Expansionpalooza Overflow Thread

Posted: June 5, 2010 in Big East, Big Ten, Sports

Baylor joining the Pac-10 after putting down BYU for many years based on religious grounds?  Colorado getting locked out of the Pac-10 completely and having to join the Mountain West?  High noon ultimatums to Nebraska and Missouri?  This could all go down within the next week (or even by tomorrow evening).  Conventional wisdom up until the last few days was that the Big Ten Network would be leveraged to alter the college sports landscape.  However, IMG’s revenue projections for the Longhorn Sports Network must apparently be around a hundred billion gazillion Benjamins per month for Texas, which means that a local network that doesn’t exist yet will likely determine whether the first superconference comes to fruition or the clusterfuck of the Big XII remains intact.  I’m sure it’s going to work out REALLY well if all of those schools stay together somehow.  With over 1200 comments in less than 48 hours, here’s a new thread for people to continue the discussion and post the latest news items.

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)

(Image from Examiner.com)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. greg says:

    Hawkeyes are always #1!!!

    Like

  2. Playoffs Now! says:

    LOL at the hysterical drama queens on the prior thread. 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.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      How does the package invite work though?

      They’re going to get a guarantee from Texas in exchange for an invite or tell them that all 6 accept at the same time or they’re all void? It’d be weird if like Colorado or Tech accepts but then A&M decides the SEC has made a better offer and jumps.

      Like

      • NeutronSoup says:

        I’m assuming that the Pac-10 invite process works the same way as the Big 10. First, a school applies for admittance, and then the Pac-10 votes on whether to extend membership to them. So the package deal would mean that if all 6 “invited” schools don’t apply for membership, the existing Pac-10 schools would simply vote down membership invitations for the ones that did apply.

        I could be wrong, though… does anyone here know how the Pac-10 membership expansion process works?

        Like

  3. glenn says:

    frank, you might go ahead and get the overflow overflow thread ready.

    Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      Yes, a daily edition may be wise, given how many twists and turns are probably ahead.

      Like

      • glenn says:

        yeah. twistin’ the night away.

        actually, i’m about twisted out. i think i may ignore those schmucks for the next millennium or so. they’ve fucked this thing us ummercifully and to the point that i don’t really give a damn anymore what they do.

        Like

  4. K says:

    more e-mail please

    Like

  5. Kev says:

    Added

    Like

  6. Big Ten Jeff says:

    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.

    Like

    • Faitfhful5k says:

      100% Truth. Bravo.

      Like

    • M says:

      I agree with this vision of the Big Ten, though I am on the record for an conditional addition of Texas Tech.

      This sentence is a little misleading: “accept Tech, Rice, Houston, OSU, OU or pretty much any non-AAU university”
      Rice is in the AAU. Loki has taken enough grief on this board without you piling on. 😛

      Like

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        My apologies to Loki and the rest of the Rice crew…point unchanged… by the way: my wish list.
        1) Stanford (don’t they resemble the B10 more than the new P16?)
        2) Texas (without the baggage)
        3) Rutgers (Jersey by itself is huge, plus our stars get to showcase the league in NYC)
        4) Virginia (premiere public Univ, southern strategy)
        5) UNC (research dominance, southern strategy).

        I know. It’ll never happen!!

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Personally, I think we should go for Nebraska or Nebraska/Rutgers/Pitt (or Mizz for Pitt, but I think Pitt is closer to Big Ten universities other than bringing a new market).

          Then, we should wait for the SEC to start taking from the ACC.

          Then go for Maryland/VA/UNC/GTech but most emphasis on the Maryland/VA angle. Try to get Johns Hopkins as a CIC-only member. I’ve made the argument before that they’re exactly like UChicago in terms of being in a small conference with undergrad institutions, whereas their graduate research programs are immense. If Maryland is in the footprint, I could see Johns Hopkins considering a CIC invite.

          Then wait for Cal/Stanford to send feelers out to the Big Ten after seeing what the Big Ten has become…

          Like

          • StvInILL says:

            To me adding nebraska and one of the eastern schools is a win. Maybe not a losided one but a win.like beating the best team in the conference and heading to a bowl. Adding either Texas or Notre Dame is huge win. Winning a big bowl. Adding them both is a national chapionship.
            There are no loses in the the deals unless you have to take 3 Texas schools just because you have to. That would be like winnging the big bowl game then getting caught cheating and then getting the death NCAA penalty.

            Like

        • Art Vandelay says:

          I like your list, and completely agree with you on Stanford. I made a reference to them and Cal joining the Big Ten on the last thread. For my top five, I’d stay true to yours with Stanford and Texas as my top two, but I’d move Rutgers down one and insert Maryland, and then probably have one of UNC, UVA, and Florida.

          So it would look like:
          1) Stanford
          2) Texas
          3) Maryland
          4) Rutgers
          5) UNC
          5) UVA
          5) Florida – I actually really dislike Florida because of my run-ins with their fans, but they would be a Texas-like fit in the Big Ten and bring so much to the table.

          Just think what recruiting would look like with expansion like this with any combination of five of these teams!

          Like

        • Art Vandelay says:

          The only thing about Stanford is I don’t think they’d come alone. It just might be too tough logistically. If they came, I think they’d try desperately to get Cal to come with them, so in a more likely scenario (I understand it’s still a shot in the dark), I’d like to see additions of Cal-Berkley, Stanford, Texas, Rutgers, Maryland, and one of Virginia and UNC. (There’s no way Florida would ever come, at least at this point and time).

          Like

    • glenn says:

      outstanding. you get it.

      Like

      • Mike B says:

        Except for one thing: AAU membership is over-rated for some of these institutions (Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas), that got their membership a hundred years ago and probably wouldn’t get in now.

        IMO, once you say you’re willing to add Nebraska but not Pitt, you’ve mad the whole “academics first” argument a bit iffy.

        Like

    • chris 7165 says:

      Simply brilliant!!!

      Like

    • @Big Ten Jeff – Great post! The Big Ten does have an “academic brand” alongside an “athletic brand” and I have faith that the university presidents aren’t going to dilute it at all.

      Like

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        Thanks. The main point I hope TPTB get (and I’m sure they do) is that there are many outstanding options that protect and advance our Brand. The ultimate win is not limited to TX or ND!!! Let’s hope we don’t lose sight of that and allow a few admittedly outstanding options to steer us off course, when we’ve done so well for a century.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Big Ten Jeff,

          I am confused..

          In the last blog I made the “academic” vs “athletic” point and said at this time I would be happy with Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Maryland, and Virginia.

          all are already AAU
          all would expand footprints
          all would add senators / congressmen
          all would fit geographically
          all would fit [close to current members]

          to which Mike B replied..

          Mike B says:
          June 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm
          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.

          to which I replied..

          duffman says:
          June 5, 2010 at 9:35 pm
          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.

          HERE IS MY QUESTION / POLL

          If the Big 10 went to 16 by adding….

          NEBRASKA, MISSOURI, KANSAS (Big 12)
          MARYLAND, VIRGINIA (ACC)

          would you as bloggers

          a) be excited – as it shows the importance of research to the Big 10

          b) be neutral – feel we did pretty good, but TX and ND got away (buyers remorse)

          c) vomit – feel the Big 10 failed, and that we should have lowered some standard to get certain schools (football and $$ matter).

          I would like to get a feel where the bloggers on this post actually stand.. thanks

          Like

          • Paul says:

            I would be neutral on that expansion, with the possibility of warming to it over the years. I would be happy about the quality of the schools, academically. I would be excited about Kansas for basketball. I would be excited about Nebraska for football. But, as a fan, I would worry about diluting the schedule with a few too many teams that don’t get my juices flowing.

            What about taking these fiveteams instead?

            Nebraska (for football)
            Rutgers (for PSU & NYC)
            Georgia Tech (for sunbelt)
            Vanderbilt (for sunbelt)
            Notre Dame (for football and everything else).

            Getting both Nebraska and Notre Dame would be a win for sports fans. The footprint would expand in good directions. And the academics would be solid. Also, no conferences would be destroyed.

            My big question is whether Notre Dame would come in without Texas.

            Like

          • Big Ten Jeff says:

            Duffmann, I agree wholeheartedly with you and thought your stream was inspired. I believe multiple subsets of 5 choices out of the universe of 15ish state dominating AAU-member universities would allow the Big Ten to further its goals and would be an unequivocal success in reaffirming its dominance in the future. Obviously some subsets are ‘sexier’ than others, and why wouldn’t we want the perfect storm or the best possible of these subsets – which is why either Texas (preferably alone) or Nebraska is such a high priority. I believe this is why Frank says Nebraska (since Texas alone isn’t a probably) is the single most likely addition, then Rutgers (which isn’t the perfect storm but scores incredibly high on so many metrics).

            I take issue with the specific stance, though not the intent of Mike B’s argument. There are couplets that I would be pleased to see, such as taking Cal to get Stanford, taking Duke to get UNC, taking A&M to get Texas. However in no circumstance do I want to see any couplets that creates a hanger-on that dilutes the brand – top to bottom excellence, even if at varying degrees. I am even modestly uncomfortable with ND without AAU status, but I don’t want to be an ideologic purist (something about the perfect being the enemy of the good).

            One final point: remember one of Frank’s opening salvo’s, which hasn’t got much play lately: 11+1=13 for either each individual unit or for the overall collection (and not just for money). Think about how we define ourselves and judge the end result based on how well we advance that notion.

            Like

          • Vincent says:

            I think there are several tiers of prospective Big Ten members, taking into account appeal, athletics, academics, research, market size and influence:

            A+: Texas
            A: Notre Dame
            A-: Nebraska
            B+: Rutgers, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech
            B: Missouri, Kansas
            B-: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Duke, Vanderbilt

            With Texas off the table and Notre Dame too demanding, Rutgers and at least three ACC schools provide the best complement to Nebraska.

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            Concur with Paul. NE, MO, KS, MD and VA are very “meh” from a sports perspective. Frankly, I’m not a researcher/professor/etc.; so my perspective is sports.

            I’d switch out MD and VA with Pitt and Rutgers. don’t have the numbers handy as to the rankings among Va, Md and Pitt, but Pitt would be a good academic addition and a good sports fit.

            I have to think the Presidents will be about BOTH academics and sports. And where is Mizzu on the academic scale? I recall some/many thread comments suggesting Mizzu was a non-starter on the academic side.

            The ACC schools don’t fit the geography. (Tho’ your point yesterday about adding US Senators is compelling (and has moved my thinking concerning KS)).

            So, query: KS vs Syracuse?

            Like

          • Hank says:

            neutral

            fine, actually excited, with Nebraska, Maryland and Virginia. but Missouri and Kansas are too much the same market. I would much prefer Rutgers instead of both.

            Like

          • Cliff's Notes says:

            Duffman,

            If the Big Ten adds Virginia, Maryland, and/or Nebraska, I am very happy with each, and would be thrilled if this was our 14 schools.

            But Missouri and Kansas at this point feels very “meh”. Taking one of them as the last reasonable school to get to 16 is one thing. But not both.

            There are too many other schools out there that I would much rather see, and much rather give it time to shake out. ND and UNC, for example. In the next level, I’d also probably prefer Miami, Colorado or Rutgers over Missouri or Kansas.

            Like

      • Howard Hemlock says:

        Frank,

        You say you have faith that the presidents aren’t going to dilute the academic brand “at all,” but you also continue to say that Nebraska is the most likely addition.

        How can you reconcile those two statements? By every set of academic/research rankings I’ve seen, as well as research dollars, Nebraska is well behind all of the current Big Ten schools.

        Like

        • @Howard – Nebraska is an AAU member, the graduate research levels are as high as anyone that we’ve talked about except for Texas, Texas A&M and Pitt, and its US News ranking is higher than Missouri. It’s not a slam dunk academic school like Texas, but in terms of meeting the Big Ten’s overall academic criteria, it meets them.

          Like

          • Howard Hemlock says:

            Frank,

            I think you are vastly oversimplifying–and underplaying–the “overall academic criteria.” Look back at this quote from Teddy Greenstein’s Sunday(?) article:

            ————-
            Simon insists the media have under-emphasized the importance of academics in the Big Ten’s deliberations. “I have facetiously said that at the start of this process, if we had given fifth-graders the criteria, the list of institutions would be essentially the list that has been bandied about … by you all,” she said. “With much more sophisticated analysis of the sense of ‘fit,’ but academics has not been much of the conversation. This is more than teams playing teams.”

            So what is the Big Ten’s analysis based on – Association of American Universities membership? Academic Progress Rate numbers? US News & World Report rankings?

            “Most of the people in the room were provosts before they were presidents,” Simon said, “so it’s a group that is perfectly capable of making very sophisticated judgments on academics. If anything, we obsess about that.”
            ————-
            The lesson from that excerpt is that there are no “overall academic criteria,” but a lot of very specific criteria that are being considered by people who know a ton more about this than we do. They’re certainly not going to simply look at AAU membership and move on.

            Also, you’re comparing Nebraska’s academic/research credentials to other candidates, but in determining whether Nebraska would dilute the academic brand, the comparison needs to be with the current members. If you look at ARWU, the U.S. News undergraduate rankings, the U.S. News world rankings (which, unlike the undergrad rankings, incorporate research into the equation), Nebraska is well behind all of the current members.

            So the reality is that Nebraska would definitely dilute the academic brand. The question is just whether that dilution is acceptable to the presidents.

            Like

    • Vincent says:

      This is why the Nebraska + 4 of 5 ACC AAU (or Nebraska + Rutgers + 3 of 5 ACC AAU) is perhaps the favored scenario of at least some of the Big Ten presidents if Texas is off the table and Notre Dame still thinks it’s bigger than the game.

      The ACC is probably next in academic/athletic prestige to the Big Ten — and if I’m Delany, I tell Slive his best bet, if he can’t get A&M or Texas, is to add Virginia Tech and N.C. State from the east (adding the DC/Va/NC markets to the SEC) and Missouri and Kansas from the west (adding StL/KC plus a superheated rivalry and a basketball “brand name” to complement Kentucky).

      With the SEC taking those four, Delany can choose Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina as a minimum (with no rancor from Va or NC legislators, since Tech and State have new, profitable homes), possibly adding either Duke or Georgia Tech in place of Rutgers. OK, it’s not the Texas or ND home run, but five extra-base hits leads to a big inning.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        vincent,

        as a basketball fan IU/MSU vs UK/KU in a Big 10 vs SEC makes my heart skip a beat.. but then reality sets in..

        The SEC is a FOOTBALL conference.. but it has made me think of one possible move.. UK and Vandy to the ACC in a trade for Clemson and FSU.. UK and Vandy have good basketball programs, and Clemson and FSU are football schools. UK and Vandy could move from cellar dwellers in the SEC to mid / upper status in football in the ACC.

        Like

    • Art Vandelay says:

      This was the exact point I was trying to make on the last thread, only you said it so much better. The Big Ten should be viewed as an exclusive club, and anyone they invite should join. Compromising your identity, morals, and values is not just foolish, it’s morally wrong. While I understand that this whole thing is about money, it shouldn’t in any way go against what the Big Ten stands for and is all about.

      Like

      • Just Say No to NJ says:

        Yeah, that’s why Rutgers is such a lock for the Big Ten. Their long history of football excellence, Ability to draw 100k to games in their state-of-the-art stadium, the solid financial condition of the university and the scenic locale of Camden/New Brunswick (which is almost indistinguishable from fall in Madison or Ann Arbor) make them fit like a glove. Throw in class-acts like the Sopranos, Jersey Shore, Gov McGreevy etc, and I’m stunned they haven’t been invited before now.

        To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line – “let’s everyone not start licking each other’s Popsicles just yet”. Rutgers, you over-achieved just getting into the Big East and have showed nothing in that time to justify even being in the Big Ten conversation, let alone getting an invite gawd-forbid. The mere fact that this is not the case is proof that the Big Ten is not as “moral” and “altruistic” as some of you credit. The Big Ten would invite DeVry and ITT Tech if they could make $ from it – Rutgers’ inclusion in this debate proves it.

        Like

        • Phil says:

          Just say no-

          I don’t know where to begin with your idiocy.

          -Now colleges are responsible for fictional characters or a bunch of people from NY that come to our state’s beaches in the summer?

          -RU has no financial issues beyond having to deal with the same state funding issues that a lot of schools are dealing with in this economy.

          -NJ has had some bad governors, but I don’t think a conference that has a school in Illinois can hold that against us.

          -The fact RU has a satellite campus in Camden is a problem? Well, you better kick out the Nittany Lions now then. Have you ever seen the Penn State-Hazleton campus?

          -RU Stadium IS state of the art, but currently holds only 54,000. If having a 100,000 seat stadium is a deal breaker, shouldn’t the Big Ten be called the Big 3?

          Given how your post shows a lack of knowledge of New Jersey beyond what you could have gotten by watching a lot of cable TV shows, I have to assume you are a Pitt or Syracuse fan that is pissed that RU is being currently mentioned more than your school.

          Like

        • Can't Get Enough says:

          …so I take it Rutgers didn’t accept your application?

          Like

        • Just Say No to NJ says:

          Actually I’m already in the big 10 and don’t want to see the value of my degree decrease every much/wisc/psu game bc the camera shows James gandolfini, jersey shore idiots or the sophisticated Rutgers fans f-bombing Navy and the service academies on national ESPN telecasts. No offense to the many decent people and fans to NJ, but you are outnumbered (or at least not as vocal). And the “Rutgers would get NYC” argument is baseless. Rutgers fans don’t “get NYC” anymore than BC “gets Boston”.

          Can’t wait for first espn gameday to see all the shore misfits, hey yoos guys suck chants and Springsteen still being treated like he’s relevant. Take Mizzou, UVA, MD, Pitt, SYR, Neb – ANYone but Rutgers. I don’t Want to have to start apologizing for my league in exchange for the (aptly described) fools’ gold that is “Rutgers gets NYC” that has no historical reason for anyone to think it will ever materialize.

          Like

          • ezdozen says:

            Hey… don’t pick on Rutgers. They have parlayed five mediocre seasons into their best chance of ever getting into the Big 10 AND there are 9,000 Rutgers fans on this board for some reason.

            Like

          • Ricky Bobby says:

            There are more Rutgers fans on this board than attended all WVU games at Rutgers Stadium combined until last year. I think last year was the first time WVU played in front of a pro-Rutgers crowd (still won though). As ex-WVU Coach Don Nehlen says, “Rutgers is Rutgers.” Or as ex-WVU db Charles Pugh said, “What the hell is a Rutgers?”

            Like

          • Can't Get Enough says:

            Friendly advice from a Big Ten alum.

            Your personality is the best way to add value to your degree. Trust me, Rutgers could never hurt you as much as your own own attitude.

            Like

    • prophetstruth says:

      @Big10 Jeff

      Nicely put! Expresses my feelings exactly. I would have been extremely disappointed if the Big10 sacrificed the academic integrity of the conference for football. That, to me would go against everything the Big10 stands for. I would rather take a pass on a great institution like Texas if it means taking in schools that do not meet the minimum standards (AAU).

      Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        concur … and FWIW, I really believe the B10 Presidents won’t do it. B10Jeff and Duffman are right to bring us back to the importance of the academic/research side of the equation.

        Like

        • michaelC says:

          FWIW, the academic side of the equation has been core to this discussion since the very first blog post on expansion.

          What’s extremely interesting here is that we are near or at the moment of truth when the conferences (Pac-10, Big-10, SEC) and certain schools and states will make clear their beliefs about the relative importance of money, football, and academics. This is where true character will show.

          Like

        • michaelC says:

          If Baylor gets the nod the Big Ten has to take a serious look at Colorado.

          Like

    • WhiskeyBadger says:

      If nothing else, even if no expansion happens and everything stays the same, this expansion investigation announcement has done one thing.

      This has been the largest free advertising campaign for Big Ten Universities one could imagine.

      Everyone has been repeating how academically elite the Big Ten is, how academics will play a role in this process, etc. This has been a reminder to everyone in the footprint and a notice to everyone outside. Academics important to you? Come to a Big Ten U.

      Like

      • Kyle says:

        that’s true. There’s also been a boost of academic awareness for the likes of Pitt, Texas, and A&M. It certainly can’t hurt to be consistently mentioned as “Big Ten caliber institutions” in all of these articles and discussions. It’s the iowa state and west virginia variety of schools that are getting the bad press here.

        Like

        • Madison Hawk says:

          There is no comparison between Iowa State and West Virginia. Iowa State’s problem is similar to Pitt’s but much greater. Iowa State is as much or more academically qualified to join the Big Ten than many candidates, including Nebraska, Missouri and Syracuse. Iowa State’s problem is they bring less revenue to the table than other candidates.

          Pitt may (emphasis on may) slide in a 16-team expansion due to their very large research budget compared to virtually every other candidate. Iowa State will not be so lucky.

          Like

        • Ricky Bobby says:

          There is also no comparison b/w Iowa State and WVU athletics, either historically or recently. In the past decade, WVU has won 2 BCS bowls, finished in the top 10 3 years in a row in football, been to the Elite 8, Sweet 16 (twice) and Final Four and won the Big East Conference Tournament.

          Like

          • Just Say No to NJ says:

            I think WVU lands on their no matter what happens to the BIg East. They would actually be pretty awesome to see in the SEC. Too bad RichRod messed up that good thing he had going there – he could be running that Pat White-style offense and putting up 50 and scoring at will against the likes of UGA like they did in that killer bowl game.

            Slingshot – engaged !

            Like

    • Hank says:

      just to add, great post Jeff. I think you hit every nail right on the head.

      Like

    • IrishTexan says:

      Agreed.

      Like

    • R says:

      Thankyou for a great post!

      Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      You are right on, Big Ten Jeff… Bravo… Also, based on latest from meeting of B10 chancellors/presidents (according to A. Rittenberg’s report on ESPN.com), your assessment aligns with the words stated by the chair of the Big 10’s council of president’s/chancellors (Lou Anna K. Simon–MSU). “There was no discussion of having a vote today,” though she noted that the group made good progress on expansion.

      Simon outlined the four criteria the B10 is evaluating for any applicant to the league: academics, willingness to cooperate in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), athletic competitiveness, and fiscal responsibility to the conference. “The academics are on top of the list,” Simon said, “and purposely top on the list because it reflects the values of the presidents. … This is not an infinite set of institutions [that fit the Big10], and it’s not as difficult as one might think for presidents to understand some of the implications of various decisions.”

      Commissioner Jim Delaney stressed the fact that “It’s not just a conference making a decision. It has always been and will continue to be about institutions making a choice.” “For us that would be an application process, an assessment process.”

      According to the article, Big 10 bylaws require an application for membership and none have been submitted. Bylaws also state that action, such as offering a university to join the conference, can be done in person, electronically or by telephone–meaning university officials do not need to reconvene in Chicago to vote or make a decision.

      Hopefully, the Big 10 leaders are true to their word and will go forward making decisions based on intelligent assessment of prospective candidates.

      Like

    • Big Ten Jeff says:

      Thanks for all the kind feedback. See below for something else provocative! I’m staying out the box.

      Like

    • Scott says:

      Forgive me if this has already been brought up (hard to keep up with so many commments!), but why doesn’t the Big 10 invite Colorado? They’re ann AAU school, and outside of Texas they offer the biggest market in the Big12. Forget Missouri, go after Nebraska and Colordao from the west, then look east or south for the next three members.

      Like

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        Scott, I think Colorado’s on the list but down the list. I believe it’s on the list because my uninformed impression is every AAU school is under consideration as part of a national growth strategy. I also believe the Big Ten wants to steer certain universities to its Rose Bowl partner, and Colorado certainly is a prime candidate there. I think an eastern strategy is more likely than CO, but wouldn’t it be interesting that if the P-10 took the Texas 5 that Colorado would be prominently sitting there in such a prominent market with nowhere else to go…

        Like

  7. StankyJones says:

    add This is awesome!

    Like

  8. FLP_NDRox says:

    OK, so does this now mean that Texas is officially OFF the Big Ten’s board now?

    Add

    Like

    • greg says:

      @FLP_NDRox

      I hope this means Texas is off the B10 board. Lets stop messing around with Texas and ND, neither institution truly wants to join. Get Nebraska as a HR, or a triple or maybe just a double. I’d prefer they stop at 12, but if Maryland or some other great school could be added, 14 would be fine. 16 is a mistake.

      Like

    • SuperD says:

      You mean the Big 10 doesn’t want the the HR additions of Texas Tech and Baylor to go along with Texas? Come on roadies to Waco are great, lol.

      Like

  9. Gumbynuts says:

    Inbox overflowing

    Like

  10. Scott C says:

    From the twitter of a journalist following Oregon Sports:

    More Pac-16 smoke: Just got e-mail from Baylor sports info pushing interview with AD on possible inclusion instead of Colorado.

    http://twitter.com/GeorgeSchroeder

    found via http://twitter.com/slmandel/

    Like

  11. greg says:

    Btw, my iphone is now solely my “Frank The Tank email reading machine”. I finally plowed thru all the emails from the last thread just in time to post to this one.

    Like

  12. Scott C says:

    I wasn’t thinking and put two links in a comment and it’s awaiting moderation. 😦

    Info from twitter:

    From the twitter of a journalist following Oregon Sports:

    More Pac-16 smoke: Just got e-mail from Baylor sports info pushing interview with AD on possible inclusion instead of Colorado.

    http://twitter.com/GeorgeSchroeder

    Like

  13. M says:

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/060610dnspobig12lede.75765a22.html

    Another “multiple sources” say Nebraska has until this week, or maybe next week. I still don’t understand the threat though. If Nebraska doesn’t commit, the 6 accept an offer from the Pac-10 that sounds like it is still in the discussion phase?

    If the 10 other schools were really interested in keeping the conference together, they could approve greater exit penalties without Nebraska’s vote. This ultimatum looks more like a scapegoating than an offer of reconciliation.

    Like

    • greg says:

      The ultimatum to Nebraska is certainly for scapegoating. I don’t know how half the friggin conference is considering leaving, but somehow trying to make it look like Nebraska is the key to holding it together. WTF.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Nebraska is being given the role of Arkansas this time around.

        Time for the Big Ten to play the role of the SEC and make an invite. Let the rest of the dominoes fall where they may.

