I wouldn’t characterize his position as being committed to moving west so much as that is probably the best option if “waiting” (and all that implies) doesn’t produce an optimal result.
As for independence, I’m leery of the potential backlash Texas would be in for, and that includes a political backlash. Freeing itself from a conference structure, especially if doing so jeopardized Tech’s ability to remain in a major conference, would probably lead to more of the political sniping you foresee.
LikeLike
yes, i see what you are saying. i’m guessing that is a factor in our not hearing even whispers of the independence approach. i was just curious your take.
LikeLike
I actually think that if Texas really want to make this move, they need to do it now.
With the way A&M has been sounding they don’t like the idea of playing on the Pacific. Besides, they might feel a SEC “fit” was more palatable.
Ok has no ties to the Pac and just wants to ensure it still plays games in Texas to maintain its recruiting grounds. In any case, with its history of…”trying really hard to win”…the SEC may feel better from a football level POV.
If Texas doesn’t push this hard both those teams might think it better to part ways and go to the SEC leaving Texas with being a (semi) lone outpost in the Pac, a lone outpost in the Big, or joining the SEC (which I think is a no-starter).
Again, if Texas going to the Big as a “lone outpost” works for themthen yes, waiting is a viable option. But if they really want to have a block of schools come with and still upgrade $$$ they need to push this plan now.
LikeLike
Yes. The “If NE and MO vote next week to stay in the B12 then the P16 is off and the B12 stays intact” offer is so bizarre that it might be just a stalling tactic. If the B10+ isn’t ready to invite NE (perhaps needs more time to explore options without TX) then it simply delays everything one school year and allows more time for negotiation. If TX is telling the B10+ they’ll still negotiate then this might make some sense. “Offer NE now and we’re out. Stall and we’ll talk.” Not sure that would work, but it is a theory. If TX is off the table then the B10+ might be wise to look at GT, FSU, Mia, etc, especially if ND is also out. Though one would think Delany had already done so, but maybe TX negotiations were so hot n heavy as to consume most of his time lately.
OTOH, it could be just a PR way for the B12 South to scapegoat NE for the breakup.
LikeLike
Oh, and Frank: GREAT picture to illustrate the post. Makes me smile every time.
LikeLike
actually i disagree on that also.
for me it symbolizes the stoops brothers’ and others’ claim that vince single-handedly delivered that trophy, completely ignoring the splendid contributions of all the others who contributed mightily, and suggesting that without another vince, texas will never amount to anything.
as much as i love vince, that photo pains me.
LikeLike
It’s a sad place you’re in if you let the opinions of a few morons take away from the joy that photo represents. 🙂
LikeLike
you are right, of course, but a photo evokes what a photo evokes. as old e said, ‘the soul selects her own society.’
LikeLike
one more thing. if that photo showed a horn sealing off the trojan, say, the effect i’m talking about wouldn’t be there. vince is huge in that pic and no other longhorn appears except in the faint distance.
i’m talking symbolism here.
LikeLike
NCAA Baseball Regional Update: #4 seed Minnesota upset #1 seed CSU Fullerton at the Fullerton regional. Minnesota is the only #4 seed to win today. Congrats Gophers!
AQ Conference records after Day #1
ACC 6-2
Big XII 3-2
Big East 1-2
Big Ten 1-0
Pac 10 6-2
SEC 8-0
LikeLike
Frank and your fans, you don’t seem to realize that Texas actually prefers much of what the PAC 10 offers. This is way more than a rumor, appears to have some effort behind it, and is an offer along the lines Powers has talked about from the start. As I stated earlier, Tech is a big deal. Some dismissed that, but I am being proven right. Travel is a big deal. Having some old rivalries is a big deal. Texas desires better academic affiliations and a research consortium, but we’ve never really had them in our conferences, so they aren’t an overriding issue for us.
Now the SEC did not talk expansion at all in their meetings, so A&M and OU may have to drop their objections to this offer fairly soon. I don’t think having OU in the conference is that big of a deal, as long as UT has the flexibility to continue to schedule them the 2nd weekend in October as an OOC game, but an annual game with ND might be a considered a substitute. Not sure.
If the Big 10 is going to come up with an offer to actually tempt Texas (and so far, all your advantages haven’t quite tipped the scale over your disadvantages from our perspective) then it better come QUICKLY because this PAC 10/Big XII South-BU+CU could go down quickly. The Big Ten may have been our first choice if it included A&M, Tech, ND, and Nebraska or someone closer. We weren’t very crazy about the PAC 10 as it existed, but a Western Alliance of most of the PAC 10 along with several of our better Big XII teams was very appealing. Staying with the Big XII and adding our own Longhorn Network was our 3rd choice, but the one we could actually work on the most publicly and maintain some control over the process. Now comes this PAC 10 offer into the discussion and it is very appealing, giving us a lot of what we want. Not perfect by any means, with some risk and less money, but much better than what we have. And the PAC 10 has some sort of a research consortium to boot.
LikeLike
In the grand scheme of things I don’t think a Big10 fan should see a Pac16 expansion as a loss at all. The only bigger win would be if the BigXII can somehow hold it together and form a BigXII network under the Fox umbrella. But I think now it is safe to say that was doomed from the start.
Other than that it a complete win-win all around. If as expected the PTN is implemented, Fox will have added most of the major players to the west for a great inventory of live games that can be shared with the BTN for those of us that stay up too late. And vice versa, the new PTN gets to bring their choice of BTN games to the west.
The key was simply to make sure to collect all major players in the west under the same umbrella. A true loss would have been if someone slipped out of the Texas corral to the SEC or ACC.
Now it will be the Big10’s job to do the same in the east. All the new Pac16 teams should be rooting for the Big10 to hit some home runs.
Collect all the available rating draws, penetrate the major markets, apply fan pressure to force your way to basic cable tier, and share a large inventory of live content across time zones through the Fox affiliations. That is the business model that will make the BTN and PTN earnings take off exponentially when the carriage fees and advertising revenue start flooding back to the schools.
LikeLike
Blending rating draws, major markets, academic and research, who are the Big Ten’s top five if Texas is part of a six-team Pac-10 expansion and Notre Dame makes too many demands? My choices:
Nebraska
Maryland
Virginia
Rutgers
North Carolina (if it declines, take Vanderbilt or Missouri)
All AAU, important for Big Ten presidents.
In Nebraska, you get a “name brand” in football, good programs in several other sports, superb fan support, solid if unspectacular academics and improving research.
Maryland and Virginia give you two fine academic institutions, excellent all-around athletic programs, a “name brand” in men’s and women’s basketball in Maryland and control of the growing, affluent (and influential) Washington region where many Big Ten alumni live.
Rutgers is a good land-grant school with strong academics, control of the New Jersey market with spillover into New York, and an improving football program.
I’d like to bring in UNC, an athletic powerhouse in just about everything but football (in which it’s getting better) and a top-flight state flagship. It might require Duke as a partner, in which case I’d reluctantly say “yes” and leave out Rutgers. (Not that Duke is anything to be scoffed at, but its football is rather lackluster. Then again, if it were strictly Duke vs. Vanderbilt, Duke has so much more going for it than I’d overlook Vandy’s slight football edge.)
LikeLike
The PAC10 should double in size to twenty by also inviting Utah, Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri in addition to the six teams already rumored. Then the Big Ten could invite Notre Dame plus eight other teams from the Big East/ACC stretching down the Atlantic coast to Georgia Tech and Miami, also expanding to twenty. Then re-establish the Rose Bowl as the championship between the two conferences and drop this BCS nonsense.
The resulting PAC Twenty/Big Ten consortium would total forty schools and call itself “America’s Top Forty”. Casey Kasem would be on hand to award the next Rose Bowl trophy.
LikeLike
@ Faithful. Well if this is Fox’s attempt to take over the world – then they are working it beautifully.
Operating under the assumption that the Pac 16 rumor is true…Fox would now have 16 teams in highgly populated and GROWING areas of the west with a PTN that they would preseumably have a 49% stake in. Couple that with an already established 49% stake in the BTN that is in traditionally populated areas and also ready to expand its footprint and Fox has managed to lock down a whole lotta territory (basically every where but the SE).
Now you work on sharing inventory due to time differences on top of that – and you have the ability to work on putting each others netwok on the cable bill in your partners region of the country. Increase subscrbers fees, advertising dollars, and exposure for your brand. Getting ahead of everything of course – but potential is huge (and payouts to member universities could be monstrous).
LikeLike
do you have any information about a pac-10 consortium?
LikeLike
An ultimate offer,
I slept on this last night and I might have something – something that might be palatable to both parties that even the Pac 10 didn´t offer.
To preface this, Loki cover your ears.
Before the Pac 10 rumors surfaced, Tech was a non-starter in any Big 10 expansion scenario, from an academic standpoint. And as we´ve stated many times, Rice is a non-starter as well, but from an athletic and demographic standpoint (fewer living alumni than current UT students, as Loki likes to say).
If we are going to consider a contingent offer to Tech, however, (and this is still a BIG if) then why not put it all on the table and offer Rice a similarly contingent offer – but from the athletic perspective. This would involve a new stadium, loads of money and a goal to become the Northwestern of the South.
Is this realistic? It could be, but just like a Tech membership would require a huge commitment from the Texas legislature, a Rice membership would require a lot of the same: big state investment for the type of move that would pay big dividends down the road. Texas is certainly still growing and plenty big enough to support four big time athletic and academic institutions. And even if Rice can´t fill a large stadium on its own, neither can Northwestern. In fact, when they play Wisconsin, Illinois and OSU they sell out from the visiting team alone. In the type of divisions I detail below, a very similar thing would happen to Rice.
So how does this new conference look?
Lone Star division:
Texas
A&M
Tech
Rice
Western division:
Nebraska
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Midwest:
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue
East:
Michigan
MSU
OSU
PSU
The four team Texas division would not only solve the travel problem, it would give Texas four horses in this race – while the Pac 10 only offered three. From a Texas political standpoint, the Big 10 wins. It also has a nice synergy in the idea of drastically lowering academic standards for one member and athletics for another. Both, however are in the same division, and would have to meet stringent performance standards. Taking one project from each side of the aisle, with both being from the same state, from a political standpoint, can work.
And finally, the kicker:
Texas gets its Lonestar Network – kind of. With the announcement of the pending expansion, the Big 10 also announces a second regional network that will correspond to each of the four pods. Somewhat like the BTN2 idea, this gives the state of Texas a true Lone Star Network (even by name, maybe BTN Lone Star Network), while keeping the rest of the conference happy.
And, similar to the Pac 10 proposal, this keeps the ¨Tech problem¨ and the ¨Rice problem¨ in their own division, separate from the rest of the Big 10.
There is obviously nothing to this but an idea, but it´s the type of idea that Delany and co. need to present this Sunday. In these types of situations, there´s almost always a solution – sometimes it just requires thinking outside the box.
Come on, guys, let´s get this done.
LikeLike
isn’t rice private? do states give money to private schools?
LikeLike
Yes, Rice is private and does not receive anything from the state. But Rice has a very large endowment for the size school, around $5B. But when the SWC collapsed, and when the WAC collapsed, Rice debated abandoning football. I still think we are closer to Chicago than to Northwestern.
But if we get in, I’ll buy season tickets.
LikeLike
i’d love to see it. count me in.
LikeLike
If the commitment is there, there is more than enough talent in the state of Texas to build a program from scratch. And Rice could offer something that none of the other Texas schools could, Big 10 football at a small, elite academic institution. I´m sure this would appeal to at least a handful of recruits each year.
LikeLike
oh, i agree. the more i think about this idea, the better i like it.
also a huge inducement for texas because we always want a game in houston every year anyway. rice has been it since uhouston slit its own throat.
LikeLike
Rice is private and doesn´t receive annual state endowment. That said, it is still an elite institution within the state of Texas – and if it gets Tech a bid – I don´t see why the state couldn´t vote to send a large sum of money Rice´s way – even if it´s a one time gift.
Again, now that we brought politics into this game, we have to really bring them in. In this scenario, the Big 10 stepped to the plate and delivered – now it´s the legislature´s turn.
LikeLike
we didn’t bring politics in. politics was in this game before the opening bid.
i like what you say. as a taxpaying texan with children, i have a huge personal stake in what happens here. the stakes go WAY beyond athletics, and i would be perfectly happy for the state to pitch in and do something positive for our future.
LikeLike
ps: other than that i really like your proposal.
LikeLike
Good summary. The P16 was always the favorite, but a B16 could easily pull off the (sorta) upset. The SEC is Boise State, always on the outside.
LikeLike
I can understand this from the Pac-10’s perspective. If they feel they need to go to 16 teams, they pretty well need Texas. And assuming they have the unanimous votes to approve it, the offer that appears to be on the table must be pretty enticing. If that’s what they feel it takes to compete, kudos to them for making this deal. I really hope it works out.
I can’t blame Texas and the other teams for wanting to take that arrangement.
From the Big Ten’s perspective, as appealing as Texas is, I don’t think they will (or should) make a similar offer. I can’t see them wishing to dilute their academic brand. In fact, I think they’d like to enhance it. I think they’ll go with Nebraska for football, then move east, choosing strong academic schools in large markets, preferably with large alumni populations. Ultimately, they’ll do just fine. As will Texas. And the Pac-10 will do great financially too.
LikeLike
only one conference can get UT, so one of the conferences is going to have to go to plan B. The Big 10 conference has several very attractive options in Plan B that would add TV’s and $$$.
Nebraska, and some Eastern Schools in many ways could be better than having an odd outlier in Texas.
LikeLike
I think this is not such a good move for the Pac-10 from an academic standpoint. Perhaps we can agree that a CIC-like entity is a strategic asset for research universities. The Pac-10 does not have one now (of any consequence) and with the addition of the new SW conference it seems likely the probability of starting one is diminished. It is hard to see Stanford, Cal, Washington and UCLA agreeing to participate in a CIC and then doing the heavy lifting to help TT, OK, OkSt get more research money. If they won’t do it now with a better collection of schools, it is really hard to see how it gets started in the future. Obviously the current top schools in the Pac-10 are OK with this situation and if Texas and TAMU move I suppose that means they are also on board with that attitude. Academically, it is everyone for themselves. As you can guess I think that is shortsighted, but it may be a Texas tragedy – in the sense of the all too public fatal flaw of the protagonist, here it is the political value of football over academics. Taking TT to a better academic conference is not necessarily a win if the association with the new conference does not help the academics. I don’t see that WSU, UofA, ASU, OrSt or Oregon have benefited academically from being in the Pac-10. In contrast, the improvement of PSU after joining the Big Ten is rather dramatic.
This is especially true if the way the expansion is sold to Stanford and Call is that the new schools will be in a different conference and you don’t have to deal with them academically anyhow, so nothing really changes for the individual Pac-10 school except more money for a PTN, TV rights.
So my point is just that this would be a football-only and money move for Texas and would likely mean they have sacrificed the real chance for an academic upgrade even if they are associated with four or five schools with top rate research. Of course the downside is that one might be choose to be associated with Stanford, but Stanford (and Cal , … ) chooses to be not associated with you.
My bottom line is that if this occurs, it is not a bad alternative for the Big Ten for both the athletic conference and TV reasons that have been noted earlier, but also because it is a strategic advantage for the Big Ten going forward in network effects for research money. In effect, it ensures that a number of the best research schools in the country (Stanford, Cal,…Texas) have decided to continue to be independents while the Big Ten schools can play both games (ie get research money independently and enjoy the networks effects of cooperation via the CIC). If the Big Ten counter is to make an academics-confirming move to 16 and pick up top schools including Vandy, Md, Va, etc. this is a big win for the Big Ten in the long game. Football is enjoyable and lucrativish and the Big Ten will always be a viable brand because of its alumni base and visibility as primarily big state flagship universities. The Big Ten presidents may pay attention to football but understand the raison d’etre of their institutions. The tragedy for Texas is that their politicians may not.
LikeLike
The tragedy for Texas is that their politicians may not.
Let’s not get carried away. Even as someone who’s supported a Texas move to the Big 10 (albeit by an increasingly narrowing margin over the months to a move to the Pac 10), this would not be a tragedy at all. Texas would be in the same conference with some real academic heavyweights, just as it would be in the Big 10. (And dare I say that the Pac 10 is stronger at the top academically than the Big 10, which makes up for it with top-to-bottom-and-Michigan-State balance?)
And it’s hard for me to see how it would be a long term win for the Pac 10 to wind up with Texas and for the Big 10 to wind up with Vandy. Academics matter, but so do athletics.
LikeLike
Not if you count UChicago as being in the CIC, which is what counts academically.
The CIC is as strong as any conference at the top, and way stronger at the middle and bottom.
The differences at the middle and bottom will become more apparent after this expansion move if it does happen.
LikeLike
My concern on the academic end has been getting Texas associated with a better bunch of schools, to use as a motivational tool to growth the strong albeit underperforming academic side of the school.
I’m happy to see that we’d have Cal, Stanford and UCLA as benchmarks to compare ourselves against academically. We don’t have comparable schools in the Big XII, and we wouldn’t have them in the SEC. And in this proposed Pac 10, we wouldn’t be comparing ourselves to Okie State.
It still doesn’t solve the CIC, which is why I ultimately would love to see a trump card played by the Big 10, but, again, as an academically-oriented Texas fan/booster, having to bring OU and OSU with us to get into a conference with Cal and Stanford and UCLA doesn’t bother me at all.
LikeLike
Hi HH,
My point is that there is no CIC in the Pac-10 and adding a group of low academic and research performers (TT, OK, OkSt) lessen the already low chance that a CIC is created.
Of course the hypothesis is that the existence of a CIC is a significant multiplier for research going forward.
Being in an athletic conference with a core of good academic schools is certainly an upgrade in prestige, and that is no small thing. But if the reality is that its every school for themselves on the research front that is no different than the current situation. The Big-10 offers something of tangible value in that regard. If the politics in Texas are such that UT is handcuffed to TT because of football (athletics) then the decision to join a conference must satisfy the football constraint even if it does not maximize the academic/research move.
The tragedy is that a move to the Pac-10 doesn’t help UT research/academics beyond the association with some great research schools and that TT doesn’t benefit either in that regard. So apart from money and the visible prestige of being in the same conference as Stanford, UC, UCLA, and Washington, the move is made for athletics only.
Tragedy is perhaps too strong a word however, as this is no doubt a better alternative than the Big XII fate or joining the SEC. Still, I think it is far from optimal on the academic/research front for UT and more generally the state of Texas. OTOH, TT will be in a BCS conference.
