Double Chess for a Super Death Star Conference

Posted: June 8, 2010 in Big East, Big Ten, Sports
Tags: , , ,

Here’s the latest chatter from the world of conference realignment:

Multiple sources have told me that Notre Dame, Missouri and Nebraska are all poised to receive invites from the Big Ten.  An announcement could come as early as Wednesday, with other projections looking toward before the end of this month.  Of course, this scenario has been rumored on message boards over the last day, so whether this is a legitimate deal remains to be seen.  With the Big Ten’s past experiences in attempting to invite Notre Dame, nothing can be guaranteed until Jim Delany and Father Jenkins make an announcement together.  Note that I stated Father Jenkins, who has to make the ultimate call for the Domers, as opposed to Jack Swarbrick.

There are a few takeaways from this formulation being put out there.  At the top, if Missouri gets an invite to the Big Ten, it will have Notre Dame to thank.  Without Notre Dame, the Big Ten would not have an interest in breaking up the Big XII and pushing Texas to the Pac-10, so it would likely have only invited one school to the immediate west: Nebraska.  Indeed, Teddy Greenstein from the Chicago Tribune put up some analysis focused specifically about the prospect of Nebraska going to the Big Ten and he’s not going to be just engaging in idle speculation at this point in the game.  However, if Notre Dame is in the fold, then the Big Ten does not have as much of a need to go after Big East schools (even though it still might) with the heavy Irish fan base in places like the New York area.  A lot of the demographic factors that might have tipped the edge toward a school like Syracuse over Missouri without Notre Dame included would now be switched around.  At the same time, it allows the Big Ten to make one last massive power play.  The most interesting comment that Jim Delany had in his press conference was that this could be a multi-phase expansion for the Big Ten.  This sounds a whole lot like attempting to build a Super Death Star Conference.  I’ll explain that in a moment.

The Pac-10 hired an interesting choice to analyze its expansion options: Creative Arts Agency, the high-powered Hollywood entertainment industry firm.  Contrast this with the Big Ten, who has been using investment bankers to perform analysis.  In a slightly off-topic note, CAA also represents LeBron James, which means that entire worlds of college sports and NBA basketball are probably going to determined by a line of cubicles in LA.

What is CAA all about?  Package deals.  The franchise that gets LeBron isn’t just going to be able to sign him based on the quality of the existing team in place right now.  Otherwise, there are only 2 choices for him in that scenario: staying with Cleveland or heading to the Chicago Bulls.  On paper, the Clippers might have the talent, but that’s ignoring the fact that every good or decent player in that team’s history has broken a leg, torn an ACL or lost the use of both knees within a month of joining.  The Knicks and Nets shouldn’t even be in the discussion.  Instead, LeBron wants “his team” (meaning all of his handlers that don’t add value to any franchise) taken care of.

So, it’s not a surprise that the Pac-10/CAA is approaching Texas, the equivalent of LeBron in the conference expansion sweepstakes, with the idea of selling the school a package.  (Another sports columnist made that LeBron/Texas comparison but I can’t find the applicable article to give the appropriate credit.  I’ll put up a link as soon as I can locate it again.)  If this were about making the most money for Texas, then there are only 2 real choices for the school: the Big Ten and SEC.  The proposed Pac-10 expansion is projected to only hopefully match the per school revenue that the Big Ten and SEC members already enjoy today.  CAA understood that it couldn’t win the financial game for its client, so what it recommended the Pac-10 to sell Texas is “comfort”.  It’s all about making it as easy as possible for Texas to make a move: politically expedient, easy travel companions and keeping all of its Big XII South rivalries on the conference slate.  Who cares if the Pac-10 has rejected the notion of adding BYU for many years based on religious grounds and then all of the sudden has Baylor fever when Texas is now an option.  (I have nothing against Baylor, but shame on the Pac-10 if it adds that school while turning its back on BYU for so long.)  It’s like buying a Kia – you’re not going to break the bank, it’s certainly better than the used Ford Pinto of the Big XII that Texas is currently driving, and it won’t upset the neighbors in Waco and Lubbock.  This can only mean one thing for the Pac-10: it’s inviting LeBron to become a member, moving its conference headquarters to Akron, and John Calipari will be installed as the new commissioner.  Worldwide Wes will get it done.

Does that mean that Jim Delany and the Big Ten are just going to give up on Texas?  Hell to naw!  Anyone that thinks otherwise clearly doesn’t understand the long-term demographic, academic and financial ambitions of the conference.  The double chess smack talk has only begun.  IF the Big Ten gets a commitment from Notre Dame (and once again, that’s a massive IF), then the conference has a completely different sale strategy to make one final power play to Texas.  The Big XII will effectively be destroyed with Nebraska and Missouri joining.  That leaves the Big Ten at 14 schools with 2 natural spots remaining to get up to 16.  Instead of selling a quick and easy Kia like the Pac-10, it’s telling Texas that it can have a Rolls Royce.  Imagine Delany calling up UT president Bill Powers over the next few days:

“Bill, we’ve got 2 spots left reserved for you and the Aggies.  With Notre Dame aboard, we’re going to be the most powerful entity in all of sports outside of the NFL with or without you.  You can receive around $40 million per year in TV revenue just for showing up and we’re not even getting into the academic benefits of the CIC.  Are you going to let some meth-on-the-breath legislators down the street from your campus determine your future and shackle you with a ‘Tech-Baylor-UTEP-UTSA-UTD-Northeast Texas Community College problem’ forever?  Maybe you can tell them that the legislature is going to have to figure out a way to make up for the $20 million per year in athletic money that you’re leaving on the table if you don’t get to actually do what’s best for your school, you know, like any other president of a world-class university is empowered to do without thinking about appeasing some overzealous politicians that would rather save a couple of football games in Waco and Lubbock than create the best flagship school possible.  Heh, your friends at Missouri and Nebraska are looking to make twice as much TV money as you because they don’t have a ‘Tech problem’.  That would suck for you.  Let me know.  We’ll need to know by June 30th whether we’re going to invade New York and New Jersey instead.  Delany out.”

The Big Ten has to be true to its brand – its selling point to Texas is to be the highest class academic and athletic conference top-to-bottom.  It can’t and shouldn’t try to get into a fight with the Pac-10 on concessions on the low end.  If Texas can’t fend off the legislators or the school actually would rather be part of a provincial Eastern appendage to the Pac-10 or keep the Big XII as opposed to joining the top national conference, then it is what it is.  At that point, Jim Delany just has to say, WTF and make his move.  Looks like the University of Pittgers!

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

(Image from Chess Variants)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. pw says:

    Is it Septmeber yet?

    Like

  2. Carl says:

    I want to keep reading …

    Like

  3. HerbieHusker says:

    adding

    Like

  4. zeek says:

    http://twitter.com/chipbrownob

    Here’s the latest Tuesday from Orangebloods.com on the possibility of college realignment. … stay tuned. … http://bit.ly/9RcMZG 5 minutes ago via TweetDeck

    Perfect timing Frank because Chip Brown just released his newest piece.

    “Each day gives Missouri and Nebraska fans more time to hope Notre Dame decides by June 15 to stand alone so they can say they finally stuck it to Texas.”

    Like

    • Albino Tornado says:

      I wonder if DeLoss Dodds’ hand is getting tired making Chip Brown’s mouth move.

      Like

      • bigredforever says:

        LOL

        Like

      • Cornography says:

        All right Frank, time to start a new thread. This one is over. This comment will not be topped.

        Like

      • Patrick says:

        Awesome!

        WHy the BTN would stop at 12 is beyond me, even if Notre Dame demands it. As we discussed before the potential revenue in ‘feeding the beast’ (BTN) demands a larger expansion. If any school wants to come in with any idiotic special demends then screw them.

        I saw the piece in the NYT about ND wanting to stay at 12 teams to make higher revenue shares for each of the 12 teams. The guy that wrote that piece is grasping at straws, more inventory, more revenue for everyone. The reasoning behind ND wanting to stay at 12 did not make sense.

        The Big Ten has the model and the cash and if school X would like to join…. great, if you think you are getting some special treatment, well, F’ off.

        Our game, our rules, our conference…. want to play?

        Like

    • John says:

      What about the SEC?

      Like

    • NC_Buckeye says:

      Here’s an alternative version of what might be going on:

      I’m starting to think the Big Ten is being snookered by Texas and Notre Dame.

      It is now Tuesday, June 8th, three days before the Friday, June 11th deadline for Nebraska & Missouri. The fact that Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers have not been issued invites leads me to think that what Chip Brown at Orangebloods.com has reported is in fact the case. That the Big Ten is furiously trying to get a committment from Notre Dame in these days before the Big XII deadline. And more importantly, should that commitment happen then the Big Ten expansion will stop at twelve members.

      I ask you to consider who is that non-Big Ten AD that Brown says is his source. I’d bet my next paycheck that it’s DeLoss Dodds. I’ve said before that both Texas & Notre Dame are hoping the Big Ten’s expansion plans fail. Now, however, I think both schools are being proactive in ensuring those plans fail.

      It’s aleady been proven that there has been communication between the Big Ten and Texas. And a representative who was foolish enough to discuss that communication via email, might also have been foolish enough to discuss some of the conference’s goals and strategies with the Texas president. (Thanks Gordon Gee.)

      That PAC-10 invite was very timely, don’t you think? Beebe had no leverage to issue an ultimatum prior to Larry Scott’s announcement. All of a sudden though, the Big XII’s ultimatum now has some teeth. But how in the hell does the PAC-10 get Stanford to go along with admitting Texas Tech (a Tier 3 school) to the conference when as recently as 1996 they rejected Texas because of academics. Or maybe the PAC-10 merger with the Big XII-South is a red herring devised to create leverage. Maybe this plan is a by-product of the recent PAC-10/Big XII tv network discussions. Should both conferences remain intact then that tv network can proceed as planned.

      Which brings me to Notre Dame. It’s crystal clear to everyone that the Notre Dame community is vehemently opposed to joining the Big Ten. Yet Jack Swarbrick has stated that ND might have to join a conference if a “seismic change occurred in the college football landscape.” If the Big East dissolves as a result of the Big Ten creating a super-conference, most college football analysts would qualify this as such a “seismic change”. It has also been common knowledge that Big Ten expansion doesn’t occur without a signature school. Currently, that signature school is believed to be Nebraska.