        Like

        • @zeek – Great analogy. I think that’s exactly what’s going to happen.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I agree. I think Nebraska may end up getting an invite or a private confirmation of a future invite from Delany within the next couple of days.

            I really don’t see the Big Ten presidents screwing around with a school that pretty much perfectly fits the profile in terms of athletics (top notch facilities/teams, etc.) and has taken great strides in terms of its academics (Innovation Campus, etc.).

            I don’t see Delany/Big Ten presidents leaving Nebraska in an uncertain phase and facing a deadline from Texas. That’s not how the Big Ten would operate towards a school that clearly is at the top of the list for potential invites.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Not really agree*, just meant to expound on the idea a bit.

            Like

          • Cornography says:

            @zeek –

            Couldn’t reply directly to his last post for some reason, but THANK YOU for someone finally mentioning the innovation campus. That is one thing that has really slipped through the cracks on this blog when discussing Nebraska’s academics. The entire campus is going to be dedicated to research and is going to be brand new and top of the line. Nebraska is already a strong research university, but the Innovation Campus is going to make the research money go way up, and bring it to a level more on par with a lot of the Big Ten schools.

            Like

          • Cornography says:

            For anyone looking for more info on the innovation campus, check it out here:

            http://innovate.unl.edu/

            Like

          • greg says:

            @Cornography

            The innovation campus has been mentioned numerous times around these parts. It is an impressive addition, but universities in general are in a facilities arms race.

            Like

          • Just Say No to NJ says:

            Agree with all of the above. Nebraska is a tailor-made fit for the big 10 so hopefully the presidents will spare us the cloak-and-dagger and just invite them asap. All the other candidates have some knock against them (even neb with the small mkt) but I think they would be excellent ambassadors for the big 10. And their fans – anybody who has ever had them in your stadium will never find a more considerate, polite bunch. I almost wanted them to be jerks so I could dislike them – ha- but they win everyone over. And they TRAVEL like crazy ! A true win-win-win (as Michael Scott says) to get them. Ps plus with no pro teams to compete against locally and their national following they will bring super bowl type ad rates with their 28 Nielsen ratings for the big 10 network – ha

            Like

    • Texas has been given one more second on their decision clock than Nebraska.

      Like

  14. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Adding. The Texas (State of) Drama Queens always keep the board lively.

    Like

    • StankyJones says:

      It’s like a Chinese water drill for Texas. I can’t believe these rumors are true about PAC-16 invites and now Baylor replacing CU. I can’t stop laughing.

      Like

  15. Jeepers says:

    Cremeschnitte. (they’re delish, try one)

    Like

  16. Kyle says:

    [Pitt-centric musings]

    If the big 12 south (-baylor, +colorado) decides to join the pac-10 as advertised, that would close off all of the western expansion options for the SEC. Not that the SEC would have to expand, but the impression/urge may be there. This limits them to looking east for expansion: ACC schools or possibly WVU. If/when the ACC is looking to replace members or expand, then Pitt has to be high on their list for market, academic, and athletic reasons. I would say Pitt is still on the Big Ten’s list, though somewhere around the margin because we don’t bring new tv territory.

    If the ACC loses some southern members to the SEC, and the Big East loses, say Syracuse, Rutgers, and Notre Dame to the Big Ten, there might be some sort of merger between the ACC and Big East. I imagine the basketball-only Big East schools would be forced to split off into their own conference.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Pitt may even end up in the Big Ten.

      I mean it’s not as if Pitt makes no sense. Pitt makes sense in every way (academics/athletics) except that it doesn’t bring a new market.

      Yet every discussion of SEC expansion includes Clemson at the top of the list. What does Clemson really bring to the SEC that Pitt wouldn’t bring to the Big Ten? Nothing.

      Especially if Texas is off the Big Ten’s radar; then we’re going to go East/Southeast.

      Nebraska and Missouri are all that the Big Ten would add in the west, so we’d give a really hard look at Rutgers/Syracuse/Pitt/Maryland/Virginia.

      Personally, I think Nebraska/Rutgers/Pitt is a better idea than Nebraska/Rutgers/Syracuse, although I think there are people who will want to put down a pole in the middle of New York.

      You know what’s funny? JoePa’s original expansion scenario was 2 in the East, 1 in the West. The three schools he was most likely referring to was Nebraska/Pitt/Rutgers since he’s always seen Pitt as making sense and Rutgers for the NYC/NJ angle. Obviously Nebraska is the best Western addition.

      Like

      • Kyle says:

        I hope Pitt is included in the eventual Big Ten. I have a strong preference for “northern” football and despite the basketball pedigree, I’m not really keen on the southern/tobacco-road identity of the ACC.

        I think Clemson is most often considered because because of its nickname “Auburn-with-a-lake.” I think it’s also important to remember that SEC expansion has no dedicated network like the Big Ten or the presumed Pac-16. They would want to gain high-profile games rather than any emphasis on new territory.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, but the Big Ten does want that too in some sense.

          Pitt. actually creates more compelling matchups across the Big Ten footprint than Mizzou.

          The Big Ten Network is only getting 2nd tier games so you want those to be as interesting as possible for advertising revenue, etc. That’s why we’re almost certain to take Nebraska.

          Pitt. would create more interesting matchups in terms of ratings in the Big Ten footprint in my mind.

          Also, when you go to research, Syracuse really doesn’t look like a Big Ten university; it looks more like Texas Tech even with AAU status.

          Pitt would be near the top of the Big Ten in AAU.

          I think Pitt’s been a bit of a dark horse because of the focus on Texas/ND.

          But if you take away Texas/ND and the first two are Nebraska/Rutgers, then who is the third?

          Missouri, Pitt, or Syracuse? I don’t think Syracuse is a good institutional fit although it creates some basketball and possibly football interest if they’re good. Missouri has TV sets, and a decent football brand, but Pitt has the best football brand of the three.

          Pitt’s ratings were actually comparable to Nebraska’s last year.

          I don’t know where the .gif is, but the one of the expansion candidates showed that Pitt. is actually more of a candidate than the just the additional TV market argument would seem…

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            As interested outsider, I’ve been rooting for Pitt for some time. Pitt is the one school most like the rest of the Big Ten, great academics and competitive athletics in multiple sports.

            Take Rutgers as the punching bag with lots of TVs, and access for Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State & Nebraska to play in the new Giants/Jets Stadium or Yankee Stadium every few years.

            Take Nebraska as its football royalty with national appeal.

            Take Pitt because its the right thing to do.

            Like

        • Michael in Indy says:

          Just curious: Why would you have an issue with the ACC’s “southern/tobacco-road identity?”

          Having grown up in SC 45 minutes from Clemson, then living in NC for 5.5 years for college & a job afterwards, along with being a huge FSU fan, I’ve been exposed to the ACC from the perspective of many of its members. I’d say the ACC is southern, but compared to the SEC, it’s definitely southern-lite. Clemson and its fan culturally every bit as southern as Alabama or Ole Miss. FSU’s not that different. Other than those two, I’ve always felt like the other schools are simply quality schools which are inclusive of students/professors from all regions but, due to location, carry some typical southern quirks. (e.g., fraternity students at UVA wearing ties at their games).

          As far as “tobacco road” goes, I wouldn’t let that bother you. If your concern is literally with tobacco, remember that smoking isn’t really that much heavier in NC than it is in Indiana. “Tobacco road” is more a tip of the cap to traditions of yesteryear with the farm-to-market roads between rural eastern NC and Durham & Winston-Salem, and everyone knows that it’s just history. In modern times, the tobacco road area is known much more for Duke, UNC, and NCSU themselves… and of course RTP, which employs 50 friggin thousand people!

          Anyway, I hope so much that the Big Ten doesn’t break up the ACC.

          Like

          • Kyle says:

            Oh I know it’s nothing to do with actual tobacco. It seems to me (as an outsider) that there is a clear leadership divide between the tobacco road schools and the “new” schools. In contrast, I appreciate the equality and camaraderie the Big Ten schools share athletically and academically.

            I come from a mixed Pitt and Penn State family with much stronger football interest than basketball. So my preferences are naturally with the big ten and old eastern independents.

            Like

          • Michael in Indy says:

            My impression is that FSU, Miami, VT, and BC are all grateful for their affiliation with the tobacco road schools. I remember reading something on VT’s web page a few years ago where its president said that the ACC invite was what it had wanted for 50 years, and he also credited the overall athletic department’s improvement to the ACC. BC, Miami, and VT each are pleased with the academic association with the tobacco road schools.

            GT isn’t really all that new of a member; it’s been in the league for 32 of the ACC’s 57 seasons. I can’t speak to whether that school has any resentment towards the NC schools.

            Maryland has a good kind of resentment: they LOVE to HATE Duke.

            South Carolina did resent the dominance of the NC schools so much that it withdrew, but that was back in the early 70’s. At that time, 4 of 8 members were in NC. Now it’s 4 of 12.

            The ACC does have equality as one of its high values; it distributes revenue equally, even though Duke probably hasn’t appeared on ESPN or ABC since the 90’s while FSU & Miami are on many times/season. It’s also been more equitable as to where it stages the ACC b-ball tournament. It’s still in G’boro or Charlotte most years, which makes given the central location and proximity to not just one or two schools but four; however, it’s also been held in Washington, Atlanta, and Tampa in recent years.

            I guess my point is that I think there’s not much of a reason to view ACC schools as problematic or trouble-making; certainly they’d be far less contentious than Notre Dame or Texas would. But having said that, I hope the Big Ten (and SEC) leaves the ACC the hell alone. It’s not a hodgepodge league like the Big East. It’s not a shotgun marriage like the Big 12. It’s a strong, reasonably unified league in its own right.

            That’s why I’d prefer the Big Ten to take Nebraska, Rutgers, and Pitt, three schools which by all means qualify for the Big Ten and would be leaving mediocre situations for a pretty ideal one.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            as an aside..

            as an Indiana homer.. I will let you ponder the following two points….

            a) Everett Case – would “tobacco road” even exist today in basketball?

            b) John Wooden – would the Pac 10 have any basketball history?

            how did the Big 10 ever let these guys leave Big 10 country?

            Like

    • Vincent says:

      The SEC would still have two western options from the Big 12 — Missouri (which, after all, borders Arkansas) and Kansas. As I stated above, you add some basketball luster, a heated rivalry, and get both St. Louis and Kansas City in the SEC footprint. Missouri would have more value to the SEC than it would to the Big Ten. (It would also give “Tigers” a 3-2 edge over “Bulldogs,” but I’m not sure the SEC wants Clemson to make it four.)

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Vincent – the SEC doesn’t need markets. For expansion to work for the SEC, ESPN & CBS would have to agree to renegotiate the TV contracts. They would probably only do that if it meant higher ratings and higher ad rates. Kansas & Mizzou don’t do that.

        Like

        • Josh says:

          You’re right. The SEC operates on a slightly different marketing model than the Big 10. Rather than trying to get markets and huge alumni bases like the Big 10, the SEC tries to convince everyone that the SEC game is the one to see, no matter where in the country you live. (With quite a bit of success, I might add.)

          Alabama and LSU are from small, poor states that aren’t all that desirable to advertisers. But the SEC has made those games valuable because they can argue that a Tide/Tigers game is the game that everyone is going to be talking about the next week no matter where you live or went to school.

          Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            hmm…. with respect, I am not sure any of us can say what the “marketing strategies” of the various conferences are.

            IMHO, we readers of this blog and the comments have become overly mesmerized by the tv markets and demographics component.

            IIRC, the B10 Network has denied that any one has discussed expansion with them. So, is adding tv households really something being heavily considered by the 11 men/women who are going to vote?

            Like

      • Kyle says:

        Do you think Kansas would/could ditch K-state like that? In my mind they’ll try and salvage something with Iowa state and the Mountain West heavyweights. Add boise and maybe louisville or houston and they’ll have a respectable conference.

        Like

        • eapg says:

          Do you think Kansas would/could ditch K-state like that?

          It’s possible. It probably comes down to one question, are Kansas politicians going to make Kansas, and attractive candidate for a high level conference, walk the plank for Kansas State? If you can’t save both, you save one.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Pretty much.

            They’re going to have to come to grips that Kansas has a chance to go the Iowa route and that Kansas State will be an afterthought like Kansas State.

            One is better than none in a major conference…

            Like

      • duffman says:

        vincent,

        think of central points..

        say..

        Big 10 = Chicago
        SEC = Atlanta

        now look at a map and the SEC would be moving well away from atlanta.. as opposed to say Clemson, UNC, NC St, and Ga Tech. Kentucky is at the edge of the SEC but it is a straight shot down I – 75 to Atlanta. Going to Missouri and Kansas means going NORTH and WEST and adding big road travel for the tailgating masses.

        call me old fashioned, but driving distance for the fans has to be in the equation somewhere for really good rivalries to develop. Rivals means better demand for product.

        Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      @Kyle: thanks for the Pitt musing.

      two additional thoughts: defensive additions and JoePa.

      If Pitt is not B10, then the the ACC has a potential entry into the PA tv market. So B10 takes Pitt defensively to prevent dilution of the PA market.

      PennState (via JoePa) has a lot of influence in which eastern schools get an invite. I’d predict JoePa’s list is: Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and then way down the list MD and at the bottom VA.

      Remember, there WILL be horsetrading. “We’ll vote for X if you vote for Y.”

      Like

      • Pezlion says:

        You’d be wrong on both of those items. Penn State dominates PA. Pitt’s market share comparatively is very small. The ACC might make a grab for Pitt, but it’s not going to effect the Big Ten’s market share in PA. Pitt has no pull outside of a ring around Pittsburgh, and PSU is still a bigger draw in Pittsburgh.

        On JoePa’s preferences, Pitt is way down the list. Joe wouldn’t care if PSU never played Pitt again. Rutgers and Syracuse would both be way above Pitt.

        Like

  17. Husker Al says:

    I find it kind of amazing how the talk of Missouri being a shoo-in has almost stopped completely.

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      Their fanbase apparently didn’t get the memo.
      http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/list.php?board=2

      Like

      • @Nostradamus – Sincere thanks to whoever has been posting my blog posts on Tiger Board. That person usually takes a whole lot of heat from that crowd since a lot of them think I’m an Illini homer on this subject. I swear to the Mizzou fans – there’s nothing personal. I’m just passing along what I’ve heard.

        Like

      • Gopher86 says:

        Oh God. Tigerboard is a cesspool. I wouldn’t worry about anything that comes off of that circa 1998 message board.

        (nm)

        Like

    • @Husker Al – I know a good portion of the Mizzou message board crowd thinks that I have some vendetta against them as an Illinois alum (which is insane, as Missouri provides a great conference rival that we never really have had), but the buzz has definitely died down about the school over the past few weeks. I’ve getting a lot of conflicting reports about Mizzou for awhile. A handful think that Mizzou is a lock, while a whole lot of others think that they won’t get in. We’ll see how it turns out. At least Missouri is in a better position than Kansas, who has to be extremely worried.

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        @Frank,
        At this point you almost have to think it comes down to how big is the Big 10 going to expand. If it is 16, I think there is a very good chance Missouri is in as team # 15 or 16. 14? A lot less likely than we initially thought. 12 no chance.

        Like

        • @Nostradamus – Yes, in a 16-team league, I believe that Missouri would be in at this point. Of course, I think that the Big Ten will only go up to 16 if Texas or Notre Dame is included, so that complicates things. It’s a bit more dicey at 14 for Mizzou.

          The Arkansas comparison that zeek brought up earlier is really sticking with me. That might be a theme for a future post. Let’s say the Big Ten is resigned that it’s not going to get Texas. Maybe it also believes that Texas is sincere in wanting to keep the Big XII together. In that scenario, it makes sense that the Big Ten would only take 1 Big XII school in order to maximize the chances of the conference surviving as opposed to pushing a breakup.

          I don’t think the Big Ten is stupid. You can see how much the Big XII cares about Nebraska leaving compared to Missouri and that’s reflected in how a whole lot more internal squabbling seemed to surface when the Huskers became a more prominent name in these expansion discussions. Depending on which side you’re on, Nebraska is either being forced into a quick decision or it really does hold a lot of the cards here. Arkansas, as opposed to Texas or Texas A&M, was the school that dealt the final death blow to the SWC. Nebraska could very well play the same role with respect to the Big XII.

          Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            @ Frank: btw, thanks for this Blog; been so fun to read over the last few months…

            in response to this last comment, i’d throw out again some of my thoughts from the previous thread.

            if you contemplate the chummy relationship between the “Rose Bowl Conferences,” and think 5-20 years down the road of preventing TX from going to the SEC, pushing TX into a Pac-16, might be a good idea now.

            makes Pac10 an equal to the B10 and SEC.

            it is in B10’s interest that P10 remain a powerful conference; without the BXII South, the P10 is in danger of falling behind in the tv-money-arms-race.

            so B10 takes as many quality BXII schools as needed to push Tex into the arms of the P10.

            Like

      • Husker Al says:

        @Frank the Tank

        I’ve only started posting recently, but I’ve been lurking since this all started. I think you’ve been pretty straightforward in calling it like you see and hear it. You can swear allegiance to your alma mater and post objectively at the same time – not everyone can pull that off.

        Like

      • eapg says:

        If Kansas is truly off the board for the Big Ten, and the Pac 10 balks at their new grab bag of teams, then Lew Perkins better be sending love letters west. Going in a Pac 10 pullback with Colorado, and visiting Pauley Pavilion (R.I.P., John Wooden) once a year would be a pretty soft landing from where they’re at now.

        Like

        • Stopping By says:

          ^^This^^ and you go straight to the state legislators and get them to sign off on separating from K-St.

          Kick em extra $$ and keep the annual game OOC if you have to but get them to let you leave them….

          Like

      • Vincent says:

        This is why if I’m Kansas, I go hat in hand to the Missouri people and say, “Don’t risk being left out. Join forces with us and approach the SEC.” It’s like that old Smokey Robinson and the Miracles tune — the SEC may not be the one you want (we know that belongs to the Big Ten), but it may be the one you need (to avoid joining ISU and KSU in the Mountain West).

        Like

      • Stopping By says:

        I would prefer KS and MO to the Pac in the group of 6 rumor over OK and OkSt. It won’t happen due to 1) a TX concession, 2) rumor KS is tied to KsSt, and 3) Pac has uneven dollar distribution that Mizz hates so much and that they prefer B10/get away from TX.

        I really have a fear for the Pac in the B12 South rumor. For reasons you stated about power voting block issues – it would be ideal not to have so many coming from the same conference. In this case the divide between the B12 N and S seems so wide (at least the media leads us to believe it is) its almost like they are different divisions. That would lead me to prefer a P16 with TX, aTm, TT (if required – you take em), and then some sort CU + Utah/KS/MO combo.

        If the B10 won’t take TT and TX truely needs them to take them with them, and the Pac is willing to do that then why also bend to the OU request? Assuming TX doesnt want the SEC (as many from TX claim), their choices would be the Pac or a dying Big 12. It would be dumb for them not to let go of the OU/OkSt demand because they can still reap the beneifits of regional travel in their division + membership in a PTN that include two of the largest US popluated states, and what is sure to be an extreme upgrade in their current nat’l TV contract $$.

        The Pac then protects their current hierarchy of power from shifting to an extreme pro TX voting block (to an extent) and get a truckload more $$.

        Like

        • michaelC says:

          But the problem is that the Pac-10 won’t agree to that. If TT and whatever additional dross is part of the deal, the Pac-10 can sell it to Stanford and Cal only if there is the Quarantine division that has the new SW conference and fobs off the Arizona schools, which were no much wanted by some in the Pac-8. The goal is to remake the Pac-8 and make money. They can possibly sell that to Stanford and Cal by arguing in that situation the academic quality of the schools doesn’t matter. Frankly, I astounded Texas and TAMU would go along with it if they are really looking for an academic upgrade. It’s not. Earlier I posted that such a deal ensures there is no CIC in the Pac-10’s future. Too many academic have nots for the heavyweights to ever consider true cooperation.

          Like

          • Stopping By says:

            Maybe I am the one that is off base but reforming an original Pac 8 is no where near even close to a priority – if even a thought in the back of somes mind. The priority is to earn money and close the financial gap between the B10 and SEC.

            If rumors are true then they are willing to make some academic concessions (and I tending to believe a 6 team move may be on the table but not necessarily with those reported) but I see no way in hell that they make concessions on the secular side (see Baylor and BYU)

            Like

  18. M says:

    The Baylor talk reminds me of a joke:

    A man walks into a bar. He goes up to a woman and says “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?”. She responds “Yeah, probably.” He continues, “Ok, would you sleep with me for $10?”. She slaps him and says “What kind of woman do you think I am?”

    The punchline is of course “Lady, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are. Now we are just negotiating on price.”

    In the (still not official) scenario of inviting Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech, the Pac-10 has revealed what kind of conference they are or are willing to become. Swapping Baylor for Colorado is just negotiation.

    Like

    • Stopping By says:

      LOL! Well, maybe…but she ain’t sleeping with him for $10 bucks and the Pac 10 ain’t accepting Baylor…..

      Like

    • GoBigEd says:

      That is PERFECT.

      Like

    • Scott says:

      I think comparing OU to a whore when OU is better than several of the existing Pac 10 schools is a reach.

      But don’t let me stop you from patting yourselves on the back for how much superior you are to everyone else.

      douches.

      Like

      • jj says:

        Well, you’ve taught us all a valuable lesson.

        Look, i honestly feel bad for the Big Eight. This is why I want no part of Texas for the Big 10. Ask TCU, Rice, etc. OU ought to look to the SEC and get away from these guys. I like Texas right where they are. Let them form a new league and have their championship of the Republic of Texas.

        Maybe, I’m wrong, but I don’t ever see the B10 saying “thanks team X, it has been fun but Situation Y really needs WV”.

        Call the SEC. OU is better off there anyway all around.

        Like

  19. chris 7165 says:

    People keep mentioning Virginia as a candidate for inclusion. But didn’t they play hardball with the other members of the ACC to include Va Tech during their expansion and now just a few years later, they’re the ones who are going to leave?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      They’d be the kind of school you’d go after if the SEC announces it’s going after ACC schools…

      Hard to see ACC schools jumping to the Big Ten while everything is stable. Even Maryland which is a slight outlier being at the border and not really a “Tobacco road” kind of school…

      Like

      • Vincent says:

        Zeek, I take it you are referring to Tech, not UVa, in SEC talk.

        If Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina could go in as a package, I think they would jump to the Big Ten in a heartbeat…maybe quicker were Duke included as well.

        And right now, nothing’s stable. Not to be proactive is to risk being left holding the bag, diminishing the conference you’re in to the level of the Big East, or worse.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          You really think so though?

          Politics may show up if UNC ever tries to leave the ACC, and Virginia may have to deal with that too.

          I see Maryland as the school that can be picked off since it comes off a lot more similar to the eastern Big Ten schools rather than the more Southern nature of the other schools.

          I mean, don’t get me wrong. A UNC/UVA/Maryland expansion would be a grand slam from every perspective.

          It would be the best possible expansion for the CIC due to the D.C. targeting where all the money comes from, etc.

          I just don’t see how it works out now.

          I think the Big Ten should aim for 14, say Nebraska/Rutgers + 1 (Pitt/Syracuse/Mizz or whoever). Try to get Maryland as hard as you can for that third spot.

          But if not, we can just wait. I mean eventually the SEC is going to need to expand and the ACC will be their most likely option.

          Then you can even work in tandem with the SEC to take the teams that we want and they want (which are likely to be different).

          Like

        • jd wahoo says:

          @ Vincent

          You’ve been posting for awhile now about Md/UVa as great candidates for the Big Ten – our of curiosity, what makes you think that they would accept? The only public comment we have from them to my knowledge is Debbie Yow’s open mockery of the idea. Not saying it won’t happen, just that I don’t take it as a given that either would accept. I went to grad school at UVa, and I never perceived that UVa was, or thought of itself as, a Big Ten-type school with tons of graduate research and a powerhouse football program. I think it sees itself as a Tobacco Road-type basketball school (oddly, as UVa hasn’t been any good since Ralph Sampson left) that retains a bit more focus on undergrads. I know the money is obviously better in the Big Ten, and perhaps that’s enough.

          Like

          • jd wahoo says:

            “out” of curiosity

            Like

          • aps says:

            Brit Kirwin, Chancellor of the University System of Maryland was previously the President of Ohio State. There is the tie, does not mean it means anything but there is a link.

            Myself, I believe Georgia Tech should be sought. Very good school in the heart of the SEC. How pissed would the SEC be, having Big Ten games played in the south.

            Like

          • Cliff's Notes says:

            Chris7165 – There was also a cryptic comment made (I think by Barry Alvalrez) that an unknown school had surprised the Big Ten by approaching them. It was apparently a school that The Big Ten didn’t expect this school to be interested, but made them step back and take a hard look. There was some thought that it could be Virgina or Miami.

            At this point, if the Big XII collapses, I think the entire game changes, because now the ACC will be in a similar position as the Big XII, with everyone wondering what the other schools will do.

            And at that point, Clemson, FSU, Miami are looking hard at the SEC, and not only Virginia and Maryland, but perhaps UNC and Duke would look at The Big Ten.

            And who knows if their most recent TV contract is voided if a couple of schools leave?

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            What Debbie Yow thinks is irrelevant. UMD’s athletic department is kind of hurting for cash at the moment. They’re going to be getting a new president soon. Yow might be out of a job before too much longer.

            Like

    • Faitfhful5k says:

      If you want some insight on the politics of the ACC head over the NC State Scout board. There is currently a 31-page thread on Expansion-Mania started by the question of whether the Big10 would want BC. That idea was quickly shot down but the thread lives on.

      It’s kind of funny because there is nary a peep about any expansion rumors on any other ACC board. (Exception being GTech’s board but that is more about their options)

      Wolfpack fans seem to relish their role as the political pundits of ACC land. With presumed legislative protection they happily speculate on the goings-on behind the closed doors of all their neighbors.