“And it’s hard for me to see how it would be a long term win for the Pac 10 to wind up with Texas and for the Big 10 to wind up with Vandy.”
But that’s not the point. In this scenario Pac-10 gets
UT, TAMU, CU (good) TT, OkSt, OK (not so good). Of course I can’t say who the Big-10 gets, but if it includes schools like Vandy, UVa, UMd, RU, Pitt, UNC, Duke (good), NE, Mo (not so good but much better than the three from the Big XII), I’d call that a strategic win on the academic front. Athletics matter, but the big $ is on the academic/research side. Of course the only way to know is to compare the state of UT as an institution 50 years from now in the two possible worlds – one with a Pac-10 move, the other a Big10 move.
Since we can’t resolve things with counterfactual games, we could ask what move does UT make if it were free of politics?
LikeLike
@HH
Fair enough, but if the Pac is divided as some think, then Texas (and the new additions) would basically be ostracized from those great academic institutions by being placed in a different division. Sure, they’d still be the same conference, but they’d be the “country bumpkins to the east”.
Also, the way I look at athletics v academics is who would survive if the other didn’t?
If football went away, strong academics would still “recruit” smart people and the university would still thrive. If academics went away you’d have an ever diminishing base of students (read that as alumni) and eventually the school would disappear.
Exaggeration aside, most people go to college for education and to willing undertake actions that could potentially hurt the academic “brand” of a university is a very dangerous action that needs to be looked at very closely.
LikeLike
very good post, psu. nicely said and to the point.
huge things way beyond scoreboards are hanging in the balance here, and decisions made right now can have repercussions on future generations.
LikeLike
@PSU. Just one mans take but I think the Stanford “ostracizing” pov is being taken a little too far by most.
Let me try and explain – IMO, Stanford looks down at EVERYONE from an acedemic standpoint – thats just the way they are. That being said, they are smart people and there is no way that IF they accept the proposed conference, that they create a chasmn between themselves and the new members – that is a recipe for conference suicide. I have to believe that they are too intelligent to get involved in something just to see it fail, so they will do what is necessary to create a successful relationship. Looking down on everyone’s academics all the while.
Also, IMO Stanford doesn’t wield the hammer so to speak in the Pac 10 from a decision making standpoint in today’s landscape. Don’t get me wrong – they have an important voice and the rest of the conference loves having an association with their academics. I have always had the impression that it is more of a collection of CA schools + WA that make all decision in an “agree to agree with each other” type of process w/ most powerful voices coming from SoCal.
The unanimous vote gives everyone veto power to use if necessary but if UCLA/SC, Cal, and WA flex any muscle – then I believe Stanford will “go along to get along” and make it work.
Just a POV from a lowly (observant) fan. Of course, I’ve been wrong before….
LikeLike
No issues with anything you said man and in fairness I think the Pac folks are going to be much more lenient in admittance criteria this time around.
However that being said…Tier 3 schools?
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn
“Texas would be in the same conference with some real academic heavyweights, just as it would be in the Big 10.”
Not really. Texas would be in a conference with Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. I don’t think that any of the top schools in California would consider Texas part of their group, just another conference with which they have a scheduling arrangement. In all likelihood, the conference schedule would be to play all teams in the division and then one crossover game. In other words, all of the fun cultural oddities that get thrown out (A&M at Berkeley, Stanford at Texas Tech, Oklahoma at USC) would happen once every 16 years. Saying that is one conference is like saying that the Big Ten and ACC are the same conference in basketball because of the “Challenge”.
Make no mistake; this scenario suggests a very different view by the current conference members than the one you probably usually considered when you thought well of Texas going to the Pac-10 (Texas and A&M as 11 and 12). It says that the Pac-10 has no intention of setting up a conference wide CIC-like system or affiliating with them more than the absolute minimum. Texas will be joining on the same footing academically as Oklahoma State.
LikeLike
exactly. the picture is really beginning to focus.
very deep thank you to you and the others who are seeing this situation for what it is.
it’s not too late to matter.
LikeLike
another thing. if texas is agreeable to this situation, then i have to accept the awful truth that texas doesn’t really want to be big time.
hard moment for me. end to a long lifetime dream.
LikeLike
Re Pac 16 (M)
The 6 teams rumored to be invited seem clearly to be Texas choices due to their desire to play regional teams rather than be a geographical boundary school with long travel distances.
Having 2 AZ schools as part of the division might well be seen as a plus from a Texas perspective.
Would the Pac 10 really be including Tech, OSU and perhaps Oklahoma if this wasn’t to create a Texas package?
Meanwhile the money is potentially much better and the teams secure their future.
LikeLike
For what is is worth – I don’t think a CIC type consortium with all conference members would ever be in the cards for the Pac – Stanford doesn’t like sharing much academically….even if it was just UT and aTm coming.
LikeLike
To expand – research is admittedly not my strength but I am sure there is some sort of collaboration that goes on between memeber universities for projects – but I don’t know where to find any type of verification of that.
LikeLike
bingo. bingo. bingo.
nail, meet thy hammer and nicely.
LikeLike
this is not the opening act of this tragedy. texas politics has forever been a hurdle of mountainous proportion. i think ultimately the state of texas has no real desire to be remarkable except in very pedestrian ways.
pity if true, but we way be forced to accept that.
what you say about the pac situation regarding every man for himself is patently obvious, as you say, from the plight of the az schools in particular. if texas, the state, forces texas, the school, into this situation, i think we can assume the final act is underway and the tragedy is complete.
LikeLike
except, of course, the curtain call of this play is the opening bow of our children’s play.
LikeLike
Let me clarify my academics answer.
Is this the best answer, academically speaking? No, the Big 10 would be.
Given the realities of balancing academic, athletic, political, geographic and cultural factors in realignment decisions, is this a good, acceptable solution from an academic perspective? Absolutely.
Could Texas fare far worse academically as a result of realignment? Absolutely.
LikeLike
“. . . is this a good, acceptable solution from an academic perspective?”
oh, certainly. we could be no worse off than we are now, which isn’t too bad. and we can forget about being a big time heavy hitter in the world of research, etc. it will blow away like a west texas tumbleweed.
LikeLike
And clarifying further:
Given the existence of the “Tech Problem,” Texas has still managed to wrangle an invite from one of the two conferences which is athletically compatible and which would offer an academic upgrade. And that’s one more invite than I would have suspected if I had known the Tech Problem were reality.
LikeLike
hop, i don’t think you are listening to the people who say it is absolutely NOT an academic upgrade.
you clearly don’t believe that.
if things go as badly as i think they are headed, i hope in your old age, you have to explain your reasoning to people who are having to deal with the results of it.
LikeLike
adding again and again
LikeLike
The division names are easy: “Surf” and “Turf”.
Also, the best quote about everything: “Beware, Pac-10. You’re not only getting Ellie Mae, but all of the Clampetts.”
LikeLike
M,
this is a good thing..
Jed.. wealthy, folksy, common sense
Granny.. wealthy, tough, no fear
Jethro.. wealthy, strong, (okay, but 2 out of three ain’t bad)
LikeLike
I get Jed is Texas, Jethro is Oklahoma, and Boone Pickens is Mr Drysdale. But who is Ellie May?
LikeLike
Who has the most critters?
Ellie Mae was one tough little gal. I could see here shoving a goalpost into the stands at Lubbock.
LikeLike
loki,
A&M is miss hathaway
smart and underappreciated
LikeLike
I think the idea was that Ellie Mae was Texas, carrying on the constant dating metaphor. I totally agree with Jethro as Oklahoma though.
LikeLike
I think Jethro would be Texas Tech. Remember, Jethro was the silly nephew who was just along for the ride.
FWIW – Ellie Mae (Donna Dixon) is from Baton Rouge.
LikeLike
Opps – I meant to write Donna Douglas.
LikeLike
Jed – TX – the foundation, everyone is riding on his oil
Granny – OU – scrappy, tough, schemer
Ellie May – TT – not considered bright, yet wily and effective at usually getting her way
Jethro – aTm – big and dumb underachiever, wasting his opportunities and resources, lots of harebrain ideas that go nowhere via ineptitude. “Hey, we could go to the SEC, never play TU again, and be national champions! McNeese and Arkie State are great ways to pad our schedule on the way to a perfect season! Join with TU in a cable network? That’ll never be progfitable, watch it sink the Big Ten!”
Their hound dog – OK St – quiet, slow, and just along for the ride
Miss Hathaway – UH – smart, but will never be given the chance, always the bridesmaid, never the bride (except to be accurate Miss Hathaway would have been an endless trashtalker with a Napoleon Complex)
Mr. Drysdale – Big Ten – “Oh, come here, let me show you a great way to become rich! Just give me access to all your wealth and assets…”
Anyone remember Saturday Night Live’s (back when it was funny) “The Bel-Arabs” sketch? Their, um, painting of the statues by the cement pond?
LikeLike
Playoff’s
The Bel – Arabs..
a great sketch indeed!!
LikeLike
The division names are easy: “Surf” and “Turf”.
Perfect!
LikeLike
big important question for me is:
does the pac conference have some sort of academic/research consortium or is it every man for himself as i’ve always assumed?
LikeLike
No. Only the Big Ten has a research consortium. Not even the Ivy League has one. The ACC does have some collaboration, but it’s only for international studies. The Big 12 has some program where you can take some select Kansas State classes, for example, if you’re a student at another B12 school.
LikeLike
thank you. as i’ve said, that been my expectation.
the guy above who mentioned the pac consortium as an incentive to save his school–i mean, help texas decide to go west–can shut up now.
LikeLike
actually I believe the SEC has actually started up some type of consortium. it is in its infancy. good for them.
LikeLike
No one has mentioned that idea floating in some news articles and blogs that Texas would really like to stay in the big 12 as it currently exists but create their own network. However, it seems Nebraska (and OU & A&M) don’t want Texas to have its own network. In short, the view is that it is all about Nebraska. If they commit to the big 12 then Texas will stay; if they leave then Texas will take the SWC with them to the Pac-10.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100604/SPORTS/706049816/0
http://www.newsok.com/is-nebraska-on-the-clock/article/3466077
LikeLike
That’s a good point but in reality, the Big 12 is done once Texas commits to the Pac-10 or Big Ten.
A) Texas commits to the Pac-10 ultimate offer. Delany invites Nebraska the next day. Nebraska isn’t going to say no regardless of whether they commit. Big 12 implodes because everyone has to take the Pac-10 ultimate scenario if Big Ten wasn’t willing to make a comparable offer.
B) Texas commits to the Big Ten. Big Ten invites Texas + 5. Big 12 implodes.
There really aren’t that many scenarios. At this point the Big Ten is waiting to see if it can grab Texas. If not, then it will likely put into plan a backup scenario to get to 16 (probably involving a lot of poaching from the ACC in tandem with the SEC raiding the ACC).
LikeLike
What Minneapolis Husker is suggesting is that Texas doesn’t want to give up on the Big12 unless it is absolutely clear that Nebraska is leaving.
I don’t think there’s any chance Texas commits to the Pac-10 offer unless they believe Nebraska is already gone.
LikeLike
this whole situation seems to center on two schools: texas and nebraska. and i think what you are saying is key.
the nebraska/tech to the big ten quandary is fundamental for me. my take on the big ten is that they would never take nebraska in the first place but would move more toward the composition frank’s ‘leak’ proposed in his previous blog post. now, if, indeed, the big ten would agree to tech instead of nebraska, that poses for me the task to accept that the big ten would take a flyer on a tech. that said, a previous poster indicates that bringing along a promising prospect is a recurring theme in the big ten and might not be out of the question.
LikeLike
It seems that many are still missing the fact that the admittance of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State requires unanimous support from Pac-10 members. People seem to think the “Pac-10 offer” is a done deal.
What are the chances of it happpening?
LikeLike
excellent if they can sell stanford and cal on this division concept. they partition all the interlopers, including the two that stanford didn’t want thirty years ago, in a big ol’ virus vault to the east.
LikeLike
Times have changed from 30 years ago….and I don’t think (just my guess) Cal needs any convincing.
Not saying its a lock to happen – just trying to point out that its not a lock that it can’t happen either.
LikeLike
can anyone offer other alternatives to “solve” the unanimity problem? maybe it was in other threads and maybe discussed at length. What about dissolving the Pac-10 as a legal entity and reinstating it as a 16 school conference? Are there six schools (of the current 10) that would vote for dissolution in order to get the BXII South?
LikeLike
Arizona and Arizona State got in the Pac 8 over Stanford and Cal’s objections because USC and UCLA told them they were leaving the Pac 8 if they NorCal schools didn’t vote yes. One supposes that USC could pull something like that again.
LikeLike
thanks for the short history of it; had not known that.
and I agree: that could work again and is essentially the idea of six teams threatening to dissolve the Pac-10’s corporate status.
LikeLike
I don’t think this is a done deal at all. I think this is a proposal that was floated and got leaked to send a warning shot across the bow of the Cornhuskers. (Like they’d care what the rest of the B12 did after they left.)
I think more schools than Stanford might have a problem with this. I think the Pac 10 is just considering this, not proposing it. However, I think that if 9 schools can be convinced this is a good idea, then Stanford is not going to be a problem.
LikeLike
Whoops. Never mind. At least for now, according to LA Times columnist Chris Dufresne. And, apparently being smarter than the rest of us, he seems to have been able to reach this conclusion without having to do any reporting:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0605-dufresne-pac-10-20100605,0,1917762,full.column
LikeLike
What other offer could be on the table?
Pac-10 scenarios are so few in number that it’s almost laughable to see their commissioner talk about them as if they have a lot of options here.
1) Stay at 10 (not happening).
2) Colorado/Utah or Colorado/Kansas (no one thinks this really does much other than CCG and some money).
3) Texas + 5 to go to 16 (on Texas’ terms as this ultimate offer is or on other terms, who knows).
They really don’t have that many options to go anywhere.
But yea, I don’t see it happening until Texas completely says no to the Big Ten and the Big Ten moves onto Nebraska and ACC schools completely.
Clearly, the Big Ten and Texas are still talking about whether there’s an enticing offer.
At this point though, Dodds may very well tell Delany that it has to be Texas/Tech/A&M/ND/Nebraska to be comparable to the Pac-10 offer, and the Big Ten presidents may be able to decide as early as the next week whether they’d be able to accept that.
So I do think things are a bit further along than he posits, just because this is all about whether the Big Ten can match the offer and if not, move on to other scenarios.
LikeLike
At this point though, Dodds may very well tell Delany that it has to be Texas/Tech/A&M/ND/Nebraska to be comparable to the Pac-10 offer
Not to antagonize the Huskers on this board, but in this scenario, I could see NU has being the “whatever” school — maybe it’s the school Texas would prefer, but it could be sacrificed (for JoePa’s eastern buddy?) if that’s what it took to get a deal done and all the parties involved were able to come to agreement on Texas, ND, Tech and A&M.
LikeLike
Oh certainly, I didn’t mean to make it sound as if Nebraska was required.
The 4 required by Texas would be Texas/A&M/Tech/ND as you’ve stated.
That would have to be in the Big Ten scenario to be comparable. I agree 100%.
I just think we’re going to get a lot more clarity on the “Tech problem” this weekend with the Big Ten presidents meeting.
That’s been the focus since April according to the Gee/Delany emails, we’ll see if the numbers are there sooner rather than later.
LikeLike
And it’s a good point that Nebraska may end up going by the wayside if Penn State demands an Eastern partner as part of the 4 required schools, so that’s very important if it ends up being like the ACC where there are 7 schools on board and Penn State ends up being the 8th. We could see Nebraska going by the wayside in that scenario.
LikeLike
I dont see how Nebraska goes to the wayside if Penn State demands an eastern partner, it all comes down to 8 votes in the Big Ten, even if Penn State votes nay they still can go with Nebraska.
If we decide to go east it will be for the television market. But who would really be a good rival for Penn State east anyways? (besides Pitt)
LikeLike
Maybe, but don’t forget that PSU President Graham Spanier used to be Nebraska’s Chancellor. Deep ties there.
LikeLike
illinifan, don’t look at who is strong athletically today as necessarily who will be strong tomorrow. not long ago everybody would have been worried about where florida state and miami end up.
LikeLike
That’s a good point Husker Al.
Count me as one of the people who thinks Nebraska will end up in the Big Ten no matter what happens, so I’m just floating alternatives even if I don’t think they’re likely at all.
For me, I think the Big Ten should just take Nebraska to 12 (and possibly Rutgers), but just wait for the ACC to get pillaged by the SEC…
LikeLike
First off dropping Nebraska for Rutgers or Syracuse is stupid (assuming Texas is gotten). And this coming from a guy whose spent the past couple months disparaging Nebraska and arguing for expansion east.
My problem with this type of thinking is TT is simply not a Big10 school and saying “we need to get Texas so lets add a bunch of Texas schools to get them to come along” is falling into the same trap the Big8 fell for and the Pac is getting close to doing.
I mean do people realize that adding Rutgers and Syracuse alone adds more population footprint (albeit not by much) than the entire state of Texas without requiring the addition of a Tier 3 school, “accommodations” for adding any single school, or have zero chance for altering the direction the Big10 schools see themselves going in? I mean technically if you have to add T, TAMU, & TT to get 28M or Rutgers/Cuse to get 29M the per school population footprint addition is higher for the eastern schools.
Are either (or both combined) the equal to Texas. No. But when Texas+Baggage (mind you I don’t consider T+TAMU baggage) starts happening I’m more than happy to continue building the Big10 brand in ways that don’t potentially harm it, even if the talking heads on ESPN etc are going to be calling the Big10 expansion a joke compared to what the Pac pulled off.
Fair enough (I guess), but we’ll just have to console ourselves with being the best top to bottom conference academically, great athletically (with potentially 4, 25% of the conference, all time winningest football programs), with plenty of population base/regional diversity to ensure stability and growth for each member school.
LikeLike
PSUGuy,
Not to nitpick but that coference could have THE top 6 winningest football programs of all time.
1) Michigan – 877
2) Texas – 845
3) Notre Dame – 837
4) Nebraska – 827
5) Ohio State – 819
6) Penn State – 811
Also the only 6 schools over 800 wins in football. Oklahoma is 7th right now at 799.
LikeLike
@Patrick
My post was geared toward the Big6 going to the Pac10 and thus Big10 not getting Texas (and I just throw ND out as general rule until I actually see it).
Still, even without those schools thanks for the point. The Big10 doesn’t need to invite the likes of TT to try and woo a top notch program.
If they want to be with the best, great come on along. If not, we truly do wish them the best.