      So how does Jack Swarbrick prevent the Big Ten from raiding the Big East thereby forcing Notre Dame’s hand? The answer is that Notre Dame involves the Big Ten in complicated and lengthy discussions which prevents the Big Ten from issuing invitations to Nebraska, Missouri, & Rutgers before the Friday deadline. Should this strategy work, I believe Nebraska will comply with that loyalty oath thinking that the Big Ten is not sufficiently interested in them. At least not to the degree that the Cornhuskers would risk becoming orphaned from a conference.

      Is this a pretty crazy conspiracy theory? Sure. But if you ask Husker fans they’ll tell you that this is totally within Texas’ modus operandi. Moreover, it’s one of the reasons Nebraska doesn’t want to be in a conference with them anymore.

      Is Notre Dame capable of this kind of duplicity? I think they are given that the ND community believes the Big Ten is using underhanded tactics to force them to do something they have no interest in doing.

      Would Nebraska renege on the oath once the Big Ten issues an invitation? Most Husker fans will tell you that Osborne is widely regarded as a man of honor and class. No I don’t think he would go back on his word. Plus, I think the pleas of Kansas, Kansas State, & Iowa State are having an effect on Osborne and the Huskers.

      So Mr. Delaney, if an agreement is not reached with Notre Dame by close of business today — then tomorrow morning I’d contact John Marinatto and Dan Beebe and by noon tomorrow I’d publicly announce invitations to Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers.

      Don’t let Texas and Notre Dame benefit from this elaborate con job.

      Like

    • Bob Devaney says:

      What’s funny/sad is that I called Chip Brown out as a bagman a while back, and the ‘Whorn contingent got all pouty about it.

      It’s obvious to all but the ‘Whorn faithful that Chip Brown is nothing more than Deloss Dodd’s muppet. Whatever credibility Chip possessed he cashed in to suckle from Bevo a long time ago.

      Like

  5. Jefferson PSU says:

    WE ARE PENN STATE

    Like

    • Hawks Rock says:

      The chant isn’t WE ARE PENN STATE, the chant is WE OWN PENN STATE. GO HAWKS

      Like

      • Jefferson PSU says:

        You don’t even own your own jerseys, which you stole from the Sixburgh Stillers. How could you own us?

        Like

      • M says:

        The chant is only partially “GO HAWKS”. The full chant is “GO HAWKS! RUN AWAY FROM THE WILDCATS!”.

        Like

      • M says:

        THEY WILL EAT YOU

        Like

      • 84Lion says:

        Kinda hard to “own” when the all-time series between the two schools is knotted at 11 wins apiece, but who’s counting?

        Like

      • Michael in Indy says:

        It’s comments like these that make me think Iowa and Penn State ought to be a protected rivalry in some way after realignment, whether that means they’re same-division or cross-division rivals.

        Granted, Iowa will most prefer to play Minnesota, Wisconisn, and Nebraska annually, and Penn State will want Ohio State and an eastern addition, if there is one.

        But the animosity resulting from the PSU-Iowa series is intriguing. It certainly seems more interesting than PSU-MSU. The Iowa-PSU rivalry emerged naturally, the way all good rivalries do; PSU-MSU and the “Land Grant Trophy” was forced.

        What do you think, Hawkeye & Nittany Lion fans?

        Like

        • Kyle2MSU says:

          Being a State & BigTen fan I’d have to agree. I think Iowa/PSU is better for the BigTen as a whole. Rivalry’s can’t be forced. They need to develop on the field.

          FWIW, I’d be happy with a season ending game against Rutgers or better yet Pitt (luv me some Pitt) if either get an invite.

          *** I also wanted to note that I find it shocking that certain fans will abandon support for their schools if they make a move they dislike. I just don’t understand that sentiment.

          To me that’s the same mentality as telling your kids if they do something you disagree with that you’d disown them.

          Like

  6. mjv says:

    But does the Big Ten really need to invite Mizzou to put the screws to UT? Can’t inviting Nebraska accomplish the same goal — collapsing the BigXII and save a spot in the Big Ten for a better partner? (Is Kansas a better partner? I’m not sure of KU’s academics, but hoops is clearly better, and in my eyes Mizzou and KU are roughly the same in football.

    I sense that inviting Pitt (or another Big East member — Rutgers, Syracuse) instead of Mizzou may be better as plucking Nebraska would force the end of the Big 12 and plucking a major member of the Big East would help force ND into the Big Ten fold more so than two Big 12 members.

    Like

    • Hank says:

      losing Nebraska alone probably wouldn’t collapse the Big 12. it would really hurt but they could probably replace them. losing both Nebraska and Missouri costs them an elite football name and the St Louis market. thats not as replaceable.

      Like

      • Bob Devaney says:

        Hank–Nebraska is the second-biggest college football property and ratings generator in the conference. While the Big XII could limp along, there would be no way they could replace Nebraska, and that would have long-term repercussions.

        Like

    • Paul says:

      I suspect that the Big Ten has already made too many “unofficial” promises to Missouri behind the scenes to now stab them in the back in hopes of getting Kansas instead.