      Some of their consensus views:
      1. Maryland is by far the most likely to accept a Big10 invitation. As an outlier with a natural border to Big10 land they are the clear top choice. Maryland is also unburdened by state politics if it is the right choice as an institution. As of now they don’t think Maryland would accept. However, the odds greatly improve if the landscape becomes unstable.
      2. They still rehash how Virginia actually went against the tobacco road voting bloc for the first time ever when the legislature stepped in so the league brought in Va Tech instead of Syracuse. They feel the only way Virginia would consider the Big10 is if Va Tech was poached (SEC?) to clear the way politically, and the ACC was about to crumble.
      3. Duke-UNC-NC State (and perhaps Wake) are an unbreakable bloc. The legislature will step in if needed to protect NC State.
      4. If the SEC comes looking for expansion targets the pecking order is Clemson, Va Tech, Florida St. with Ga Tech a distant last. Lots of speculation whether the football will outweigh the academics if the SEC came calling. The arguments that academics will win out have strengthened with the new ACC tv contract.
      5. If the ACC loses any members it would most likely look north to the Big East. Syracuse could be a bit of a problem because of that past snub. They fully recognize the value of Pitt and how they may be passed over by the Big10.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Faithful5K,

        thanks.. can you link as the one i found was….

        http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=178&f=2515&t=5744126

        and it dealt with BC to the Big 10, and discussed adding Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU!?!?

        on your points….

        1) no argument there.. I was first on the Maryland bandwagon..

        2) early on I argued pairs (UVA/VaTech) and (UNC/NCst), which is why I have believed and continue to believe that the state schools in Virginia and North Carolina could wind up in the SEC because of this.

        3) I strongly disagree.. I think the ONLY unbreakable block in the state of North Carolina is UNC & NCst. If you think the Big 10 wants UNC, are you willing to take NCst (so far I have gotten the impression this is NO (same with Va Tech). Both the Big 10 and SEC are LARGE FLAGSHIP STATE UNIVERSITIES (Northwestern & Vandy were grandfathered in). Duke and Wake are not….

        4) I think your pecking order is incorrect (what is good for the goose is good for the gander). If the Big 10 wishes to expand footprint, would the SEC not want to as well? Clemson, FSU, and Ga Tech are already covered by USC, UF, and UGA. if the SEC expands they will want new markets and they would get that moving into North Carolina and Virginia. I feel the SEC choosing not to expand footprint is wishful thinking.

        5) I think if the ACC implodes they will reform as a collective of private schools. Duke, Wake, Tulane, ND, Baylor, Rice, BC, Miami, Syracuse, etc… and some schools like Ga Tech, Army, Navy, etc…

        I could be wrong here, but I see three issues….

        a) the ACC state schools will make more $$ in the Big 10 or SEC than they will in the Big East or ACC.

        b) the SEC will want to expand footprint (and not just teams like WVU with small markets) so if the footprint is too small for the Big 10, it is probably to small for the SEC. Just keep this in the back of your mind.

        c) people in their 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s will be driving the bus – not bloggers in their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s. I am not trying to be anti youth – I am trying to be more realistic in my thinking. I keep thinking in the back of my mind how someone in their 60’s would think about what gets proposed.

        Like

        • Faitfhful5k says:

          I think you have hit a lot of great counter-points. Maybe I should restate the case. The ACC is generally seen as one of the most unified conferences around. In fact there are some different forces tugging at the conference. Perhaps if you are looking for what the ACC will do in the future you should look at these small fissures.

          The current power is inside tobacco road and the rest feel a bit excluded. There are two distinct camps for football and basketball as priorities. There are political forces at work at the state level (think mini-Texas). The last expansion created some new divisions. Private vs. public school is a very valid division. There is a high academic standard that in general will not be compromised, but it is on a sliding scale across the conference members.

          Like

          • Vincent says:

            You put it accurately.

            Culturally, I think UNC has more ties to UVa and Duke than it does to NCSU. Keep in mind that for many years, North Carolina played Virginia in its traditional football finale, a role later usurped by Duke and more recently State.

            Were NCSU to go to the SEC, it would have a chance to establish a new identity after having been in UNC and Duke’s shadow the past two decades. It could rebrand itself as a “football culture” school.

            On responses to my earlier suggestion that the SEC take in Missouri, Kansas, Virginia Tech and N.C. State: Would any of them be a less attractive fit for the SEC than South Carolina, a traditionally dysfunctional athletic department, was? (It only got in because Florida State cast its lot with the ACC.) State could very well evolve into North Carolina’s equivalent of Virginia Tech, and Missouri and Kansas couldn’t contribute less to SEC football than Miss State or Vanderbilt do.

            I’m simply saying that if NCSU and VT have new homes in the SEC, the political pressure regarding a Big Ten move is lessened for UNC and UVa.

            If the eight Texas SWC schools can break up and the three Idaho Division I schools all end up in different conferences (at one time, all three were in the Big Sky), then nothing is off the table — including NC’s “big four.”

            Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          re 3): Auburn, Mississippi, and Michigan State make me believe that this is not as strong a point as some believe.

          Like

        • Richard says:

          I actually think NCSU may not have as much of a problem as people may think. In research, they’re actually above Mizzou in both rankings and money. They’re pressing for AAU status, and I think they’ll likely get it in the next 10 years. Plus, their demographics are favorable. Really, the only thing Mizzou has over NCSU is their AAU status (conferred over a hundred years ago, when the academic landscape was much different).

          Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Between the NCSU scout board, and GT board that “aps” linked to last night, it looks like the ACC is less solid than I thought.

        GT looks like it would jump in a heartbeat if either the Big Ten or the SEC asks. That shocks me. Maybe Maryland can be got as well? I wouldn’t have thought so, but apparently NCStaters think so.

        The question is if the Big Ten would want GT or if Maryland would want the B10. GT is a good school with good football in the heart of SEC country. But it’s also a small school that probably can’t carry it’s city (it’s like a public Vandy that way). I have no idea what Maryland wants, but it is worth looking into.

        Like

        • Michael says:

          I would say the ¨dream scenario¨ at this point (taking into consideration academics, athletics, national fan base, location, conference balance and footprint) would be Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Maryland, Georgia Tech.

          That group gets you in Texas (UT), NYC (ND and UM), DC (Maryland) and Atlanta (GT). On top of that Nebraska would contribute to the handful of Big 10 teams with a truly national fan base.

          So I think you start from that dream and work out. How do you rank those five in terms of priority and who requires contingencies?

          Like

          • Art Vandelay says:

            To get New York, I honestly believe you have to get Rutgers. I just can’t see the major cable providers adding the BTN with no school in close proximity to make them care. The current Big Ten alum would follow them no closer than they do now, and the Big Ten wouldn’t be able to leverage that more than they can now. Replace Ga Tech with Rutgers and forget about Atlanta. Ga Tech is the kind of school that is more luxury than ideal. If the Big Ten wants more of a presence in the deep South, doesn’t Miami(FL) make more sense than Ga Tech, especially because there’s already such a huge alumni base in the entire state of Florida?

            If expansion gets the BTN on in NYC, New Jersey, Maryland and DC without compromising academics, then that has to be viewed as at least two home runs (at least to me), even if it doesn’t include ND or Texas.

            Like

  20. Playoffs Now! says:

    How about a small conspiracy theory:

    The Baylor angle is a way to solve the ‘Tech Problem’ without bringing Tech to the B10+. Get a reject from the P10 to illustrate that the current Texas 4 just isn’t going to work in a P16 or B16. However, if only TX and aTm (and maybe NE) go to the B16 and CO to the P12, there are enough schools left over to keep the BCS AQ while adding other Texas schools to the rebuilding B12 like UH, TCU, and/or SMU. With KS and KSU reaffirming today that they are a package deal, the SEC might take OU and maybe NE, but at least 6 schools likely remain behind to rebuild the conference. So if the state can go from 4 to 6 or 7 schools in BCS conferences then that is a win-win. TX and aTm are then allowed to go to the B16 without big legislative repercussions.

    Not saying I’m buying this theory, but it is possible. The thing is, aTm has been as much if not more anti-P16 than TX, they’re the ones squawking about travel (Baylor is much closer than CO) and hinting at the SEC. And any ‘Tech Problem’ affects them just as much as TX. Maybe they are insisting on Baylor, to kill the P16 idea and try for the SEC. Or maybe it is TX, and all about the TV channel. But aTm has already let it be known that if the LSN is allowed, they’ll try for the SEC and try to bring OU.

    Hard to say right now.

    Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      One last thought: Many schools seem to be worried at not just losing the big revenues of their current conference, but being left out if there is a move to four 16-school conferences that could break away into their own division. But if TX and aTm go to the B10+, it is almost impossible for the P10 to reach 16. If they don’t reach 16, there is no 4×16 breakaway. Maybe a 5-conference break at some point, but the key is that TT, Baylor, and perhaps a few more Texas schools will be in that 5th conference and thus not left behind. Less revenue than with TX and aTm, but at least in a BCS conference with a decent TV contract. Hence TX and aTm could use this argument to go to the B10+ without any parasite schools.

      Like

  21. Old Tascosa says:

    MidTexHorn posted this on Orangebloods on March 11. Amazingly it all sems to be coming together as Powers stated.

    “I spoke briefly with UT President Bill Powers last night (March 10) at a Texas Exes event in Midland. President Powers gave a dinner speech to our local group and touched on a number of different issues that he has been facing as UT president (10% rule, Cactus Cafe, Mack’s salary, etc.). One of the issues that he briefly named early in his speech was “the Big XII TV contract” but he didn’t go into any detail on that subject. Nevertheless, I was intrigued. I was hoping there would be a question and answer session, but there wasn’t.

    After dinner, I waited for a window of opportunity and went over and shook his hand and thanked him for the speech. After some small talk about the law school (I was a student there when he was a law prof), I asked the question I was dying to ask: “So, Big 10 or Pac 10?”

    He laughed and then the first thing he said was “Well, we are NOT going to the Big 10.” I was expecting a very lawyerly, equivocating answer, so I was pretty surprised at his very direct and succinct answer. He then went on to say he had no desire to be flying our softball team all over the upper reaches of the midwest. Then he dropped another bombshell “Whatever we do, we aren’t leaving Tech behind”. He then talked about how this issue is very much a hot button topic for him right now and it’s what he was referring to by referencing the “Big XII TV contract negotiations” in his speech. He then got rather vague and said that he could see some sort of large “Western” alliance of schools forming in the future, but this isn’t imminent and he’s not sure what will happen. That was it, we only spoke for a total of about 2 or 3 minutes.”

    We have since had it explained that the ideal Western Alliance would combine the Best of the PAC 10 and the Big XII, with maybe 1 or 2 or the MWC.

    Just thought it was interesting in light of recent developments.

    Like

    • eapg says:

      If that’s the case, then the e-mail comments about Powers wanting some contact about his Tech problem have been completely misinterpreted, and Delany has known Texas isn’t coming for quite some time.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        If Delany knew that Texas wasn’t coming, he’d have invited Nebraska already.

        This kind of “Texas already said no to Big Ten” argument is kind of pointless.

        If the Big Ten really felt that it had no chance at Texas (and ND since ND would probably not come unless Texas did, i.e. changing paradigm), then Nebraska would be getting an invite the next day.

        Clearly, Nebraska hasn’t gotten an invite so the Big Ten hasn’t decided what it wants (aka Texas is still talking…).

        Like

        • eapg says:

          I did start the post with “if”. 😉

          Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          @Zeek,
          It is quite possible Delany already did. There is a meeting in Chicago tomorrow after all.

          Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Zeek – The reason there hasn’t been any announcement may be that the Big Ten has figured out the Nebraska is #12 and Rutgers is #13, but they haven’t reached a consensus on #14.

          Pitt? Syracuse? UConn? Mizzou?

          Like

          • Kyle says:

            Mizzou, Syracuse, and Pitt all have clear pros and cons that can be weighed against each other. But no chance #14 is UConn. They’re just like Syracuse, but with NCAA misconduct investigations and no AAU status.

            Like

          • aps says:

            Bingo.

            Delany mentioned in his e-mail with Gee about moving parts. This is the moving parts. Trying to get each school resolved while balancing the rest not knowing who might be next.

            When Penn State was added, it was it. No others in play. Here we have more in play resulting in time needed to get it right.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            I agree Alan.

            Nebraska/Rutgers are the two that make perfect sense for all the reasons we’ve been talking about.

            The question has always come back as to who is #14.

            Obviously, Maryland would be perfect, but if it’s not on the board then we have a big decision to make and it’s going to be hard.

            I would personally argue that Pitt. is the best choice, but I could see why there’s a tussle between Illinois and the Western schools for Mizz and Ohio St./Penn St. for Pitt. or Syracuse in the east.

            Hence, there’s probably some gridlock in the Big Ten over who would be the 14th…

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            Which gets very easily resolved if you go to 16…

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Kyle–U Conn isn’t just like Syracuse. It’s a state school, has a larger enrollment (19000 v. 24000), and has maybe 6 times the research $. It is in all repsects superior to SU, except for the AAU issue.

            Like

          • Kyle says:

            @ mushroom

            I still think that Syracuse is part of the old guard of football identities and wields greater fanbase influence despite being private school.

            I like UConn, but I think their too much of the “new kid on the block” for the big ten to seriously consider them.

            Like

        • Hank says:

          unless Delany is waiting to invite Nebraska to the Big Ten until the Texas Six pack moves to the Pac 10 and takes the heat for breaking up the Big 12. Then the Big Ten picks up Nebraska without to much bad publicity for being a home wrecker.

          Like

          • eapg says:

            A standoff which could last until next April, when Beebe has to negotiate a TV deal. So maybe Delany gets his timeframe, Texas columnist hopes that they can hold Nebraska’s feet to the fire aside.

            Like

  22. Jeepers says:

    Guys, UT isn’t going to the Big Ten, let it goooooo.

    I think we’ll end up with this pac10/big12 merger, but the schools will be different from the original list. Conference will have a different name, with the divisions being Pac and Big (whatever).

    I think Big Ten will go all-out East. Maybe one western school. Really doubt both Neb and Mizz. This ACC raid talk seems ridiculous to me. SOUTHERN schools in the Big Ten? AND private? Maybe Maryland, but that’s pushing it.

    I don’t post here much, but things are shaping up pretty much how I predicted. Nice ego boost! This has, and always will be about ND. NOT Texas! This will be a “bleh” Big Ten expansion. But you know what? It doesn’t matter. The Big Ten just needs/wants TVs.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I don’t see how adding Nebraska to the Big Ten is a “bleh” Big Ten expansion. You’re talking about one of the Top 5 or 10 programs of all time from any definition.

      Rutgers brings the NYC angle; I could see plenty of games in Yankee stadium or Meadowlands or whatever. That’s not to be underestimated.

      And then bringing in Maryland would be another great job for the D.C. angle from a research perspective (one of the closest universities to the federal agencies/govt, etc.).

      Could even replace Maryland with another solid choice in Pitt. if they’re not interested or someone else.

      I fail to see how that’s a “bleh” expansion. We’d be adding another school in football terms of Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State and then 2 solid additions for markets/research, etc.

      Like

      • Jeepers says:

        My definition of “bleh” (which is why I put the quotes) is in comparison to the wild ideas some people have on here.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          In other words its realistic, manageable, maintainable, and sustainable.

          I’ll take “bleh” over the next couple decades and watch the rest of the conferences implode from the ego’s just like the Big12 seems to be doing.

          Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            100% agree; if “bleh” is workable and sustainable, then “bleh” every time.

            as I said yesterday, we’ve gone too far if we say GIANT FAIL for B10 expansion if it doesn’t include TX or ND. neither is needed and ND in particular doesn’t want to join.

            Like

          • Jeepers says:

            Hey, I like bleh. I’m a Syracuse guy–they’d fall into that definition (according to people here).

            I just don’t think there’s any way in hell the Big Ten is going to raid the ACC. And I think it’s silly to go after Vandy (piss off the SEC, and actually helping them at the same time).

            Whoever here that said it’s good to take some schools with existing rivalries was dead on. Some of the proposals here include taking teams from all the following: Big East, Big12, ACC, *AND* SEC! That’s crazy talk. There’s no cohesion with an expansion like that.

            I don’t like UT in the Big Ten. They will leave some day and give the B10 some serious egg on the face. ND fans will complain forever and ever. I think the B10 should just expand for footprint and feel. If the B10 really is a big family, like you guys claim, then helping UConn get AAU, or help SU bring up their research, shouldn’t be that much of a stretch.

            Like

  23. djinndjinn says:

    This is why it’s not worth chasing Texas. To continue the BH analogy, you start off wanting Ellie May, and the old folks are trying to get you to take Jethrine Bodine. Texas is an appealing candidate, but it’s just not worth all the BS. We don’t need the headaches of Ellie May bringing along all her kin. There are a lot of very good candidate schools out there.

    Like

  24. prophetstruth says:

    add

    Like

  25. Playoffs Now! says:

    Barking Carnival thinks we’re Big Tent bound:

    http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/05/john-the-barnacle/

    …horninexile has promised another story about the research dollars Texas must consider. This and a few little birds we’ve heard from, yes unnamed sources, still make me think this Pac 10 stuff is all a feint and we’re heading to Evanston for games in November. Of course these people really have names, ones you know, but not ones we’re going to tell you.

    For those unfamiliar with BarkC, this is a good read:

    http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/02/15/being-bill-powers/

    Note the date.

    Like

  26. Playoffs Now! says:

    Dang, busted by the 2-link moderation trigger.

    I’ll try again, in case Frank has gone to bed.

    Barking Carnival thinks we’re Big Tent bound:

    http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/05/john-the-barnacle/

    …horninexile has promised another story about the research dollars Texas must consider. This and a few little birds we’ve heard from, yes unnamed sources, still make me think this Pac 10 stuff is all a feint and we’re heading to Evanston for games in November. Of course these people really have names, ones you know, but not ones we’re going to tell you.

    Like

  27. StankyJones says:

    Add fail

    Like

  28. PensfaninLAexile says:

    Rumor, fact or white noise. The only certain thing that has changed is that the B10 is now facing the reality that someone might get the jump on them. My impression is that they felt in control of the process, thus were moving deliberately. The current shitstorm makes me think they want to try to establish some real control over the situation. It’s one thing to know intellectually that the PAC-10 or SEC might move first — it’s another thing to have it staring you in the face.

    In all the comments and denials, only the Delany-Gee emails can be trusted. Those are real internal communications obtained via a FOIA request. There is no subterfuge there. This was not a real leak — OSU was under a legal obligation to release them. I did not see a date on the e-mails. Was one reported? Knowing when the ‘Tech’ problem was first mentioned would tell us a lot about where things stand. Do these e-mails predate the B10 meetings? If so, then it is likely that the ‘Tech’ problem was discussed — perhaps the presidents made a decision rejecting Tech and have communicated that to Texas (but still want Texas). Possibly they are evaluating Tech and told Texas to wait for some due diligence to happen. If the e-mail exchange was post-meeting, then the B10 presidents have a whole new reality to wrestle with — they may decide that the package deal isn’t worth it.

    It’s difficult to believe that the B10 would jump without a thorough analysis.

    One interesting note on the PAC-10 regarding the veto (still am having a hard time believing that there is a unanimous vote for the whole B12 South smorgasbord), if there is a new conference then there are new by-laws — or does the PAC-10 just absorb the new members? How can the veto possibly survive in a 16-team conference? Getting 10 votes is near impossible — 16 is impossible. Does Stanford allow a new conference to exist without a veto? That’s a lot of power to give up. Makes me think that if such an invite were made and accepted, there is a chance that constituting a new conference (by-laws, revenue sharing, compliance, etc.) could prove to be impossible — which might leave us right back to where we started.

    Like

    • Phizzy says:

      April 19: Gordon Gee: I am “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.”

      April 19: Jim Delany: “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.”

      April 20: Gordon Gee: “I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a ‘Tech’ problem.”

      http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/06/03/e-mails-hint-big-ten-expansion-eyes-on-texas.html

      Like

    • witless chum says:

      “n all the comments and denials, only the Delany-Gee emails can be trusted. Those are real internal communications obtained via a FOIA request. There is no subterfuge there. This was not a real leak — OSU was under a legal obligation to release them.”

      Well, maybe. But maybe not. I bet Gordon Gee is up on the FOIA laws in Ohio and would know that his emails are public information. The fact that he had this conversation by email shows that he doesn’t ultimately care if its made public.

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        witless – I disagree. Gee is supposed to be the smartest college president in the world, and Delany is supposed to be the smartest conference commissioner in the world. If these guys wanted to communicate confidentially via e-mail, don’t use you bigten.com and osu.edu e-mail addresses! Get prezgee@yahoo.com and commishdelany@gmail.com, go buy a personal laptop at bestbuy, and use the wi-fi at Starbucks. I doubt a FOIA request would cover that type of communication.

        Like

  29. Scott C says:

    Osborne on the deadline rumors:

    http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/06/06/football/doc4c0b17ee774cf193106110.txt

    —————————————————–
    Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne told the Journal Star on Saturday night that he was unaware of the deadlines presented in the stories.

    “I really don’t know what the final parameters are,” Osborne said. “I really can’t comment. The agreement when I left (the Big 12 meetings) Thursday was that (conference commissioner) Dan Beebe and (Texas president) William Powers would do the speaking.”
    —————————————————–

    Like

  30. Pepe says:

    Assuming the worst (that neither Notre Dame nor Texas will join), I’ve noticed over the past few blog posts (going back to mid-April or so) that people seem to be forgetting that Delany is a basketball man at heart. Meaning, that no matter what happens, the Big10 will be strengthened in both football and basketball. But most of all, academics.

    Which brings Pittsburgh back into play. They are the only given school (meaning given that the Big10 can take them at will) with all 3 qualities. No one else, not Maryland, not Virginia, not even Duke can offer the balance that Pitt can.

    My point being, if Texas is finally out, don’t overlook Pitt. For the record, and for the sake of argument (not that anyone should care), I vote for Nebraska, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Connecticut/Notre Dame/Colorado.

    If Baylor wins and Colorado becomes homeless, the Big 10 better snag em.

    Like

    • Vincent says:

      Maryland and Pittsburgh are roughly the same in football (check their records the past 10 years) and basketball (heck, Maryland has won NCAA titles in men’s and women’s hoops the past decade; Pitt hasn’t made a Final Four in either). Pitt may have a bit of an edge in research, but Maryland is coming on strong — and it would give the Big Ten two new large markets (one of them featuring many Big Ten alums), two more new markets than Pitt.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I’ve never considered Colorado really in play for the Big 10, but a Neb, Mo, Colorado, Pitt, Rutgers addition would be very solid, imo…

      Like

      • Just Say No to NJ says:

        We will have to agree to disagree on Rutgers, but in the event they couldn’t be swapped out for MD et al, I would have to grudgingly agree that those teams/institutions would make a really solid (albeit not flashy) expansion – much like the conference itself and would reflect very well on their stated priorities for expanding

        Like

  31. Scott C says:

    More on the deadline:

    http://www.omaha.com/article/20100605/SPORTS/706059785

    —————————————————–
    The Austin American-Statesman, citing two sources from Big 12 schools, reported Saturday night that NU and Missouri have been given until Friday at 5 p.m. to declare whether they are with the Big 12 or will pursue a move to the Big Ten.

    Coincidentally, the Nebraska Board of Regents is scheduled to meet Friday and Saturday in Lincoln.

    Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe confirmed on Friday that a so-called drop-dead date for schools considering leaving had been established, but gave no other details. Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman was mum upon leaving those meetings
    —————————————————–

    Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      Conflicting reports on if it is Friday or a week from Friday (IOW 2 weeks.)

      Like

    • hawkfanbeau says:

      240 million for 16 teams vs 260 million for 11 teams! can that be right?

      Like

    • Josh says:

      As far as these deadlines go, I keep wondering “Or what?” The South will go to the Pac 10 without us? I’m not convinced that’s going to happen. Getting the Pac 10 to approve OU/OSU/TT was going to be tricky enough–now they have to take Baylor? Texas just can’t go anywhere without their ugly cousins, and it doesn’t sound like their reasonably hot sister (TAMU) wants to go West anyway.

      It sounds like a bluff to me.

      All this freaking out in Texas about UNL has convinced me that they’re the right choice for B10 expansion. Texas and ND are just too high-maintenance and the Huskers bring everything you want except a major population center–but they have fans nationwide, just like ND.

      Like

      • Michael in Indy says:

        Nebraska’s national brand name, while huge, still isn’t up there with the fighting Irish. But Nebraska has a lot of things going for it that ND doesn’t: it IS an AAU member; it is making strides in research; and it would join the Big Ten enthusiastically, not reluctantly.

        So after Texas, Nebraska seems like it should be the #2 choice, even over the Fighting Irish.

        Like

      • 84Lion says:

        I think the “or what” is basically the status quo (i.e. – Big 12 stays intact) but with Texas firmly in charge and a Longhorn Sports Network with (possibly) a Big 12 Network for everyone else. Frankly at this point I think that’s Texas’ preferred option.

        Really I think this “bluff” is aimed more at the Big Ten – “Do you guys really want the Huskers or not?” If the Big Ten can’t make up their mind now, it puts the onus more on Nebraska later should the Big Ten ever come up with an offer. At that point Nebraska “breaks their pledge” (or stays with the Big 12 if the LSN/B12N is working out).

        As I see it, this comes down to the Big Ten being the bad guy by offering to Nebraska, or Nebraska being the bad guy by breaking their pledge. I agree with Zeek and Frank above, for some reason Texas wants Nebraska (or some school other than TX) to play the role of Arkansas this time around as the scapegoat for breaking up the Big 12. Texas seems to want to avoid a perception problem of being the school breaking up the conference.

        Like

        • Vincent says:

          I see the Big Ten saying yes to Nebraska and a maybe to Missouri (it would like to explore other alternatives first). UNL and Mizzou aren’t joined at the hip, and the Big Ten doesn’t have to take both.

          Like

    • djinndjinn says:

      I think NU and Missouri should give the Big XII South the same ultimatum. At the moment, it sounds like a lot more going on down there than in the north.

      Like

    • eapg says:

      If a Texas columnist (Bohls) who apparently throws a lot of stuff at the wall to see what sticks is actually right about this, and the Board of Regents is going to vote up or down on the Big Ten (it’s not on the official agenda), this could be the biggest pay-per-view event in Nebraska since last football season.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      Agree with the skeptics. MO and NEB will just let the “deadlines” pass without comment.

      Like

  32. Playoffs Now! says:

    I did not see a date on the e-mails.

    Gee-TX were April 20th. Same day that Tom Osborne sent the NE chancellor a “Just talked to the theOSU coach, we need to talk” email. About the time Delany went public to refute several rumors and state that the process was not fast-tracked, they were sticking to their 12-18 month timeline.