LikeLike
Hopkins — Does Texas really want to leave?
I mean I understand that Texas is the key as they are the most attractive team for another conference to go after. But If Texas could have their LSN and stay in the current Big 12 would they really prefer to go to a Pac 10 with 16 teams or even a Big 10 with 14/16 teams?
If the answer is that Texas would prefer being in the Big 12 with it’s own network then I think Nebraska is the key.
LikeLike
Hopkins, I can see where you are coming from with that scenario, but I think Nebraska does have *some* political clout here. Their chancellor is Harvey Perlman, chair of the DI Board of Directors and of the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee.
I don’t have any inside knowledge, but I’m sure he’s working hard behind the scenes to secure a spot in the B10.
LikeLike
I continue to find it amusing that the Texas fans on here oppose the idea that the B12 is dominated by UT, but then every scenario about UT joining a conference comes with appeasing UT. Why can’t the Longhorns just join a conference by themselves?
LikeLike
I don’t think the Texas fans really, sincerely oppose the idea that the B12 is dominated by UT. They can’t understand why anyone would have some objection to something that to them is the natural order of things. Golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules. So they attempt to push every situation to their real or imagined advantage, even one such as the Big Ten, whose payout system should indicate to Texas that inequitable treatment and favoritism aren’t going to happen. They’re so smitten with the image they’ve built of themselves that they’re sure everyone will eventually buckle and extend exceptional treatment to them.
And who knows? They might be right.
LikeLike
Another way of looking at the “Tech Problem” if you’re the Big 10 or Pac 10/
(“Tech Problem” shorthand for the assumption that Texas has concluded that it can only move in conjunction with Tech.)
Don’t think of it so much as lowering academic standards as it is taking one for the team.
Because, if the Pac 10 didn’t take Tech, and the Big 10 didn’t take Tech, we know who would.
And that would be the worst result of all for both conferences.
LikeLike
very, very good point.
and if tech is genuine in its desire to improve to ‘big ten good’, ultimately this could be a huge bonus for the state of texas.
LikeLike
@Hopkins Horn – Excellent point. I don’t think Jim Delany is giving up on Texas, but if the Pac-10 grants this proposal, then that’s ultimately another conference that is simply rising up to the level of where the Big Ten and SEC are now. The SEC grabbing Texas, though, would be an epic failure for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Yeah, I agree.
As long as Texas joins the Big Ten or Pac-10, I don’t really think Delany will care too much.
Sure it’d be great to have Texas in the Big Ten, but I don’t think the Big Ten universities are ready to sign onto Tech in the CIC (who knows how UChicago feels about all of this even though they don’t get a vote).
But yeah, we all know that the SEC has already made a Texas/A&M/Tech/OU offer that would be the final backup plan if neither the Pac-10 or Big Ten take Tech, so you’re right on…
LikeLike
in fact, i’d suggest that the P10 offer (assuming it’s real) may actually make it easier for the B10 Presidents to say “no” to TexTech. That is, Texas et. al., to the P10 is okay for the B10 and, under that scenario, there is NO pressure to compromise the academic standards and take Tech.
LikeLike
But mostly, it would also be the worst outcome for UT as an institution.
Easy solution — just merge TT into UT, it can be the west campus and start rooting for the Longhorns.
LikeLike
hook up, horns?
LikeLike
that would be better than “guns ’em, horns”, i guess.
LikeLike
In some ways, the Big 10 is a little relieved that the PAC 10 is willing to accept Texas Tech because that eliminates the SEC from the equation.
LikeLike
More from the e-mail paper trail. This time, courtesy of the Dallas Morning News. e-mails involve Tx Tech, and Osborne & Tressel.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/060510dnspotechlede.1cffc16.html
LikeLike
I can’t help but feel that a couple other newsrooms heard about the Columbus Dispatch request that netted the original Gee/Delaney emails and were like “We can do that?”
LikeLike
Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne sent university chancellor Harvey Perlman a request through e-mail, also obtained through an open records request, on April 20 that stated: “I spent some time with Jim Tressel from Ohio State yesterday and think it would be a good idea if we met sometime soon regarding the expansion landscape.”
Same date as OSU’s Gee’s email to Delany re: TX’s ‘Tech Problem.’
Didn’t Delany’s “We’re still going to take 12-18 months” statement come out about that time?
Might be a good idea to revisit what was taking place in mid-April.
LikeLike
Good catch, PN. I believe, Wednesday April 21st was when Delany said that the timetable would remain the 12-18 months. I did a quick search and found the following from Tom Shatel’s (OWH) blog.
————————————————
Also, Big Ten Commish Jim Delany broke his vow of silence on Wednesday — to say absolutely nothing has changed. The Big Ten is on the same schedule it always was. But Delany managed to lob something out there for Notre Dame to chew on. By saying you don’t expand for just one team, you think about 20-25 years down the road, Delany was essentially reminding ND to think about what the landscape of college sports will look like in 20 years. And will the Irish be left holding the bag?
————————————————
http://tinyurl.com/23a9yuy
I probably could find a news article with specific quotes, but all the articles I initially selected on Google News were taken down. I just finished a round of golf, and I’m too tired to continue searching.
LikeLike
Tressel was out to Nebraska a few weeks back. From my understanding, he was out there to give a speech.
I have to imagine he took in the sights of the university. Plus him being a Christian like Osborne, I would have to imagine him and Osborne had a chance to talk about many things pertaining to coaching, football and life in general. Tressel could also give insight in how the Big Ten operates. Tressel was AD & head coach at Youngstown State prior to coming to Ohio State.
LikeLike
The 2 big “leaks” in all the talks gave been that Neb, mizzou, and Rutgers were told to apply to the Big 10 and the Big 12 South-BU CU to Pac-10 rumor. I think they both have strong legs and might be related. Things were not moving along at a good pace on the first rumor due to uncertainty on the future of the Big 12, so the 2nd one seems to give that initial rumor a kick in the pants to move forward.
The big 10 faces possible massive egg on face if they appear or actually fail to get something out of all the expansion. They can get these 2 now, prob have been doing some begging re: Franks last post on going after ACC/SEC schools, but prob will need to settle on 14 or take 2 more Big East schools for 16. I don’t see enough seismic shift yet for ND to be in the fold.
fwiw, as a Colorado guy, I loved the idea of CU 1 to the Pac-10, and despise the new proposal. I now find myself hoping CU somehow turns it down. Though I still maintain ultimately that the 6 rumored to Pac-10 will ulimately not happen anyway, which could again change everying. At that point we should begin talks with Fox and ESPN on a Frank The Tank Conference and simply take over this whole mess, should be a live of cake, right?!
LikeLike
guido, you guys better hope to hell that the pac schools can’t find a grouping of 16. if they do, you should turn and run.
LikeLike
Yeah, the most interesting thing about this new proposal is that it’s exactly what Colorado doesn’t want.
Colorado ends up going to the Pac-10, only to be stuck in division play with a new Southwest Conference… as opposed to playing on the pacific coast as they’ve long dreamed…
LikeLike
But what if this all blows up in Texas’ face? Say that the Pac10/Big10 is not willing to invite everyone the Texas legislature demands and Texas is stuck holding the bag when/if CU and Nebraska leave?
LikeLike
oh, the entire state of texas could end up sitting on its dick.
LikeLike
i can see kent hance being the toast of west texas in two very diametrically opposed scenarios:
1) big ten accepts the texas problem and ultimately texas has three very good schools come out of this.
2) texas, the state, is left holding the bag, but texas, the school, gets royally fucked.
either way, he never has to buy a beer the rest of his life.
LikeLike
I don’t think it will totally blow up in Texas’ face since either the Pac or the Big would easily take Texas alone. The most likely “blow up” would be that Texas fails to capitalize on its “high point” status and must live with being a geographical outlier in either of those two conferences.
LikeLike
But we’re not sure if Texas politics would let them go alone. Texas might miss its window and end up king of a reformed B12 without some of the current major players. That could hurt UT, especially if the new B12 comes to look a lot like the old SWC.
LikeLike
They’d fill in with some replacements and start some kind of Big 12 TV network. Might have to actually come to agreements with other schools on sharing proceeds more than they envision with the LSN, but it’s certainly doable.
LikeLike
That’s under the scenario proposed above, plus Texas politicos not budging.
LikeLike
Doable but the B12 would be a greatly dimished conference. Texas is a star in the ski but the other galaxies (confrences) would out shine even one with Texas in it. this texas school tyein is a anchor tied to texas. Tech should go to the MWC, and A&M should lobby hard to go to the Pac 10. What I really dont understand is why texans want to recreat the SWC? Regional diversity in a confrence is a big plus.
LikeLike
@ Zeek – Yeah – I’ve mentioned this a couple of times but CU’s worst nightmare is a SW division that keeps them out of CA annually.
CU best bet is that this rumor of 6 isn’t true or gets shot down somewhere before the signiture stage. Then they can get the invite w/ one of either Utah or KS which would be an acceptable travel partner as well I think (vs TT).
LikeLike
On the other hand, this is what may push TX into a faster decsion as well. IF TX shoots down the 6 team proposal, IMO – the Pac is still moving forward with a Plan B type scenario I posted up earlier to Hopkins.
It wont move to 16 and will always have room for a TX/aTm pair, but if Utah or KS is already in then that kills a TT or OkSt spot – taking away all of TX legislatively (allegedly) required teams. TX may not care about OkSt but they care about OU as a conference game (who is tied to OkSt) and they are suppossedly tied to their “Tech problem.” If they don’t move now but fancy a move to the Pac later – then they lose something they want (OU/aTm/TT to SEC) with them.
Of course the Pac can decide to wait – but they cant wait too long with TV negotiations around the corner.
LikeLike
…piece of cake…iPhone typing not my strength.
LikeLike
I don’t believe the Big Ten will move ahead with expansion unless they have two of the ‘big three’ secured. (Texas, Notre Dame or Nebraska). If they can’t nail down two of those three, expansion is clearly not it their best interest.
Right now they have a clear $ advantage over the other conferences because of the BTNetwork. They can’t afford to rock the Big 12 boat by taking just Nebraska-only to create a P16 FrankenFootball Network in the west.
LikeLike
I’ve said since the beginning they only need 1 out of those three for a 5 team expansion to work.
Maintain a 25% rate of “big time” programs in the conference maintains its national relevance while not creating a top heavy league. Getting 2 of 3 I think would work well since it guarantees one major program per pod / 2 per divisions, but going above that (in a 16 team conference) and I start to wonder if you don’t start to hurt your marquee football brands by forcing the to take losses during the season by playing a much tougher schedule.
Even more than that, too top heavy a league hurts the Indiana’s of the world since they will never have a shot at a bowl game. While some might say “so what”, but last I heard part of the SEC’s supposed greatness lies in the belief it is, top to bottom, very good.
LikeLike
I agree that having some degree of parity is important for the well-being of the conference. I do, however, think it would be nice to have at least three ‘perennials’ in each 8 school division.
My fear is that the Big Ten is going to lose a lot of ground to the other Mega-conferences in recruiting if they go east instead of southwest.
LikeLike
Top to bottom good you say? That may even be true but the point is mute if one of these cant win the confrence every decade, and they don’t. Vandy, Kentucky, Miss, Miss St. At least Northwestern has won or shared the conference tile 3 times in the last 12 years. NU is the toughest place to win as a coach in the BT.The situation is so dismal in the SEC for a bottom third team to rise upp and win. I must think if it can be done at NW, it can be done at Indiana. The academic requirments are not as high and it is the states flagship university.
LikeLike
with respect, completely disagree that the B10 would fear some sort of P16 “FrankenFootball” network. The “Rose Bowl Conferences” are very chummy and this P16 Network would dovetail very very very nicely with the B10 Network providing a national product over every time zone in the lower 48. Combine or align them for negotiation and both are on the basic tier of every cable provider.
LikeLike
If your “IF” is true I would agree. Better get on the phone with Murdoch and make it happen!
LikeLike
in fact, i’d add the following: if taking Neb was all that was necessary to move Texas et. al. to the P16, Delaney would do it in a heartbeat.
Delaney and the B10 Presidents are thinking really long term here. If you think 2-3 years down the road about cable network alliances, Texas to the Pac-10 is almost as good as Texas to the B10 (and the latter is a better geographical fit). The B10 Network gets the content without the geographical misfit.
LikeLike
gosh dernit! not the “latter” but the former.
LikeLike
To Mid Westerners the state of Texas is somewhere kida southern somewhere in the southwest. you never take them out of either catagory. If you have ever been to Austin though , i doubt there would be another campus or town south of the mason dixin that would feel as comfortable to Midwesterners as Austin. Austin feels like Madison only with Cali type sun and texmex food.
LikeLike
very interesting; i’ll have to make sure I visit Austin sometime.
LikeLike
…fingers crossed that only Texas Tech and Oklahoma State accept the offer… fingers crossed that only Texas Tech and Oklahoma State accept the offer…
LikeLike
One corollary that I haven’t seen mentioned (although admittedly I haven’t read through every single comment) is that I think this type of Pac 10-Big 12 merger may also take Notre Dame off the table as well.
Because now, even if the Big 10 tries to employ the raid-the-Big-East strategy to force Notre Dame’s hand, the Big East can just backfill whoever it loses with the leftover Big 12 schools.
For example, if the Big 10 invites, say, three of the Big East schools like Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt and then also brings in Nebraska, the Big East just pulls in Missouri, Kansas and K-State as replacements. And at that point, you could probably even argue that the Big East just got better at basketball and some of the minor sports, which is all Notre Dame really cares about.
I guess what I’m saying is the Big 10 better be very careful about letting Texas go in this type of scenario, unless they’re completely comfortable with an expansion that doesn’t include either Texas or Notre Dame (which they very well may be).
LikeLike
I doubt that takes Notre Dame out of play. The SEC is still a player in this game. If the Pac 10 becomes Surf and Turf and there remains a prospect of Big Ten expansion the SEC will need to move. The loss of Texas as an eventual alternative will only accelerate that. They would possibly look at the Big 12 left behinds as well. But more importantly the ACC becomes a prime target for them. And that would have a knock on effect that could severely damage the Big East. In an SEC raid on the ACC the ACC would likely be able to retain the core ACC baskeball oriented schools. In that scenario the ACC would probably have a lot of interest in the Big East basketball first two sport schools like UConn, Syracuse and Pitt (I know I’m forgetting someone). Kansas would also be a possibility.
The Pac 16 scenario would make 3 16 team conferences (at least) inevitable. That would put Notre Dame in play.
LikeLike
IMHO, B10 expansion NOT dependent upon — or necessarily even needs — ND.
LikeLike
sorry, clicked too soon:
adding: In fact, if you think B16 Network and P16 Network combine or agree to cross-carry each other’s “product,” ND’s “value” might end up “included” almost by default. That is, ND plays 3 B10 and 3 P10 teams a year. Find a way to get those off of NBC and on to the P16/B16 network, you end up with some of the ratings without ND having to be in either conference.
LikeLike
Interesting commentary this morning from Omaha World-Herald’s Tom Shatel on the Texas-Nebraska expansion dynamic and why TX would prefer to stay in an intact BXII with Nebraska.
Highlights:
“Texas can only have the total package — its own network, king status and double the revenue projected in a new Fox Sports Big 12 deal next year — in the Big 12.
And here’s the kicker: The Fox money — which some estimate could make each Big 12 school up to $15 million to $17 million annually — probably depends on Nebraska being part of the package.
So, to maximize all things Texas, the Horns need Nebraska to stay in the Big 12. How’s that for irony?
That’s not to say that Texas wouldn’t bolt for the left coast (Question: Are Texas A&M and TTech required to go with them?). Or, that Texas wouldn’t try to make a 10-team Big 12 work. It may be that Dan Beebe’s house of cards collapses anyway. An NU commitment to the Big 12 could delay that. You can bet that’s what UT wants.
What’s Nebraska to do? Hope that Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany picks up the bat phone soon, and remain “committed” to the Big 12 with the understanding that NU could pull a Josh Freeman if and when the time comes.
Maybe Osborne should give the beach boys a call. You never know. The Huskers have a farmer’s tan, but their TV profile is still attractive to any league.
Just don’t be bluffed in this intense poker game. Texas wants the Big 12 to work, and it wants NU in.”
That’s my theory, and I’m sticking to it
LikeLike
With the student loan bubble inevitably bursting in the next few years and cash-strapped state governments cutting back on subsidies to higher education, every Big State U is going to become a “private” whether they call themselves that or not. And private colleges and universities thrive not on the success of their athletic programs, but on the perception that their reputation will doors to career opportunities that are closed to alums of “lesser” colleges. So give me Vandy, give me Pitt, give me UVa, Maryland, and Rutgers. But do not, under any circumstances (cough, Texas Tech, cough), dilute the B10 academic brand for the sake of 12 football Saturdays a year.
/snobbery
/snobbery
LikeLike
CJR, really good points, but you will be a voice in the wilderness on this blog. First, there is the belief that the financial returns from the BTN will increase at an increasing rate with each additional member for years and years (this is why a Big 20 is discussed; I think I read about a Big 32 today). Second, beginning with Frank, the consensus of this blog is that the fiscal problems encountered by the state governments tied to most Big Ten schools are a temporary blip, not any different than the fiscal problems encountered by any states in any other region. Finally, and most incredibly, while the Big Ten schools have enormous undergraduate populations, the posters on this blog believe that the reputation of your “school” is based on publication citation indices and graduate doctoral placement. The next concern posted about the dilemma (in the truest meaning of the word) facing the Big Ten and their undergraduate strategy will be the first. The dilemma is: as a school is forced to become “private” then the quality of undergraduate placement becomes increasingly paramount, yet the Big Ten schools (except for Northwestern) already have enormous undergraduate populations. As state appropriations continue to decline, how can a school — IU for example, expand its undergraduate admission from 7200 to 8000 per year in order to cover current state appropriation shortfalls while simultaneously increasing selectivity, financial aid, metrics of undergraduate quality (median ACT and SAT scores)and the quality of every undergraduate placed after graduation? It is a dilemma. One that represents a long-term trend — and one that is not addressed by adding Rutgers, Maryland or Nebraska.
LikeLike
There’s always the solution to the ‘Tech Problem’ of TX goes to the B16 and aTm and OU get to go to the SEC, but they have to take TT with them.
However that makes TX a lone outpost, so I don’t think they’ll go that route.