      Like

    • Besides poor demographics, the ticket scandal may have put the any hope to bed

      Like

      • Michael in Indy says:

        I would hope the Big Ten wouldn’t let something like that stand in the way. The ticket scandal certainly is a big deal, but if the Big Ten was already considering KU as a strong candidate, that shouldn’t change.

        Remember that this isn’t a change focused only on the short-term. The repercussions for KU will only be short-term (3 to 6 years at absolute worst). Big Ten expansion is meant for the next 50+ years.

        Like

        • Howard Hemlock says:

          The ticket “scandal” is misunderstood. Kansas (and probably a number of other schools) was the victim, not the beneficiary. It lost a lot of money from the whole thing, and it certainly did not gain any competitive advantages. It’s not as though KU is in danger of going on probation.

          Like

    • Husker Al says:

      Kansas has also publicly aligned itself with KSU.

      Like

      • Howard Hemlock says:

        No it hasn’t. Kansas wants nothing to do with K-State, at least if it hurts its chances to be in the best possible conference.

        There have been conflicting statements from the regents on that issue, and no one knows at this point how things would come out, but it’s unlikely that the board would prevent KU from going to a major conference if KSU were already doomed.

        Like

  7. mushroomgod says:

    Frank— ND’s not coming to the BT….at least for now. The BT will go ahead and invite RU, Neb, and Missouri…..that will give political cover for the ND Pres and AD……then the ND family will have a hell of a debate…..

    Like

  8. Hank says:

    excellent

    Like

  9. MIRuss says:

    Frank,

    You once again nailed it all! I drew some similar conclusions about the Pac 10’s “Texas, bring whoever you want to bring to the party” invite…That and the fact that Notre Dame now has the excuse that, “Look, we don’t KNOW what the future is going to hold and the Big 10 is better than an unknown alternative….”

    Texas is probably sick and tired of dragging its little sibs to the drive in, and they are happy to make a point once the Pac 10 vote is in. When they reject Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Tech, and Baylor, well, the rest will be elementary.

    Of course, this will take several months to get it all heading in the direction that I’m sure Texas wants it to head. But it’ll be worth the wait. Then, Mr. Powers will make the phone call.

    “Hello, Jim? Let’s have that beer…”

    Like

    • Paul says:

      Geography still matters.

      If you are a Michigan or Michigan State fan, would you want Michigan and Michigan State to leave the Big Ten to join the ACC for twice as much money (assuming that were possible)? Or would you rather stay in your comfortable surroundings with Penn State, Ohio State, Wisconsin, etc.?

      A move by Texas and A&M to the Big Ten (without Oklahoma) would be extremely unpopular in Texas (with the people buying tickets). That has to count for something to the people calling the shots. Not to mention the real problems associated with sending your ladies softball team to Minneapolis and Columbus.

      Add to that the perception of the midwest/rust belt as a dying region with no great football recruiting and Texas will persuade itself that its long term best interests would be better served by associating with Arizona and California.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Agree with this…the TX ship has sailed…..ND may be in play after the BT adds 3 and TX jumps to the PAC 10–all down the road a bit.

        Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        A move by Texas and A&M to the Big Ten (without Oklahoma) would be extremely unpopular in Texas (with the people buying tickets).

        Up until 15 years ago, OU was an OOC game for Texas, and OU and A&M didn’t play at all. I would imagine it wouldn’t be too difficult for the fans of the two Texas schools to reacquaint themselves to the way things were.

        Splitting Texas and A&M is the politically harder, but still feasible, move.

        Like

        • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

          @HH According to Dean Blevins (former OU QB, and news director at channel 9 in OKC, and big time OU insider) UT WANTS A&M, and OU to come along. They don’t want to lose the rivalries.

          You are correct OU/UT was an OOC game, and OU/A&M didn’t play. However, Blevins pointed out how Arkansas lost it’s #1 rival in UT when it moved, and how Neb lost it’s in OU when the Big 12 formed. Blevin said having rivals was important to the fan base (who buy the tickets and make donations)

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            @Paul:

            I was referring to the comment about fans in particular.

            Would OU fans (or A&M fans, for that matter) really care all that much if circumstances dictated that OU and A&M never played each other anymore? I don’t get the sense that either school cares one way or the other.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            While I’ve enjoyed games against Oklahoma, it’s always felt like a second hand rivalry, since they were UT’s rival long before we started playing them.

            It wouldn’t be a big deal to me if we never played.

            Like

        • Paul says:

          I would think Texas fans would rather have the Oklahoma game count as a conference game rather than having to beat both Ohio State and Oklahoma.

          I was thinking more about UT than A&M, since UT would be driving the ship north.

          Like

      • steve says:

        and sending your ladies softball team to Corvallis & Pullman is more enticing?

        Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Let me get this straight. California is facing financial bankruptcy, a mexican invasion and the nightmarish echo of a Jerry Brown Governorship and yet the midwest is a dying region? I think you’re living back in the postcard California of the Beach Boys era. Bleak doesn’t begin to describe the road California is racing down- with no brakes.
        I invite you to go spend a week in Los Angeles then come back and extoll upon California’s long term outlook.