    Like

  33. Pelema says:

    Add

    Like

  34. Michael in Indy says:

    I’m curious why TX legislators could argue with a straight face that Baylor deserves to come along. TCU seems like it fits the bill better than Baylor.

    Like

    • djinndjinn says:

      In the words of Will Munny, (Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven), “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”

      Like

    • Rod says:

      Ok, as a Baylor grad I will take the bait. For all that TCU has achieved they still cant draw more than 30K at home for football and that is with being located in Fort Worth. Now then look at all the other sports

      Basketball: Men and Women advantage BU by a mile
      Baseball: Probably a push.

      In terms of academics TCU is not on the same level as Baylor. Oh and you might do some research on the representation in the legislature and you might just find that the vast majority get their undergrad and grad degrees from a combination of UT, A&M, Tech, and BU. The alum from those four schools produce the power players in Texas

      Like

    • TheBlanton says:

      I actually think Rice University is a better choice than either Baylor or TCU. However, The State of Texas has restructured it’s funding system to boost Tech to a Tier 1 and possible AAU (both of which Rice are).

      Like

  35. djinndjinn says:

    While the Texas talk goes on, let’s talk a little more about the southern strategy overall.

    Begining with a background on population, the Texas market is 2nd to California with 24.7 people. New York is 19.5 but no singular state school there. Florida is 18.5 million–so again, the Big Ten has to make at least a pass at U of F, even if the odds are remote. (As a point of comparison, Illinois has 13 million; Pennsylvania has 12.6, Ohio has 11.5 and Michigan has 10 million.)

    North Carolina isn’t discussed much as an expansion option, and maybe they’re a tough “get”. But North Carolina has 9.4 million people, which is 10th in the nation or nearly 40% of Texas’ population just by itself. So a great market. It’s sports are outstanding, basketball especially (even if football isn’t top shelf). But most importantly, the academics are excellent. I hope the Big Ten at least discusses the option with UNC. They should really be at the top of the BT’s list.

    In comparison with Rutgers, New Jersey has a smaller population than NC, with 8.7 million. (Though to be fair, Rutgers may pull audience in Philly and NY, too.)

    I don’t know how much Georgia Tech would draw in Georgia or even Atlanta, but Georgia’s population is 10 million and metro Atlanta is 5.3 million of that. (So if Georgia Tech could get the BTN on basic in metro Atlanta, it would have the same population as Minnesota.)

    As for other markets, Missouri has 6 million, some of which is already served within the BT footprint. Colorado has 5 million but growing fast.

    The DC area is interesting. The whole Baltimore-DC metro area is 8.2 million. The entire state of Virginia is 7.8 million and the state of Maryland is 5.7 million. Another 600,000 in DC proper.

    Maryland and Virginia are both very good schools, have nice population bases, good demographics. Even though football is not outstanding, one can see their appeal.

    While Texas and A&M are still appealing, if they come with too much baggage to be practical candidates, I think I’d try in order, Florida (too appealing in nearly every way not to try), UNC, Rutgers (a solid fit that would be a great Big Ten citizen), Maryland (same), Colorado (if it falls through with the Pac10), Virginia and Nebraska for football. Duke (even if it were for academics alone). Georgia Tech and Pitt are very solid back ups. Vanderbilt is great for academics, though sports are not Big Ten class.

    I like BTJeff’s idea of asking Stanford, but I’ll assume they’re happy where they are.

    FWIW, I also like the earlier idea of inviting Johns Hopkins to the CIC. (They’re number one in overall research.) And you may as well ask MIT and Cal Tech while you’re at it. Each is sort of in the mold of the U of C in that they’re all academic heavyweights that don’t participate in major collegiate sports, so aren’t a part of a major athletic conference.

    Like

    • Faitfhful5k says:

      Thanks for the info.

      It makes you take pause when you realize the population base of Texas is not as appealing if you need 3-4 expansion slots to get in those households. Rutgers, as an example, jumps ahead on the basis of state population alone without any regard to NYC. Whatever you gain from Texas’s tv ratings are also diluted with multiple teams in the same market.

      Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      FWIW, I also like the earlier idea of inviting Johns Hopkins to the CIC.

      I saw the JHU-related post that I was getting excited about . . . until I got to the end and saw the Baylor stinkbomb.

      (Switching hats)We’re too good for you. Why would we want to participate with a bunch of schools with such inferior ability to land appropriate levels of research dollars? Go play with schools like Texas Tech instead. They’re more your speed.

      Honestly, I haven’t the faintest clue whether JHU would be interested in something like this. Instinctively, I think not — I think JHU might like to think of itself as having a lot more in common with the Ivies rather than the large public institutions of the midwest.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Oh, forgot to put the tag in there for the second paragraph. That don’t read too good without tagging that appropriately. 🙂

        Like

      • zeek says:

        I think the point is to take Maryland and then have Northwestern and UChicago talk to JHU about how they would fit into the CIC.

        Even if JHU thinks it’s more of an Ivy institution (as UChicago and NU often do), JHU has no affiliation like that.

        It’s affiliations look a lot more like UChicago’s in terms of sports, so it may be an interesting thread to pursue if JHU ends up in the footprint.

        MIT/CalTech whoever are non-starters. They’re not in the footprint. Let’s not get too far out there…

        Like

        • djinndjinn says:

          “MIT/CalTech whoever are non-starters. They’re not in the footprint. Let’s not get too far out there.”

          You don’t need to be in a footprint to cooperate in research, share resources and buying power and facilitate movement of students and professors.

          Like

  36. Faitfhful5k says:

    http://bridge.caspio.net/dp.asp?AppKey=3b4e000093abce60e05e44f7acd0

    I am not sure if this has been posted before.

    The Gazette (Iowa) collected 2008 tax returns for various athletic departments and developed this data table for football, basketball and total revenues/expenses for each school.

    Of course these figures are largely influenced by the current tv contracts in each conference, but they may provide an approximate measure of the current financial health and brand value of each school’s athletics.

    Like

  37. Todd says:

    add

    Like

  38. Jeff says:

    adding

    Like

  39. glenn says:

    one thing to not forget in all this is the pac-10 stance on byu. to my knowledge, this stance is purely informal, but exists. the pac-10 is a grouping of secular schools, in essence, and apparently does not wish to admit byu because of the religious issues it might introduce.

    now, with the recent word on baylor, the question is is this straight up or is baylor’s inclusion in the discussion a poison pill?

    the pac boys might truly not care about the east division with respect to reputation in any ordinary sense, but might balk at admitting a voting member from a staunch religious group. southern baptists are pretty tightly wound, not like northern baptists, and are almost sure to be viewed in an unfavorable light out west.

    pack that into your pipe before you light it.

    Like

    • glenn says:

      just noticed an excellent piece by playoffs now! posted at 11:27 last eve. required reading.

      one thing about all this pleases me personally. in my various assignments in far-flung places, i occasionally find myself discussing the situation of texas, the school. always, when i bring up the problems of dealing with texas politics someone tunes out, believing i am making things up. one great beauty for me with what is happening now is that i don’t expect to find that sort of disbelief in the future.

      i shouldn’t speak too much of baylor because i spend so much time out of state that lots happens of which i have no awareness. that said, i was privy at a distance some years ago to a huge fight between baylor and the southern baptist convention.

      apparently, a good many at baylor wanted to create a little separation from the church for educational reasons, but in a big blood-letting the church re-took control and replaced a great deal of the administrative framework. i don’t have any idea what the philosophy of the place is today, but, assuming, the church still has a choke hold on the school, there is no way on this green earth that the pac schools would admit baylor unless the status in not really membership in their conference.

      i happily cede my little corner of the floor to anyone who understands that situation in today’s climate and head out to visit some family for the day. don’t settle this thing in my absence, please, and let’s save back the north korea and oil spill issues, too. i want in on those, as well.

      Like

      • glenn says:

        oh, and please throw a late edition on the floor i want to keep up with china

        Like

      • twk says:

        Baylor was once controlled by the Baptist General Convention of Texas, the state Baptist group, generally regarded as more moderate than the national Souther Baptist Convention of which it was a member. In order to insulate the school from the politics that was permeating the Baptist fellowship, Baylor changed its governing documents so that the Board of Regents bascially became a self-perpetuating body. It is still a Baptist school, but Baylor politics and Baptist politics are no longer one and the same.

        While they just hired Kenneth Starr, they fired a president a few years ago who was regarded as too much of a preacher, and replaced him on an interim basis with their general counsel, a law professor who I personally know to be extremely liberal. Frankly, politics and religion aren’t the main concerns at Baylor right now–it’s money. The preacher they fired spent a lot of money building the campus, and the school has become quite expensive. They’ve gone from being an “affordable” private school that pulled from all over the state (due to the Baptist connection) to just another expensive private school serving most suburban kids. They are also struggling with whether to try to become a research school, or stick with their historic undergraduate mission.

        Like

        • Vincent says:

          In that vein, Baylor is similar to Wake Forest, which in recent decades has been able to extricate itself from North Carolina Baptist control to become a pretty solid academic institution. (And for many years, dances were verboten at both schools.)

          Like

        • TheBlanton says:

          Baylor JUST allowed dancing…. Like 20 years after footloose. Just sayin.

          Like

    • Justin says:

      I wonder if the Big 10 has any interest in Colorado?

      A Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri expansion would basically expand the western reach of the conference into the markets of St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver. All are AAU schools.

      Then, to placate the eastern schools, the Big 10 could take Rutgers and Pitt or Syracuse.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        At this point, I fully assume Nebraska to be as near to a lock as possible, and for Rutgers to be not far behind.

        I really don’t think the Big Ten presidents can ignore the pull of NYC and the vast possibilities that would open up because of how many Big Ten alumni live in NYC. The numbers are probably similar to the numbers in Chicago. That creates for huge potential for staging games in NYC (Yankee/Meadowlands) and could help drive interest in that area for Big Ten football.

        Colorado’s interesting, but I think that Colorado’s spent so much time focused on the Pac-10 that the Big Ten may not have really believed it’d be on the table for expansion. That and the Big Ten seems to have focused on a Texas expansion (with ND) or a Southeast expansion to Virginia/NC.

        Those two are the heart of the Sun Belt in terms of population shift. The ACC will soon become the fastest growing region of them all due in large part to VA/NC (and of course FL)…

        Like

        • Vincent says:

          Maryland, without any other state schools to gum up the works, is probably more available to the Big Ten than Virginia or North Carolina are. And it does a better job in securing the Washington area (which is where most of the Virginia growth is deriving from) than either UVa or UNC…though, from a fan base perspective, it might prefer to have those two come along.

          Like

      • Josh says:

        I think Colorado has its heart set on the Pac 10. A lot of their graduates move to the West Coast and not so many move to the Great Lakes region.

        Could Colorado be considered if things changed? Yes. They fit all the academic categories and they bring in a good TV market.

        The one problem would be I don’t think Colorado works without the Big 10 going to 16. I’ve always believed that one school has to be an Eastern school for Penn State. So if UNL and Rutgers (or Maryland) are in, I don’t know that the Big 10 takes CU over Mizzou or a different Eastern School if they stop at 14.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Righto…I like the sound of Colorado, but everyone agrees they should go to the PAC 10…if they get pimped by the PAC 10, and end up in the Big 10, what happens 20 years from now when Baylor or TT leaves the Pac 10…

          Like

  40. mmc22 says:

    added

    Like

  41. Pariahwulfen says:

    o.O

    I guess I’ll have some steak with my eggs…

    Like

  42. Ken Smithmier says:

    add add add

    Like

  43. Hopkins Horn says:

    I was asked at the end of the last friend why I thought Kent Hance might be Texas’ new best friend in some sort of bizarro universe sort of way.

    Here’s what I meant: if Kent Hance is a savvy enough politician to get Tech into the deal in the first place — and it appears plausible that the original six would just barely be palatable to the Pac 10 — then surely he’s a good enough politician to help diffuse the Baylor issue, since anyone can look at this and see that the forced inclusion of Baylor would be a poison pill, as someone mentioned in the last thread. If Baylor is added, Tech is stuck in the Big XII as well.

    (Unless being “stuck” in the Big XII is what the Techs of the world prefer. That’s a long-term very foolish attitude in my mind.)

    Like

    • zeek says:

      The goal (of Tech) could be to get them all stuck in the Big 12.

      Even if the Big Ten takes Nebraska, Texas may end up staying in a shrunken Big 12 if it can’t get its +Tech strategies pulled off with the Big Ten or Pac-10.

      Right now we’re watching Texas and Nebraska in a standoff.

      Texas wants a localized conference and it seems as if it doesn’t want to leave behind Tech. The problem is the Big Ten isn’t willing to bite, and the Pac-10 may be hesitant to add that many teams that aren’t going to fit the culture or academic standing they seek.

      Here’s the analogy: back a couple months ago when everyone was talking about NCAA to 96 games (Pac-16), not a single person was talking about 68 games (Pac-12 with Colorado/Utah).

      Perhaps the Pac-10 still goes for the big splash, but we don’t really know yet whether Stanford/Cal/UCLA/UW are all on board for this. Perhaps they are in which case this will all be more smooth than we think, but if it’s not, then the Pac-10 may revisit their Colorado/Utah expansion and find as the NCAA did that a minor expansion (that absolutely no one in the media was looking at) may be the way to go.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Er, I meant to say that getting them all stuck is definitely Baylor’s goal, whereas Tech wants to improve its situation.

        Tech just knows that as long as it stays with Texas it will always get some of the primetime spotlight as well as the biggest $ and a chance at better academics.

        Like

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          Er, I meant to say that getting them all stuck is definitely Baylor’s goal, whereas Tech wants to improve its situation.

          I was about to reply that such a move on Tech’s part would be incredibly short-sighted, given the life raft they’ve seemingly been given, but your clarification takes away the need for that.

          Dwelling on this overnight, I tend to think that the odds of the pro-BU faction in the Legislature scuttling this are slim at best.

          Like

    • AggieFrank says:

      Texas wants everyone “stuck” in the B12. UT is the driver in creating the Baylor poison pill.

      Like

  44. gas1958 says:

    After lurking and reading 1000s of posts, I’m not sure what to think except that we may be coming full circle to some of Frank’s early posts. Sorry if this is too long, but it is only my second post. I should advertise any potential bias: I am a Texan who has lived/worked in Ohio for 23 years; I have degrees from Baylor and Michigan (I also lived in Austin for a time).
    (1) I don’t think it’s correct to say PSU was the only school involved when they joined the B10. I pretty clearly remember a USA Today article/graphic in the early, 90s when the first round of musical chairs started, that NE was part of a B10 discussion. Perhaps I”m remembering wrong, but I agree w/Frank and others, for all the reasons cited: the B10 could add ONLY Nebraska and declare victory. Adding two of Rutgers/Pitt/S’cuse would also make sense. There is no reason for the B10 to become a 16-team league.
    (2) I used to think ND was the only logical addition to the B10, but many posts have changed my view: ND is almost totally dissimilar from all the other schools in the conference. No way they go in unless Texas does, which seems increasingly less likely.
    (3) The talk of the P10 adding the B12 South (I find the idea of Baylor joining the P10 beyond laughable) reeks of desperation. So much for their standards and collective sense of identity.
    (4) Even if the B12 blows up, there is no need for the ACC or SEC to get involved, especially if the B10 takes only NE.
    Just my 2¢.

    Like

    • Kyle says:

      I don’t think of it as the pac-16 really. This is more like two 8-team conferences with a play-in game to determine who goes to the rose bowl. Think of it like the Pac-8 and the New SouthWest-8 merely having an inter-sectional series.

      Like

  45. Carl says:

    nothing better to do?

    Like

    • gas1958 says:

      I guess not, sorry ….

      Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        @gas1958: not sure Carl was responding to your good reasonable post. me-thinks Carl was just “adding”

        Like

        • gas1958 says:

          Thanks Beau. I’m a newbie here, so I need help reading the tea leaves! I should add that, consonant with a few posts subsequent to mine, the scenarios involving ACC teams to the B10 strike me as totally far-fetched. Even if some of those schools are strong, such as UVA and Maryland, I just can’t get my mind around that–I admit it is solely a matter of “feel”. It’s true the campus (student) culture of A&M is far removed from Madison, Ann Arbor, etc., but UT and A&M as universities seem more like the B10 than those ACC schools. What am I missing?

          Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            yep, i have added a few similar comments that “feel” is very important.

            although I now think ND should not be invited (because they don’t want in), for me, ND was a good “fit” because it felt right not just because of brand name and tv eyeballs. ND is midwest and just fits.

            Not true for the ACC and SEC and Texas schools… just “feels” wrong and I can’t see the midwestern presidents adding them (other than the home run that TX (alone) or TX+TA&M would be).

            Like

      • Carl says:

        Oops, sorry, gas1958. My “question” was in reference to me – as BuckeyeBeau surmised, I was just “adding”. Your post was totally reasonable.

        Like

        • gas1958 says:

          Thanks. This is my fault for not knowing. This has been one hell of a ride reading all this. Almost anything that actually happens will seem anticlimactic now.

          Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            LOL… so very true … and how things have changed in perception. B10 not getting TX is now “failure.” i’m rolling my eyes.

            and like a lot of other posters/readers, when I read something in the mainstream media or on some other blog, almost always I’m disappointed because they are either days/weeks behind this blog/posters or are clueless about the dozens of factors in play.

            what a fun ride

            thanks again to Frank for providing so much CONTENT and SMART content!!

            Like

  46. zeek says:

    I know a lot of people have been bringing up UNC and UVA, but UNC could be just as much of a political morass as TTech.

    There are currently 4 NC schools in the ACC: UNC, NC St., Duke, Wake Forest.

    Hard to see UNC ever leaving behind NC St. and Duke. While they might not care that much for Wake Forest, right now UNC is the biggest fish in a pond where 1/3 of the schools are from its state.

    Another thing, UVA and VTech. While UVA might be able to leave on its own as long as VTech stays in the ACC or gets an SEC invite, but I don’t see them wanting to leave VTech either as they expended quite a bit of capital to bring them in…

    Finally, Maryland may or may not be discontent with the expansion of the ACC that didn’t really bring them a Northern “neighbor” (might have preferred Syracuse or even Pitt. which was closer and better for a rivalry), so who knows. Maybe there’s potential there, but maybe there’s none at all. It’s worth a shot since Maryland may be willing to leave if they think the conference has become too much Southeast and not really coastal, but there’s plenty of reason to doubt that Maryland has any reason to be interested.

    A lot harder to see UVA and UNC leave a group of 6 VA/NC schools (+ 1 SC), where they rule the roost.

    Like

    • M says:

      “Another thing, UVA and VTech. While UVA might be able to leave on its own as long as VTech stays in the ACC or gets an SEC invite, but I don’t see them wanting to leave VTech either as they expended quite a bit of capital to bring them in…”

      You have it backwards. Political capital was expended to get UVA to bring in VT. Virginia (the university) was perfectly happy to bring in Syracuse. From what I’ve seen on grounds (aka campus), most people view VT as the hick cousin you’re afraid to be seen with. UVA’s connections to the ACC are much more so to the North Carolina schools and Maryland than to VT. Whether the Virginia politicians will take time off from their cutting of funding to UVA and declaring Confederate Month to wield some pull is less clear.

      Like

  47. Lobills says:

    Why doesn’t the B10 invite Nebraska and Rutgers right now (for a month or 2) and stop at 13? This achieves a myriad of things. Such as:

    1. Destabilizes but doesn’t destroy the B12. It causes the remaining big players of that conference (Ok/UT/A&M) to really consider the viability of the B12 and what’s best for them. Primary target (UT) comes to the conclusion the B12 isn’t going to be viable. Of course they probably already have come to that conclusion. This just solidifies it that schools are leaving.

    2. Destabilizes but doesn’t destroy the BigEast. It gets your primary target (ND) to understand the landscape is starting to change.

    3. PAC10 has to expand from a tv contract standpoint to remain somewhat relevant. Only options are the much discussed B12 South merger or the backup plan of Colorado/Utah. Adding Nebraska pops the cork and gets everything in motion.

    4. SEC isn’t just going to sit around while everyone is starting to make moves to solidify their futures so they move on the myriad of B12/ACC options that have been discussed ad nauseum. Which then results in a destabilized ACC and likely the complete destruction of the B12 if the PAC10 merger doesn’t happen. A&M/Okla/Okie St. being the most likely to go the SEC’s way.

    By stopping at 13 (in the very short term…month or two tops) everyone knows the B10 is going to add 1 or 3 more teams. So, this sets off the chain reaction. Through back channels it’s quite obvious the B10 has made it clear to UT and ND that they are the top priorities. This gets the ball rolling toward that end.

    It also serves a dual purpose of unearthing ACC candidates that would only be available imo AFTER the SEC pilfered a couple of schools. I just don’t see Maryland/Virginia leaving until the FSU’s/Miamis move. That’s the only way the B10 is getting the Terps/Cavs…in a 2nd phase if you will of expansion.

    Finally, by adding 2 schools (that are highly likely to get invites anyway) from separate conferences the B10 won’t be accused of destroying a conference. A great PR card to play after the initial announcement. B10 knows it wants multiple B12 schools (UT+Neb.) anyway and I think this is how they get the ball rolling towards that.

    That’s how I’d start the reshuffling of the deck chairs if I were Delany and Co.

    Thoughts?

    Like

    • ChicagoRed says:

      Added benefit: Big Ten has to figure out how to redesign their logo to show a “13”.

      Like

    • duffman says:

      Lobills,

      short term, I say it is much simpler.. just invite Nebraska and sit back and wait..

      a) you are now at 12 (a magic number).
      b) you can leave all options open in the future (still on the fence with Rutgers) as the NYC/NJ market has to many pro teams to compete with.

      The more I look at college football and pro football, it seems you do best when you stay a monopoly (Cincinnati has the Bengals, Columbus has tOSU). Nebraska is a monopoly, NJ/NYC is not..

      just my thoughts here….

      Like

      • Lobills says:

        Duffman,

        I’d have no problem adding just Nebraska and sitting back like you suggest. I think more pieces on the chess board are moved if the B10 adds 2 teams because everyone would then be assured more dominoes are going to fall.

        If you just add Nebraska it might not shakeup other conferences into acting. This is all under the assumption that the B10 wants to add more than just 1 school.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Lobills,

          It is the best strategic act..

          a) it cripples the Big 12
          b) it forces the Pac 10 to add AT LEAST 2 teams (further eroding confidence, without the Big 10 taking the blame)
          c) keeps your powder dry for 4 teams instead of three (maximize options)
          d) between Rutgers and Maryland for team 13, I think Maryland offers the best strategic long term options.

          Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        The thing is the Big10 is in a very strong position right now with the apparent success of the BTN and what that success means to the marketability of previously “non-marquee” brands.

        In short, no one else has its own network and thus no one else can turn its second tier programming into top tier profits. Wait a couple years and the rest of college athletics WILL have its own network (see Pac talk) and the Big10 loses some of its stronger selling points.

        What’s more, they are going to have a tv contract negotiation in a couple years. If the SEC got what it did, and the ACC even did as well as it did in such bad times, adding even one big name brand to the Big10 will guarantee average per school payouts closer to what the SEC got, rather than the ACC.

        If the BTN didn’t exist, I’d say add Neb in time for the tv contracts and be done with it. Because of that “ace up the sleeves” though, you can have Neb AND make a play for high population markets…and if done smartly, will only help improve the overall brand of the Big10.

        Basically, go big now or content yourself to being where you are…and Delany’s comments about shifting demographics shows me he doesn’t feel being where we are is in the long term best interests of the conference.

        Like

    • zeek says:

      I’m a huge fan of the going to 13 movement since Nebraska and Rutgers are the two slam dunks (in terms of fit/academics/athletics/brand/location) that are on the table.

      Also, leaving the Big Ten at 13 has the exact same effect as the fact that it’s been at 11 and a threat to expand at any time.

      Plus, just as with Notre Dame before, if they ever come around, you have a seat waiting instead of figuring out a partner.

      Count me in the 13 camp.

      Like

    • IrishTexan says:

      I like the idea! I think it’s intriguing, doable, and, most importantly, gives you flexibility and power from potential.

      What is the saying? The strongest bomb is the one you have but never use? You get the idea.

      Like

    • Josh says:

      You can’t go to 13 schools, split into divisions, have every team play every team in their division and have every team play an equal number of conference games. The math just doesn’t work. The MAC solves this by having Eastern teams skip a divisional opponent every year, but I don’t see the Big 10 wanting to do this.

      Like

    • Cliff's Notes says:

      Lobills,

      If the Big Ten is 100% sure that they are inviting Nebraska and Rutgers, regardless of any other schools, then I might be ok with it.

      My first concern, though, is that these schools may not be Plan A. Plan A might still be Notre Dame and stop at 12. Also, (even though mushroomgod certainly disagrees with any chance of this) I personally prefer an ACC combination that includes Virginia, Maryland, and UNC over Rutgers.

      Another concern is the entry negotiation. If The Big Ten does give something to Texas, ND, or the ACC schools, for instance, it might not sit right with somebody if Nebraska and Rutgers have one agreement, and the others have a second agreement.

      Like

  48. Jeff says:

    The Big Ten and Texas currently have a chicken and egg problem. Texas wants to bolt but can’t do anything until someone else leaves the Big 12 first, otherwise they will have to take A&M, Tech and maybe Baylor with them. The Big 10 wants Texas (not sure if Texas wants the Big 10) but none of the siblings with maybe the exception of A&M.
    So if I were Delaney, here is what I would do: invite Nebraska and ONLY Nebraska. Communicate that this is wave 1 of the expansion and more waves are to follow. This is when all hell breaks loose. The Big 12 breaks up because Nebraska leaves. Missouri gets really nervous because it didn’t get an invite in wave 1. Next, the Pac 10 makes their 16 team move. I personally doubt that the Pac 10 will truly accept Tech. If they do, then the Pac 10 goes to 16 teams (either with A&M or Utah if A&M goes to the SEC). However, if Stanford votes down taking Tech, that’s when it gets really interesting. If they don’t take Tech, Texas now has the political cover to get the best deal for them without worrying about the siblings and that would be the Big 10. Texas goes to the Big 10 (maybe with A&M) and the B10 also adds a few east schools to round out the conference. Oklahoma & OK ST bolt for the SEC (maybe with A&M) and Colorado goes to the Pac10. Mizzou has essentially screwed itself and now takes what is left of the Big 12 and merges with the Mountain West.