LikeLike
I seriously doubt the SEC would take Tx Tech if UTx wasn’t part of the deal. The SEC’s preference is not to expand at all, but they aren’t going to let that preference get in the way of a good deal. I’m sure the SEC would welcome OU and A&M, and if 16 was the magic number, the SEC would look East (FSU, Miami, VA Tech, Clemson, GA Tech)
LikeLike
Then the SEC might not get any of TX, aTm, and OU. And I am having increasingly strong doubts that no one other than the B10+ could steal ACC teams, and maybe not even them.
LikeLike
UT getting 2/3 of the Permanent University Fund to A&M’s 1/3, and the governor for life being an Aggie, I’d say that taking care of Tech will be UT’s problem. However, I think the only two scenarios where A&M goes to the SEC are:
1. Pac 10 offer is accepted by UT and at least several others (Tech included), with the Big 10 going to 16 somehow, and the SEC deciding it must respond; or,
2. Big 10 taking Vanderbilt and creating an opening in the SEC.
LikeLike
Agreed Alan.
I see it exactly as you do.
Texas/A&M/Tech/OU
or
A&M/OU/FSU/Clemson (or VA Tech in place of Clemson if new markets more important).
The SEC and Big Ten are not desperate.
Neither needs Texas to go to 16. Only the Pac-10 has to have Texas as a requirement to go to 16.
LikeLike
Actually I think the SEC would take TAMU, OK ,TT in a heart beat, even without Texas, as it provides solid football (both product and markets) and allows current SEC schools to come into Texas, beat up on the local teams (possibly), and create a system where Texas (the state) feeds recruits into Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, etc.
Besides, I still maintain the ACC is much less “getable” for the SEC than some think.
LikeLike
Pretty sure that the SEC would not take 3 western schools (and 1 eastern) under any circumstances, as it would split Auburn and Alabama. If they go 14, they want 1 west and 1 east. If 16, then 2 west and 2 east.
LikeLike
SEC has pretty much already floated a Texas/A&M/Tech + OU or FSU strategy.
That solves the tech problem, either 3 on the west or 4…
LikeLike
pn, the people behind the ‘tech problem’ know not to glue that school to anybody other than texas.
LikeLike
TX can always slam on the breaks, stay in the B12 a bit, and then split on their own terms without Tech when enough political capital is mustered. And there might not be an Aggie gov next year.
LikeLike
There will be an Aggie governor next year unless he’s caught in bed with a dead girl or a live boy.
LikeLike
Over 1000 comments in just over a day and a half. Crazy.
LikeLike
If the P16 idea goes through as proposed, then the SEC would probably grab an ACC team or two….would that not make the entire ACC in play? I feel like people are still focused on the Big East teams, when more teams like NC, MD, VA and maybe even Duke would become available. Not saying it will for sure happen, but I feel like this would make alot more teams available then are currently being discussed.
LikeLike
The baseline for Texas has been that they want the Big 12 to work… nothing new there and probably the truth.
And of course Nebraska has to be part of the B12 for it to work. Nothing new there either.
It is tiresome for Osborne in particular to keep playing the “poor us” card. Nebraska is doing just about as well as Texas under the current TV deal but moans because the other schools keep voting against NU, with the latest being anchoring football at Cowboys Stadium and basketball in KC. These are not unreasonable decisions (even though I’ve always been in favor of keeping these events on wheels). All this shows is that Osborne and NU care little about basketball. Also nothing new there.
So, I don’t see a lot of new ground being plowed by Shatel (farm analogy somewhat chosen). If Nebraska suddenly believes itself to be the linchpin of the B12, IMO, that’s only because it is thinking strongly of leaving.
I also find it hard to believe that Osborne’s views are going to be implemented any easier in the Big Ten than they have been in the B12. If Texas winds up there, because of its revenue and population base, the Longhorns will continue to have more pull, and Osborne will continue to seethe.
LikeLike
Per many of my comments above, the equation needs to start factoring in the chumminess of the “Rose Bowl Conferences.”
That chumminess leads to several thoughts.
First, consider the likelihood of cable network alliances. If the P10/16 starts it’s own network and if it makes an alliance with the B10 Network for negotiation purposes, both would easily get on the basic tier of every cable/sat provider. Likewise, no need to fear a Longhorn Network (operating within the new P16) assuming it also aligns itself with the other networks for purposes of negotiating with the cable providers to get on the basic tier.
Second, the P10/B10 chumminess might obviate any need for ND to join since ND plays six games every year with the P10/B10. Find a way to get those games away from NBC (pay ND more $) and maybe the “value” of ND as a brand can be added without the school having to be added as a conference member.
Third, this chumminess and probable network alliances moderates the importance of markets and demographics (or at least provides from division of labor between the B10 and the P10. P10 picks up the Texas/Southwest; B10 goes for name brands (NEB) and makes a play for NYC (or maybe DC area though I think adding MD and/or VA are just awful ideas).
LikeLike
I think a bigger problem for the Pac 10 is just the Rose Bowl. Under this scenario, the teams currently in the Pac 10 would be cutting their chances of going to the Rose Bowl almost in half. That’s a big deal on the West Coast. You could say, so what? The loser of the P16 championship would go to the Fiesta Bowl almost every year. But nobody on the West Coast wants to go to the Fiesta Bowl instead of the Rose Bowl.
LikeLike
I think the Pac 10/BigXIISouth-BU+CU ought tho throw the state of Arizona a bone (with proper papers of course) and have the conference championship game in Glendale every year. With the expected demise of the Big XII, the Fiesta Bowl would either be a free agent or home to the MWC conference champ, assuming the MWC gets AQ status.
That brings up an interesting point. Do Kansas, K-State, Iowa State and Baylor go to the MWC, or does the MWC+Boise go to the remnants of the Big XII? Its a 14 team probable AQ conference either way.
LikeLike
I would have no real problem with AZ getting Pac CCG. Northwest schools and JerryWorld may have a problem with it though…
LikeLike
Pac16 CG in Glendale.
Winner goes to the Rose.
Cotton (Jerryworld) gets the 1st pick from the Pac16, after the BCS. The Cotton also has the SEC 2, 3, or 4 pick after the BCS with a preference to the SEC West.
LikeLike
@Alan. Works for me
LikeLike
Too add to internal conference concessions…any scenario that plays out to 16 teams and the AZ schools need to shift away – they should ask for monetary compensation as well. Pac uses an uneven distribution of conference dollars formula – so they should ask for extra % pts for a determined amount of time.
LikeLike
btw, there are many many worthy comments above, but i want to recommend everyone go up and read Duffman’s comments above (at 6:17 on June 5) about RESEARCH ($ and research reputation) being preeminent to the B10 Presidents. very interesting thoughts that deserve reiteration.
LikeLike
I don’t disagree.
In fact of any school that has been discussed, the best fit by far is Maryland. Maryland has the ties to the federal government that the CIC needs.
I think the D.C. area is by far the most important other than Texas because the NYC market is too speculative.
Nebraska and Rutgers are the two most likely additions because of their levels of fit, but Maryland/Virginia/UNC is probably the best target group if our goal is to improve the CIC as much as the conference.
For all Delany’s comments about the Sun Belt, Washington D.C. is the center of the universe when it comes to research dollars.
If Maryland ever joins, we should try to get Johns Hopkins in as a CIC member; that would put the Big Ten light years ahead of every other grouping.
LikeLike
To anyone who would comment re: Johns Hopkins. I know UChicago was added as a former Big Ten member, but it’s really hard to not see the Big Ten at least inquire as to Johns Hopkins’ interest in the CIC if Maryland ends up in the Big Ten and CIC.
Obviously that would have to happen perhaps years later after integrating the additions from Big Ten expansion, but it’s still worth looking into…
LikeLike
I agree zeek, but I just don’t see any team other than MD as even a possibility. VA and VT went through too much too recently. UNC is a mini-Texas in that conference. With the ACC stability, I think it’ll want to stay.
LikeLike
Yeah I agree.
I think the ACC schools are going to be really hard for the Big Ten to crack and much harder for the SEC.
Clemson and FSU are in the ACC as much for the academic prestige of it as for the athletics, so they’re not givens for the SEC even though their athletics programs match.
I really hope the Big Ten makes a huge run at Maryland. As I said before, Washington D.C. is the CIC’s main target because that’s where the $ comes from. Having a closer relationship to the federal government and federal agencies is also a part of considering in expansion, hence Maryland and VA as a partner because I don’t see it going alone.
But you’re right that the ACC went through a lot just in the past 10 years, so it seems even less likely, and then considering their new contract less still.
But we can hope; for the CIC, Maryland would be the most splashy gain possible.
LikeLike
Maryland has a new strategic plan. Membership in the CIC with 12+ partners would certainly help their journey.
LikeLike
Brilliant!
Johns Hopkins University in 2008
Fedreral Research Grants $1,425,541,000
Total Research $1,680,927,000
Yes, those are Billions!
Others in question…
$1,051,797,000 Texas
$582,365,000 Texas A & M
$525,843,000 North Carolina
$522,136,000 Georgia Tech
$385,037,000 Maryland
$342,648,000 Nebraska
$323,404,000 Rutgers
$261,123,000 Colorado
$257,651,000 Virginia
$244,639,000 Missouri
$225,904,000 U Conn
$224,368,000 Iowa State
$215,364,000 Kansas
$192,070,000 Oklahoma
$137,543,000 Kansas State
$121,226,000 Oklahoma State
$97,171,000 Notre Dame
$57,902,000 Texas Tech
$38,455,000 Syracuse
LikeLike
Yeah, that might be a good way to get Maryland interested, you never really know.
And since Johns Hopkins isn’t a part of anything like the CIC (as far as I know), it would be interesting to see if Johns Hopkins wouldn’t mind being a non-sports member of the CIC as UChicago is.
Since Hopkins isn’t in the Ivy League like say UPenn, it might be interested in such a relationship.
And considering just how high powered Hopkins research programs are, it has to be somewhere on the minds of the Big Ten presidents.
I’m sure they’ve received solicitations before from non-DI, sports schools, even though we don’t hear about it.
LikeLike
Zeek
Totally agree with you about John Hopkins. Have thought about them for years. They would fit very well within the CIC. The key is Maryland. And Maryland has a long history with Penn State and they have thought of themselves as Red Headed step child in the ACC.
LikeLike
The most interesting thing about the idea aps is that Johns Hopkins situation is most similar to UChicago.
It’s in a small sports conference with small undergraduate peers, but it’s got massive graduate research programs that are the envy of pretty much any other school.
If it ends up in the footprint due to the addition of Maryland, it seems like it’d be such an obvious fit for the CIC just as UChicago.
LikeLike
For what it’s worth (probably not much) one of the ESPN polls right now is “Where should Texas go?”
http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/polls
(click Sportscenter on the left).
Some interesting points:
Overall national percentage-
Big XII-48%
Pac-10-10%
Big Ten-22%
SEC-14%
Indy-6%
States in favor of Big Ten:
Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota
States in favor of SEC:
Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana
States in favor of Pac-10:
Oregon, Washington
States most in favor of Big XII:
Kansas, Oklahoma
Results in Texas-
Big XII-58%
Pac-10-8%
Big Ten-9%
SEC-14%
Indy-10%
Again this is an open poll that anyone can vote in, but I like statistics.
LikeLike
The most interesting state other than Texas is Iowa to me due to the Iowa/Iowa State fanbases.
Note that Iowa’s percentages are 47% remain in Big 12 and 41% go to Big Ten. Of course there are a lot of Big Ten fans who probably don’t want Texas. Even in the Big Ten footprint, it’s only about 55% for the Big Ten, 40% to stay in Big 12.
LikeLike
But, it appears that the Big Ten is most receptive to Texas. See my stats below.
LikeLike
Most in favor of Texas moving to Big Ten:
Michigan – 58%
Ohio – 53%
Wisconsin – 52%
Indiana – 48%
Minnesota – 47%
Most in favor of Texas moving to Pac-10:
Oregon – 50%
Washington – 46%
Arizona – 35%
California – 32%
Nevada and Hawaii – 23%
Most in favor of Texas moving to SEC:
Louisiana – 48%
Alabama – 47%
Tennessee – 45%
Kentucky and Mississippi – 44%
LikeLike
One thing to consider here–
Any school committing to a putative 16-team conference isn’t committing for the long term. 16-team conferences are inherently unstable entities.
LikeLike
Says who?
Just because there was one conference, with smaller alumni bases, non-national football programs, limited regional appeal and no way to market non-marquee games and it failed then “obviously” a 16 team conference is inherently unstable and doomed to failure?
You create a collection of like minded universities, with common goals, and who actively work together on those goals and I’ll show you a collection that works well with 1, 5, or 500 members.
LikeLike
Of course it helps to have large numbers of alumni with strong athletic programs who dominate their markets.
LikeLike
16 teams would be the absolute worst for scheduling and cohesiveness. It would be the best only for money.
14 teams would still be large but workable. Money-Weise it would be a big improvement from 11as 14 teams would have more products to market and more viewership.
12 would be the best for scheduling and cohesiveness but not forward looking and not as lucrative as 14.
I won’t say what my choice is but the most reasonable is obvious. It causes less of a disruption to other conference if the BT is only pulling 2 from one and one team from another conference. At 12 or 14 I don’t really think the SEC has to expand for football sake and they do everything only for football sake. This means less dominos fall and the pac10 only has to look for two more. It could be that both the Big12 and the Big East survive with some tweaks.
LikeLike
I fail to see how 16 makes scheduling difficult, let alone impossible.
4×4 divisions. Each division plays the other division on a rotating basis.
3 games in own division. 4 games on other division.
7 conference, 4 OoC = 11 games total. Same as it is now.
Each school will play each other once every 3 years and have a home-and-away every 6. Schools in the same division will be the primary rivalry games and thus you’d play them every year and have home-and-away every two (just as they do now).
Any multiple of 4 actually makes this system work (built in ability to expand to 20 teams), but 16 is actually the perfect number as it allows for the exact same number conference/OoC games as currently allowed.
The only problems you’d have is with a ND where they play 3 Big10 rivals every year, but those rivals have other rivals (specifically it makes it hard to get ND, MSU, Purdue, Mich, and OSU in the same conference unless you move to 20).
At that point some things will have to change.
As for “cohesiveness”…I fail to see how a split conference where some teams never play each other (which is what would happen in a 14-16 team conference split down the middle) is any better.
LikeLike
“7 conference, 4 OoC = 11 games total. Same as it is now.”
There’s supposed to be 8 conference games (12 total). Which frees up a spot for a permanent out-of-division rival. When that rival is in the division, the the team would play a back-up school. This actually makes scheduling a 16-team conference all the easier.
14-teams are more difficult, but can still be done with 4 pods. You’d have two outlying pods of 4 teams each along with two inner pods of 3 teams each. The inner-pods would rotate every two years between the two outlying pods.
Hypothetically speaking, let’s go with a Nebraska, Rutgers, Noter Dame (unlikely scenario, but I’m just throwing it out there). The pods would be as follows:
East
——
Indiana
Purdue
Penn State
Rutgers
West
——
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Inner-pod A
——
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame
Inner-pod B
——
Illinois
Northwestern
Ohio State
Teams in the west and east pod will play 3 conference games against their own pod members, then 3 conference games against the Inner-pod they are paired with that year for a total of 6 conference games. The last two conference games would be played against two of the teams from the opposite 4-team pod and would rotate when the pods rotate. So Iowa would play Indiana and Penn State years 1 & 2, then play Purdue and Rutgers years 3 and 4. The inner-pods would play 6 conference games (2 in their own pod and 4 agains an east or west pod). As for the other two games, one would be reserved for a permanent rival in the other inner-pod, and the other would cycle between the remaining two teams. So Michigan would play Ohio State and Illinois years 1 & 2, then play Ohio State and Northwestern years 3 and 4.
The 14-team pod formula is a bit more complicated. With how the media keeps ramming permanent divisions down our throats, I doubt we’ll ever see a pod system in a 14-team or 16-team conference. We’ll just have to hope there are bright intelligent people in the Big Ten offices who think like we do. 🙂
LikeLike
You understand that what you’re describing is really more like four small conferences connected solely by a championship game rather than a unitary conference, right? “A conference” in which you play 3/4 of the teams once every 3 years isn’t much of a conference.
But the larger point is that by agreeing to be a member — especially a new member — of a conference jumping suddenly from 10 or 11 teams to 16, a team really isn’t, at least now, committing for the long haul. There’s absolutely no proof it will be sustainable, and some proof that it won’t be. And if that proves to be the case, more than one team will likely come to that conclusion down the road. In other words, teams will enter it knowing that they have a built-in “unworkable/unwieldy” out available to them should they later choose.
In sum, if the Big 10 were, for example, seeking Texas to be the 12th and final team, or the Pac-10 wanted Texas and another school to be numbers 11 and 12, I’d feel a whole lot better about the permanance of that sort of alignment than I would if they were 1 of 5 or 6 new members.
LikeLike
There’s an easier way to do a 14-team league – a zipper split (I mentioned this earlier, but it’s way up the thread). Divide into two 7-team divisions, purposely splitting each natural pair of teams. 6 games in division, 1 game against natural rival, 2 rotating games against other division. This preserves all rivalries and allows each team to play everyone in a 3-year cycle, while also being simple and predictable enough for the average fan to understand. It does require 9 conference games, but the Pac-10 currently plays 9 conf games anyway.
LikeLike
I agree completely with PSUGuy.
I think a 16 member Big Ten will be totally stable.
If you add Nebraska/Missouri/ND/Rutgers/Maryland for example.
What Big Ten school would leave after that addition? And where would they go?
Plus, the Big Ten is inherently more stable than any other conference due to the CIC. Once you integrate your school into the CIC, what would you possibly leave that for?
LikeLike
Domerx2, What is the basis of your belief for failure of 16 team conferences? Consider CIC, BTN, public ivies, huge alumni bases, are the glue that can hold them together.
LikeLike
It’s clearly time for someone to get off the pot. Wheteer thats Tx legislature, Texas, the BT, or the PC10 I am not sure but aside from the marketing numbers, I think all they need do is log on here and see that we have all rumated over it for them.
LikeLike
http://washingtonstate.scout.com/2/975025.html
“Wash ST Ad with some further comments on the expansion front:
WSU ATHLETIC DIRECTOR Bill Moos calls himself “ a traditionalist.” When CF.C recently asked Moos about expansion talks in the Pac-10, Moos made it clear that he did not believe “at first glance” that expansion was in the “best interest” of WSU or the Pac-10 as a whole. Mind you, Moos also said he could be swayed if expansion would produce “a heck of a lot” more money for Pac-10 schools.