        Like

        • Ryan says:

          Huh??

          Los Angeles is in far better shape and is a far more desirable place than ANYWHERE in the midwest. The only city that comes remotely close is Chicago.

          “Mexican Invasion”? “Nightmarish echo of Jerry Brown”?

          LOL.

          Like

        • Just Say No to NJ says:

          Totally true. The spelling family owns about 99.764% of cal’s wealth and the rest is distributed among the other 34.99 million people. There is greater OUT-migration from the state than coming IN. Beach boys analogy was perfect – CA’s been in decline as a whole since the 70s (the bradys wouldn’t recognize it today – they’d have moved to Denver or Atlanta 20 yrs ago)…

          Like

          • Mikeyclaw says:

            Habla espanol? The Big Ten will punk the PAC 10 and their Texan orphans. Mark my words. When Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, and Syracuse join the Big Ten, Notre Dame and Texas will grovel for a piece of the pie.

            Now, please pass the cornbread and Kool-Aid.

            Like

  10. greg says:

    Hawkeyes are always in the top 10!!!

    Like

  11. ezdozen says:

    You still have not convinced me that Missouri is essential to this process/plan.

    I don’t think its a horrible addition or anything, but why does the inclusion of Missouri get Texas more excited than any other school? If Nebraska was replaceable, the Big 12 would move on. It isn’t.

    Meanwhile, Missouri is just the extra-point to the Nebraska touchdown. I just don’t buy it as part of the Texas strategy.

    Like

    • Derrick says:

      I think Mizzou does bring something to the table in terms of the STL and KC markets, respectable athletic programs, and a solid (not sterling) academic rep. They really do fit the mold of a Big 10 school as well as Nebraska, without the national brand football team.
      And, we know they wanna be here, which is important in some ways.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Missouri does make sense as part of a Texas strategy.

      The goal would be to get ND/Missouri/Texas/A&M as a pod. That way the fourth member is a relatively close member that’s satisfactory for both.

      Texas cares about regionality in terms of its division/pod and would want to play ND.

      Like

      • SH says:

        Zeek – I’m on board. Be a leader B10, just take Mizz and Neb. This kills BXII for good. Publicly invite UT/A&M making it clear no one else meets your academic standards. If they pass because of Tech, I don’t see how that looks bad for the B10.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Missouri has been mentioned for 10-15 years, not just as part of a TX strategy. They’ll add MO because it’s a large, state school in a populous state, with a solid athletic program and a natural rivalry with Illinois.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yes, nowhere am I debating the value of Missouri.

          Missouri is essential to the process though because it fits perfectly into a pod with Texas/A&M/ND. It is the best possible fit…

          Like

          • ChicagoRed says:

            Zeek,

            Enjoyed reading your posts, but I think its a stretch to say TX is influential to getting ND in the B10 so that ND can continue their “national” schedule.

            Even if you buy into the idea that adding another member to the conference meets this need for ND, I don’t see TX as a big deal for ND.

            They have no special history and aren’t terribly far apart geographically. You could just as easily make a better case for NE (which I’m not). At least NE-ND has some history as well as being in different timezones.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Sure. I’m just going off the NW Rivals rumor, which got a lot of credence after the reports that Delany was angry about that “leak”.

            There’s a lot to argue for a ND/Texas rivalry including Latino population trends and other such stuff generally.

            That’s the basis of all of the ND-Texas joint package rumors or reports.

            Whether it’s all really what’s going on is questionable, but it is compelling in that Texas does have strong Latino demographics that ND may want to tap into with a rivalry with Texas. And it would be a cross-country rivalry of sorts in the central timezone.

            Perhaps Nebraska does that, in that case the Big Ten will look east to Syracuse and Rutgers.

            I’m not really foreclosing anything I suppose. I just tend to think that the NW Rivals rumor was among the more credible scenarios.

            Like

    • bigredforever says:

      Missouri makes sense if the goal is texas and texas A&M… give them one more school that is closer in travel.

      Like

    • Mike R says:

      My guess: If Frank’s sources are right, then the Big 10 has been talking with MU for quite some time. And since those talks have left MU in a somewhat vulnerable position with regard to the Big 12, the most ethical course is to bring them in. Otherwise, let’s face it, Missouri is a “complementary” school, not a main course. From a PSU perspective, this is a disappointing result since there is no eastern partner a la RU, Pitt or Maryland.

      Like

    • I don’t have any sources…but it seems to me that simply adding Nebraska and Notre Dame for now would accomplish PERFECTLY what Frank has laid out above.

      It sufficiently destroys the Big 12…
      Gives the Big 10 two ENORMOUS assets to its brand…
      Rests the Big 10 at an awkward 13, which ensures that the expansion chaos will continue on…

      Missouri COULD be an addition if Texas and A/M say NO…they’re certainly not a BAD choice…but if Texas and A/M say YES, I think the Big 10 would take their POWERHOUSE 4 (ND, NE, UT, aTm) and add Rutgers for the market.

      Like

      • Mikeyclaw says:

        The Big Ten will cast it’s eyes to the East. Only after acquiring Nebraska, and Missouri in the West. Joe Paterno all but insists upon it, and it makes sense.