    The one risk of this strategy is by just taking Nebraska in the first wave does that keep the Big 12 intact? I don’t think so because Colorado would definitely bolt for the Pac10 but the risk exists.

    Like

    • IrishTexan says:

      Interesting, too. Texas wants the best of both worlds: results and perception. This way, they can at least say they tried when the politicians come crying.

      Like

    • AggieFrank says:

      Your read couldn’t be more wrong. Texas wants to retain the B12 and keep everyone from leaving. They most decidely not “taking” A&M along. Texas A&M would gladly exit stage left right now but UT is holding on tightly using its political strenght.

      Like

  49. Chip Brown is Twittering that Larry Scott will be recommending the 6-team expansion proposal to the Pac-10 leadership. Unclear as to whether Baylor or Colorado is part of that.

    Like

    • willarm1 says:

      I guess the question is. Does Scott have a deal with these teams. Either way, somehting could happen fast.

      Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      Chelsea Clinton went to Stanford, daddy is a donor.

      Then again, so is mom…

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Has this been thoroughly vetted by the Pac-10 leadership (presidents/chancellors)?

      Or is he just going to suggest it and have them pore over it for a few months?

      They hired the CAA just like a couple weeks ago to start vetting; hard to believe they’ve completely thought through these scenarios although maybe they just want to lock in Texas and leave the rest for another day while the Big Ten is still coming up with scenarios.

      And of course, what of Stanford, etc. who care about the academic perception of the Pac-10? I don’t think they’ll easily buy into the notion of a restored Pac-8 under a Pac-16 roof, but maybe there’s a chance that USC forces them along…

      Like

  50. Rod says:

    Well I am glad to have learned from this website that a university’s sole worth is determined by the amount of research dollars it garners. I appreciate the education that producing quality undergrads really isn’t worth anything. My goodness I could maybe understand some of the comments from the UT folks about Baylor but for the rest of you who with a straight face talk about academic pedigree and in the same breath say no way BU over CU or even Tech just floor me. I might suggest you spend a few brain cells looking at the academic pedigrees of those schools.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      We’re talking about academic value in terms of expansion as opposed to overall academic pedigree in general terms.

      There’s not really any synergy in undergraduate education among conference schools because undergraduate education is much more of an island.

      Graduate-level research though allows for much more collaboration of the sort contemplated on a conference-wide scale.

      Oh and for the record no one was comparing Baylor and Tech. Tech should be a non-starter with the Big Ten for academic reasons, whereas Baylor might actually look a lot more like Notre Dame or Syracuse in terms of its more undergraduate focus.

      The issue is institutional fit with the Pac-10; I think Baylor is a non-starter for the same reason BYU isn’t.

      Baylor’s exclusion isn’t about academics (whether from the Big Ten or Pac-10). The Tech problem is entirely academic in nature.

      Generally the Big Ten is looking for large public research institutions although Notre Dame is Notre Dame.

      Like

    • michaelC says:

      Nobody has said that. Many universities and colleges do a fine job of teaching undergraduates. A number of universities are also in the business of doing research and amongst those there is a group that is research intensive. The Big-10 schools are all research intensive schools with a capital I. When people talk about fit, this is an important criteria. It is not diminishing the value of universities that make undergraduate teaching their primary focus.

      Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Baylor fans get a little touchy about their lack of academic reputation. Even in the state of Texas they are barely top 10. I can hardly imagine what the rest of the country thinks about the bible-thumpers.

      Like

    • Josh says:

      My undergraduate work was at a highly-regarded college that plays D-III. We’re not getting invited to the Big 10 or Pac 10 and our egos will not be bruised nor will or academic excellence be diminished.

      This is about money. Graduate level research brings it in. Educating undergrads, for the most part, does not.

      Beyond that, my undergraduate school has allowed dancing on campus for more than the past 15 years.

      Like

      • rich2 says:

        Rod, you are correct. More than 75% of the Big Ten are caught in a non-sustainable “business model”: to keep state appropriations flowing — they must maintain very large undergraduate programs; in addition, undergraduate programs are the primary source of “profit” at a university (not revenue, but profit); yet, graduate research criteria — citation indices in the science, research grants received, and size and scope of doctoral education is the primary area where Big Ten schools can point to some success over the last decade. Thus, the trick is to convince undergraduates to continue to enroll (they don’t even have to graduate) in extraordinarily large numbers and to stop the hemorrhaging of state appropriations while being unable to compete with the undergraduate-oriented schools for undergraduates. Thus the bread and circuses arguments. Now over the past ten years, the quality metrics at the Big Ten have declined for their undergraduate programs in comparison to their competitors: academic preparation at admission (ave ACT or SAT) and job placement(ave $ and % hired at graduation). This is why I would bet that 90% of the posters on this board think that the “academic” reputation of the Big Ten is enhanced if they selected Neb and Missouri and more generally would prefer to add NU, MO and RU over Vanderbilt, Rice and Baylor any day of the week. Yet, the undergraduates and alums who hold an undergraduate degree from the Big Ten would benefit far more from the addition of Baylor, Vanderbilt and Rice to the Big Ten than NU, MO and RU– and undergrad alums outnumber grad alums probably 3-1.

        Like

        • M says:

          “undergraduate programs are the primary source of “profit” at a university”
          Not true.

          “the quality metrics at the Big Ten have declined for their undergraduate programs in comparison to their competitors”
          You can’t just say something like this here with no evidence.

          “undergrad alums outnumber grad alums probably 3-1”
          Rice and Vanderbilt are both 1-to-1. Thus by your measure, they are even more unsustainable than the Big Ten public schools because they don’t have the wealthy undergraduate cash flow. The fact is that all of the top notch private schools are about 1-to-1. Most top public schools (and Notre Dame) are about 3-to-1.

          Educating undergrads is only “profitable” at community colleges.

          Now if you want to talk about unsustainable models, how about a school dependent on a non-alumni fanbase that roots for them because they never went to college in a world where more and more people are seeking higher education?

          Like

        • greg says:

          Which business model is more sustainable:

          a. Revenues from undergraduate tuition, state appropriations, and research dollars (private and federal)
          b. Revenues from undergraduate tuition

          I would rather have a diversified revenue stream rather than one source. But that is just me.

          Like

        • djinndjinn says:

          We can always count on Rich fojr the same weekly arguments about how the BT universities are all on the decline because they don’t follow the same model as Notre Dame. Now their students need to be “tricked” into enrolling. Great to see an illustration of all that respect for Big Ten universities you were talking about in the last thread.

          Like

  51. Guido says:

    Since Texas as a state seems to think they drive everything from a position if ultimate power, why would they not simply start their own all-Texas conference and TV network? If they are correct about their value and popularity, wouldn’t it then stand to reason that the ND’s, USC’s and Ohio St’s of the world would then be begging for inclusion. How about they put their money where their mouth is and start their own “business” instead of trying a hostile takover of someone else’s?

    Seriously, aren’t even the Texas folks disgusted by what seems to be happening with the Texas schools in all this?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      A&M said no to this already.

      A&M would rather be in a conference network than with UT in a LSN…

      Like

    • Bob in Houston says:

      The SWC did break up in part over the rampant cheating that was occurring, but the ultimate cause was something along the lines of what is happening now, in that Texas believed it was carrying schools that didn’t bring in sufficient money to support the league. (That was you, SMU, Rice, TCU and UH. Baylor was going through its best revenue generation period in its history, because of what Grant Teaff had done to raise the level of football, otherwise BU would be on the list as well.)

      Texas also saw that the state of Texas was not sufficient to provide the revenue stream that would keep all eight schools together. So the SWC model wouldn’t work today, and it would not work if Arkansas had never left.

      I still think that Texas could leave on its own, but it’s Bill Powers who has neck out in that case, and not me. Thus, the “Tech” problem, and the predictable “Baylor” response. At some point, the mature kids are going to have take over this discussion, but we obviously haven’t reached that point.

      Like

    • IrishTexan says:

      I’m a born and raised Texan, and this whole political mess is extremely frustrating. Thank God for UT and A&M, because I don’t think the rest of America would bother with Texas (state of) otherwise.

      Like

  52. pennstgrad says:

    Big 10 should go to 13 now with Nebraska and Rutgers. The triple threat at 13 still is there. Does the Big 10 lose Texas to the Pac 10 by making this move first or do they lose Texas by doing nothing yet? Adding Nebraska only and being at 12 looks like Big 10 could be done thus giving Texas a reason to bolt to the Pac 10. Also taking Rutgers gives ND an excuse to it’s crazy fans to come next.

    Like

    • ezdozen says:

      Notre Dame does not care about Rutgers. The Big East barely cares about Rutgers. They sucked on the teat of Miami, Va Tech, Syracuse, BC, and WVU for 15 years before figuring out how to keep some talent in state???? And then has the audacity to complain about bowl selections? The Big East HOPES that Rutgers does. It can add Memphis… not lose anything in the NYC area… barely lose anything in football and gain in basketball.

      Frankly, I doubt that Notre Dame is concerned with the Big East being destroyed. Basketball? They’ll always have someone to play them as an Independent and they can keep all the NCAA tournament money. Olympic sports? I am sure the MAC would allow Notre Dame’s teams to compete with them, to the extent anyone even cares about those sports.

      Like

      • Vincent says:

        You are making the hardly certain assumption that the clumsy 16-team hybrid known as the Big East manages to survive. I could still see the wealthier ACC picking off several members even if it wasn’t raided by the Big Ten or SEC.

        Like

  53. Robert says:

    I have a question that maybe someone (Hopkins Horn?) could explain to me. If you buy that Texas wants to hold the Big 12 together to start its own network, yet it sounds like no other Big 12 schools want this network to happen (A&M is apparently threatening to go to the SEC to get Texas to scrap its network), why don’t the other Big 12 schools just vote to start a conference network and tell Texas to screw off?

    The Big 12 requires nine votes to change a rule, correct? So this tells me that’s there’s at least three other schools that are also interested in exploring their own networks, no?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Because then Texas would bolt on its own.

      Texas is hostage to no one in reality.

      Like

      • Robert says:

        But if we’re to believe that Texas and Tech need to go where Texas goes, then they can’t really bolt on their own, can they?

        Or are we basically saying that A&M and Tech need to tag along because that’s really what Texas wants and they’re using political cover to make that happen?

        In other words, if Texas loses the rights to its network and then decides it wants out, the Tech problem goes away and A&M gets to go to the SEC if that’s what it really wants?

        Like

        • Robert says:

          Sorry, that should read A&M and Tech in the first sentence.

          Like

        • zeek says:

          Because, then Texas would move first and get out on it’s own.

          There’s no way there will be a Big 12 network without Texas approval, which won’t be granted.

          They all know Texas has options on its own (if it moves first it would just leave Tech to A&M).

          Like

          • zeek says:

            What I mean is that A&M has options on its own so no one is worried about protecting it like they were in the early 90s (it is AAU now, etc.).

            The Tech problem would become A&M’s or they would try to force Tech on the conference that took UT but would be rebuffed (especially if it was the Big Ten)…

            Like

        • eapg says:

          “Or are we basically saying that A&M and Tech need to tag along because that’s really what Texas wants and they’re using political cover to make that happen?”

          I think you’re getting closer to the truth of the situation. One big reason, along with the other reasons stated, that the Pac 10 option is attractive to Texas is that they get to bring along a large bloc of votes they have every expectation of controlling. So while zeek is correct that Texas probably has enough power to see to it that they can go wherever they want singly, being one vote in a conference is seen as being extremely disadvantageous compared to being with a group of like-minded schools with voting rights, beholden to you for saving them from perdition.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Oh yea, I agree with that completely.

            I’m just commenting that Texas holds all of the cards for the Big 12 South for the most part because they all know it can go anywhere, so they’re not going to do anything Texas won’t want to do…

            Like

          • Robert says:

            So it sounds like Texas is basically in a no-lose situation.

            They either force the Big 12 to stay together and trot out their own network, which apparently will make them an inordinate amount of money (probably the preference).

            Or they force Nebraska to make the first move and come across as the bad guy, while Texas takes its voting block to to the Pac 16 and still probably makes a ton of money in what is perceived nationally as a better conference.

            Like

          • eapg says:

            @ Robert

            Nebraska probably has no problem being seen as the bad guy. If they do, they can just let these rumored deadlines pass without comment either way.

            Like

          • Bob in Houston says:

            I think Occam’s Razor applies here. Texas probably lobbied for as many of the B12S as it could muster because that solves problems that the Pac-10 presents if it goes by itself or only with A&M, assuming A&M gets in on merit.

            Bringing the B12S and hooking up with the Arizonas solves the travel issue to a great extent, and also greatly lessens potential problems with late starts for football and basketball. The Pac-10 also offers an appropriate home for Texas baseball, which the Big Ten does not.

            If it were all about academics and money, the Big Ten wins easily, but it’s not.

            The key, to me, is how much Arizona and Arizona State like this arrangement, because they’re the ones getting cut off from the league they joined 35 years ago.

            And, while I understand the implications of the CIC and the fact that presidents vote, it’s also foolish to discount that fans pretty much could not care less. While Texas can by and large call its shot in this deal, remember that its original position is that it wants the Big 12 to succeed. I have seen nothing, in the way of talk or action, that points in another direction.

            Like

          • eapg says:

            “While Texas can by and large call its shot in this deal, remember that its original position is that it wants the Big 12 to succeed.”

            On their terms. Barring that, they’re just as available to offers as anyone else.

            Like

  54. duffman says:

    THE SWC CONVERSATION….

    I posted about this long ago, but I will bring it up again..

    I was around when the SWC imploded but I think it is important to review 2 points in terms of the current discussion….

    a) The SWC imploded because SMU got the death penalty (one reason I have been watching the USC issue – when the NCAA said they would combine the football and basketball infractions it “appears” it was done to show favored status to USC by taking the death penalty OFF the table). Not to be a tin foil wearing conspiracy nut, but think how these discussions would be going if USC got SMU’s fate.

    b) The SWC was a collection of TEXAS schools + Arkansas. People keep losing sight that Oklahoma and Nebraska have their roots in the old Big 8. As the outsider Arkansas to the SEC was not a really big deal, and did not burn bridges because they were not tied to the Big 8 at the time. In addition, as a non texas school, they were the red headed stepchild. In current realignment, the moves are not being made by the red headed stepchildren.

    The people in charge are older.. to them they will remember things we as bloggers may not.. They may still see the Big 12 as the old SWC and Big 8. To some guy in his 60’s Miami and FSU are the “johnny come lately’s” or flashes in the pan. They are old enough to remember the Pac 10 without AZ and ASU. They may think of the ACC as being a minor conference before they hooked up with a startup named ESPN. Just making the point that what we see in the past 2 decades is not the same picture someone much older has for their world view.

    Like

  55. Badgerholic says:

    Hey everyone,

    First time, long time. Is there any way the B10 could admit Tx Tech on a conditional basis, i.e., accepted into the conference but not the CIC until pre-determined academic guidelines are met? That’s about the only way I could see them admitted. I also don’t see how Rutgers could be admitted and not Tx Tech. Essentially we’d be using both of them if they’d join:

    Rutgers – (Possible) foothold in the NYC market
    Tx Tech – (Possible) hurdle to get Texas

    Yes Rutgers has an academic profile that fits the B10 but their athletics suck in the sports that matter whereas Tx Tech is better athletically but lacks academically. IMO it’d be easier to increase a school’s academic profile as opposed to their athletic profile.

    If Tx Tech is admitted, I wouldn’t be surprised if Pitt would get an invite as a way to appease the univ. presidents who don’t want Tech. While I don’t know any of the B10 presidents, I haven’t seen an article suggesting any dislike Pitt and their non-admittance has been primarily because of bad timing as opposed to anything else.

    Like

    • michaelC says:

      “IMO it’d be easier to increase a school’s academic profile as opposed to their athletic profile.”

      I disagree to the nth degree. Much much easier to improve athletics. The proof is that good athletic programs fall down from time to time (Michigan being a perfect current example). Academics is fundamentally more complex and involves many more or less independent components. It is built up over longer periods of time and does not deteriorate rapidly. I’d take the bet that Rutgers has a national football championship before Texas Tech is a top 40 research school.

      Like

    • Josh says:

      The Big 10 doesn’t work that way. They don’t like some members being less equal than others. One reason the B10 is so strong is that every school thinks every other school has their back. To bring in TTU on those terms would be to invite the same kind of fratricide that’s going on the B12 right now.

      Like

    • djinndjinn says:

      “IMO it’d be easier to increase a school’s academic profile as opposed to their athletic profile.”

      You could improve a sports team overnight with a top coach. Look at Indiana basketball with and without Bobby Knight, Wisconsin football before Alvarez, Notre Dame since Holtz, etc.

      Academics are much harder to improve. The number of hires required over many departments, improving facilities, changing one’s reputation over time to get better students, etc. Depending upon funding, that can take decades.

      Like

  56. Steven B says:

    I think Shatel is spot-on (as usual) with his observation. I think Texas needs more time to figure out options. Talk (more) to the Pac-10, investigate the LSN in greater depth, see where next Big 12 contract negotiations come in. I really doubt Texas wants to make a snap decision on its long term future. There’s no need to rush this from the Texas perspective. They hold a lot of cards. The best play they can make is to keep the Big 12 together and then continue to explore options behind the scenes … thus the Dodds comment about “ending it…”.

    The Big 12 obviously wants to keep things together as well. Perhaps Powers and the Big 12 float the story though Chip Brown to put pressure on Neb. to commit to league. It’s a win for Texas as they get more time to investigate options. It’s a win for the Big 12 as they live to fight another day and negotiate a new contact with Nebraska on board.

    As for the story itself, I’m sure there is some truth to it. 10 + 6 is a Pac 10 option, and perhaps their best option … who knows. Maybe the Pac-10 floated the story to say “Big 12 members, don’t do anything until you consider this option”, even though the Pac-10 isn’t ready to make its decision without more contemplation.

    I would take the leak more serious except for the curious comment at the end about how he’s hearing that Nebraska doesn’t have much of a shot at a Big 10 offer. That’s a strange comment to tack on to the end of the story.

    As for Nebraska, why wouldn’t they respond to this deadline by saying “We’re committed to the Big 12” … and also continue negotiations behind the scenes? It buys them more time as well.

    Anyway, just some random thoughts.

    Like

    • Josh says:

      I find it interesting that most of the P16 leaks are coming out of Texas and Colorado. Looking at P10 sources like the LA Times, they’re just reporting that it’s a “possible option.” That would fit into your theory.

      Like

  57. otis says:

    Frank–

    Let me offer my sincere thanks to you for maintaining this website which provides the best coverage and commentary regarding conference expansions of any site I am aware of.

    Thanks.

    otis.

    Like

  58. Madison Hawk says:

    Despite the rumors cooling on Missouri, I still believe that the Big Ten will add Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers for now. They are the three most logical additions:

    1. All would add revenue for the BTN. Rutgers with its New Jersey presence (I agree that Rutgers is unlikely to bring NYC or Philadelphia but New Jersey and Philadelphia is a huge market), Nebraska with its national reputation and ratings (i.e. advertising $$$). Missouri brings a solid mixture of recent football and basketball success and a decent population.

    2. All are large, state, flagship universities.

    3. All are AAU members with large research budgets (Rutgers $280M, Nebraska $215M, Missouri $215M). I assume that, like Penn State, all would need to increase this but, unlike other “candidates” such as Notre Dame ($78M), UConn ($106M) and Syracuse ($36M), these three schools have research as part of their core mission.

    4. All are geographically contiguous.

    5. All want to join the Big Ten. This will make them much easier to integrate culturally.

    6. The Big Ten would neatly divided into two seven team divisions; East-West divisions split by time zone that maintain core rivalries.

    The other candidates are not natural fits:

    1. Notre Dame’s mission and identity are tied up with being independent. Given the alumni uproar over losing that independence, I can not see Notre Dame wanting to sacrifice that for the core research mission and building the brand of the Big Ten.

    2. Texas and Texas A&M would be a home run. However, the “Tech probelm” and the geographic issues are likely to be too hard to overcome for this round of expansion.

    3. Syracuse, UConn are not research-oriented universities.

    4. ACC schools such as Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina would be ideal fits, but it is a long shot that they will leave the ACC at this time.

    5. Pitt is a wild card in that they fit the Big Ten academic profile almost perfectly (state school with $530M research budget). However, their geography does not add any subscriber increase to the BTN. I could see Pitt joining only if the Big Ten expands to 16.

    Ultimately, I predict that the Big Ten will expand to 14 during this round and keep the option of adding two others (e.g. Notre Dame, Notre Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, Pitt) at some point in the future.

    Like

    • Justin says:

      If I were Delaney, I get the president’s approval for this last offer to Texas.

      We will take three Texas schools but TTU and Baylor are non-starters. Texas, Texas A&M and Rice. Rice has a credible baseball program, and while its a bottom feeder in football, success on the football field isn’t the key factor here with UT and TAMU part of the equation.

      But, if Vandy is under consideration, then Rice works. Rice rivals Northwestern academically. It is secular. They must have some grads on the TX legislature.

      This is a reasonable compromise for Texas to take back to the constituents. You go to the Big 10 with your TX rival in A&M and one of the most prestigious schools in the country in Rice.

      My guess is it wouldn’t be enough, but I think that is the best offer the Big 10 can make to UT.

      Now…if the Big 12 South goes to the PAC 10, I think this is what ultimately happens.

      Step 1 – Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers to the Big 10. We are going to 16, but we’ll take a step back to see if the SEC makes a move that impacts the ACC.

      Step 2 – If the SEC adds FSU and another ACC school, preferably Virginia Tech, then the Big 10 makes its play for Maryland and another ACC travel partner (UVA or GT). If the SEC holds firm, or doesn’t hit the ACC, then the Big 10 can take 2 Big East schools or 1 Big East school and Colorado. I expect the last 2 invites to happen later this year.

      Like

      • Bob in Houston says:

        Rice just doesn’t work. The faculty — at least the noisy ones — would just as soon drop sports or go D-III.

        If you’re thinking sports first, the frantic grab is to TCU, which has the baseball program plus the quality of football the B10 would want (but, like Rice, not the fans).

        But the B10 doesn’t need to add TCU to work the deal with Texas. It (apparently) needs Tech. As the marketing slogan goes, there are no substitutes.

        Like

    • Vincent says:

      Missouri gets an invite now only if the Big Ten is 100% sure it can’t get North Carolina to partner with Maryland and Virginia. Mizzou may well enter a 16-team Big Ten, but it would be the last one in.

      Like

      • Madison Hawk says:

        @ Vincent. I agree that Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina would be better “gets” for the Big Ten than Missouri. I just don’t see it happening this expansion round. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that neither ESPN nor the ACC announced their new television deal even though Sports Business Journal reported it was all but a done deal with very specific terms almost two weeks ago.

        Like

    • Paul says:

      I like it, except maybe Georgia Tech instead of Missouri.

      Like

  59. GopherKH says:

    add

    Like

  60. Bobestes says:

    Soooooo…

    If I went to the University of Cincinnati, am I totally fucked?

    The Sugar Bowl was really fun, FYI.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      bobestes,

      yes.. i am a bearcat alumni, tOSU sealed our fate when we went public in the 70’s.. we are hosed!

      sad, because had they gone the other way and supported UC it would make a great candidate for expansion today….

      Like

      • Bobestes says:

        our odds:

        40% – zombie big east
        30% – ACC expansion
        30% – conference USA

        Like

        • duffman says:

          bobestes,

          actually I floated a different option early on.. I called it my God & Country EAST conference..

          8 catholic basketball schools +
          8 football schools..

          ND + BC + UC + UL + Army + Navy + Syracuse + Uconn..

          UC & UL are in urban cities with high catholic populations and excellent catholic HS to feed such a consortium, Syracuse and Uconn would give you the East Coast and access to catholic markets there.. with basketball schools like Gtown and others it would be a plausible alternative for ND which could stay “independent” and still maintain their own TV contracts.. or tie them into a “catholic” network.

          This would be supplemented by a western version that could include Air Force, BYU, Baylor, SMU, etc.. and add 8 basketball schools like Gonzaga.. etc..

          just a thought..

          Like

  61. Ross Hatton says:

    Here’s something I was thinking about…

    The Big Ten started this process, and it has seemed that they would only expand if it was something big and something worthwhile.

    We also know that the Big Ten and Pac-10 are probably the closest of any two conferences and have some aligned interests.

    What if Delaney’s ultimate plan was to get other conference to poach schools in order to get what he really wants? If the Pac-10 takes the southern half of the Big XII, two things could happen. First, it is easier for the Big X to get the northern schools without giving them immediate, full revenue shares.

    Second, and here is what I think is important, it might encourage the SEC to poach the ACC. If that occurs, maybe some people, including Frank, were right at times to throw out big ACC schools like Miami as possibilities. Maybe the Big Ten is just waiting for the currently stable conference to break apart as a result of the Big Ten encouraging other conferences to poach the Big 12/ACC/Big East. Perhaps, then, the Big Ten actually is interested in schools like Miami, UNC, Georgia Tech, etc.

    If the Big Ten leadership is so far-thinking that they have planned something like that out, then my hat is off to them. This could obviously be completely wrong, but so far the Big Ten leaking things has worked to encourage destabilization and has made some conferences like the Pac-10 and SEC start looking at expansion when they weren’t before.

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      i agree that the only actual “thing” that has happened is that the BXII and BEast have been destabilized.

      some have said that this means Delaney is losing control of the situation.

      you and others (including myself) see the destabilization as somewhat planned (if maybe not in exactly the manner it has happened).

      Think particle accelerators: throw something hard and fast at a brick wall and see what falls out. (okay, so that’s a mixed methaphor… lol)

      Anyway, bottom line: Delaney has EVERY SCHOOL in the country thinking options!!

      What has “fallen out?”