That’s why, when Bill Moos was contacted at the Pac-10 meetings in San Francisco on Friday by CF.C, he said he’s now “all ears” when it comes to expansion.”
LikeLike
The Big Ten is inherently more stable than any conference period. The problem with playing in a 16 team football league that you don’t get around to playing all the conference members in a single year or two for that matter. How can you call that a college football league. This setup is for people who misconstrue college and pro sports. If were talking basketball maybe. Football presents an estrangement situation in a 16 team configuration.
Another thing, I also want to see the kids who left the state come home and play. And I am sure the expectations that they away fully expecting to come home two or three times with a red shirt.
LikeLike
The SEC, with 12 teams plays every team in its conference less than every year or two and they don’t seem to be having any issues with “cohesiveness”.
They actually cycle once every 3 years…and there is a system that’s been floated as providing the exact same play rate for 16 team conferences.
LikeLike
And as for the kids going away…well first off lets be honest, why the heck should any kid expect to play in front of mom and dad on a regular basis if they are leaving the state? I mean, isn’t that kind of the point?
In any case, with the proper set-up regional teams would be grouped together and play each other every year, while the rest of the conference would be rotating in and out of the region. Thus a school would have the ability to play most of its games in the region, but still get some national exposure through its conference schedule.
LikeLike
PSUguy,
The SEC is the SEC. I don’t know if anything is as important as football games in the SEC. I would not equate there reasoning with any other entity. I see no point in playing in a conference in which you did not play a good portion of it yearly. 16 teams is a deal breaking point in this argument.
About the kids going away. Maybe you are not familiar with such a situation on a personal basis. But I live in Evanston and have know of a few kids here there who maybe don’t want to away (out of state) to school but take solace in the fact that they will be playing in Ryan field ( 1 hour drive) 2 maybe 3 times during their college career. If they were recruited from the 3 – 4 county regent around Chicago it is the best and easiest opportunity for grandma and some local friends to see them play live. Imagine if they attended Penn State or Ohio State or Minnesota. City folk aren’t that big on driving.
LikeLike
Well at that point I’m at a loss and the only thing I can say is…tough.
While I understand the college conferences were set up as methods by which regional schools with similar athletic programs could compete, create rivalries, and profit off the events the simple fact is they have become more, and the Big10 is the primary example of that.
Through the CIC, BTN, and other conference related activities the Big10 has become a stabilizing force for Big10 schools and allows them to maintain the levels of academics/athletics it has always striven for despite whatever might happen to the traditional methods of funding their activities.
Is this a bit mercenary? Sure. But in the end, as a PSU grad I want PSU to thrive in any environment and I think creating methods that allow regional diversity will ensure that no matter what happens to my state of PA (living in exile, mores the pity) PSU will be a top notch academic/athletic institution for the rest of my life.
If that means I don’t get to play Minnesota (or even OSU/UoM every year) then so be it.
LikeLike
This thread is officially too big to keep track of, but here are a few thoughts relating to prior posts:
(1) Re: Hopkins/Peter Bean on UT taking its time, I think the threat of OU/A&M bolting for the SEC, if it’s legit, adds a sense of urgency for UT. Obviously any conference would take UT by itself, and probably even with Tech as a pair, at any time, but it would be a long-term loss for UT to end up as an extreme geographic outlier in the B10/P10/ACC (less of problem with SEC, but I can’t see that as a serious option academically). The ability to maintain longstanding rivalry ties and to minimize travel for all sports is important–if UT went West alone or with CU, every non-conference game would be in a different time zone–and even if UT made giant money as a B10/P10 outlier, an important part of its identity would be lost. I know that you could schedule OU/A&M in non-conference, but that eats up 2 of the 4 precious non-con slots every year.
(2) I am starting to think that those suggesting the B10 would be better off foregoing the Texas dream and looking east are right. The Pac-10 is in a better position to take on a Western academic outlier (Tech), and to the extent that the B10 cares at all about the P10’s financial future, the P10 really needs UT by any means necessary. The B10 has lots of good options – Rut/Neb/Mizz/Pitt are all quality academic/athletic schools that would accept an invite immediately, and there are even bigger fish (Md/UVa/UNC/Duke/GT) that could potentially be wooed down the road if needed. I think an endgame where the B16 and P16 are both academically robust athletic poewrhouses is better than a struggling P10 and a slightly strained B16 that is looking toward becoming an even more geographically-stretched B20 or B24.
(3) Can’t wait to hear Hopkins’ comments on the Johns Hopkins-to-CIC thread. Before long, we’ll be analyzing whether the Claremont colleges should expand to include Oberlin and Wooster.
LikeLike
Frank:
Would you be willing to start a new page? Not suggesting a new article, just a part II to this one.
LikeLike
It’d be another one time deal if it does happen.
Right now, the CIC is only open to Big Ten schools (and former Big Ten member UChicago of course).
But if a school as big in the research department as Hopkins would consider it, and if it would make Maryland more likely to bolt the ACC for the Big Ten, then it might be worth considering.
Obviously, it’d be another one time deal, and we’d never really cut a deal like that for anyone other than a university that has the stature of Hopkins in research.
It’s just an interesting scenario to consider. I tend to think that aiming at D.C. is as important as Texas for the research opportunities that could be there.
D.C. is where the $ are, and the universities in Maryland/Virginia tend to have an advantage in their relationships with federal agencies. That’s another wrinkle that hasn’t gotten a lot of play, but could outweigh the value of going after a speculative NYC market.
LikeLike
Zeek – Not meaning to denigrate your idea, as I agree that DC is a very important target for academic purposes. I just got a chuckle out of the fact that Hopkins Horn might find himself replying to threads about both Texas AND Johns Hopkins. 🙂
LikeLike
So, apparently, I get to be interviewed on a Houston radio station after 6 today as a “realignment expert”.
Not a turn of events I anticipated when the day began. 🙂
LikeLike
Grats. If the station has podcasts, be sure to throw up a link. 🙂
LikeLike
jd wahoo: IMO, OU and A&M going elsewhere (particularly A&M) makes it easier on Texas to take its time, not harder. Two reasons:
Breaking the bond between Texas and A&M probably also breaks it between Texas and Tech, so Texas can go alone.
That in turn, gives Texas some leverage with the B10, which probably wouldn’t want a three for one, but clearly wants Texas enough to at least think about it.
LikeLike
How about this as a thought experiment?
If the real goal of Big 10 expansion is to bring a new college football network alliance to the entire map of the US, what would be the best plan to put this in action?
Assumptions:
1. The heavy hitters in the Pac10, Big10 and BigXII are completely on board and looking to work together for a win-win-win scenario to bring major markets and available football powers together in a shared conference network alliance. In back rooms under the guidance of Fox they are not looking to cannibalize or conquer each other in any way.
2. The plan would proceed in such a way to provide political cover at the state level (the Tech problem), and the national level (eg., leaving Kansas and Kansas St. might add two senators to Orrin Hatch’s BCS-is-bad-and-must-be-stopped club).
3. The plan must improve, or at least, not diminish in any way the academic stature of the schools involved.
4. Expansion steps can be incremental, moving to 12, 14 or 16 teams, as the landscape clears the way.
So follow me on this on this hypothetical scenario:
Step 1: Given the current shaky status of the Big XII, the Pac10 invites Colorado and Utah (happy Mr. Hatch?). The Pac10 becomes the Pac12. The PTN is launched.
Step 2: Nebraska and the Big10 start flirting publicly. A very unseemly public display.
Step 3: In the midst of a media frenzy, the Big XII is pronounced dead. Ok… not really… A core group of important players are ready to regroup as the new Huge10 (everything is bigger in Texas of course). UT, TAMU, TT, OU, OSU, KU, KSU, NU, MU… and even ISU. They announce the new Huge Ten Network (HTN) will be implemented.
Step 4: The Big10 invites Rutgers and they accept. The seal is broken on the Big East.
Step 5: The Huge10 begins to court Georgia Tech, FSU and Miami for 2 open spots. Rumors fly that future targets could be Florida?!?! Georgia?!?!?
Step 6: Rumors circulate the Big10 may not be done. Candidates to go to 14 schools include: Vanderbilt, Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina (gasp!).
Step 7: Notre Dame publicly acknowledges negotiations have started for a new tv contract with the BTN/PTN/HTN alliance. They like their independence and plan to stay that way forever and ever amen.
See what I am doing here? Muah-ha-ha-ha.. devious huh?
But seriously this sets up the clash that more than anything has made me a certified expansion addict. I am dying to see how it plays out.
The SEC signed a lucrative deal with the ESPN universe, and now the ACC has hitched to the same wagon. Both deals lock the leagues up for a very long time. You can’t blame them. They feel safe, secure and are highly profitable. Expansion is not encouraged because you are likely to share the available revenue pie with more members. Renegotiation would only be likely if they can land a whale (i.e., Texas). The objective is to draw high national ratings with high-profile match-ups and to “own” and protect a regional market. Secondary offerings are on sports tiers or sent back to local control.
The BTN network model is a completely different animal. It is a beast that must be fed because advertising and carriage fees come back to the member schools. This creates an aggressive mindset, especially if allied with other conferences to provide expanded content and synergies under the Fox umbrella.
So here you have it. Above I have set up the confrontation at the ACC/SEC doorstep. The Big East is bleeding. Actual expansion has been very, very modest. You have the new Pac12, the Big10 has gone to 12, while hinting at 14 and the Huge10 is looking to become the Huger12, or the Hugest14.
How would you see it working out when the ACC and SEC were definitely threatened and decide to fight back?
LikeLike
This situation is actually a lot similar in the context of the “Tech problem”.
Texas wants to go to the Big Ten or Pac-10, but it might end up in the SEC if it can’t cut a deal with the Big Ten or Pac-10.
All three conferences want Texas badly. The Pac-10 knows it will never get to 16 without Texas. The Big Ten wants Texas because it’s the biggest addition, and the SEC wants Texas because it’s the best addition for markets.
The problem with your hypo is that the conferences are not working together.
This is “mostly” a zero sum game. Until an alliance of networks comes into play, which looks highly unlikely in the near term, expansion is a zero sum game.
The Big Ten wants to go to 14 or 16, as does the Pac-10. Both are looking at the best way to get there in the context of improving contracts with networks and the Big Ten network and hypothetical Pac-10 network.
The Big Ten will only consider an alliance with the Pac-10 and possibly the ACC.
I see the Pac-10 and ACC as being the natural partners to an attempt by the Big Ten to create a nationwide alliance.
That’s why the Big Ten would much rather see Texas end up in the Pac-10 (would remain in the Rose Bowl, etc.) than in the SEC.
LikeLike
I meant to say more simple, not similar…
LikeLike
A network alliance is highly unlikely?
Cal’s Chancellor has already expressed his admiration for the BTN business model. When the PTN starts up it only gets better for both the Pac10 and Big10 as they can shared content across time zones.
No expansion at all is needed to get that going. That is hardly zero sum. The synergy kicks in without any team switching conferences.
Add another conference-based network to the alliance (Texas and its neighbors) and you add even more offerings for live action that can be be shared and targeted to any media market on the map.
The SEC is working off the best match-up possible for national distribution, and local dominance for the home team markets. A conference network affiliation has a deep pool of games across different time zones where you can pick and choose games to match any media market.
LikeLike
I meant more of in the near term.
I think an alliance of networks would come into play after Texas joins the Pac-10 or Big Ten, not before…
LikeLike
Okay. Point taken.
I guess I just wanted to point out if there is true interest in making a unified network alliance it really is a few small steps away.
Pac10 moves to 12 with Colorado and Utah.
Big XII gets its act together, and fills in to the east (with Georgia Tech?)
Big10 gets to 12 with Rutgers.
All three conferences agree to share live content.
This would be a modest expansion by any measure we have tossed around here, but if there is a conference network alliance in place it is actually a huge bold move.
LikeLike
And consider this. Rutgers and Georgia Tech may not be able to pull in either New York or Atlanta alone. But you now have the alumni bases of 36 major schools who can call their local cable provider to complain about not having the network on the basic cable tier before they head out to their favorite sports bar to watch the game.
LikeLike
Faitfhful5k, you’ve been banging the GA Tech drum pretty hard this thread. But I’d rate the chances of the Big12 inviting Tech (and only Tech) at zero, and Tech accepting at less than zero. Geographic continuity does matter.
LikeLike
Compared to a Pac10-BigXII merger… it doesn’t seem like such a leap in geography. I keep coming back to GT because their fan base is actually open to the idea. But you are right. Putting my drum aside now.
LikeLike
Anyone care to speculate what underlying message Delany was trying to convey in April when he emailed Gee “Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we executy.”?
Here’s my stab at decryption… since one side in chess has 16 pieces, “double chess # of moving parts” is referring to expanding not only the Big Ten to 16 teams but another conference expanding to that number as well.
Given the B-10 partnership (at least in football) and its like-mindedness with the P-10, “including not harming brand as we executy” is a reference to a coordinated effort on the part of both the B-10 and P-10 conferences to expand to 16 teams at the same time with the understandable desire at the same time to not look like “bad guys”, or at least minimize the soiling, as the B-12 is pillaged of its teams.
From my perspective, not only does this scenario fit in well with the Orangebloods leak but such a “partnership” would have the motive of forcing certain hands to play catch up (i.e. Notre Dame & SEC most importantly, and ACC secondarily) or be folded altogether (Big 12 and Big East). Does this seem plausible or should I return to invistigating the grassy knoll?
LikeLike
That is a great catch. Props to MC chess
LikeLike
Re “double chess” (MC)
Or maybe it means PAC 10 and Texas to Big 10 and Nebraska: checkmate
LikeLike
A coordinated effort??? I think these two conferences like each other but they are also in competition. The grassy Knoll sounds more plausible. Big complicate plans are often their own downfall.
LikeLike
Return to the grassy knoll?
I thought that where we were all at right now?!?
LikeLike
Dan Brown’s next moving on all this will be excellent.
LikeLike
Personally I think Delany’s saying flat out that the Pac is playing (chess reference) against us (Big10) in the expansion game by trying to get Texas and they (Pac10) are willing to bring in schools we aren’t (“not harming brand” comment).
LikeLike
The Check..Mate theory
LikeLike
A Chicago Tribune piece speculates emails.. including “double chess”.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-100605-big-ten-expansion,0,3446131.story
Perhaps..
Double Chess = 16 pieces per side x 2 sides x 2 boards = 64?
Four 16 team conferences?
LikeLike
Interesting indeed. Faithful5k, your suggestion certainly has merit. However, placing it in that context does make their intentions even more conspiratorial… as if 4 16-team conferences was truly their desired result without harming the BCS brand.
What purpose would this serve?! As many before me have suggested, with 4 BCS conference champions, a college football playoff can’t be too far behind, right?
LikeLike
Brilliant translation of presidential technobabble!!
LikeLike
I really can’t take credit for that translation. A savvy member from a Badgers board came up with the translation. He is used to political doublespeak.
LikeLike
I think he’s just saying there are a ton of variables to expansion and encouraging Gee to hold his horses a little while longer.
Double the number of moving parts (variables) that you find in a chess game (a lot), including one of the most important variables (not harming the Big Ten brand), as the Big Ten works to executy (should read execute).
LikeLike
I don’t think everyone is thinking the financial side of this completely through.
As one of my all time favorite professors always railed on me in regards to various business analysis situations always pleaded.. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Where is the money coming from? All the revenue generation for the B10N and the future P16N model is coming from Fox selling the rights to broadcast those networks to local cable providers. Fox does all the leg work, the conferences provide the content.
As far a Fox is concerned, they don’t care as much about where all of these teams end up as long as they get those the teams they want somewhere in the Fox lineup. Yes, there would be concerns about balancing the networks so they have somewhat equal value, but as a whole they are equal entities that are just another part of the Fox revenue stream.
If Fox is driving the train, then the point that needs to be much more emphasized is that don’t accept the current subscriber fee number for the current B10N. I would not be surprised to see Fox take a slight drop in individual fees in the attempt to package both networks in both markets. If that is true, there is no way for the SEC to combat that type of revenue stream.
You are talking about the B10N being able to be paired in P16N country providing less than the optimal fees yielded by in-state P-16N programming but much greater than the current out of market subscriber fee currently generated by the B10N. This will more than easily cover the slight discount the B10N would be providing in its current subscriber states, and provide an instant major jump in B10N revenue.
LikeLike
And if Fox is ticked off over losing ACC rights, wouldn’t it love to sabotage ESPN’s deal with the conference by having several ACC AAU programs leave for the Big Ten?
LikeLike
And by moving, I mean book. Wow. I think I’ll sit this out for a while…
LikeLike
Kansas and Kansas St. must be together according to this guy.
>>”KU and K-State will always be in the same conference together,” [Regent] Lykins said. “There’s not going to be a split.”<<
http://cjonline.com/sports/football/2010-06-05/big_12_best_option_for_ku_ksu
LikeLike
Bad news for KU fans. I hope you like the MWC. It would be a sad day in college basketball if that happened.
LikeLike
Maybe Kansas and what would be left of the B12 should be putting in feelers to Memphis and Louisville. Also take a look at Colorado State, UNLV. It will never be as strong a campus as before but it will still be viable. The basketball wont be too bad either.
LikeLike
What do you mean by ‘as strong a campus as before’?
LikeLike
@Gopher – I’m guessing “conference” based on the context.
LikeLike
Yes, because the MWC is such a horrible basketball conference
LikeLike
And fresh off the press:
http://sports.espn.go.com/los-angeles/ncf/news/story?id=5255568
Updated: June 5, 2010, 5:36 PM ET
Pac-10 commish lays out scenarios
LikeLike
Finally, we’re moving to resolution.
1) All 12 Big 12 members in the Pac-22, (no way that gets all 10 votes; total smokescreen).
2) The 6 Big 12 members (Texas/A&M/Tech/OU/OSU/Colorado or something else with Texas): seems like it could happen, but still a huge issue with whether Stanford/Cal/UCLA want this. Perhaps the argument that they’re dumping Arizona/ASU off to a SWC and recreating the Pac-8 may work though…
3) Colorado/Utah (seems like a backup plan if there isn’t a unanimous vote for the #2 scenario).
4) No expansion (not going to happen, #3 is the backup plan).
Nothing new we don’t already know, but the biggest question is whether all 10 members would vote for expansion scenario #2 (equivalent of NCAA going to 96 schools) or scenario #3 (equivalent of NCAA going to 68 schools).