        Now, that 16th team becomes a Texas/ND grovelling contest. If they play coy at this point, then forget them and go after Maryland, or even Pitt.

        Like

        • SH says:

          Appeasing a 90 year old coach who probably doesn’t even know what teams he is playing from week to week does not strike me as sound strategery.

          Like

  12. M says:

    add(icted)

    Like

  13. SH says:

    I’m not counting on that decision by Wednesday. Anyone else?

    Like

    • Since ESPN has reported a dozen different “X school has accepted an invitation to the Big Ten,” unless Delany says it, no.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        The reporting on this topic has been atrocious; there are still reporters calling for the Big Ten to go after Tech or whatnot. The commentators on this blog have been ahead of the curve almost the entire time. We dismissed the Tech approach a full day or two before MSU’s prez came out and made that public, etc.

        Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      I’m sensing a season-ending cliffhanger that will have us on the edge of our seats until Conference Realignment Armageddon resumes its regular broadcast schedule this fall.

      Like

  14. metatron says:

    Well, I’ve always said that Texas and the Big Ten will be on the Big Ten’s terms.

    But still the Longhorns make me worried. The Big Ten is a family, but Texas doesn’t seem to care about anyone but themselves.

    Like

  15. Cornography says:

    It would be so awesome if Delany actually said to Texas verbatim. I laughed audibly at “Delany out”.

    Like

    • SH says:

      I guess the question posed above is why is Miss necessary for that strategy to work. I don’t understand why ND would want Mizzou. At this point, I think the B10 should just openly come out with an invitation to UT and A&M, and say the spots are yours if you want, but Tech is not getting in. Maybe you have to take Neb and Mizzou to really end the BXII to work that strategy. If Texas can’t come along, I don’t think it will reflect badly on B10, rather everyone will understand that UT had a Tech problem. In fact, B10 could spin it that we asked the two scools we wanted, we were up front with who would be acceptable, but the politicians didn’t allow it. I say make this an open public fight. Would be more interesting, no?

      Like

      • @SH – ND doesn’t care about Mizzou. However, it cares a whole lot about having the chance to be in the same conference as Texas. That moves the needle more than anything for the Irish.

        Like

        • Cornography says:

          Why is it necessary for Missouri to be in the Big Ten for Texas to join? I was under the impression that if Nebraska stays, Texas will remain in the Big 12, but if Nebraska leaves, Texas is going to pursue other opportunities.

          You think it would take the Missouri/Nebraska combo to force Texas to leave? I guess it just seems strange to me that Missouri would be the linchpin to Texas’ plans.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Because the pod would be ND/Missouri/Texas/A&M

            That’s the best pod the Big Ten can offer to Texas/A&m.

            Like

          • Paul says:

            I think Missouri coming along has helped to persuade Nebraska to look elsewhere from the Big XII North.

            I read a Nebraska board last year and almost everyone was dead set against the Big Ten. A lot has changed in the past few months and Missouri has been part of that.

            Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            @Zeek:

            Why would we prefer Mizzou over Nebraska? We enjoy beating Nebraska more than we do Mizzou.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            You could have Nebraska as the outside guaranteed rivalry game.

            Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota makes sense as a pod objectively alongside Texas/A&M/Missouri/ND.

            Like

          • Cornography says:

            Zing!

            Like

          • Husker Al says:

            Hopkins:

            Good stuff. I don’t think NU would shy away from being in a pod with Texas.

            But fans are excited about Wisconsin and Iowa.

            Like

          • Will (NU) says:

            @Paul,

            Don’t judge Husker fans by the free Rivals boards. Those tend to be filled with traditionalists (e.g. philosophy, coaches, conference). Most of the fans I’ve talked to have been salivating over the Big Ten from the beginning.

            As far as Missouri is concerned, they’re the least liked/respected of our conference opponents (CU close second). Their move to the Big Ten would not increase our interest in the least.

            Like

          • Zeek, you keep harping on this POD thing. Do you have a source?

            The way I worked up my pods, ND can have UM, MSU, Purdue, and Texas as yearly foes…while the rest of the teams they play 2 of every 6 years.

            What is their interest in yearly games with Texas A/M or Missouri? No tradition…it’s not THAT “national”…I just don’t the pod thing is all you have it cracked up to be.

            Like

          • Ryan says:

            Will,

            Did 52-17 have anything to do with that?

            Like

          • Will (NU) says:

            @Ryan

            Nope it has to do with a level of respect. It’s a spectrum with Oklahoma at the top and Missouri at the bottom.

            The NUs and OUs of the world aren’t so petty to focus on a single year. It’s bigger than that, and that’s part of where the respect comes from.

            It also comes from fans not being huge assholes, but ulimately that’s tied up with the respect issue too.

            Like

          • Sarcastic Mike says:

            How about these pods:

            TX/AM/MU/IL
            NB/IA/MN/WI
            ND/NW/PU/IN
            OH/MI/MS/PS

            Balanced geographically with one primary and one secondary football power in each pod, except for the last with two-three powers.

            Like

        • StvInILL says:

          I believe Notre Dame loves them some Notre Dame. They would likewise love them some Big Ten should the opportunity present itself to bask in the glory of a Texas, Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan and Nebraska. As they continue to lose regularly to Big Ten teams the blow can be soften if they are in the same conference. The stakes are also higher for both winning and joining.