      All sorts of stuff about the BXII.

      personally I had NO IDEA about Neb’s feelings about the BXII; never considered how Neb might be nursing a grudge against OK for picking TX as “their main rival” (think how jilted tOSU would be if TSUN abandoned “the game” and started scheduling PSU at year’s end and add all the B10 votes start becoming 10-1 … grrrr).

      other stuff: Mizzu grudges; legitimate FEARS of schools like Iowa State and Baylor about being relegated to mid-major status;

      the irrelevance of OK (think about that one!! — as a national football power, you’d think OK would be a PLAYER; it’s definitely not);

      who’s “wedded” to whom by state politics. What must an OK fan think about being “stuck” with OKST forever? I laugh thinking whether such a situation would exist between MI and MSU. Little bro tagging along until the end of time!!

      interesting to speculate what an Iowa fan must be thinking about their Little Bro. do Iowa fans care that Iowa State might be SOL? is there any sentiment from Iowa that Iowa State needs to be “saved” from the coming BXII implosion? Does that ever become a factor in B10 expansion. Iowa won’t vote for this or that unless ….

      Gawd, how fun all this is.

      And that’s just the BXII.

      Lots has “fallen out” about the BEast and we’re only beginning to see what’s there in the ACC and the SEC. I mean Vandy might leave the SEC!? Really? you would have been neg-banged or laughed off any message board in the country if you had suggested Vandy to the B10 four months ago?

      What a ride.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        BB,

        I am not on the Vandy bandwagon yet.. they are the founder of the SIAA in 1894!! (the SIAA became the SEC and ACC among other children). They have never left the company of some schools in over 100 YEARS!!

        NOTE: the SIAA was Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, the University of the South (Sewanee), Clemson, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Tulane, Texas, and VANDY! It also included schools like.. Florida, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, Mississippi, NC State, USC, Texas A & M, Virginia, and Virginia Tech…. The ACC and SEC have a shared history, and the SIAA was the “original” mega conference!

        SEC = all current members except Arkansas
        ACC = over half of current members (less Duke, Wake, Maryland, FSU, and BC)

        just something to think about when going below Maryland / Virginia / Kentucky as border states….

        Like

      • Josh says:

        As an Iowa alumni, I can assure you we don’t care if ISU falls down to mid-major status, FCS status or drops football altogether.

        The fact that no one in the Iowa legislature or Board of Regents is on a “Save ISU football” crusade (Like TTU and Baylor are) should indicate that no rescue is coming. The “suicide note” written by the ISU president and AD last Friday is a strong indication they know it’s B12 or bust for them. Iowa couldn’t get them a B10 invite even if they wanted to, which they don’t.

        Like

  62. Badgerholic says:

    Per ESPN Bottomline, B10 has offered NE and Mizzou. I’m seeing it now ESPNews now.

    Like

    • 84Lion says:

      Nothing on the ESPN website.

      Like

    • Scott C says:

      I’m not seing anything other than the following tweet from Adam Rittenberg:

      Nothing is official RT @Greg__Watts: @espn_bigten Is the report that Missouri and Nebraska have been offered into the Big 10 official yet?

      Like

  63. duffman says:

    Is it just me..

    I swear the more I read and write it seems like multiple versions of the eternal love triangle.. which I should note usually never turns out well in real life..

    say..

    Missouri/Kansas is chasing the Big 10 who is chasing ND/Texas

    the more each chases, the farther the want to be apart..

    now think of the dating scene in the “Beautiful Mind” movie and think if the best strategy is to stop chasing and be happy with the one close by and loyal..

    The more I read this the more I see it from the outside, which is to say that the Big 10 does not get ND or Texas. If you wind up with Missouri and Kansas and you have been shooting them down all through the “dating” phase is this good strategic long term policy?

    It feels like Kansas/Missouri fit much better culturally (midwest) than moving east and “hoping” Rutgers is a good fit. If research is the goal, then politics will be very important and being on the same side of the aisle would long term be much easier that trying to negotiate on the other side of the aisle.

    They say “opposites attract” and we “always want what we can not have” but in the long term, the more common elements – the stronger the bond. The more I look at this the more Kansas and Missouri look like rocks, and the NYC/NJ looks like sand. Maybe I have just looked at this too long (thanks Frank) but maybe the best long term solution is not the sexy one..

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      Maybe, but when the primary and necessary goal of expansion is to attract eyeballs, a super model cannot be replaced by a nice girl no one wants to look at. I still think my five choices: ND, TX, aTm, NEB, Maryland are a possibility because I think the PAC16 idea is going to fall apart. I like Missouri fine, but I don’t think the Big Ten is going to go for it.

      Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        i disagree. IMHO, tv eyeballs are NOT the only goal here

        but assuming arguendo that eyeballs are the overriding factor, there is more than one way to add eyeballs.

        example: a few months back, Frank started us on this wonderful ride by talking tv markets. all of us were then off on researching and reporting tv market size, cable revenue, etc. etc., and promoting various additions based on that. Pitt remains “locked out” for must of us (not me) because Pitt is already in the footprint.

        then a couple of months later, someone (I apologize for not knowing exactly who) brought everyone’s attention to the revenue generated by advertising which caused us all to begin thinking about brand names and ratings.

        This is how we all now consider NEB a home run despite the relatively small tv market. That is, NEB brings eyeballs because it’s NEB. (This has helped Pitt come back into the picture a bit because Pitt has some brand cache.)

        I promise that Delaney and his research company are thinking about every way to add eyeballs, not just adding markets.

        the big one already out there that no one is discussing is cable alliances. P10 and BXII explored it. The B10 and P10 will explore it.

        what about this: eventually (give it 7 years) abandon the ESPN/ABC platforms and all content is B10 Network based? Don’t know; just throwing ideas out. Seems to me you add a lot of eyeballs.

        anyway, bottom line: adding markets is not the only way to add eyeballs.

        Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          I’m confused. You start your post claiming it’s not about adding eyeballs, then agree that Delany’s primary objective is adding eyeballs. I never claimed markets=eyeballs, which I why I include Nebraska (for the same reasons you stated).

          Like

    • Zombies Are People Too says:

      Totally agree. People seem to be forgetting – this is the BIG TEN. Miami ? Yeah, JoePa will fit right in clubbing in S Beach. c’mon people, be realistic. the talk about all these far-flung additions is NOT going to happen. hell, even something semi-realistic like MD or UVA has a snowball’s chance. In the end, the Big Ten will remember it is the Big Ten. It will take Neb, Mizzou, Pitt etc and not GA Tech, not Miami, etc. Why ? Geography and sense of place STILL matter, even in the age of the internet.

      btw i think you are the first person EVER in the history of this blog to intimate Rutgers is sexy …

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Zombie,

        I am still not sold on Miami..

        It is PRIVATE, Not a Flagship school, competes for eyeballs with MANY pro sports, and does not feel “southern” – for SEC or “midwestern” – for Big 10!

        Like

  64. jj says:

    The Spartans can take out any of these clowns.

    Like

  65. Hoffa says:

    Texas is the hot ass supermodel you fall head-over-heels in love with at first sight. Later you find out that she is a controlling, egotistical, powermonging bitch with three different children by three different men. Sure, you would still like to bang her, but there is no long term relationship potential. Thanks but no thanks!

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Hoffa,

      Texas and ND (maybe ND is more the tease) you have said much my friend.. much indeed!!

      “controlling, egotistical, powermonging bi#ch” – awesome!

      😉

      Like

      • Mike B says:

        Problem is, Mizzou and Kansas are the ugly back-up chicks that nobody wants to bang unless they’re really drunk, and then when you do hook up, it turns out their just as controlling, egostical, powermongering bi#ches as the hot supermodel.

        Better to go home alone.

        Like

      • Mike B says:

        Oh, and Nebraska is the chick who looks spends lots of money on clothes and make-up and looks hot from a distance in dim light, but when you wake up and see what you’ve really done, you want to chew your arm off.

        Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Extraordinarily insightful insight there.

      Like

    • Hank says:

      if Texas is still a hot ass supermodel after having three kids by different guys she may be worth it. I’d still take Salma hayek despite having a kid and adding a few lbs.

      Like

      • Hoffa says:

        Yes, most people would take Salma Hayek or Heidi Klum or (insert hot ass chick you whack off to). The Big Ten isn’t most people, the Big Ten would be the Billionaire. Why would a Billionaire want to deal with that much baggage regardless what she can do with her mouth or legs?

        Like

    • R says:

      But what if she is filthy rich with a huge income and doesn’t want a prenup?

      Like

  66. Robert says:

    This is how I figure things will go down:

    1. Today at his press conference, Larry Scott announces that he has recommended the Pac 10 add the six Big 12 teams (whether it includes Colorado or Baylor), and says the league will vote on expansion at some date (within the next two weeks).

    2. The Big 12 deadline comes and Nebraska/Missouri take their stance one way or another.

    3. If Nebraska/Mizzou refuse to commit to the Big 12, the Pac 10 votes to approve the expansion and the six Big 12 teams head west.

    4. If Nebraska/Mizzou decide to stay in the Big 12, the Pac 10 votes not to expand and keeps the Pac 10 from having egg on its face by not extending offers that would have been rejected.

    Like

    • eapg says:

      FWIW, the Nebraska and Missouri position on any deadline:

      http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/06/1996533/mu-nebraska-wont-confirm-big-12.html

      They don’t have to take a stance one way or another, because no deadline, other than April for TV negotiations (by Beebe) has been officially announced. Some process has been hinted at and Texas writers have speculated beyond that.

      Like

      • eapg says:

        I’ll correct myself, Texas writers have cited two highly placed sources beyond that. Speculation or (dis?)information planted to apply pressure.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I’m happy with anything that ratchets up pressure on Delany/Big Ten to act.

          I really don’t see why we have to sit around and talk about Texas/ND, which seems to become a more and more unrealistic proposition every day.

          The Big Ten is not going to make a similar offer to the Pac-10 offer, so we should be talking to Maryland/UVA/UNC and judging their interest if any.

          If not, then let’s make our move onto Nebraska and possibly Rutgers and worry about the rest later.

          Who knows, maybe we could open a channel to Stanford and see if they’re happy to be rid of Arizona/ASU and rebuild a Pac-8 in the Pac-16 West or whether they dislike the idea of OU/OSU/Tech being in the same conference entirely…

          Like

          • eapg says:

            “I’m happy with anything that ratchets up pressure on Delany/Big Ten to act.”

            Yeah, but this doesn’t fit the bill. Assuming Nebraska, maybe Missouri and Delany are on the same page, you just sit tight, let this “deadline” pass, and see if Texas and the Pac 10 can really pull all this together. Texas has really given Delany no choice on that, unless they think they can get the Big Ten to accept a big old hairball of teams they don’t want. Barring some miraculous reversal of field in what Texas can and can’t do in regards to teams that have to come with them, of course.

            Like

          • eapg says:

            And to add to the thought, once the deadline passes, there’s enough deniability to say, “Deadline? What deadline?”. None of this deadline stuff is official, just “sources”.

            Like

          • Robert says:

            I really think this is just the Pac 10’s way of going all-in. The Pac 10 knows that if the Big 12 stays intact, they really have no other natural expansion options other than Utah (assuming Colorado has committed to the Big 12).

            So the Pac 10 is putting its cards on the table and seeing how everything falls. If they get the Big 12 schools, its a coup for them and they’re happy.

            If not, they probably stand pat at 10 teams and hope for the best they can in their next TV deal, which probably leads to the original Pac 10-Big 12 TV alliance that brought all this about in the beginning.

            But what does the Pac 10 really have to lose at this point? They just want to force everyone else to play their hand now before they begin TV contract negotiations and hope for the best.

            Like

  67. ChicagoRed says:

    Steve Chapman, editorial board member of the Chicago Tribune, weighs in on BT expansion. He makes some points that I’ve brought up several times here—that many posters, thoughtful and savvy as they are, are taking the dollars and cents (whether academic or athletic) factor too far in the calculation. The culture, people, region, and geography are ties that shouldn’t be discounted in college conference life. That’s one reason that I’ve said no way will TX be in the B10, as fine as their institution and fans are.

    Excerpts:

    “The battle to keep the Big Ten at 10 is lost, but a few rules should guide any expansion. If your students can harvest oysters without leaving the state, you are not a Big Ten school. If they can leave class and be standing in a cornfield within 20 minutes, you are.

    Does summer smell like salt water? Out. Is it fragrant with cow manure? In. Mountains and beaches? Let’s think about this. Flat vistas that go on longer than the Academy Awards telecast? Now we’re talking.

    The University of Missouri is located in a state that had slavery, which is not a Midwestern thing, but it stayed in the Union, which is. Lots of people in Iowa and Illinois already feel an affinity because they root for the St. Louis Cardinals and share the Mississippi River.

    Nebraska? Their athletes wouldn’t need cultural orientation classes to prepare for trips to West Lafayette. Notre Dame, as everyone else knows, is a Big Ten school that just refuses to accept its obvious destiny.

    In the end, there is something inseparable between the conference and the region where it grew up, and we tinker with it at our peril. So my advice to university presidents: If your students are happy to be called Midwesterners, you belong in the Big Ten. If they would take it as an affront, look elsewhere.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0606-chapman-20100606,0,2708741.column

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I disagree somewhat.

      I think the essence of the Big Ten is more of a Northern/Union style grouping, which I guess he hit, but I think he hit more of a Midwestern kind of bent. He acknowledged that as the roots, but the Big Ten has sprawled a bit since then into a much more national grouping.

      And the Big Ten universities are all different. Would anyone at Northwestern think about being in a cornfield in 20 minutes? Hell no. Northwestern kids are mostly suburbanites or city kids.

      The same is true of Michigan, etc.

      I think there are plenty of schools that would be ideal matches for the Big Ten including Nebraska/Missouri/ND/Pitt/Rutgers/Syracuse/Maryland and possibly UVA/UNC/GTech.

      Academic/athletic excellence is intertwined with the culture that a school gets from its student body.

      I don’t think culture is a stumbling block with respect to “Southern” universities such as UVA/UNC or southwest universities such as Texas/A&M. After all, the churn of people across the US is almost constant and these universities all attempt to land superstar researchers regardless of location. The schools make themselves destinations, which is why the Big Ten’s brand is strong.

      There are no schools in the Big Ten that are weak academically and that’s what makes the Big Ten brand strong.

      I don’t think the brand is as much about the Midwest as it used to be, it’s much more about excellence now, which is why the Big Ten is discussing expansion outside of the footprint…

      Like

    • PSUGuy says:

      Biggest load of bs I think I’ve ever read.

      So the Big10 is forever chained to only ever looking at schools in rural areas? That same rural location is TRULY the reason why the schools are great?

      I guess I should ignore the fact that those “rural” areas have had the largest population centers, greatest industrial base, and overall “least” rural areas in their state footprint for the past 100 years.

      I guess the next thing this guy is going to tell me is commitment to academics (with a focus on “practical” sciences), heavy emphasis on research, and a strong sense of athletics are just “superficial” aspects of being a Big10 school.

      Good news is MD should be right up on this guys list for additions…I’ve smelled the cows on their campus.

      Like

      • eapg says:

        The shucking oysters criteria blows Maryland right out of the water.

        Like

      • ChicagoRed says:

        PSU,

        “midwest” and “rural” or only synonymous to eastern and west coast people.

        In a way, this disconnect in world view is the author’s point.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          The author, who is writing from Chicago, seems to think mid-west = rural since he made the “20 minutes to corn fields” comment.

          Like

    • 84Lion says:

      How terribly provincial. What utter garbage. Penn State is my cousin’s ex-husband 20 years post-divorce, greeted politely and then forgotten? As a Penn State alum, my view is certainly not without bias, but given that PSU won the Big Ten in 2005 and 2008 (oh, yes, don’t forget those were the unique to Big Ten “shared” titles with OSU despite the fact PSU beat OSU both years), seems like PSU might just be a little harder to forget than that. Maybe it’s just that Northwestern and Illinois fans would prefer to forget a team that has winning records against both?

      People like Chapman shouldn’t be let near a word processor let alone an editorial board.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      100% agree (and I even enjoyed the hyperbole (and actually started to calculate how close corn fields are to Northwestern — for sure 20 minutes for every other school)).

      from my posts, you all know i think “culture” and “fit” are just as important as the money and academic standings, etc. So TEX to the P16.

      now the midwest based B16 and Tex/pacific coast based P16 combine to make a single cable network … woohooo… gobs of money for everyone

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        That Chapman article was one of the most ill-informed and ignorant pieces of opinion journalism I have ever read.
        I thought I was reading the Onion.

        Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Fine, I’ll be the one who says it.

      If you think ND is a “Big Ten” school, you don’t know ND, you don’t know the Big Ten, or you don’t know either.

      Also, the people of Terre Haute vote just about as democrat as they do in Madison. This is why city folk shouldn’t shoot their mouths off about places they can’t find on a map.

      This is easily one of the dumbest things I have ever read from someone paid by what was considered a good paper.

      Like

  68. Bob in Houston says:

    As best I can tell, the battle to keep the Big Ten at 10 was lost about 20 years ago…

    Like

  69. Hank says:

    read that column earlier and with all due respect its a pretty clueless rant. what you didn’t excerpt is him saying that Penn State was a mistake and is still an outsider. Does anyone really believe that? This ‘you have to stay true to your Mid West roots’ schtick is narrow visioned provincial hogwash. Penn State has integrated very well. Nebraska is my first choice, after Texas, but Rutgers would eventually integrate just as well as Penn State. Chapman should join this century.

    Like

    • eapg says:

      It’s a political pundit venturing into sports as social commentary, so it’s a little behind the curve from the get-go.

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      aw, didn’t actually read the whole thing.

      to extent Chapman diss’ed PennState, he’s a moron for that. PennState fits very well (and I am fairly certain cows and corn can be found within 20 minutes of happy valley).

      but the insistence on “fit” and “culture” is important and, in that, Chapman is correct.

      Like

  70. jj says:

    Great job Frank. I love this blog.

    Someone above put it really well about the B10’s goal number one should be to maintain its general and academic credibility.

    Here’s my 2 cents:

    1. It’s been said before, but no one should really want TX, it is just too much trouble to deal with both them and the rest of their “family”.

    2. Take Nebraska. It has everything you want. Stop and wait.

    3. Don’t want to stop? The add 1 or 2 more. Which ones? I think Maryland is the next best option. And I know this gets shot down a lot, but I would go for Toronto for all of the following reasons:

    – Academic powerhouse that blows nearly everyone else being discussed out of the water.
    – Likely adds just as many tvs as TX; this functionally gets you at least 75% of Canada.
    – They can build a football team; they wouldn’t even need to play at first with Nebraska on board.
    – Gets you a hockey team and paves the way for Big Ten hockey, which would be awesome.
    – Culturally a great fit and, some might disagree but I think they are generally better behaved than the TX or NY/NJ crowds.
    – Seriously, I’m in Detroit and went to MSU undergrad and UM graduate. We interact with Ontario all the time. Toronto would fit like a glove.

    Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      I’m sure Delaney is pitching the virtues of adding Toronto instead of Texas as we speak.

      Like

      • jj says:

        I’m sure he’s not, but its a mistake. There are big bucks up there that none of the TX / West Coast crowds are fighting over. Sometimes its better to take a big piece and enjoy it while everyone else fights over the biggest piece. Notice all of these other conferences are dying to keep up with B10, just let them fight over the B12 (sans Nebraska, which in itself is a homerun gain for the Big 10) and use this opportunity of panic/musical chairs to pull in one of the best universities in North America with about 30 million people/tvs.

        Like

    • Hank says:

      we’ve discussed Toronto before on the site I usually post on (a Michigan board). great school and all that has a lot in its favor but the fact that it doesn’t play American football is a real problem if one of the goals is to leverage the BTN. they would be a long way from providing significant BTN content.

      and hockey is just not going to be a conference sport. only about half the conference already plays hockey and with Title IX its unlikey any will be adding such a large men’s sport soon.

      Like

      • jj says:

        they don’t need to play football right now if you add Nebraska; give them a little time to get up top speed. think long term.

        look at it this way – do you want middling AAU schools (or worse) in non top-20 markets or do you want an academic juggernaut in one of the biggest markets in the world?

        just saying. its not sexy, but it makes sense and piles of cash.

        Like

        • Hank says:

          look I’m sympathetic. I think Toronto would be a very creative add. but its indicated that they want 11+1 =13. they want additive and not dilutive. Toronto would be a great bet on the long term but it would be short term dilutive. But maybe that can be finnessed. would be fun to see.

          Like

          • jj says:

            i hear you, regardless of what B10 does, they need to look at this b/c:

            1. you’re right, its a great long-term investment. apple didn’t make it to where it is by building an ipod and then saying, that’s it we’re heading home! they invested in the future.

            2. the CIC would pee its pants to get UT.

            3. for all the reason’s i’ve stated, 1 school gets you more eyeballs and academic prestige than Syr, Rut, Pitt combined,and it leaves leaves space, which is a valuable commodity

            4. Missou, Pitt, Sys, Rut, Kansas, Etc. are basically interchangable, they add nothing new. We have 4-6 schools just like them now. Nebraska is a national brand. They’re different – these other guys, not so much.

            5. This is a good road to get ND. the only other conference that would consider adding UT is the Big East, which is desperate and it and might do this first if the Big 10 doesn’t. B10 and BE are a giant chunk of the hockey schools. ND and its fans care a great deal about hockey – more then they care about BB, i can tell you that. If ND thought the CCHA was going under and the WCHA being injured, it would be seriously moved. this won’t make sense to some, but it’s true.

            Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        I think TORONTO is an absolutely brilliant idea! Won’t happen but…
        Sorry Maryland, but you get knocked out of my top five.
        ND, NEB, TEX, aTm, Toronto.

        Like

      • Faitfhful5k says:

        If the Big10 is truly looking far into the future, 50-100 years out. approaching Toronto could be a truly visionary move. Professional sports have certainly expanded their earnings and exposure with their forays outside of the U.S.

        As a start Toronto could very well pull their weight if they were to start as a CIC-only member. As a research partner they are an excellent fit (top half of the Big10 by ARWU rankings).

        I have no clue how Canadian television markets work but if the BTN can find any exposure in Toronto alone (2.5 million) it is a plus, even on secondary cable tiers. Perhaps BTN content can be localized with specialized content for Toronto club sports as they build to scholarship programs. A portion of the value added for the BTN could even serve as a revenue source to build those programs.

        Is there any downside at all?

        Like

        • jj says:

          none at all, the only downside is fooling around waiting on this.

          look, i love college football. NB is a homerun for that alone. why add a bunch more “eh” teams? would a UT game be any worse than the crap-tastic one double a teams everyone plays now? the B10 should expand the ACC challenge to football, that’s something people want to watch.

          i bet UM bets no on nebraska anyway. try selling them on Texas Tech (no way even 3 B10 teams would go for this) or even TAM. they’d all jump on UT though.

          Like

    • duffman says:

      jj,

      I am with you on toronto….

      AAU
      played Michigan in football in 1861
      has hockey
      great people (part of my family lives in canada, the people are nice)

      i brought it up months ago, and got nothing.. but I would get on that bus!

      McGill could join the Big East!

      woo hoo!!

      Like

      • jj says:

        thanks duffman!

        look at how the TX crowds behave themselves and all the demands and crap they want to add on; plus they’d leave when the next pretty girl comes along anyway.

        B10 ten could call up UT and say, hey, we’re adding NB. how would you like to join and have a football team in 5 years? UT says sure! Instant 30 million tvs with basically no competition and a great school that ups everyone’s academic profile and adds tons of grant money. They’d be more akin to U of Chicago for awhile, but who cares?

        Now that i really think about this. I think this is the better team 13 move than Maryland. Then, sit there and see who wants to be 14 after the B12 falls to pieces (ND – looking at you).

        in hockey terms, the B10 seems to be looking to make the same mistakes the NHL made over the past 10 years or so if it goes out and grabs a bunch of half-ass things they don’t really want or need just to get bigger.

        Like

  71. Faitfhful5k says:

    When I am with my dad I am often highly amused as he just walks up to total strangers and strikes up conversations. In his senior years he can say and do what he wants, whenever he wants.

    Joe Paterno reminds me of my dad. While nobody at the Big10 offices says much, JoePa goes on radio shows, to booster functions, and perhaps to strangers on the street and talks about expansion. And he can get away with it because he ends by saying…

    …but what do I know?… nobody tells me what’s going on.

    I probably couldn’t find a link if I tried, but as this expansion buzz started, JoePa tossed out a random statement like…

    …but of course, the Pac10 will have to make the first move.

    Everybody went huh? Pac10? They haven’t even discussed expansion.

    We now see it makes sense. Geographically, the Pac10 has the fewest options. They have now revealed some of their choices in this game of multi-player chess. They can go all in for Texas at a greatly reduced value (Texas plus 5 includes a lot of dilution). They can make the safe play (Colorado plus 1), and see what shakes out for the next step. Or they can pass and see if someone else makes a move (Big10 adding Nebraska and/or Rutgers are also safe plays at this time).

    In the “double chess” game play scenario there are still a lot of locked pieces on the board. Texas and their neighbors may go off the board in one big move. If Nebraska and Colorado go out of play, that may shake up Texas to free some political baggage. If a move is made for Rutgers, Big East panic ensues and perhaps some ACC options are unlocked. The SEC will stand pat until they feel threatened.

    The talk above of the Big10 going to the 13 is quite plausible in this context. Two safe plays may unlock several options on the chessboard.

    Like

  72. WhiskeyBadger says:

    Probably nothing, but this statement could mean something:
    “Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we executy.”

    “#” is shorthand for checkmate in chess notation. I like the sound of that, but I don’t know what context it was removed from, so that affects things, and it’s obviously not a very articulately written sentence, but FWIW

    checkmate?

    Like

  73. BuckeyeBeau says:

    okay, time to get some work done … and “add”

    Like

  74. zeek says:

    @ Hopkins Horn

    I think most of us are resolved to the notion that if Tech is required, Texas isn’t worth chasing at this point in time because the votes probably aren’t there. We’re not going to make anywhere near the same offer as the Pac-10 is willing to make.

    From Texas’ perspective, yes it is an upgrade to be associated with Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC in the same conference.

    But from Stanford/Cal’s perspective, they’re dropping off the baggage from their last expansion (ASU) onto a new SWC with OU/OSU/TTech, and forming the old Pac-8 with Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC/UW and only slight laggards in Oregon/Oregon St./WSU. This also seems to entirely take off the table Stanford/Cal participating in a research consortium for the benefit of other Pac-10 schools if they weren’t already hesitant about that due to the Arizona expansion.