In my mind, I don’t think the Pac-10 is anywhere close to getting Stanford on board for all of this, so there’s going to be a heavy lift to get scenario #2 off the ground. It might include switching more palatable members in for OSU such as Kansas, but we’ll see…
LikeLike
If I had to handicap the odds I’d say 50% on scenario 3 (Colorado/Utah), 40% on scenario 2 (Texas + 5), and 10% on no expansion. Scenario 2’s probability is entirely dependent though on the Big Ten taking Nebraska perhaps…
The merger isn’t even worth discussing…
LikeLike
Suppose the Colorado/Utah option occurs. Somewhere in these threads I have suggested the following if that occurs.
New Pac12 starts its own network.
The Big XII regrets losing Colorado but it opens the opportunity to look east. Georgia Tech may be willing to take the spot. To match the ACC money another Fox-based network is in the works.
At the same time the Big10 makes its move to Rutgers.
Three conferences, 36 schools, tons of alumni then apply pressure to the NY and ATL media markets to get the content on basic cable.
LikeLike
Are some of these really smart guys missing the easiest solution? Big Ten and Pac 10 merge, look to add three to go to a 24-team superconference with 6 4-team divisions.
I think Texas and Notre Dame could be convinced to buy into that.
LikeLike
Mike,
Much about college football/athletics is about tradition and with this regional familiarity. If you were to merge The BT and the PT you would undermine both right away. This is why we have professional sports. Now about than little Bowl game the two conferences have each year. You know, the Rose Bowl? The teams would have a one in 24 chance of playing in it as apposed to a 1 in 10 or 12.
LikeLike
Stanford probably is a roadblock to setting up a CIC in the Pac-10; they’re not that fond of the academic standing of some of the lowest members of the Pac-10; the second state universities generally but especially ASU.
Why would the Big Ten want to merge with the Pac-10? Sure we would want the 4 Cal schools as well as Oregon, UW, and UA, but those are the only 7 we’d take.
LikeLike
this would be brilliant if every conference colluded to expand in concert. You could have the conference championship game at the Rose Bowl, winner plays the winner of the SEC/ACC Orange Bowl for the national championship.
LikeLike
Wow, but to add to that merger, both East & West divisions to 16 = 32 would register as seismic enough to get ND, Nebraska, MD, Rutgers, Pitt, etc.
LikeLike
This is basically what is happening… but instead of an all-out merger between the Big 10 and PAC 10 it is more of an alliance. Following the successful Fox sports and BTN model, and learning leasons about inventory they expand to two 16 team conferences with 98 / 200th controlled by FOX and 51 each by the Big 10 & Pac 10. Conferences keep their identity and get major $$ additions. The issue was how to arrage the 32 best teams (not in the SEC or to a lesser extent the ACC) currently 21 teams, and they need to get to 32. 11 team addition between the two conferences. Who are the most valuable 11 teams outside of the SEC (and the current BIG 10 / PAC 10) and how do you split them up?
LikeLike
Why not sort-of hijack the Big XII plan and schedule 1 to 2 rotating non-conference games in between the Pac-10 and Big Ten? That way we have the two separate conferences, but there’s larger relationship between the two. Also opens up a nice national schedule for teams on both sides. There’d be so many compelling games those 1 to 2 weeks that even after ESPN/ABC took what they wanted, the PTN and BTN would be filled to the brim with games. Could even take it a step further and schedule some of the lesser games on Thursday & Friday night. Also, because of the time difference, you could have a Pac-10 vs. Big Ten double-header.
LikeLike
yep, just like the ACC/Big10 basketball challenge. This thread isn’t just crazy, there’s already a special relationship b/w the Big10 & Pac10, and the Rose Bowl does need both to stay strong. Delany giving Texas to the Pac10 for the sake of the big picture is not a defeat for the Big10 by any measure.
LikeLike
I agree, and besides, Texas going to the Pac-10 would free the Big Ten to go southeast. Not sure if there’s that much interest in ACC country, but it’s worth considering at least.
LikeLike
Interesting read on Georgia Tech board.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=140&f=2938&t=5967732&p=1
If Texas does not go to the Big Ten (as well as ND), I can see a southern plan.
Remember what Delany said about demographics and the south. I can see some combination of Georgia Tech, Vanderbilt, Maryland, Virginia or others. All AAU universities.
LikeLike
“Larry and the Pac-10 are being very proactive. That’s what I like,” said Washington athletic director Scott Woodward. “We’re not the bug on the windshield. We’re kind of driving the bus.”
When will the transportation allegories stop?
LikeLike
when the ship has sailed
LikeLike
Well played, sir. Well played.
LikeLike
Indeed.
LikeLike
When the boat comes into the harbor.
LikeLike
When the bus crashes into the shuttle van and the Big Ten hijacks the plane.
LikeLike
When I stop laughing…ah man that was good
LikeLike
after touch down has brought me what I’ve yet to find
LikeLike
Hey guys, check this article out… Baylor over Colorado???
http://texastech.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091406
Maybe the legislature in Texas and keeping all Texas schools together is still a much bigger factor than we have thought.
LikeLike
Does the Big 10 still expect teams to buy into the big ten network in order to get an equity share? I figure if the Pac 10 goes to 16 like this, wouldn’t Missouri or Kansas have to offer say $10 million for 10 years (maybe more) of tv revenue as a big ten buy in so that they don’t get risk getting left behind in the MWC.
In that case could say Missouri, Kansas and $200 million even out with Texas and Texas Tech?
LikeLike
Kirk Bohls reporting via Twitter that “two highly placed Big 12 school officials told me Nebraska and Missouri have been given a deadline of Friday to decide their futures.”
LikeLike
Well, that would fit Frank’s information “that Nebraska could be invited to the Big Ten quickly (possibly in the next week), where the conference would grant the school a fully vested revenue share (including a full stake in the Big Ten Network) in order to cover the higher Big XII exit fees for a 1-year notice period for leaving.”
LikeLike
What could the B12 possibly hold over MU and NU to get them to even recognize the deadline? The 2 schools should simply say “no comment” and let the B12 flounder on without an answer.
LikeLike
Nothing. Most likely Delaney has talked with Osborne and they have some kind of informal agreement. The Big Ten will let Nebraska know if they have a place to land if they don’t commit to the Big 12. There’s no way we just leave them hanging.
Missouri, I have no idea, the Big Ten may have told them we can’t give them a firm commitment…
LikeLike
Our ‘friend’ over at Orangebloods is now reporting that BAYLOR has to be included in the P16 deal and Colorado is out. He also claims Nebraska is hoping to keep the B12 together. Here’s the quote concerning Baylor.
“Already, the political forces in Texas are preparing to make demands that if six schools from the Big 12 are going to be invited to the Pac-10, Baylor should replace Colorado on that list, according to two sources close to the situation.
“If you’re going to have an exported commodity involved in this, do you think we’re going to allow a school from outside the state of Texas to replace one of our schools in the Big 12 South? I don’t think so. We’re already at work on this,” said a high-ranking member of the Texas Legislature who asked not to be identified.”
LikeLike
I find this extremely unlikely, especially that NU is trying to keep the conference together.
And if it is true – a note to the Pac-10: welcome to the new B12!! Texas will make demands and you’ll bend over and take them just to get them into your conference. And then several small decisions will not go the way some of the old P-8 likes, and teams will be looking to jump ship in 10-20 years.
LikeLike
No way is this going to happen.
Guys I think I just won the prize. Look up at my analogy above. The bus has just crashed into the shuttle van.
LikeLike
Looks like the Pac 10 is getting a taste of Texas politics. Get used to it.
LikeLike
fine. the Big10 will be happy to take Colorado.
LikeLike
oh kaay. so does this mean then that gulliver doesn’t travel?
LikeLike
If Baylor is part of the deal, then Texas to the Big 10 is a dead issue. The Big 10 is not, nor should they, let the Texas state legislature dictate who joins the conference. This where I applaud the Big 10 for holding firm on TTU, if we agreed to TTU, we’d now be debating whether we should take Baylor.
I would have loved to add Texas and A&M, but this is the danger of appeasement. If you appease the TX legislature by including TTU, now they’re going for the whole ball of wax. If you’re the PAC 10, do you let the whole plan go up in smoke just to keep Colorado? You’ve already shown your desperation by agreeing to take Texas Tech, so you may as well just accept Baylor too.
What’s interesting is does Colorado become a Big 10 target? Colorado is one of the fastest growing states, the school is AAU with a good research budget and Denver is a major market.
Could the Big 10 add Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri? Then appease Penn State and to a lesser extent Michigan by taking Rutgers and another Eastern school?
LikeLike
In what other ways is the Texas legislature into communism?
LikeLike
Here’s a solution to the Tech problem. The Big Ten could say we’ll take Texas (and Texas A&M if they want in) now and will reserve a slot for Tech if they improve to Big Ten academic standards. Perhaps something like this: if TTU is AAU within 10 years and in the top 100 research schools (ARWU rankings) then they are automatically in.
Simple, no? This give U Texas political cover — UT got TTU an invite to the Big Ten. UT has no further responsibility. The politicians and the TTU administration have all of the control (and responsibility) to make it happen.
The Texas TPTB say they are serious about making TTU tier 1 and Texas certainly has the money to make it happen. It will require consensus and sustained commitment, but the beauty of the offer is that it is a done deal if they follow through on what they say they are already doing. This being BB season I invoke the snowclone: “build it and they will go”.
With UT and TAMU the Big Ten goes to 16, if TTU makes the grade then the Big Ten+ adds another school to go 18 or 3 to 20.
LikeLike
One really serious problem with this.
AAU membership is by invitation only.
Georgia Tech is the most recent member. Before them, you have to go back 10 years.
Very selective group.
LikeLike
And your point is ….
It’s not a serious problem if those Texas politicians are serious. Of course if they are just talking (all hat no cattle is the expression I believe) then there’s no point pretending Tech will ever become kind of academically acceptable in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Are you frigging kidding me. Now Texas wants Colorado to be left out in the cold as well? Apparently Texas legislators are now threatening they have to replace us with Baylor.
http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1091406
You trade that Waco market for Denver. This was so much simpler when it was just going to be us and Utah to the PAC, as nice as landing TX would be, is the PAC or Big 10 going to think that’s worth it. Good luck getting Texas in the Big 10 if they’re insisting on Baylor as well. Don’t suppose there’s any room left in the Big 10 boat for us to come instead of Missouri eh? Dan Hawkins pathetic record may relegate us to permanent mid-major status.
LikeLike
I think the Texas legislature might be doing CU a favor. Dropping CU for Baylor will almost certainly kill this deal with Cal/Stanford. Then the P10 can go back to adding Utah and CU and let UT know that they’re welcome when they ditch their political baggage.
LikeLike
Stanford will put an end to this nonsense. The notion that the Pac-10 commissioner can give away the conference to the Texas legislature when it requires a unanimous vote is absolutely laughable.
But I’d take heart, if you saw the ESPN report, the backup scenario is Utah/Colorado. I’d expect that one to be far more likely than the OU/OSU/Tech and now Baylor scenario.
LikeLike
Wow, all of the sudden Texas has a Baylor problem in addition to the Tech one. The Pac-10 might stomach Tech, but not Baylor. Would this even fly with the SEC?
LikeLike
Simple answer, no.
The SEC is as proud a conference as the Big Ten.
The notion that the SEC would add 4 Texas schools including Baylor is a joke.
LikeLike
What about UTEP?!!!!!
LikeLike
Is this the next act in the tragedy?
LikeLike
UTEP should be walking on sunshine right about now. Every Texas school that gets scooped up to a new conference increases their changes of getting into a better (or maybe even AQ) conference.
LikeLike
Now the question becomes: Will the SEC take all four Texas schools? I don’t think the politicians realize that Tech was a stretch to receive an offer– Baylor is the straw that broke the camel’s back.
I’m taking great pleasure in watching other conferences try to cater to Texas’ political craziness. Maybe this is why Beebe was feeling so confident– he knows the crazies he’s dealing with.
LikeLike
The only way that the SEC will expand is if multiple conferences go to 16 teams. If UT is out of play for the Pac 10, then the Pac 10 won’t be going to 16 teams. That will just leave the Big 10 going to 16 teams if any conference does. So the short answer is no, the SEC wouldn’t take all four schools because the Pac 10 won’t be expanding. Now if the Big 10 goes to 16 teams and starts making say double or triple what the SEC is making, then they might decide that going after the Texas markets may be beneficial. But that would be years down the road, and even in that scenerio I don’t see the SEC taking Baylor. JMHO
LikeLike
“There is a belief among the majority of schools that the Big 12 could survive if it just lost Missouri, the sources said. But the sense is the Big 12 is dead if it loses both Missouri and Nebraska.”
The Big XII will be just fine as long as it retains Texas. This notion that all-of-sudden everything hinges on Nebraska seems like BS to me. What they really want is a scape-goat for if they decide to jump ship, too. With Dodds’ “finish it” quote, it’s clear that they pinning they want to shift the blame away from them. Reality is, though, that the Big Ten has been talking with Texas since as early as April.
LikeLike
Sorry, but if the Big12 loses Neb it loses its only other national draw which means its a purely regional league and one heavily saturating the Texas markets. (Yes, please spare me the stats on OK…they are a good team with a great tradition of winning. I still can’t remember the last time I’ve met an OK alum and I’ve even been all over the SW).
I’ve said for a while now with the likely invites being Neb, Mizzou, and CO (Pac) the Big12 is dead at that point and every other team will start scrambling.
LikeLike
Stab in the dark – but this is a legislator throwing lip service out to show Texas constituents that someone cares about a Texas school (BU) getting left out in the cold – all a facade.
If true – no way the Pac goes for it. Everyone keeps pointing to Stanford…but my guess is that Baylor would fly with NO ONE in the Pac 10.
LikeLike
Ken Starr became president of Baylor 3 days ago. That means Baylor may have actually become a powerfully connected player in political circles in Texas…
LikeLike
I am already on the fence on whether I actually want the specific 6 teams in the og rumor anyway (due to struggle for who would have the decision making power in conference) so if this new rumor actually has legs vs a mouthpiece with a legislative title throwing a feeble attempt to let people know BU is not forgotten then I would def be fine with the CU and Utah only plan B.
As I mentioned earlier with a plan b scenario – if a new Pac can get even close to the neighborhood of the AC deal + start a PTN then they are already light years ahead of where they stand today.
I also doubt this legislator has any pull only due to Hopkins Horns insider interview he had and posted a while back basically saying Baylor is screwed.
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/5/10/1465941/realignment-chronicles-that-upon
LikeLike
He posted that article on May 10.
Ken Starr just became president of Baylor on June 1.
I’d say Baylor’s political prowess increased to near Tech’s with that move, so it’s really hard to go off information from May.
LikeLike
If this isn’t just posturing by the state legislators just to see if they can get Baylor in and if they seriously think that they can demand this, then UT and aTm better hope like heck that Mizzou, Neb, Col, and any other Big 12 schools decide not to jump ship. I don’t think that there is anowball’s chance that any of the other major conference would agree to take Baylor (heck the Big 12 shouldn’t have taken Baylor).
I wonder if there is any way that UT or aTm could leave (taking TT of course) even if the state legislators want Baylor included but aren’t invited. Can those schools tell the legislators to bite’em? The state legislators should be thrilled that TT is getting offered. Baylor should be in CUSA with the other SWC leftovers.
LikeLike
No. Tech and Baylor have powerful political connections due to the people running them.
Frank’s talked before about Tech being an underrated player due to Kurt Hance.
And now, Ken Starr is president of Baylor (on June 1). You think he’s going to sit by and watch this happen quietly? He has the political pull to get the governor on the phone as well as any Republican in the state.
Texas may have just acquired a Baylor problem on top of its Tech problem…
LikeLike
For the love of God, no.
Sigh….
LikeLike
Can anyone say…Mad Cow Disease?
LikeLike
Frank, if you’re there, you should probably just start a new post with this new Orangebloods report re: Baylor and the Texas legislature attempting to takeover the Pac-16 expansion…
LikeLike
Oh, and how could I forget. How could we all forget?
The president of Baylor is Ken Starr.
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=75146
You can bet your $ that Ken Starr is on the phone with every Republican in Texas and he will have Baylor attached to Texas/A&M/Tech.
LikeLike
And didn’t he just take over Baylor, like this month?
Talk about Baylor getting lucky with that. Getting one of the more powerfully connected politicians to become president the same month this is all happening.
LikeLike
Is that a happy coincidence?
LikeLike
As much as some might like to suspect that there’s a vast right-wing conspiracy out there, I highly doubt that Ken Starr is that plugged into the Texas state political scene (unlike Kent Hance at Tech) that his becoming president of BU would be the deciding factor.
LikeLike
Nice call Zeek. According to this story that is just what is happening.
“Pac 10 may now be considering Baylor over Colorado”
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/95703039.html
LikeLike
That “consideration” in a Pac meeting will take all of 2 seconds to get at 10 “nay” votes.
LikeLike
Wonder how soon before everyone is over TX and all their baggage. hey, they’re working on their 3rd conference in what…25 years? Welcome to life in the BXII all you BT and P10 people.
LikeLike
I think this one is going to take the steam out of a lot of us Big Ten fans who had wanted Texas.
Now that Baylor seems to be using its political influence (can you imagine Ken Starr as the guy who would let Baylor fall out of the orbit of Texas/A&M/Tech merely 3 days after becoming president; I don’t think so either), I think a lot of us are going to rethink the Texas strategy.
Who really wants to deal with this mess? I think the Big Ten should roll it in and focus on Nebraska and maybe Rutgers/Missouri.
Texas has turned into a total mess.
I can easily imagine that yesterday, Ken Starr got on the phone with every big time politician in Texas and extracted a pledge to help him not lose his spot with the 3 Texas schools. The Pac-10 should have done this before June 1 when he became president…
LikeLike
My early expansion related desire to focus on the north east has only become more and more appetizing as this process goes on.
LikeLike
Well, not everyone west of the Big Ten is audacious enough to sneeze at what they offer. Just show Nebraska where to sign. 😉
LikeLike
Hehe well the Huskers are always welcome…I want PSU to beat them down every year for cheating us out of a national championship 😛
LikeLike
Heh. Mr. Pelini might have something to say about that. 😉
LikeLike
Hey PSUGuy,
Have you fixed your misshapen field yet? 🙂
LikeLike
Again, Ken Starr is an outsider to Texas state politics. I’m sure there are plenty of other influential Baylor boosters better plugged into the Legislature who are making their calls.
LikeLike
Or maybe there’s a maroon stained dress…
LikeLike
@ PN:
Oh, that poor, poor sheep.