          Like

      • Lobills says:

        @SH–

        The B10 will make it an open public fight when they add 3 and only have 2 spots left. That’s the whole problem with the PAC16 scenario. There are open spots for the Texas pols to fight over. If the B10 is at 14 members and 2 spots remain there isn’t anything to fight over. UT and A&M can argue to be allowed to do what’s best for them.

        Phase I—-Nebraska & Mizzou
        Phase II—ND
        Phase III—UT/A&M or the Pittgers combo

        Once the B10 adds 2 schools it’s off to the races time. The SEC ego is not going to sit by and watch another big conference “out-member” them so to speak. ND isn’t moving until it’s scorched earth time and the B12’s collapse by adding Neb. and Mizzou does just that.

        To me the people who are in control or most confident in their ultimate destination have been the quietest the last 2 weeks.

        Like

  16. M says:

    The only LeBron/Big Ten related article I can find is
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/402592-how-lebron-james-could-impact-big-ten-expansion

    Have you been slumming at Bleacher Report again?

    Like

  17. Kyle2MSU says:

    Add

    Like

  18. Kevin says:

    This is brilliant!

    Like

  19. Sportsman24 says:

    If the BT adds NU, ND, UT, TAMU & Kirkwood Community College; the BT would be the premier academic/athletic conference.

    Like

  20. I think you guys are missing the point with Missouri (or else I am). If ND is on board, the point in bringing in east coast schools drops as ND can deliver the market better than anyone. That makes Rutgers, Syracuse, etc. less attractive and makes Missouri more likely.

    All the same, I doubt ND ends up anywhere.

    Like

    • Hank says:

      agreed. and if ND, Texas and TAMU don’t drop there are still plenty of slot for an East Coast strategy.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      The Big 10 will add Mo because the BT wants to add MO, not because of a particular Tx or ND strategy.

      Like

      • SH says:

        That is the right reason to add a school. In the long run, it is the only way to assure that everyone is happy. Don’t want to be sitting at a meeting 20 years from now, only to hear the OSU President tell the Miss President to “pipe down, the only reason you are even here is because we needed you to get Texas.”

        Like

  21. derek says:

    So where does this leave the east coast expansion? Rutgers, Syracuse, or Pitt? If the BigTen lands ND, does this bump up Pitts chances of getting an invite if they decide to go to 16 teams? Do they even need to go to 16 if they get ND? As a Penn State guy nothing would make me happier than to see Pitt join the conference.

    Like

    • Mike B says:

      ND IS East Coast Expansion. That’s the point.

      Like

      • Paul says:

        ND and the rest of the Big Ten would still love a place to play closer to NYC. ND’s biggest concern about the Big Ten is that the conference is too midwestern. These concerns would be alleviated by adding new teams outside of the footprint, such as Rutgers/Syracuse or Ga Tech/Miami. So I don’t think ND helps Pitt (unless I am underestimating the importance of the Pitt-ND rivalry.)

        Like

        • derek says:

          I wasn’t talking so much about the ND-Pitt rival, but the fact that ND “supposedly” can deliver the NY market better than Rutgers or Syracuse. With adding two western schools (Mizzou and Nebraska) along with ND, my thought process was if the Big Ten still wanted to bring in an eastern school Pitt would be the perfect choice even if it doesn’t widen the footprint. Fact is, if Pitt was outside of the Big Ten footprint, they would be the #1 choice behind ND and TX.

          Like

          • Mikeyclaw says:

            Good point, Derek. ND has such a huge national footprint that Rutgers, Maryland, Syracuse, and that other non AAU school – UCONN would be rendered irrelevent. N/D’s quantity has a quality of it’s own.

            Like

    • Sportsman24 says:

      I agree about Pitt. The only two universities that I’m certain I want is Pitt & NU. I’d really like UT & TAMU, but not if the cost was too high (read TTU, OU…). As for ND, I’m just not sure they would be a good fit, in the long-run.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      ND’s not coming at this time……IF ND comes later Pitt would be the most likely 16th team.

      Like

      • jtower says:

        I have to agree with sportsman. All the talk of the Big 10 looking for like minded institutions that are the flag ship universities of their respective state, focus on graduate education (including medical schools which add billions in revenue) and research revenues also in the billions and they look at a private catholic undergraduate school to get the east coast tvs and increased BTN money – Really?

        If the Big 10 is looking to add schools that fit their profile and are looking to the future, Maryland and Uva would be better choices. If you can add Texas and A&M and then round out with Vanderbilt as we have heard from others what a win – head south both east and west.

        Let ND head to the ACC where with realignment they can focus on the atlantic and northeast. FSU, Miami, VTech and Clemson will be happy in the sec and it fits there current revenue model.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          The only way the Big Ten ends up at 16 without ND is if Texas comes.

          It just isn’t happening. Delany won’t do that. ND has a place in the Big Ten whenever it sees the 4×16 end of the world coming… (Delany’s job is to speed up ND’s perception of that future).

          Like

      • tk says:

        Pitt is not being considered for the B10, don’t know about any other expansion but I heard they were eliminated early in the discussion.