    So which is it? Is Texas’ perspective right? Or is Stanford/Cal’s perspective right? Or some mix of both?

    If Texas’ perspective is right, then Stanford/Cal aren’t on the same page or this thing might not happen were it not for the $ greasing the wheels.

    If Stanford/Cal’s perspective is right, then Texas/A&M are being associated with Arizona/Colorado which are AAU along with OU/OSU/TTech/ASU.

    So there’s an open question of whether the California schools are going to be as open for academic collaboration if they look over to the new SWC-8 and see Texas/A&M standing around with other members they don’t view as being in their academic “league”.

    As for the general public, sure, the Pac-16 will be viewed as having stronger universities academically, but what Stanford/Cal think does matter if Texas wants to get anything out of this relationship in effect and not just in perception.

    Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      @Zeek:

      Before I start, who is the “we” for you? For some reason, I’ve never picked up your particular school allegiance.

      Let me try and craft as thorough a response as I can with a 10-month-old crawling along in my midst. 🙂

      I still support a move to the Big 10, primarily because of the CIC, and I believe that I am more confident than the rest of you that the Big 10 will “suck it up” and take Tech as the price of getting Texas and Notre Dame. (And I still firmly believe that Texas and ND are trying to work this out behind the scenes.) Time will tell who’s correct, and I’m sure there’s some third which will emerge that will prove us all incorrect.

      That being said, if I had known that there were going to be a “Tech Problem” when this whole realignment mess started months ago, I seriously doubt that I would have been sucked into this game as thoroughly as I have because I would have assumed, from a Texas perspective, that there would have been no game to play. I would have been disheartened to know that Texas would have to go down on the deck of the SS SWC II without having any life raft. (There’s another transportation analogy for whoever was keeping track.)

      So perhaps I’m guilty of looking at this through rose-colored glasses, but I am ecstatic to learn that there will still be an escape route to at least one of the two athletically-compatible conference which offer academic upgrades, despite the Tech Problem.

      Now you, and others, seem to be arguing that we’re merely going to be shoved aside into a segregated portion of the conference and won’t get to play with the big boys academically. Instinctively, I don’t think that’s the case.

      First, if we didn’t think we’d be getting any academic upgrade out of this (and I’m certain this has been researched in-depth behind the scenes already), I think we’d already be headed for the SEC for the reasons I’ve laid out previously. The SEC would make a lot more sense if there weren’t something to be gained beyond the mere playing field.

      Second, people matter, and as has been written about prior, there are a lot of UC people with Texas ties, and vice versa, so I think the door might be open a bit more than many might suspect to higher-level collaboration between Texas and UC.

      (Stanford might be its own story, but I’m more concerned about getting in bed with UC, much as I would be much more concerned about getting in the same academic bed with Michigan rather than NW in the Big 10. [And, yes, yes, CIC and the same bed for all, but you know what I’m saying.]).

      Third, to me, this is more about increasing research dollars in terms of the academic upgrade. Who cares if we’d still be in the same conference with some academic outliers like Okie State and Tech. We would no longer be the top academic dog in our conference. I think this is a Good Thing, long-term, academically for the school. We dislike not being #1 in anything (as I’m sure many have discerned), and moving into a conference in which we’d have to improve to be on the same academic level as UC would be a great thing for the school.

      Does this make sense?

      Like

      • michaelC says:

        At some level I think it makes sense. Yet it might be pointed out that nothing you have said about moving really changes things. I have to believe that UT as an institution has never measured itself against OU, etc. The administration sees Michigan, Cal, Wisconsin, etc. as its peers and benchmarks against that.

        At the level of personal contacts and academic contacts, again nothing changes in reality. The direct cooperation between researchers and so on happens and will continue to happen.. Being in the same athletic conference is immaterial. That is why the CIC is so powerful — it institutionalizes cooperation at the university level and has evidently been successful in catalyzing research cooperation that otherwise may not have taken place.

        So I think there is some visible prestige upgrade at emerges in being in the same athletic conference with Cal, Stanford, etc. but the reality is that without some effort on the part of the conference schools (or the big time research subset) I don’t any any grounds to say there is likely to be a difference.

        Let me put it another way. Do you really think the state legislature will now say they need to send more funding to UT to catch up to Cal?

        If this comes to pass and UT goes to a Pac-16 in this way, it is not the worst outcome but it is a missed opportunity to accelerate the growth of research and improve academics.

        Like

      • zeek says:

        I see where you’re coming from, and I do think that Texas is likely to be able to work out some form of collaboration with the UC’s above and beyond the fact that the conference is less likely to have an academic consortium due to this Pac-16 expansion.

        As for my personal views on the subject; I’m a Big Ten/SEC/Pac-10 graduate (ug Big Ten so slightly more interested in how the Big Ten does than the SEC or Pac-10 but in varying degrees I care about certain schools in all of them).

        I actually think that this offer from the Pac-10 works well from Texas from almost any angle.

        I’m one of the Big Ten fans who’s more like “anywhere but SEC for the Texas” rather than that it has to go to the Big Ten for me to be content with the situation.

        I actually prefer raids of the ACC by the SEC and Big Ten (since I have no allegiance to any ACC schools) because I think that Maryland/Virginia/UNC is the best fit for the Big Ten for the CIC to get a foothold on D.C. (where all the $ comes from due to relationships those universities have with the federal agencies, etc.) and in terms of a competitive sports standpoint.

        Obviously, Texas/ND is still what Delany/Big Ten want, but I think Texas is right to want a conference that geographically makes sense as the Pac-16 would, while still opening the possibility for closer working research relationships between the UCs/UW and Texas/A&M. The Big Ten can’t offer that because every Big Ten school has to be a member of the CIC, whereas you’re right to point out that the Pac-16 doesn’t have its hands tied in such a way.

        I don’t think the Big Ten (or SEC) loses if Texas goes west, so I think Big Ten fans shouldn’t be jealous or making comments about Texas (save those for the Rose Bowl ;p). Texas is actually coming across as more of a responsible actor in terms of taking care of Tech and hoping to be able to build up Tech so that Texas has 3 prominent research groups of universities working for the good of all (as California has achieved, etc.).

        I think the Big Ten and Pac-10 both lose if Texas goes to the SEC. I also don’t think Texas would get much academically out of the SEC, although maybe it could create a working relationship with Vandy/UF/UGA, but that’s not the same as having the UC-system schools/UW/Stanford offering research collaboration.

        Either way, I don’t really think it’s that much of a missed opportunity other than from the perspective of making $ on TV because the Big Ten has attractive alternatives, and Texas/Pac-10 can work.

        From a research perspective for the Big Ten, the best targets are Maryland (maybe to get JHU in the footprint, who knows that might be a pipe dream but I don’t think it’s impossible if UChicago/Northwestern go and talk to them) and down the East Coast in order to better build relationships where the $ come from…

        Like

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          Texas . . . JHU . . . CIC . . .Texas . . . JHU . . .

          People, we’re staring in the face of the most powerful inducement Texas could be offered. Why has no one made this connection yet?!?

          Like

        • jd wahoo says:

          Zeek – fantastic post, probably the best and most even-handed overall summary of the situation that I’ve seen anywhere. Well done.

          Like

    • Stopping By says:

      @ Zeek. I honestly believe this whole “separate but equal” theory going on between the og P8 and the revised SWAC is getting totally blown out of proportion. Pac schools in general are pretty smart guys – why would they create a conference that would have such a divide in a collaboration? This isn’t MLB where one division can create a DH type rule not used in the other. IF they move forward with a new conference of 16 – then everyone will do their best to make it work (and yes, that includes Stanford).

      All my take, and I have been wrong before (amazing, huh), but you are grouping Cal w/ Stanford and Cal’s pov is much different in the UC system. I mentioned before, but the dynamic of the Pac 10 deceision making isn’t one entity but a group of the CA schools + UW with the most powerful voices coming from the SoCal schools (IMO). They all kind of “agree to agree” on decsions – if one decides they don’t (Stanford), the other 4 will just lean on them till they “go along to get along.”

      TT, IMO, can be sold to the Pac schools if it is required to get TX/aTm. I can see no way at all that ANY Pac school (much less the 5 decision making schools) ok with Baylor. Any Baylor to the Pac info I see is just noise that I store with the Boise St to Pac vault. I would be shocked, SHOCKED, if BU made it in due to the religious affiliation.

      Stanford looks down on EVERYONE’s academics – thats the way they are – they have no equal in their minds which is why there will never be any CIC type consortium in the Pac. The rest of the schools, I can only imagine with work in collaboration with new member schools attempting to achieve the same objectives.

      Beside if they tried to recreate the P8 – it would be doomed to geographic exposure failure anyway. There is just NO upside at all to the whole idea.

      Like

  75. BuckeyeBeau says:

    hmm… seems no work will get done today. Just FYI, supposedly a press conference scheduled at 4 pm from the B10 President’s meeting in Park Ridge, IL. Would assume that’s 4 pm CST.

    Like

  76. Playoffs Now! says:

    P10 has no interest in Baylor:

    http://twitter.com/kbohls

    @Smooth_Operatah Yes, the same Big 12 school official told me the Pac 10 has no interest in Baylor. about 2 hours ago via web in reply to Smooth_Operatah

    Similar statements coming from the P10 side, that Larry Scott will recommend the initial 6 school expansion that includes Colorado.

    Just like I told the cackling hens last night, they were getting worked up over nothing.

    Like

  77. BuckeyeBeau says:

    Rittenberg (ESPN) says press conference is at 4 pm ET

    Like

  78. GreatLakeState says:

    At the risk of sounding like a midwest hipster wannabe, I found these two tweets by ESPN bloggers interesting.

    @ESPN_BigTen Big 12 has zero leverage. They’re all looking elsewhere. Pac Ten only offers hopes and dreams. Big Ten still has highest cards.

    To which the other ESPN guy tweeted:
    @ESPN_BigTen ….And the most money! -you could be right.

    Like

  79. Scott C says:

    @ESPN_BigTen They finally let us in. Delany will talk in about 15 minutes

    http://twitter.com/ESPN_BigTen

    Presser starts in 15 min.

    Like

  80. Playoffs Now! says:

    Alma:

    “Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little, cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more”

    Alma and Ethel:

    “Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little,
    talk a little, cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more”

    All the ladies:

    “Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little,
    talk a little, cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more”

    Maud:

    “Professor, her kind of school doesn’t belong in any Big Ten. Of course, I shouldn’t tell you this, but she advocates churchy schools.”

    Harold:

    “Churchy schools?!”

    Alma:

    “TCU”

    Ethel:

    “SMU”

    Eulalie:

    “Baylor!”

    Maud:

    “And the worst thing,
    Of course, I shouldn’t tell you this but-”

    Alma:

    “I’ll tell.”

    Ethel:

    “The school was in my conference, let me tell.”

    Eulalie:

    “Stop! I’ll tell.
    She made brazen overtures to a school who never
    had a friend in this town till she came here.”

    Alma:

    “Oh, yes,
    That Texas made brazen overtures
    With a gilt-edged guarantee
    She had a golden glint in her eye
    And a silver voice with a counterfeit ring

    Just melt her down and you’ll reveal
    A lump of lead as cold as steel
    Here, where a woman’s heart should be!”

    Eulalie, Ethel, Maud, Alma, Mrs Squires:

    “They all agreed on a contract
    But they let Texas keep what she earned!”

    Alma:

    “TCU”

    Ethel:

    “SMU”

    Eulalie:

    “Baylor!”

    Ladies:

    “Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
    cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more
    Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
    cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more
    Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
    Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
    Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
    Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
    Pick a little, talk a little, cheep!”

    Like

    • James says:

      Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado: “Goodnight Big XII, goodnight Big XII, goodnight Big XII, we’re going to leave you NOW.”

      Like

  81. Nostradamus says:

    http://twitter.com/ESPN_BigTen
    http://twitter.com/TeddyGreenstein
    http://twitter.com/REIDLAYMANCE

    These 3 are 3 of the 9 reporters who appear to be at the meeting for those interested in following along.

    Like

  82. Playoffs Now! says:

    ESPN reporting from P10 meeting:

    Commissioner got permission to ‘advance the process’ on pursuing 6-team expansion. (CO option)

    2 school expansion still on table.

    Due diligence phase.

    Like

  83. duffman says:

    Is it just me.. or is this crazy..

    I am on BTN right now and I am getting tOSU vs PSU soccer..

    you would think they would break in for a Delaney presser!!

    Like

    • Husker Al says:

      I’m gonna take that as a sign that nothing earth-shattering will be revealed.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        I have never once heard anyone on the Big Ten Network even mention expansion. They certainly may have, but I’ve never heard it discussed.

        Like

  84. duffman says:

    anybody have a live link to the presser??

    Like

    • Scott C says:

      I’ve been following it on Twitter. Adam Rittenberg usually is pretty good about updating in the middle of press conferences. A live video or audio feed would be nice, though.

      Like

  85. Scott C says:

    @ESPN_BigTen MSU president Simon says no action taken on expansion

    http://twitter.com/ESPN_BigTen

    *sigh*

    Like

    • zeek says:

      At least they discussed it probably.

      To be fairly blunt, I do think it’s wise for the Big Ten to see if the Pac-10 can pull of this expansion move. I don’t think the Big Ten has a counteroffer that would work, since the Tech problem seems to be insurmountable from the Big Ten’s viewpoint (i.e. some sort of probation on Tech in the CIC is a total non-starter as it would be patently unfair to Tech and the Big Ten as a whole, and they don’t want to invite Tech as a way of getting Texas but then feel like they never wanted Tech in the first place; anyone who joins will be completely welcomed in. We’re not going to see the Penn State scenario play out again with backtracking and a lot of nonsense…).

      Like

      • eapg says:

        Yep. Staring contest.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          And if the Pac-16 doesn’t materialize, then the Big Ten can make a most favorable offer to Texas, and then roll it in and look only Southeast if that doesn’t happen.

          I really don’t see the impetus to moving the process up as a way to jump the Pac-10’s scenario.

          Obviously, we should send signals to Nebraska that they’ll be included, and then continue talking to Missouri/ND/Rutgers/Pitt/Maryland/VA about where to go from here.

          Like

      • Husker Al says:

        It may be a staring contest, but it does change the dynamic.

        If the B12S teams (-BU +CU) are really looking for NU/MU to leave before abandoning the conference, *someone* is going to have to make the first move. NU/MU supposedly have a near-term deadline with undisclosed consequences if it is broken.

        While I didn’t expect anything to happen today, I definitely believe it has to happen soon.

        Like

        • eapg says:

          But again, the deadline talk is from Texas reporters quoting “sources”. Who would you suspect the “sources” are? I’ll bet they wear burnt orange. It doesn’t mean there is a deadline other than the natural one next April of the Big 12, if it still exists, of negotiating TV contracts.

          It would be nice if things moved to a conclusion soon, but by no means does that have to be the case.

          Like

        • aps says:

          The Big Ten did exactly what they had to do at this time, nothing.

          Now the ball is in Texas & the Pac 10’s court. Their turn to hold the hot potato, now will they blink.

          As many have stated, the Big Ten does not want to be the ones responsible for this train wreck. They will let the Pac 10, Colorado or Texas to start it. They (the Big Ten) will be the ones to pick up the pieces they want.

          Like

  86. Scott C says:

    @ESPN_BigTen She says the timeline could change, but process could change

    Like

  87. M says:

    SIAP, but here is a Ken Starr press release from Baylor
    http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=75146

    Not too much content but
    “Be assured that we are committed to doing everything in our power to promote and defend the best interests of Baylor University as these discussions continue in the days ahead.”

    Not exactly the white flag we saw from ISU.

    Like

  88. Monty says:

    OB: Pac-10 commish Larry Scott says he’s been given authority to “advance” expansion process (hand out invites) at today’s Pac-10 meetings.

    http://twitter.com/chipbrownob

    Like

    • Monty says:

      Scott spoke following the conclusion of the conference meetings in San Francisco on Sunday. Earlier in the day, he addressed the chancellors and presidents about possible expansion and was given authority to move ahead without having to go back to the board for approval.

      http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnzIhFaatwkq64GmeoMWPwy9xbcwD9G604SG2

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Does this mean they all voted on anything or that they told him to hand out invites and that they’d vote later?

      The Pac-10 doesn’t require votes before invitations to apply like the Big Ten does it?

      Like

      • eapg says:

        Sounds to me like Scott has been handed a blank sheet to fill in names, which would mean Stanford is already on board? Interesting times.

        Like

        • Monty says:

          That is how I read it, plus with Chip Brown’s latest statement basically saying pick colorado or baylor, I see this as the pac8 (which is run by the pac-5) is saying build an SWC-8, and Texas can fill it however they want.

          How about this: the two are basically independent, no assurance of playing the other side (those would be determined like OOC games) they would be governed separately, they would split the money in half, and then each side would divide it as it sees fit. That is how you get Stanford to sign off, and that is how you get this type of ‘blank check’

          Like

  89. duffman says:

    BEST QUOTE:

    “Pouring rain here and they’re still not letting us inside the office. Maybe I should say I’m from Nebraska.”

    from the BIG 10 twitter person..

    Like

    • Tom says:

      I’ve been thinking about this whole “Tech” problem the past couple of days, and here are some of my thoughts:

      As hard as it may be striving to become a Tier 1 university, Texas Tech is currently a Tier 3 school and as I have said before, likely decades away from being worthy of AAU status. I have already felt that Michigan and Indiana would likely vote against such an addition, (based on the way the two seem to vote together on conference issues,) and I have a hard time believing that another two schools wouldn’t share similar reservations about essentially selling their souls for Texas.

      Don’t get me wrong, the University of Texas would be a tremendous addition to the B10 and there is no other addition that can even come close. However, if the price of adding Texas is adding Texas Tech, then I’m afraid that the price is too high, and I think the B10 realizes this.

      So it appears that the Pac 10 may have won the Texas sweepstakes, (I still think Stanford is going to be very loathe to sign off on Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.) However I think there is a nice move that the B10 can make that addresses some of the demographic shifts that Delaney alluded to while maintaining its stringent academic standards and at the same time making sure that the additions compete athletically at a high level. (This means no Vanderbilt and no Rice.)

      I’m surprised that on this blog, no one has really mentioned Georgia Tech as a likely candidate. (If they have, sorry, there are an absurd number of posts that I just gloss over based on sheer numbers.)

      Georgia Tech just became AAU, only the second addition in the past 10 years. (This should throw up a red flag when it comes to Texas Tech and its aspirations of obtaining AAU status. It’s a little harder than I think people realize.)

      While the school does play second fiddle to the University of Georgia in Georgia, Tech does have a strong fan base and the football team does have a strong tradition and history.

      I am personally of the opinion that any of the old guard ACC members are unmovable. This means Maryland and Virginia are non-starters. However, Georgia Tech only came into the ACC in the late 70’s if I recall. I wandered over to a few Georgia Tech message boards just to gauge if there was any interest and surprisingly the overwhelming majority not only want in to the B10, but also believe that discussions are ongoing. Now of course, basing a university’s interest in changing leagues on what a message board says is foolish, but you have to acknowledge that there is some interest there, and the B10 would be foolish not to look into it.

      Why would the B10 want Georgia Tech? After all, the school does play second fiddle to Georgia, something the B10 does not currently experience with any of its members. So while getting the BTN onto the entire state of Georgia may not be a slam dunk, metro Atlanta would certainly be feasible. You factor in that Atlanta is a city of transplants and one that is growing rapidly, and the payoff for the B10 could be huge. While the state doesn’t produce talent like Texas does, it is the SEC’s second best talent producer behind Florida. Surely, Georgia will still send most of its top talent to SEC schools, but over time you will be begin to see more B10 schools with recruits from Georgia.

      Would Georgia Tech be an outlier as Texas would be? Yes, which is why you take on two more ACC teams, specifically Miami and Virgina Tech. Now, both schools are not AAU, but if Texas Tech is even being debated, certainly Miami and Va Tech are worthy of discussion. Miami comes in slightly ahead of Ohio State based on US News’ rankings, and Va Tech is tied with Iowa, Michigan St., and Indiana. (I know US News isn’t the greatest measure but I’m lazy and am just throwing this idea out.) Miami is a major market full of B10 alums, and the talent level in South Florida is unrivaled. And while Va Tech may not carry the hammer of the University of Virginia in the state of Virgina, in the past 20 years it has the better football and basketball programs. You put Va Tech in the B10 and they will only further distance themselves athletically from Virginia. (Football and basketball.)

      The key with Va Tech and Miami, is that they are not old school ACC members and thus in my opinion would be more open to moving, especially when the potential payoff would be through the roof.

      At this point, you add Nebraska to the west. Now you see if Notre Dame is interested. Would playing in a pod with Miami, Va Tech, and Georgia Tech be enough to entice the Irish? Maybe, maybe not. If so you will have gained two of the sport’s blue blooded programs, and two of the sport’s more successful programs in the modern era. If not, you can add Rutgers and hope that one day the NYC market is tapped, and in the meantime take the New Jersey market.

      The more and more I think about it, the more and more I like this plan. It’s no Texas two step, but I think its surprisingly very feasible.

      Like

      • sf-james says:

        I like G-tech for all the reasons you listed. How about the trio of G-tech, Miami, and FSU (instead of VT)? I don’t know much about FSU’s interest in Big10. But there was a rumor on the net about the contact between Big10 and Miami. All three of these have improved their academic credentials quite a bit for the past decade. Add Neb. and Rutgers to this SE trio. I think this has better long-term potential than an expansion including multiple Texas universities.

        Like

        • Tom says:

          I thought about FSU as well, but as a non-AAU school, it comes in a a little low academically, (102 according to US News.) Then again, if Texas Tech is even being discussed then surely FSU would be an option.

          Like

        • Jim says:

          At the fan base and leak level there has been absolutely no mention of FSU to the Big 10. I wish we where a candidate but just can’t see it. We are at best 10 years more like 15 to 20 years from AAU membership as are medical school is brand new and not based on research and are engineering department needs an administrative overhaul other wise academics are solid with the need for some more research before being a real candidate. I personally would love this as it will fix much of the lost decade (this was not just in football) as well as having UF going ballistic. I am sure UF would find some way to block this move though if this was anything more than internet musing.

          Like

  90. BuckeyeBeau says:

    @ESPN_BigTen

    “Big Ten presidents can vote on expansion electronically. Don’t need to be in same place.”
    5 minutes ago via txt

    Like

  91. StvInILL says:

    Dam thehm all to hellLLLL! they didd it, they did it, they really went and did it!

    Like

  92. StvInILL says:

    So then, does THIS start the dominos falling? Nebraska, Notre Dame, Missouri and two easterners. I can’t believe the Pac ten is going down this sixteen team road but so be it.

    Like

  93. zeek says:

    Guys here’s probably the most interesting tweet:

    http://twitter.com/PeteThamelNYT

    UPDATE 4:31 p.m. ET: Here’s a tweet from Pete Thamel of the New York Times, one that will make Buff Nation very pissed off. And fans of Oklahoma State and Texas Tech somewhat concerned.

    Source: Baylor appears to have bumped Colo in Pac-10 expansion. Also, Pac-10 pres have concern over TT and OSU academics.

    # Any chance for the SEC sweeping in to nab Texas and Texas A&M appears dim bc of “Tech problem” and Mack Brown not keen on LSU/Bama/AUB etc.. 41 minutes ago via TweetDeck

    # Source: Baylor appears to have bumped Colo in Pac-10 expansion. Also, Pac-10 pres have concern over TT and OSU academics. 42 minutes ago via TweetDeck

    Those rumblings of TT and OSU academics are probably the thing to watch. If they become anything more than rumblings, the deal may be broken.

    Also, SEC can’t solve the “Tech problem”? I thought they had an open offer to do so…

    Like

    • zeek says:

      http://twitter.com/chipbrownob

      Chip Brown seems to be confirming on Colorado…

      B12 athletic director tells Orangebloods.com Pac-10 is indicating #Texas politicians could decide if 6th B12 team is #Baylor or #Colorado. 9 minutes ago via TweetDeck

      Like

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        And Stanford could then decide if they’ll let Baylor in. And if they don’t they substitute CO and vote. Assuming TX hasn’t gone to the B10+ by then.

        Long way to go on these roads.

        Look at it this way, if Baylor joins the P16 there is absolutely zero chance of 4 16-school super conferences breaking away from the NCAA. Politically impossible to exclude Utah, BYU, and swing state Colorado.

        At a minimum there will be 5 BCS conferences when this all shakes out.

        Like

        • Playoffs Now! says:

          This is why the 2-school expansion option is still on the table for the P10. They’ll continue to negotiate with CO. And you can bet Texas schools with influential legislatures will be pushing their interests, which may include fighting Baylor’s inclusion.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I agree with everything you’re saying, but I also don’t think we can assume that TTech and OSU are going to get passes from all the Pac-10 presidents on academics (if that tweet has any validity, but it makes sense intuitively).

            And yes, I agree that negotiating with Colorado/Utah is the backup if the presidents either can’t get a unanimous agreement, etc.

            One question I have, do they have to vote though? Seems as if some of these articles are saying the Pac-10 commissioner can do whatever he wants… is that right?

            Like

      • M says:

        This just reinforces that the Pac-10 doesn’t care what type of schools it allows into the “Quarantine Division”. Time to bring in UHouston and UT-San Antonio.

        Like

        • Playoffs Now! says:

          Arrogant/ignorant nonsense.

          US News rankings:

          71 – IA
          80 – Baylor
          96 – KS
          96 – NE
          102 – AZ
          102 – MO
          102 – OU
          106 – WSU
          115 – OR
          121 – ASU

          126 – Utah

          That would place Baylor 9th in a P16 if they replace CO, ahead of 4 of the current ten P10 schools.

          More accurate to say the P10 isn’t as concerned about research spending and AAU if the school is still academically impressive. Baylor is a good school, they just aren’t a research-heavy institution.

          TT is weaker, but have a strong financial commitment from the state to upgrade their program to Tier One.

          OK St is the weakest link, but they too have a huge sugar daddy. They were included to keep OU inside. I’m still not certain that CO won’t replace them or Baylor.

          I also think TX to the B10+ is still a very real possibility.

          Like

          • Playoffs Now! says:

            Oops, sorry for all the bold, I forgot to close it after Baylor. No preview option.