LikeLike
Whoever these politicians are, they have got to know that with Baylor being a Southern Baptist school with politically polarizing figure in Ken Starr is a complete nonstarter for the Pac 10. Sounds like they are trying to save the Big XII at all costs, and save their Texas schools from associating with those Blue States in the Pac 10.
LikeLike
Or maybe Texas got their “Tech problem” answer from the Big Ten, it was no, or their keep your hands off Nebraska answer, also no, so they’re shooting down their own trial balloon.
LikeLike
Hard hitting commentary from Nebraska’s Sam McKeon on the whole expansion situation, particularly the TX-NE angle, state of the BXII,etc.
Choice quote:
“But the Big 12 is plum immature. Colorado is perfectly indifferent to the concept of success. Missouri has an entitlement complex. Hell if I know all the sordid details at Kansas, but it sorely needs a come-to-Jesus moment. A&M is swimming in the red. Iowa State chugs along like a Yugo. Texas has a ton of irons in the fire; one day, UT will get burned.
There’s too many interests, too many old grudges – happily fueled by the media – about how the league formed and an unhealthy obsession, if you ask me, with money. A wad of cash hasn’t done squat for most of the programs in the Big Ten. There’s still one good way to build a football program from ground up, and it’s not with venture capital and fancy facilities alone. Too many Big 12 programs bought into the money myth, and it has their heads spinning. The media’s too. Consider that Mizzou’s whole position on conference realignment is built on something completely unrelated to its program success: Television sets. Is that how we measure athletic departments now?
Yes and no. Marketing matters. Exposure matters. Media matters. But the basic fundamentals of loyalty, common sense, steadiness and toughness occasionally elude this young league of impressive-but-impertinent administrators.”
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2010/06/04/4c0899a648938
LikeLike
Anyone else finding it coincidental that these Chip Brown articles are all managing to cast doubt on the three schools that appear to be the fly in the ointment to holding the Big 12 together. The first article talked about Nebraska not having a Big 10 invite and now this one is casting doubt on Colorado’s status. TX knows their best play is the Big 12 where they get to be king of the hill. If they’re serious about holding this thing together they better damn well be willing to to look at the revenue sharing and LSN issues.
LikeLike
Coincidental? No. Humorous.
LikeLike
How about a new Southwest Conference, let TX take their media market, Longhorn Network, and TX vibe back to their independent nation and run with it?
They can also form a southern CIC of excellent world class academic institutions along with growing some Tier 3 southern(=ascending demographics)universities like TT into world class schools.
This list has it all–according to many of the previous posts–
4 world class academic schools in TX, AM, Rice, and Vandy; captures the TX media market; has two powerful football schools; some up and coming academic schools that will “grow into Tier 1; and all in the same timezone, cultural fit, and built-in rivalries!
Plus, no more TX driven drama per the last 3000 posts!
WOW!
Texas
T AM
TT
Baylor
TCU
Rice
Houston
SMU
(and just to round it off)
Arkansas
Vanderbilt
LikeLike
The bloodbath in the skybox at the Arkansas-Baylor game would be worth the price of admission.
LikeLike
If they’re serious about holding this thing together they better damn well be willing to to look at the revenue sharing and LSN issues.
If I’m understanding the whole vote breakdown on revenue sharing correctly, all you have to do is convince your oh-so-benevolent, always-think-of-others-first buddies in Lincoln to reconsider their stance on the issue.
LikeLike
I’m thinking we won’t be voting on that anymore.
LikeLike
I am now thinking that the “Texas/Texas A&M/Texas Tech/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/Colorado offer” may not be a legitimate offer. It may just be a way to get Stanford (and possibly California and UCLA) to accept Colorado and Utah, as those two schools are a better alternative to the six schools.
LikeLike
Umm the PAC schools are all hurting for money, if the numbers being thrown around are real then its probably got their attention. I’m not sure why I’m really surprised about them attempting to jettison us though, this is why the non-Texas schools have so much frustration with the Big 12. Whatever Texas touches if they destroy unless it benefits Texas.
LikeLike
@SuperD. I think you can rest assured that there is no way in hades that the Pac takes Baylor no matter how much $$ was involved.
If this newest twist is accurate and TX needs to take TT and BU wherever they go, then CU gets its best case scenario….an invite to the Pac 10 with only Utah (unless the KS rumor is true – not the one where they are toed to KsSt, the other one).
Zipper split conference with a decent travel partner, west coast travel and access to alum base, partnership in a PTN.
I am starting to like this scenario more and more vs the alternative. It still allows for future expansion later and breaks up the entire block of B12 South + CO coming to disrupt the current Pac hierarchy (citing Frank’s reason for not wanting to bring too many from one conference).
LikeLike
BigXII fans, it looks like you are not going to escape your issues. Let Colorado go west. They fit better there anyhow.
Then quit worrying about the SEC poaching your players. Get aggressive instead and call Georgia Tech. Their fans are extremely anxious they will not have a home when the dominoes fall. They will be very glad to talk. You would put the SEC and ACC on its heels, and you are now in THEIR recruiting area.
And please learn to play nice together. Cut the crap and form your Big12 Network. Then when Georgia Tech joins the loop make sure every one of your fans that lives in Atlanta starts calling their cable subscriber to get the B12N on basic cable. Big10 alumni will do the same if you air our games. And the Pac10 fans too… okay… maybe not on that one.
LikeLike
Unless, of course, the Big Ten invites Georgia Tech.
LikeLike
If Beebe & the Big XII wanted to really screw things up for the Pac 10 while keeping the Big XII alive, they’d invite BYU & Utah tomorrow. Then Colorado doesn’t have a partner to make the Pac 10 the Pac 12. Colorado has no choice but to stay in the Big XII. Even if Nebraska & Mizzou leave for the Big Ten, The Big XII is still at 12, they’ve just swapped St. Louis for Salt Lake City.
LikeLike
CSU?
LikeLike
Would mighty Texas allow this to happen?
LikeLike
It’s a clever and gutsy idea to invite BYU/Utah – but what if they don’t accept? I think Utah would drag its feet as long as possible in the hope that the Pac-16 plan falls through and they can move w/ CU to Pac-12. Given that the Boise move is likely to bring the MWC a BCS autobid by 2012, would BYU want to leave its traditional rivals to join a much more competitive league that doesn’t even have a great TV deal?
LikeLike
jd – I think Utah & BYU would have to accept. It’s the only way BYU gets into a current AQ conference. Orin Hatch & the other Utah politicians would make them do it. Remember, a bird in the hand is better than two in the bush.
LikeLike
LOL at the hysterical drama queens here. You really thought politicians wouldn’t fight for their school that would be left behind?
15 legislators out of more than 200. TT, aTm, TX, and even UH each have more legislative allies than that. A few could throw some temporary monkey wrenches, but there is more than enough counter punch to squelch any threat.
It will likely go like this:
Tomorrow the P10 will weigh options, including the Baylor 6 plan. That will be rejected and an package invite will be extended to the original 6.
There will be rumblings behind the scenes, but it won’t kill this. The legislature doesn’t even meet until January, and the Aggie governor sure won’t call a special session. There are ways to cause problems out of session, but they’ll be dealt with. If this stretches into next year, the 2 candidates for governor are an Ag and a Horn.
Perhaps we’ll see an agreement that the Texas schools and the P16 will support the B12 being allowed to keep their BCS AQ if they can rebuild their conference within X months. Or maybe they’ll broker a move to the MWC along with UH (and maybe SMU or UTEP can horn in) and the P16 support their efforts to get a BCS AQ. If Baylor ends up in a BCS conference that should be a good enough compromise, even more so if UH, TCU, and SMU do also.
UH, TCU, SMU, and UTEP all have their interests, and they may view the P16 as opening doors for them to step up from their present situation.
OTOH, all that assumes that TX and/or aTm aren’t trying to kill the P16 option.
Look, some of you may need to cut back on your estrogen, this is going to be a bumpy ride, perhaps for a year or more.
LikeLike
I was wondering how 15 state legislators could block 3 state schools from switching conferences. But since the TX politicians strong armed the Big 12 into taking Baylor, I guess I figure that they may be able to drum up enough support to do it again.
But surely if Neb, Mizzou, and Col start bailing out of the Big 12, surely UT, aTm, and TT would have enough political pull to tell the Baylor supporters to get over it because they are leaving regardless. But then again, I don’t know anything about Texas state politics.
LikeLike
Last time was a very different political environment. Plus TX and aTm had to move quick without as many choices. This time they can afford to wait things out until the politics play their way. No true hurry, and the numbers are not on Baylor’s side.
But again, there seems to be a fairly easy way out. Maybe. TCU is in a conference that wants to elevate itself to BCS level. UH wants to join that conference. Get Baylor in there and it can be a win-win situation. Go from 4 BCS schools to 6 or 7, gets the MWC a solid Texas presence which should improve their next contract.
However, there isn’t a guarantee the other BCS conferences will go along with that, since they have competing interests. Could get interesting.
LikeLike
I would recommend mass testicular transplant surgery for the lump sum of pro-UT, pro-A&M and, now, presumably, pro-Tech legislators if they allow BU’s supporters to roll them.
And if BU’s supporters do wind up rolling everyone else, I wouldn’t blame the Pac 10 or the Big 10 one bit for saying thanks, but no thanks, to Texas.
LikeLike
@Hopkins,
“And if BU’s supporters do wind up rolling everyone else, I wouldn’t blame the Pac 10 or the Big 10 one bit for saying thanks, but no thanks, to Texas.”
Would the SEC say no to including Tech and Baylor?
LikeLike
I’ll defer to Alan, but I’m not even sure the MWC would take Baylor if it were a free agent after a Big XII implosion. So I think it’s safe to say that the SEC will continue to be a Baylor-free zone, even if that stance cost the SEC the slim chance of nabbing Texas.
LikeLike
Hopkins – I certainly wouldn’t be in favor of Baylor in the SEC. Baylor is a top tier school, and competitive in men’s and women’s basketball, as well as baseball, but its another Vandy in football. Plus the whole Ken Starr thing is a little creepy.
Would the SEC take UTx, A&M, TxTech and Baylor as a package? I hope not, but I’m not sure.
In legislative politics, there’s a ploy known as a “poison pill.” You put a amendment in a bill that makes it almost impossible for the proponents to support. Usually, its done under the guise of making the bill better, but knowing the amendment will kill the bill.
Baylor is the poison pill that keeps the Big XII in tact, unless UTx, A&M, and TxTech call their bluff.
LikeLike
@ HH. LOL – I am still on the fence about the og 6 rumor to the Pac (as a Pac fan), but I tend to agree with you – I can not imagine that private school Baylor has a contingent large enough in todays landscape that has the ability to bring down the future betterment of the state funded strongholds of UT and aTm (yes, TT too I guess).
LikeLike
As a Baylor alum – and I’m sure I’m in the minority of Baylor alums on this – I would much prefer a scenario in which Baylor and UH end up in the MWC with TCU, and the Texas 6 w/ CU goes to the Pac-10. Although many Baylor alums insist on disputing this, I think all rational people understand that Baylor is not going to be competitive in football long-term in the B12 or the P10/16. The MWC, on the other hand, is just the right level for Baylor, and it’s even more convenient travel-wise if Houston comes along. Baylor and TCU should be big rivals, and once Baylor can trade its B12 South schedule for a few Wyomings and San Diego States, there’s no reason why it couldn’t eventually compete for a title in that league. With MWC becoming a BCS AQ league, that’s the only way Baylor is ever going to have a shot at a BCS bowl. I hope the BU legislators don’t insist upon keeping the school in the shadow of UT/OU/A&M/Tech forever.
LikeLike
Completely agree. Have several friends who work at Baylor and I believe that they are more realistic than this news report suggests. As someone mentioned already, the report reflects politics, negotiations and political posturing. I, too, would be really surprised if Baylor was anything but a pawn sacrificed in the game.
LikeLike
Baylor? LOL! Hell, just freeze out TeXas and all their little tag alongs and let them have their own league.
CU / KS / Utah / +1 (K State, Boise St.) to Pac 14
OK / OK State to SEC
Neb / Mizzou / Notre Dame to Big 10
Texas, Baylor, A&M, Utep, Houston, Texas Tech, SMU, and North Texas can make the Lonestar league and Texas can have the LONGHORN / LONESTAR Network.
Too many demands from the Texas contingent, F’em.
LikeLike
Patrick,
LOL, see my post June 5, 2010 at 8:11 pm and June 5, 2010 at 8:53 pm we are on the same page.
I mean seriously we have 3000 posts about TX stuff…and their issues and concerns and value…like I said, welcome the the BXII’s world last 15 years…take it back to TX.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t get too mouthy or cocky if I were a Husker. If your B10+ invite is so certain, why are you even voting on the stay or go ultimatum next week? Why didn’t they just tell the B12 no deal at the meetings Friday? If Baylor legislators kill the P16 offer, who’s to say TX doesn’t come back a bit later with its political muscle and switch to the B10+? May not need to take TT that time, just aTm. But also may not want NE involved. And if you guys’ theory that this is TX plot to kill the P16 offer, could that be because they’re still negotiating with the B10+?
IOW, there’s still one second on the clock…
LikeLike
You think the Pac-10 situation working out with Stanford is more likely than Nebraska getting an invite to the Big Ten? Seriously.
LikeLike
Methinks he really likes that one second on the clock thing. Bold and everything.
LikeLike
Comprehension is a useful skill. Seeing 2+3 and deducing 9.6527 isn’t good.
LikeLike
Also, PN, note one thing if Texas manages to block the University of Nebraska from joining the Big Ten – we may not have nearly as many Congressmen, we have the same number of Senators, and screwing us over will never, ever be forgotten. Ever. Should give a thinking Texan pause before he starts throwing threats around.
LikeLike
Regardless, I’m skeptical that somehow Texas can demand Nebraska’s exclusion.
Nebraska’s going to join the Big Ten unless the Big Ten doesn’t expand.
Period.
LikeLike
One more item, to answer a question PN asked:
“If your B10+ invite is so certain, why are you even voting on the stay or go ultimatum next week?”
This information came from Bohls, who misstated that a “Board of trustees” would vote. There is a Nebraska Board of Trustees of the State Colleges, but UNL falls under the purview of the Board of Regents. Their June 11 agenda:
Click to access Agenda-6-11.pdf
Nothing earthshaking being voted on, unless this vote falls under “additional business”.
So, while no one on the outside is absolutely certain of an invite, the opinion pieces of the print media lean towards the belief that such is the case. They could be wrong, they’ve been wrong before. I’m not sure Bohls got his information straight either. He may be conflating the rumored Big 12 imposed deadline with the Nebraska Board of Regents meeting to arrive at his conclusion of a scheduled vote.
LikeLike
WOW!
It seems like the Prom Queen (Texas) has just been grounded by her dad (Texas Legislature). In this case she may miss be Prom (Expansion) altogether.
LikeLike
If Texas is off the table, the Big Ten can still hit an expansion home run that will satisfy almost all concerns.
The five new teams added could be (1) Nebraska from the Big 12, (2) Rutgers from the Big East, (3) Georgia Tech from the ACC, (4) Vanderbilt from the SEC, and (5) Notre Dame.
This group adds two new traditional football powers to the conference. This group gets the Big Ten into two growing sunbelt cities (Atlanta and Nashville). This group gives Penn State and eastern partner. This group should give the NYC market to the Big Ten (Rutgers + ND + PSU + Mich). This group does not take any more than one member from any fellow conference. This group would be a win for academics. Best of all, there would be no need to deal with Texas’ BS.
This plan assumes a seismic shift (i.e., UT to Pac-10) that would put ND on board for Big Ten.
LikeLike
I have to do my pods. Sorry.
EAST
Rutgers/Penn State/Notre Dame/Northwestern
SOUTH
Georgia Tech/Vanderbilt/Indiana/Purdue
NORTH
Ohio State/ Illinois/Michigan/Michigan State
WEST
Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota
LikeLike
I have to do my pods. Sorry.
EAST
Rutgers/Penn State/Notre Dame/Northwestern
SOUTH
Georgia Tech/Vanderbilt/Indiana/Purdue
NORTH
Ohio State/Illinois/Michigan/Michigan State
WEST
Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota
LikeLike
Sorry for the double post-which problem has been further compounded by this apology. I need to get away from the internet for awhile.
LikeLike
Your work isn’t complete until you apologize twice.
LikeLike
Yes, I think that is pretty much where the B10+ is heading, even if they can’t get ND. But that would be about the best combo for ND. They may want to substitute a school or two.
LikeLike
One problem I see with this scenerio is that adding random teams like this may influence lackluster football games. Being a SEC guy, rivalries make the games interesting. I do not see how GT or Vandy (or really even Rutgers) would be able to form any type of rivalries in the Big 10. What interest would people outside the Big 10 have in watching GT vs the Big 10 teams (unless both teams are in the top 25) or Vandy versus any Big 10 team?
Now if you add a group of schools like Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, UConn & ND or you add a group likw Neb, Mizzou, Col, Kansas, and ND, then you have schools that can easily pick up interesting rivalries with each other and they can feel more apart of the Big 10.
Again, being from the SEC, I know that I’m only looking at the football side of things and that the Big 10 seems to think they need to move to the sun belt region and add AAU research institutions, but I just don’t see how acquiring random schools adds any marketable interest by themselves. Just ask the ACC how much BC helped them to gain the BC market.
LikeLike
The Big Ten should just extend invites to the following universities and be done with it:
Missouri
Nebraska
Georgia Tech
Rutgers
Maryland
All are AAU. All bring TV sets. All seem receptive, if not downright giddy about joining the Big Ten (although, I’m not so sure about Maryland). All are in states outside the Big Ten’s current footprint. All, with the exception of Nebraska, are in large states (and Nebraska has a national following). Expansion occurs to the east, west, and south.
LikeLike
are you sure missouri and nebraska have permission from the texas politicians?
LikeLike
I’m not sure Texas has permission from the Texas politicians.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten isn’t as sold on Missouri as Missouri thinks it is, it might substitute Virginia, both for higher academic prestige and to satisfy Maryland (whose ties to D.C. and federal government research largesse can’t be overlooked).
Rutgers, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia Tech and Nebraska might be a pretty good addition.
LikeLike
or rutgers, maryland, virginia, georgia tech, and vanderbilt.
nebraska supplants arizona which bolted for the big east.
LikeLike
That could be problematic since the ACC schools seem to be perfectly content.
Maybe just adding Rutgers/Nebraska and going to 13 (and seeming like a threat to go to 16) is good enough for now.
Then whenever the SEC gets a plan into gear to raid the ACC, make a move on those schools…
LikeLike
Georgia Tech is a lousy choice for the Big Ten in terms of football marketing. In terms of marketing, the BT only wants teams that can deliver either a lot of national fans (Nebraska, Notre Dame, etc) or a solid state for them. Georgia Tech does neither, because the Georgia Bulldog football team controls most of the state. And GT doesn’t add much else that really stands out. Delaney has stated that he wants to keep the Big Ten compatible and contiguous, and the state of Georgia is geographically and culturally far from the BT. Yes, Georgia is the ninth most populous state, but adding GT doesn’t guarantee that the entire state will add the Big Ten Network to its cable packages. Adding U. of Maryland delivers all of Maryland, the 19th most populous state (just behind Missouri). Maryland is also high in research (#7 in the country if you combine both main campuses, and why wouldn’t you?) and in academics. Their natural travel partner is Virginia, who many consider a top-five academic school, as well as a good research school. Both states are growing and are a stone’s throw from Ohio and Pennsylvania, and not far from Rutgers, whom the BT might add. Yes, Virginia has to compete with Va Tech in its own state, but Maryland may insist that Virginia comes with it before it would consider a move to the BT. Neither school will want to join the SEC, which is poor in academics and horrible in research. The SEC is bound to pilfer from and weaken the ACC, so this might be a good time for Maryland and Virginia to split the scene. Academics and research are extremely important to the Big Ten, who, unlike other conferences shares, shares classes among all its schools, so if you don’t like the classes offered at your BT university for a certain subject, you can attend any other BT university for that class. So, first-rate academic schools like Northwestern, Michigan, Virginia and Maryland boost enrollment in all BT schools. As long as the BT adds another big-time football programs like ND, Neb, or Texas, adding the Maryland-Virginia pair is a great move.
LikeLike
Let’s say that the Pac 10 gives in to this latest demand and includes Baylor. How realistic is the chance that the Big 10 will now consider adding Colorado, along with Neb and Mizzou (and possibly Kansas)? Would the guarantee of gainig the St. Louis, KC, & Denver markets be more desirable than the hope of gaining the NYC market (which I don’t personally think will happen even if the Big 10 adds both Rutgers and Syracuse or UConn)? I’m guessing not, but it does give the Big 10 another option to think about I guess.
LikeLike
No way in hell Baylor ends up in the Pac-10.
Either that Baylor group of 6 suggested by Scott/Brown was just floated for completeness or something, or they seriously think that the Pac-10 presidents could vote for that.
Something tells me the presidents/chancellors are going to have some choice words about this process and the turn it has taken…
LikeLike
tomorrow’s news? baylor is ok with the sec. they will need a private school when vandy goes to greener pastures. gives them that many more games in texas, too. heh, heh, heh.
LikeLike
and i’d say the odds of texas going independent just went up about a jillion percent.
LikeLike
I posted a link to this story at BON, and got this as the first response. Clever:
http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/5/1503427/baylor-baylor-baylor#39115370
LikeLike
uhh . . . that was me. ‘glenn’ was taken in that system already. thanks for the comment there and here, though.
LikeLike
Wow, funny! I had no idea, but now I see it in your other username.
LikeLike
for a while i had for a std message at the bottom–whatever that is called–something like ‘because glenn was taken, that’s why’. but took it off after a while.
LikeLike
also, i wouldn’t want to be the president of tcu, smu, houston, rice, utep, north texas, texas state, west texas state, sul ross, cisco junior college, or the texas school for the blind and visually impaired tomorrow morning.
LikeLike
“also, i wouldn’t want to be the president of tcu, smu, houston, rice, utep, north texas, texas state, west texas state, sul ross, cisco junior college, or the texas school for the blind and visually impaired tomorrow morning.”
I hear that TSFTBAVI has a really good umpiring school.
LikeLike
well, i know they get a lot of work.
LikeLike
The Texas tied to Tech and now Baylor is great news for CU. For many reasons listed in several posts, the Big 12 North teams have grown to learn it’s just not worth dealing with everything that comes with Texas. Sure it’s a nice idea for recruiting( in theory) just too many other negatives. This new plan makes it more likely CU can find a conference without any if these schools.
My question, if the Texas schools are so important, why don’t they just create their own conference of all Texas schools? Heck, they should then have schools like ND, Ohio St and pretty much everyone else begging to join them.
Even you folks in Texas must be somewhat befuddled/concerned with the politics that seem to be forcing 3 schools on anyone that would want UT!
LikeLike
The comments are flooding my inbox almost faster than I can read them, but I would not be surprised if the Pac-10 agreed to it. From the original 6 school offering, it is clear that the Pac-10 does not care who the 5 non-UT schools are. They are not viewing this as adding schools to the conference in the same way as the Big Ten is. Their plan is simply a scheduling and television agreement. While Colorado for Baylor is not a positive trade in either of those areas, the overall plan is still a substantial net increase. All of the Rice/Houston/UTEP/TCU/SMU/UTSA supporters should be calling whomever they can to get their schools in the mix instead of the Oklahoma duo.
Also, I believe that “acedemic” is the most ironically misspelled word, just narrowly beating out “grammer” but with a sizable lead over “mispelled”.
LikeLike
you are right. they could care less who is there. dudden madder.
i kidded earlier about bin-ladin univ. not really kidding.
LikeLike
i take it back. it DOES matter who they let in. in fact, they want it so rotten there that everybody gets the joke.
LikeLike
I’m most fond of “spellign” mistakes, but “S-M-R-T” holds a special place in my heart, too.
LikeLike
If Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC’s presidents vote for OU/OSU/Baylor, then I don’t know how they can claim that the Pac-10 has any sort of identity other than making money, aka the Big 12 identity.
Any argument about the Pac-16 West reverting to the old Pac-8 is a farce.
Sure, Texas is a great fit for any conference, no one is debating that at all. A&M doesn’t seem like that good a fit for the Pac-10 based on its traditions, but I could see it working since A&M is a prominent research institution that would have a place in any conference.
The other 4 don’t really fit that well. Adding Baylor to the other three takes the fit issues to another level…
LikeLike
Agree 100%. If the PAC 10 already agreed to take Texas Tech, I think they’ll jettison Baylor for Colorado to make the deal happen.
Baylor actually is a very good academic school, and the PAC 10 has already showed its hand by agreeing to TTU. Do they really let the whole deal fall through to keep Colorado? Doubtful.
LikeLike
i was thinking earlier this eve about colorado. they have realized what the deal is. i was wondering then if they would pull out of their own. they may have.
LikeLike
someone else mentioned the arizona schools. you know they must be madder than a wet hen. wonder if they might bolt.
LikeLike
Why would the Arizona schools bolt?
Time to use that 1 school veto provision…
LikeLike
no, you’re right, zeke. IF THEY REALLY DO HAVE VETO POWER.
LikeLike
As an ASU grad I agree. This is doomsday for AZ.
As an Iowan and Big Ten Fan I say since the Pac 10 is no longer the Pac 10. The Big X should offer:
Stanford
Cal
Rutgers
Maryland
Virginia
John Hopkins as non athletic CIC member
Go for the big research dollars.
LikeLike
So, in light of this latest rumor, and the presumed negative reaction from, well, anyone, is Kent Hance, in some sort of bizarro universe, now Texas’ best friend?
LikeLike
how so, ho ho?
LikeLike
‘how so, ho ho?’
+1
LikeLike
Someone should get Larry Scott a financial newspaper so he can study up on the Prudential PLC deal to buy AIA. Sometimes you have to know when you’re attempting to bite off a bit more than you can chew.
LikeLike
Only if UT didn’t really want to go to another conference. I can’t imagine that going independent is going to be any easier politically for UT.
But maybe the Baylor politics is just the ammo UT needs to crowbar A&M, TTech, Baylor, and the other Texas schools off of UT’s leg. If the politicos splinter into a lot of fighting factions, UT might have an opening to make a quick dash to the exit. Or they might end up in the all Texas conference. All roads lead back to the SWC…
LikeLike
actually, swc doesn’t exist anymore. now called bhc. black hole conference. affectionately known as hotel texas.
LikeLike
slogan for hotel texas?
same as bates motel: ‘for the REST of your life!’
LikeLike
With the insane number of comments (already 1300), I’ve put up an overflow thread to continue the discussion.
LikeLike
This is my effort at a paradigm shift, a recalibration or just a long time blog stalker’s point of view (disclosure: degrees from Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue & Harvard – and I live in Texas), as it seems not enough consideration is being given to a purely or primarily academic/research argument, which may in fact be closer to where the Univ. Presidents are.
The Big Ten is first, foremost & forever more going to be a collection of universities with the goal of maintaining the preeminent position among American universities via research, academia & financial strength which enables the prior two considerations. Sports is only an important means to that end, primarily so because so many in the population don’t think like a Univ. President and use/need the rah-rah as a means of Homecoming and fellowship among peers/alumni.
As long as the Big Ten has unquestioned dominance in making its Universities unequalled as a collection of research and academic institutions, it will be quite content with the occasional College Football championship to add to its members’ CIC billions. How short sighted it is for so many here to believe the tail is in fact wagging the dog! No other conference is even playing the same game as the Big Ten – there is no CIC equivalent, even in the Ivy League, and no other conference has all AAU members. SEC dominance? Please.
If this paradigm is correct, this is why we are academic snobs. Have you ever heard the old NU joke that “It’s ok if you beat us on the field, you’ll be working for us one day?” And that was before we started winning Conference football championships and National Championships in other sports.
If correct, such considerations as maintaining a relationship with U of Chi and inviting Johns Hopkins to the CIC are very much appropriate.
If correct, we would never allow Tx to dictate anything, and would much rather pass Tx off to the Pac-10 (and away from the SEC) than accept Tech, Rice, Houston, OSU, OU or pretty much any non-AAU university – we simply don’t have to or need to do that. The notion of diluting the Big Ten philosophy and brand mandate such. We are dealing from the ultimate position of strength and don’t need Tx or ND on their terms. Can you imagine the results of allowing Tx or ND to introduce disharmony at the beginning of a relationship, when PSU, MI or OSU haven’t asked for any special considerations? All for all – that’s the Big Ten way. To this point, Tx’s shopping itself between 3 conferences is either political reality or a bad way to begin a relationship among a group of peer institutions (if indeed that’s what’s happening). ND has made it clear they value self/independence more than what the Big Ten represents. ND is a private, Catholic, undergraduate focused, non-AAU University that is not an ideal fit (e.g. ND doesn’t like some of the autonomy in the Big Ten’s research philosophy) but brings unquestioned value, but only if they change their culture to embrace the Big Ten’s shared goals.
I can’t predict which teams will join the Big Ten, but it holds true to its brand, I’d expect a series of the largest AAU-member universities dominating their states, while being reasonably proximal to the Big Ten footprint – or dynamic enough to stand out as part of a ‘National Conference’. After all, it’s the original ‘Big’ conference, meaning an affiliation with us means no apologies or explanations are necessary. Thus a Stanford, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, Missouri and/or Kansas all should (not would) think about what that means and at least consider invitations if offered and why no Big Ten team would leave for any other conference. We don’t need to accept three other University we wouldn’t otherwise have just to get one that we want (thus the ‘Tech problem’). Why are we constantly quibbling about tens of millions between sports conferences when there are Billions to be divided between academic/research institutions?
Athletic Directors are not making these decisions. Univ. Presidents are. There’s been a lot of talk on this blog about thinking outside the box, but when I hear “where will we be in 25 or 50 years”, I’m not thinking about football championships primarily. The BTN network isn’t about champtionship; it’s about households and subscriptions. If the Big Ten footprint encompasses enough households and the BTN grows appropriately, recruitment and sports dominance will follow. However, if the Big Ten Brand is ever diluted or compromised (read Tech, Oklahoma or ASU), we’re no better than…the SEC, and that’s how conferences of 16 members become unwieldly (a loss of common purpose). The lessons of the SWC, WAC and Big East actually are quite clear. Good luck with that Pac-16. I’m not that impressed. But I do trust the Big Ten to stay true to itself. Thanks Frank and everyone else for keeping me glued to the computer.
LikeLike
Well said. And I fully agree.
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
“If correct, we would never allow Tx to dictate anything, and would much rather pass Tx off to the Pac-10 (and away from the SEC) than accept Tech, Rice, Houston, OSU, OU or pretty much any non-AAU university – we simply don’t have to or need to do that.”
I would point out that Rice is an AAU member that would fit the academic profile your member universities. And we would be happy to be the conference member that is used to pad the records of the Big 10 football teams.
LikeLike
Whoa, another Rice fan? What other school has doubled its fan base here so quickly. At that rate of growth the B10 would be foolish not to try to lock us down.
LikeLike
Well-spoken, Jeff. As a tOSU fan, I’m leery of adding Notre Dame. They aren’t AAU and their research expenditures are horribly low. Their fans want independence, they have no sense of cooperation and sharing. If ND joins a conference, their fans may become disillusioned, especially if they continually get their butts kicked by tOSU, Iowa, Mich, PSU, Wisconsin, and maybe Texas and/or Nebraska. Without football and their fans, ND is nothing. The only thing ND offers is a national football audience, as the BT already controls Indiana. If ND’s national audience starts to crumble– which is conceivable if they never win the Big Ten– ND will become a liability to the BT. Their football team has been spiraling downward for years, and their ship may well sink eventually. Give me AAU schools that are safe and solid all-around and deliver a pretty good market, like Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, and Nebraska. Texas and aTm would be fantastic, as long as U Texas realizes its place, and taking them doesn’t require taking any other Texas school or either OK school. I like Rutgers’ location, and the thought of booking the Giants’ or Jets’ stadium once or twice a year when teams like tOSU, Mich, ND, Nebraska or Texas visits Rutgers probably has the BT salivating. That’s what will open up the NYC market for the BT.
LikeLike
Being born and raised in Ohio, I’ve always been a tOSU fan. But I admit, when I was a kid, I was also, secondarily, an ND fan, even though I’m not Catholic. I think a lot of people, especially kids, are front-runners. ND fans are mostly Catholics or front-runners, having no local foundation. Iowa and Nebraska are small states, but you could put a gun to the head of any fan from those two states and they wouldn’t switch allegiance, nor would their kids. I can’t say the same for ND fans, and I’m evidence of that.
LikeLike
What I don’t understand is how Missouri is up to Big10 academic standards and their admittance is fait accompli? In the ARWU ranking they are 91-112 in the US, the same as Kansas, and Texas tech is in the next 25 school section.
Can someone throw light on this as how Mizzou is an academic or athletic powerhouse?
LikeLike
Missuori = AAU
Texas Tech < AAU
Outside of ND, AAU is very important to Big Ten.
LikeLike
Monty, some people think Mizzou won’t make the cut to the BT. I’m not sure they’d make my Fav Five, if the BT goes to 16 teams. With the limited info I have now, my Fav Five would include Nebraska, Texas, A&M, and Rutgers. My fifth team might be a team that would leverage Texas into joining. If Texas wanted Maryland because of its great academics and baseball team, Maryland would be my #5. If Texas wanted ND, fine. If taking Nebraska didn’t inflict enough pain on the Big 12 to pry Texas loose, then I’d take Missouri and hope the Pac 10 took Colorado. If Texas came as one of the first four, and wanted ND, Maryland and Virginia, I’d go to 18 or 20 teams, as long as Texas otherwise agreed to, from then on, become an equal among equals (which might be asking a lot). Twenty teams might be risky, but it might also provide enough of a critical mass to create an explosion that could catapult the BT into becoming a truly national conference that would get the BTN on basic cable nationwide, particularly if they added ND, Nebraska and Texas, and gained control of the NY market with Rutgers, Syracuse and/or UConn. If possible, I’d start with 16 teams, sans ND, and see what happened. If ND fans woke up in a year or two and accepted the fact that they have to go to a conference, let them in. If, instead, they remain stubborn or get disillusioned and jump ship, forget ND and watch them crumble. If Texas and/or the Texas legislature causes too much trouble, leave Texas out for now, and maybe only go to 14 teams the first year, to see how things shake out. In any case, my first two picks would probably be Nebraska and Rutgers, simply to try to leverage the situation. If possible, I’d wait before doing so in hopes that the Pac 10 makes the first move by taking Colorado, making the Pac 10 look like the bad guy instead of the BT. Since the BT and Pac 10 are cousins, maybe they’ll make those initial moves jointly. But I wouldn’t want the BT and Pac 10 to marry, as some have suggested. Cousins only marry in Arkansas. Oops, I have cousins from Arkansas! Ooo Pppiiiggg Sssuuueeeyyy.
LikeLike
I don’t like the idea of pods. Who wants to see tOSU play Indiana and Purdue every year? I’m an OSU fan, and I’d rather see them play Mich and PSU every year, as they do now. When Penn State joined the Big Ten and asked to play tOSU and Michigan every year in football, the BT was flexible enough to grant the wish and it bent the schedule accordingly (and tOSU and Mich were only too happy to comply). Every fan wants to see competitive games and rivalry games, so the BT should let the teams decide among themselves who their top two or three rivals are, and match those teams up every year. That way, Mich and Mich St could play every year, and the same for Mich and Ohio St, but tOSU and Mich St wouldn’t have to play each other every year. I don’t see any reason why you’d need to play every team in your division every year. As long as you have inter-divisional play, the schedules aren’t even anyway, since the teams would play different teams in the other division. Maybe each team would play its top three rivals, three other teams from its division, and three teams from the other division. Or maybe 3, 2 and 3, or even 3,3 and 2. I like the idea of 9 conference games. I’m tired of seeing every team play three or four patsies OOC. Patsies make you soft. If the BT goes to 20 teams, you could have a BT East and a BT West, and the BT name would make sense again.
LikeLike
I’ve got mixed feelings on pods as well, but just to point it out – PSU and UM don’t play every year. In fact, they don’t play each other in 2011 or 2012. As an OSU fan, don’t you give those guys too hard of a pat on the back for scheduling; they have some pretty lame OOC scheduling.
I agree about lame schedules. It used to be up until very recently that MSU never played a I-AA; I’m a State man and embarassed that they’ve now stooped to this level of crap. I-AA should DQ a team from bowl consideration.
LikeLike
New Stewart Mandel article at SI:
Sweet 16: Exploring scenarios for how expansion dominos may fall
LikeLike
test run
click on expansion
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/video/10tv.html
LikeLike
Pingback: Penn State football links: 2010 recruit Mateas ready to impress … | Nittany Lions 411