            Like

          • BuckeyeBeau says:

            thoughts about the “religious problem” for Baylor? lots of comments on here and elsewhere over the last few months about the Standford/Cal problems with the religiousness of Utah and BYU. I realize that, for the Mormons, there is also the “sunday scheduling problem.”

            maybe S. Baptist isn’t as much a problem?

            thoughts everyone?

            also, everyone’s thoughts on P16 changing the unanimity requirement for future votes? (put another way, is Baylor the future veto-er that really screws-the-pooch for the P16?)

            Like

          • zeek says:

            @ BuckeyeBeau

            Everything indicates that the Pac-10 views nabbing Texas quickly (i.e. before Texas/ND/Big Ten make a deal) as being worth whatever mix of schools ends up coming because it’s their only shot at ever being a Pac-16.

            Other than that, I don’t really see them expanding beyond that. There’s nowhere to go…

            Like

          • sf-james says:

            Yeah.. They decided to invite OU, OSU, and Texas Tech. to lure Texas. Then why not Baylor?

            The state of Oklahoma has two in Pac10 and then the state of Texas should ask for more than four, I guess.

            Like

          • eapg says:

            @Beau

            I’ve always assumed the unanimous vote clause was for admitting new members. It would be unwieldy for more mundane issues, there’s no way you can always get 10 to agree on everything. If I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected.

            Like

          • gas1958 says:

            I went to Baylor (I’m not Baptist, nor did I go for faith-related reasons) in the late 70s and I was well-prepared–for the most part–for grad school at Michigan. But the school is much more conservative now, and the earlier post about rampant growth by a former univ. president driving (way) up the cost of tuition is entirely correct. I confess I have no idea why UT would insist upon Baylor’s inclusion; could Ken Starr be that powerful? I doubt it.
            At one time Baylor tried to position itself as the “Baptist Notre Dame”: an intense focus on undergraduates with high standards, a perception that same former president pretty much destroyed.
            I’m not ready to say Delaney has mishandled this yet; the smoke hasn’t cleared by a long shot. Baylor going into the P16 is about as big a culture as any hypothetical I’ve seen on these boards.

            Like

          • gas1958 says:

            culture CLASH I meant to say ….

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            And Colorado’s number is 77…and is actually ranked by ARWU while only Baylor’s medical college is ranked.

            It will be just one more concession being made to appease Texas, no matter how rose its colored.

            If TT would be out and Baylor in then I’d buy the “academics not so bad” argument.

            Like

          • eapg says:

            @1958

            Maybe. If there’s a designated rival envisioned, you give Baylor and Washington State to each other and limit the culture clash to far-off Pullman. Other than that, it’s a two-division conference who only see each other in a championship game, more than likely.

            Like

          • M says:

            Baylor College of Medicine is unaffiliated with Baylor University and has not been for 40 years.

            Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            About Baylor College of Medicine. Although they are officially separated from Baylor University, BU still has a strong influence on BCM. Late last year and into this year, Rice was negotiating to merge with/acquire BCM. All went well until BU started pulling some strings and squashed the process. The rumors were that BU was going to try to get closer to BCM to enhance BU’s image as a serious school.

            Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            Thanksto those for the clarification on Baylor v Baylor COllege of Medicine.

            My point stands…Baylor aint Colorado.

            Like

    • eapg says:

      Maybe the SEC can’t solve the Mack Brown problem.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      http://twitter.com/TeddyGreenstein

      Delany finally adds something:

      Jim Delany: “The timeline could be affected.” In other words, it will be affected. less than 10 seconds ago via UberTwitter

      Like

    • M says:

      As far as the SEC’s Tech problem, the SEC leaders seem to be realizing that Texas is not seriously considering the conference. Blaming it on Tech is the easy out.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      More from Chip Brown; interesting conversation.

      @ChipBrownOB How would Texas politicians have the power to persuade Pac-10 to invite a private school in Baylor? 22 minutes ago via web

      @ollieduck So that nothing derails getting Texas and the other B12 South schools into the fold as quickly as possible. 11 minutes ago via TweetDeck in reply to ollieduck

      With Pac-10 commish Larry Scott now free to hand out expansion invitations, this is the Cuban Missile Crisis of realignment for the Big 12. 4 minutes ago via TweetDeck

      So he’s got this thing on a really fast track timeline now…

      Like

      • eapg says:

        “into the fold as quickly as possible.”

        Yeah, I can see that. Texas may view all this as merely a strategic move, while the Pac 10 can rightfully expect a commitment, having given Texas everything they’ve asked for.

        Like

  94. StvInILL says:

    I really don’t understand why this quintessentially California based conference would want to put so much Texas in it. This is just from a politics standpoint. Then add the academics and it would almost seem like a no go. The PAC 10 is looking quite desperate if this is in fact the deal. I know all that Texas would not fly in the BT. even if they did take 3 teams from the B12.

    Like

    • eapg says:

      What choice do they have? To continue the marriage metaphors, Husband #3 just has to take the leap of faith that he’s the one who can make this thing work.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      It will be the deal if the Pac-10 presidents get over their concerns about TTech and OSU academics.

      We’re talking about big $ for their athletic departments, which can’t be understated.

      Also, as pointed out by some of the Texas boosters, the Pac-10 has no research consortium, so it’s not as if admitting TTech/OSU is really a problem other than just image-wise…

      Like

      • Monty says:

        It could very well be 2 distinct conferences – the original pac 8 and Texas and it’s merry men. It is actually quite elegant. And someone like Larry Scott who said the last football game he went to was harvard and yale when he took the job (which I took as dude isn’t much of a big time college football fan) simply figured out how to maximize the dollars and develop something different – if the pac8 keeps their autonomy then who do they care is on the other end, if Texas acts out of line (which we all know they eventually will) they can take their bunch somewhere else.

        Like

        • NDx2 says:

          Like I said yesterday, 16-team conferences are not long-term commitments. The Pac-10 seems okay with that. I suspect the B10 gets that as well and will act accordingly.

          Like

    • aa80231 says:

      Now you know why Nebraska wants out of the Big 12.

      Like

  95. Monty says:

    Pac 16 happens either baylor or colorado as 6th

    Big15: adds Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt and Rutgers, applies world-size pressure on Notre Dame’s atlas shoulders

    Big East and Big 12 go kaboom

    Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      i like your four; and would agree it adds pressure to ND.

      at that point, simply ask ND, if they say “no” then on to the next school. Personally, at this point, I’d prefer ND to say “no.”

      Then I’d go KS or Syr. I’m not a fan of the MD option. and … puuulllleeeze on ideas like GaTech. Nice school and all, but not a B10/16 school.

      Like

  96. GreatLakeState says:

    This BaylorGate issue is going to sink the deal. If, against all odds, it does goes through I would immediately target Stanford and Cal for the Big Ten.
    At that point the Texas Longhorns will equal mad-cow disease in their eyes.

    Like

    • pioneerlion says:

      Agree. Baylor-Gate, and the similar issues regarding TTech also discussed on this board should tell ANY prospective conference that if these schools carry on with this type of whining and parochial TX state politics now, imagine what it would be like when they are full members. Can’t imagine that schools that have paved the way for established, respected big10 and pac10 brands will stand for even the appearance of such petty interference. Sounds like the big12 all over again. Note to Pac10 and Big10: run away!!! These schools have to be deal breakers. Why does UT put up with this? No wonder they floated the idea of going independent; probably to be free of such baggage.

      Like

  97. willarm1 says:

    So if we get 4 superconferences. which is looking like a real possiblity.

    I was thinking each league should have a semi-final and final. then play out a final four.

    would be like a 16 team playoff.

    This could be really good for College Football fans.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      I think you are looking a 3 super conferences and 2 lesser children that play each other for the fourth slot…. or something like it..

      my guess is if you assess the top 20 football teams of all time in the post war era of college football.. 80 – 90 % will be in one of the BIG 3.. I have not done the research, but it is a gut feeling.. anybody know for sure??

      Like

      • Scott C says:

        Here you go, Duff.

        1950-2009 (last 60 years)
        Sorted by # of wins

        1 Oklahoma 519 (Big XII)
        2 Nebraska 507 (Big XII)
        3 Penn State 498 (Big Ten)
        4 Ohio State 497 (Big Ten)
        5 Texas 495 (Big XII)
        6 Southern Cal 477 (Pac-10)
        7 Tennessee 473 (SEC)
        8 Alabama 469 (SEC)
        9 Michigan 467 (Big |Ten)
        10 Florida 459 (SEC)
        11 Notre Dame 447 (Ind.)
        12 Auburn 446 222 (SEC)
        13 Georgia 444 226 (SEC)
        14 Miami-Florida 441 (ACC)
        15 Florida State 438 (ACC)
        16 Arizona State 437 (Pac-10)
        17 Louisiana State 430 (SEC)
        18 Arkansas 422 (SEC)
        19 Brigham Young 416 (MWC)
        20 UCLA 407 (Pac-10)

        Current Conference %:

        SEC: 35%
        Big Ten: 15%
        Big XII: 15%
        Pac-10: 15%
        ACC: 10%
        Ind.: 5%
        MWC: 5%

        65% in Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Current Speculation:

        Oklahoma – Big XII >> Pac-10
        Nebraska – Big XII >> Big Ten
        Texas – Big XII >> Pac-10

        New Conference %

        SEC: 35%
        Pac-10: 25%
        Big Ten: 20%
        ACC: 10%
        Ind.: 5%
        MWC: 5%
        Big XII: 0%

        80% in Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC

        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Further Speculation (less likely, but talked about);

        Notre Dame – Ind. >> Big Ten
        Miami-Florida – ACC >> SEC
        Florida State – ACC >> SEC

        New Conference %

        SEC: 45%
        Big Ten: 25%
        Pac-10: 25%
        MWC: 5%
        ACC: 0%
        Big XII: 0%
        Ind.: 0%

        95% in Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC

        Like

        • duffman says:

          Scott C..

          thanks for the effort.. it seems to bear out what I have been feeling all along (especially with FSU and Miami being new to the ACC). The Big 3 could reform college football to their whims and have some scrap conferences to feed a 4th team every year. What has been on my mind for quite some time is media influence.

          *puts on tin foil cap*

          If you are a media company, and want to sell long term programming advertisers are going to want some form of predictability to offset upset risk. I am not knocking Boise State from an athletic sense, but if I am an advertiser I want some sort of clash from the BIG 4 [CA,TX,NY, and FL] to get the biggest audience to see my ads during games.

          Enter the BIG 3 and the scraps.. so long term you are assuring the most viewers.. which translates to happy advertisers.. and pumps up the bottom line.. It also means your second tier bowl games can draw bigger audiences which again translates to more revenue.

          How many people on this blog watched D II or D III football last year (excluding teams you have family ties to). I have said all along that I am a huge basketball fan (and an outlier as I really do like to watch all the games in their entirety – except the early round cannon fodder). I would say that a majority of the populace just watches bits and pieces of game till you get to say the sweet 16 or final 4.

          I would guess that the ratings (and revenue) are mostly tied up in the last few games as opposed to the first few rounds. A final 4 with Gtown, UCLA, tOSU, and Florida probably draws much better than 4 teams in the George Mason mold. The BIG 3 does about the same for college football. We may like cinderella early on, but we want the steady eddies in the championship games. I feel sure there is some human psychological component at work here, but I feel fairly sure that this makes advertisers happiest of all.

          People want to associate with a winner, and one hit wonders are too unsettling. Scott C’s list verifies that we can pick the same top 10 – 20 EVERY season and feel fairly comfortable that it will come to fruition and reinforce our sense of well being that we could pick the winner.

          *takes off tin foil hat*

          just something to think about….

          Like

  98. GreatLakeState says:

    Oops. I Forget the P10 requires all members on board. That eliminates my Stanford fantasy.

    Like

    • eapg says:

      The Cal fantasy also. As I recall, they had some complaints about a jet lag game @Maryland a couple years ago, which started at 9 a.m. Pacific.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        No, you don’t understand. They would play their games using brain wave simulation. No travel necessary. It’s very hush-hush.

        Like

  99. michaelC says:

    Posted to wrong place — grr

    If Baylor gets the nod (whocouldhavenode?) the the Big Ten has to take a serious look at Colorado even if the athletics are not so great and there doesn’t seem to be much desire to make them better. Denver market, big time academics is still enticing.

    Like

    • Bob in Houston says:

      That’s the part that doesn’t make sense to me… no CU, no Colorado footprint for the network.

      Unless there isn’t going to be a Pac-16 network.

      Like

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        Part of me wonders if TX didn’t expect the P10 to meet all of its demands, but they mostly did. So Baylor became the next stumbling block, but the conference again called their bluff. All that is left now is for them to allow the LSN option. If TX doesn’t want this, that’ll be the killer. I still think TX’s first choice is the B10+.

        OTOH, maybe Dodds has been honest all along. They wanted the B12 and LSN, then when NE threatened that they started getting serious about negotiations. That would fit the timeline. When the BCS meetings in AZ started the rumors were NE, MO, ND, Rut, and Syr, with the process fast-tracked. When it ended that was shot down and Delany had changed his tune back to 12-18 months. My guess is TX that week let the B10+ know they were serious about negotiating. That was the week of the leaked emails between Gee and Delany about TX, and Osborne’s “We need to talk” message to his chancellor.

        Maybe TX really is heading to the P16. Time will tell.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I think the stakes are way too high for Texas to be betting anything on the Pac-10 pulling back at the last second on concerns over TTech/OSU or Baylor.

          I think Texas seems have been rather transparent to both the Pac-10 and Big Ten that Tech was a requirement, etc. and found that only the Pac-10 was willing to play dice.

          If that doesn’t work out, then Texas will look at the Big Ten’s offer.

          But right now, the Pac-10 has no alternative, so it seems as if it is allowing Texas to mostly dictate the terms (other than LSN).

          Like

          • PSUGuy says:

            I still maintain the Pac has the original plan of adding CO and Utah. It gets them a championship game, adds some footprint, and with the new PTN should help address some of the revenue disparity.

            If Texas is that tied to the hip the Big10 won’t touch them and will just skim Neb & Mizzou from the Big12 and push east. Then the rest of the Big12 (9) could add BYU and a few others from the MWC (why stay for a “possible” BCS birth when the B12 would still keep it) to get back to 12.

            Texas gets to keep its own network and will fight Oklahoma every year for the BCS bid (I’ll still root for the MWC transfers though) and in the end will get to limp onward just like they did when they joined the Big8.

            Eventually the Texas state legislature will get the point that they are in fact hurting the schools they’re protecting, but probably not for another couple of decades.

            Like

          • eapg says:

            I wouldn’t be so sure LSN is out of the question. You’re going to give Texas the Big 12 South and scotch the deal over the LSN? Whether A&M and OU are down with that is another question, but at this point, for the Pac 10, if Texas insists, why not? It’s not like things unimaginable a few hours ago haven’t taken some crazy turns.

            Like

  100. NDx2 says:

    I don’t think Delaney is handling this very well. He ought to strike on Nebraska while the iron is hot. There’s absolutely no reason to hold off, and some reason to act now. If he doesn’t, he runs the risk of Nebraska either being able to sweeten its deal from the Big XII, stay, and keep the Big XII intact. Or, perhaps the Pac-10 decides to shake things up and steal Nebraska as part of a 6 team expansion. Then where does the Big 10 go?
    If he’s trying to be coy, not only is he running the risk of alienating Nebraska, but he’s also not gaining anything vis a vis Texas. At the end of the day, the Pac-10 will beat any offer the B10 will make vis a vis Texas teams, so Delaney may as well accept that and move on. Invite Nebraska, make your best and final to Texas, and give them a deadline.
    He’s being too cute by half.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I think the Nebraska -> Big Ten deal is pretty much a done deal; they’re just not announcing it.

      I don’t see any reason for the Big Ten to really set off fireworks when Nebraska doesn’t seem to be on any Pac-10 scenario (or the tweets would have gone crazy).

      Perhaps ND is still talking and may be concerned about where the Pac-16 deal is and what the Big Ten and SEC might do in response…

      Everything points to Nebraska receiving signals that it has a place in the Big Ten when the Big Ten is ready.

      My guess is that the Big Ten is preparing to line up all the ducks in a row and then do the invites.

      Obviously, I prefer the Arkansas solution of just knocking off the first domino but it might not be the wisest thing to do while the Pac-10 is working on the Texas deal (TTech/OSU issues and the Baylor/Colorado question)…

      Like

      • NDx2 says:

        Well I’ll give you one potential downside. If Nebraska to the B10 is a “go” no matter what, and I were Delaney, I think I’d want to know where Texas is going sooner rather than later. More specifically, I’d rather see them in the Pac-10 than as an independent; but if the “coy” posture actually works, and Nebraska at the 11th hour sneaks off to the Big Ten after having led the Big XII to believe they were staying, then you could well see Texas say “screw it” and go independent. In turn, that would embolden ND, and then Delaney would have lost the chance to probably ever get ND as well.
        IOW, make Texas show its cards sooner rather than later. By holding out on Nebraska, he’s allowing Texas to keep its cards face-down.

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          I honestly don’t get how you see this…there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever why the Big10 should announce anything right now.

          Texas wants Nebraska to say “we’re staying” because it knows the Big12 needs Neb and its current plans revolve around the Big12 as it stands today.

          Problem is Texas knows Nebraska has been getting angrier and angrier (rightly or not) with the way the current conference is going and recognizes its options are SEVERELY limited due to preference (they really don’t want to go to the SEC) and politics.

          Texas, IMO, knows it can’t go to the Big10 (too much baggage), nor does it want to go to the Pac (with said baggage). It wants to remain at the top of the Big12 & push its network. The problem is if Neb leaves it needs one or the other and only one option is viable.

          From Nebraska’s view they know that even if there aren’t any unofficial assurances, the likelihood of the Big10 letting a “free” Nebraska out of their round of expansion is very low. Neither Neb nor the Big10 have to do anything at this time.

          If Pac is willing to drag all the “others” to get Texas, then they get the press for it and Texas is the one that kills the Big12. If Texas can come alone (or with TAMU) then the Big10 can maintain to its current timeline and play the bad guy after the Pac takes those they do (most likely CO at least).

          Again, there is no reason for the Big10 to make anything known now unless Texas (& possibly TAMU) have the ability to come alone to the Big10.

          Like

          • ezdozen says:

            The Big 12 doesn’t NEED Nebraska. Texas is just using that as excuse to make Nebraska the bad guy for not sticking around.

            Like

    • eapg says:

      That presumes he hasn’t already reached agreement with Nebraska, perhaps Missouri, and his bosses in the Big Ten. We now know from FOIA e-mails that what’s been put out for public consumption and reality don’t necessarily match up. There’s nothing in the recent behavior of the representatives of Nebraska or Missouri that would lead one to believe that they’re particularly nervous.

      Like

      • PensfaninLAexile says:

        By COB Monday, a blizzard of FOIA requests will have been received by every public university in the BCS.

        Starting Monday morning, all communications from said public universities will be via phone call and smoke signal.

        Like

    • PSU69 says:

      There’s no way that if the B10 wants NE that JD has not been in constant contact with NE officials. IMO, both sides know exactly how the NE invite from the B10 is going to go down. It wouldn’t surprise me if the B10 presidents haven’t already approved NE ( and maybe Rutgers).

      Like

      • Scott C says:

        WIth the electronic voting, there’s going to be no announcement of joining, it’ll be an announcement that they’ve joined. This would put emphasis on the Nebraska Board of Regents Friday. They may very well be voting on approving all of this for Nebraska.

        Like

        • eapg says:

          I really doubt that Board of Regents will vote until there’s an invite in hand. Public meeting and all that. I suppose they could do it in a closed session, don’t really know the ins and outs of that. If they can, it doesn’t advance knowing what’s going on at all, just add to speculation.

          Like

      • NDx2 says:

        But then why not announce it? That makes little/no sense that I can surmise. Plus it’s putting Nebraska in something of a bind by making them “lie” to the Big XII about their intentions, unless of course they ‘fess up at the “deadline” or make a non-committal, which everyone will take as a silent B10 invite.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Notre Dame.

          Like

        • eapg says:

          Nebraska isn’t forced to lie to the Big 12. They can simply say they can’t make such a commitment at this point. The Big 12 isn’t going to suddenly then convene and vote gigantic financial penalties for leaving which would also apply to most of the conference. Again, if there is even such a deadline in place, there’s no official confirmation of that “sourced” rumor.

          Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          There is no deadline.

          There is no ultimatum.

          Even if there is, Nebraska can shrug its shoulders and say “Who, me?”

          Right now, Pac is pushing the issues because it DOES have a deadline. It needs its schools added immediately to have them in place by the start of its renegotiation. That’s why Texas et al want a commitment from Neb. It doesn’t want to be left in a depleted Big12, but it doesn’t want to explode the conference either.

          Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      hmm… if I may, I think the best you can say is that you do not like what Delaney is doing PUBLICLY. We only have a dim idea of what’s going on behind the scenes.

      Personally, I agree with previous posters that the B10 CAN and should wait right now. If P16 is “a go,” then B10 can act. If P16 falls apart, then B10 needs to go after TX again (although I still think TX to B10 is not good from a fit/culture/long-term viability perspective).

      The “BALL” on which all eyes must be kept: TX can’t go to the SEC.

      taking Neb now almost certainly dooms the BXII and the B10+ starts to fill up. There may not be enough room in the B10 for TX et. al. if the P16 proposal falls apart. If B10 is full and BXII has already imploded and then the P16 proposal falls apart, Texas has three choices: SEC, independence or reconstitute the BXII. SEC probably ends up as best option if there is no northern heavy-weight to replace Neb. and who is that northern heavy-weight?

      Like

      • duffman says:

        BB,

        The more I think about it.. Texas to the SEC might be the best thing….

        a) we all agree texas has an ego
        b) at this point in history the SEC “appears” to be the toughest conference in football
        c) texas is loyal only to texas
        d)Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, and OU go to the SEC west

        If we agree on these 3 points, Texas is the perfect trojan horse to destroy the SEC in 5 – 15 years..

        In the west they will have OU, LSU, A&M, TT, Arkansas, Miss, and Miss ST gunning for them EVERY year. Then they will have to go east and deal with FL, UGA, UT, USC with enough regularity that it will not have the success and easy schedule it would in the current Big 12 or Pac 16.

        Now you are Texas, and have and ego to compete for the NC all the time. This will not happen in the SEC, and will cause infighting and turmoil until Texas walks out. In the meantime think of the damage they will inflict on the conference. Maybe I am way off base , but Texas in the SEC could be the best long term plan for the Big 10!

        MU HA HA!!

        Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          I was totally against you until you pulled out the trojan horse. Now, I am totally for Texas to the SEC…it’d even be worth the ESPN slobbering.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            and I forgot to add BAMA and Auburn which could mean 3 losses EVERY year for Texas.. there goes any NC hopes.

            Frank and I discussed this early on about how a conference should stack up for optimal viewing value….

            25% top teams
            50% average teams
            25% cellar dwellers

            a) too many top teams and nobody wins overall

            b) too many bottom teams and nobody watches

            In an early blog I proposed to Frank that proper pods spread the power..

            pod A) tOSU + 3
            pod B) Michigan +3
            pod C) PSU + 3
            pod D) Nebraska + 3

            Texas + OU + A&M + TT + current SEC = too many chiefs, and not enough indians.. upsets the current SEC mix, and causes decline as nobody can emerge unscathed..

            Like

    • Hank says:

      word is that he is holding off on Nebraska while he finalizes the deal with Notre Dame

      Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      oh yeah. B10 needs to wait for the additional reason that ND is still out there.

      Like

      • NDx2 says:

        As in ND = 12th team and Nebraska doesn’t get an invitation? Of all the possibilities out there, that seems the least likely of any to me.
        I want to see ND remain indy, but if we were to join the B10, I’d much rather it be a B10 that included, inter alia, Nebraska and Texas, than simply the current 11. By far.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Probably wouldn’t include Texas since the Tech problem seems to be unfixable.

          But ND might want to join with Nebraska/Syracuse and then Rutgers/Missouri…

          Like

        • BuckeyeBeau says:

          no, I wasn’t thinking that ND replaces NEB. more that I think the B10 will invite en mass like the P10 is rumored to be doing/will do. Maybe NEB and Rutgers are 12 and 13.

          As discussed by many posters, it’s always the last school that poses the biggest problem.

          If you are inviting all at once, you have to know what ND is going to do. And, if there is a possibility that the P16 proposal does NOT go through, then you also need to know what TX is doing before you decide schools 15 and 16.

          Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          Yah, if ND joined (a big if as far as I’m concerned) they’d most like Neb, +3 northeastern schools.

          Get them to play (at least) one of those schools (or PSU) a year + one of OSU/UoM/Neb to cover their “midwest + northeast” portion of the schedule and that allows them to schedule USC, Navy and few other geographical areas OoC and it’d pretty much resemble their current schedule.

          Like

  101. Playoffs Now! says:

    http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB

    Another athletic director tells Orangebloods.com Big Ten trying to work things out with Notre Dame before addressing Nebraska or Missouri.

    16 minutes ago via TweetDeck

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Finally, the Big Ten is starting to show its hand.

      We’re going for the expansion scenario that was outlined a couple months ago.

      Nebraska/Mizz/ND/Rutgers + 1 (maybe Texas, maybe someone else big that isn’t on anyone’s radar).

      Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      From ESPN, the Worldwide Follower:

      @schadjoe RT @GeorgeSchroeder: Larry Scott: “I’ve got the authority to pursue various options and to analyze what’s in our best interest” 28 minutes ago

      Like

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        I think it is clear that the P10 is very worried about TX reaching a deal with the B10+. If TX stays in the B12, no big deal, the P10 doesn’t get ‘left behind’ and always has the option of pursuing them later. There are only 2 reasons for the P10 to offer TX and its buddies basically an equal partnership:

        1) Fear of TX to the B10+ and the rise of super conferences, with the P10 unable to ever compete on the same financial level.

        2) Fear that the P10 economic climate, and that of the country as a whole, is going to be much, much worse than many realize.

        Or perhaps both.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I agree on both points. The Pac-10 is basically giving Texas anything it demands in terms of schools (i.e. new SWC in Pac-16) and its own voting block in the Pac-16.

          If the Big Ten can strike a deal with ND, then the Big Ten would probably be able to strike a deal with Texas.

          And that’s where the Pac-10 has to come in and give Texas an invi