        Like

  22. GreatLakeState says:

    Let it be, let it be, let it be, let it be.
    Whisper words of wisdom, let it be.

    Like

  23. loki_the_bubba says:

    CUSA has hired ex-Big 8 Commissioner Chuck Neinas as an expansion consultant. I guess we’ll look to see if there are any crumbs left over for us.

    Like

  24. NDman says:

    Why do you insist the ND will take this invite. They are not coming

    Like

    • @NDman – I’m not insisting on it and won’t believe it until I see it. However, the Big Ten isn’t inviting ND unless it knows that it will say yes. This isn’t going to be an open invite where ND’s leadership is going to chew on it for months like in 1999. If the Big Ten invites ND, then it means that ND has accepted.

      Like

      • NDman says:

        You just wrote they are being invited – from that logic, you think they will accept. Not happening

        Like

        • NeutronSoup says:

          He wrote that his sources are telling him ND will be invited. That doesn’t necessarily mean he believes it will happen.

          Like

        • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

          I’d love to see ND get invited and accept just for the comedy that would ensue on every ND board. That meltdown would (will?) be comedic gold.

          Adding.

          Like

          • SH says:

            Agreed, that would be the best part of this whole process for me.

            Like

          • Hank says:

            you’d need to repeatedly archive a few as the guardiand of truth and justice would start flushing the board.

            Like

          • James says:

            I expect to post “won’t somebody please think of the children!” images many, many times this summer in response to Notre Dame fans.

            Like

          • MIRuss says:

            @Manifesto,

            Yes! Yes! The Domers boards would light up and probably cause server crashes across the nations….I would help organize a “group hug” where we could show up and publicly ask them why they believed their independence was so important if TPTB didn’t thinkg it was….

            Actually, it’s probably a bad idea…if you got them all together, they might actually threaten a group suicide unless there was a reversal of the decision…

            Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            Jonestown in South Bend?

            Like

          • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

            Pretty sure (mass) suicide is a sin in the eyes of the church, so I dunno how many Domers would take their own lives.

            I wonder if anyone has started a ND-BigTen Suicide Prevention Hotline though just in case.

            Like

          • WineGuyinWyo says:

            “Pretty sure (mass) suicide is a sin in the eyes of the church, so I dunno how many Domers would take their own lives.”

            Drinking cyanide laced kool-aid is a sin. Drinking yourself to death one bottle of Gin at a time might be ok though

            Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          If you’re so certain ND won’t be invited or accept, why are you on this blog? Doesn’t that make it a total waste of your time? It would be like spending hours and hours on a Kucinich4President blog.

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            No, you participate in the K4P blog for the pure comedic value.

            Like

          • NDman says:

            Love to see people make fools of themselves. Its good thought – heard that all the stuff about ND going B10 from yesterday turned the admins office at ND into a near riot from negative calls/emails. Nobody at ND wants this

            Like

          • SH says:

            Frankly, I don’t know many B10 fans who want ND. But unlike Domers, at least the B10 fans can see and make the rational argument for wanting ND – it would be beneficial for both. Domers think only the B10 would benefit. They are scared that by joining the B10, then ND would simply become a regional school. I think that is a rational worry, but why would it be in the B10’s interest to let that happen. If that were the case, then adding ND was nothing more than a short term play. I think the B10 is smarter than that. But NDman is the perfect reason for not taking ND. You will always have to deal with the whining alumni. I mean if ND was truly not interested, all it would take would be a public statement by Fr. Jenkins.

            Like

          • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

            I love ND fans. You guys are going to make great conference mates. 🙂

            Like

          • HoosierMike says:

            Ah, DK. While he’s the mayor of The Cleve the river is so polluted it gets set ablaze, he almost drove the city into bankruptcy (which wouldve been a first for a US muni of that size). He looks at this body of mayoral work and says, “fuck it. I’m gonna run for congress!”… AND HE WINS! And tOSU fans aren’t imbalanced. Riiiiight.

            Like

        • Patrick says:

          Always love the logical, well-reasoned Domer responses like….

          Not Gonna Happen.

          I think that ND football would be schedule challenged after a few years of Big 16 and Pac 16. For reasons that have been discussed, financially, home and home series are going to be dead or nearly dead in this senario. Michigan will NEED to bring in non-AQ schools to beat up on for the financial benifits, plus the conference schedule with Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin, Ohio State will be strong enough to scdhedule weaker non-con games. In the Big 10, the only money not shared is the home non-conference ticket bonanza. In this example, Michigan will sell out regardless, so why bother traveling to Notre Dame every other year and losing out on that revenue.

          The same arguement can be made for USC, Stanford, Purdue, and Michigan State. In very strong 16 team leagues, they want the money from those home games. Take USC, they have away games with Texas, Oklahoma, Oregon, and UCLA…. why travel to Notre Dame for another tough away game? It is not needed.

          So, by staying independent Notre Dame is reduced to a schedule of

          Boston College
          Pittsburgh
          Western Michigan
          Navy
          Tulsa
          Utah
          Army

          The question is… can that schedule keep Notre Dame relevant?

          Probably Not.

          Like

          • SH says:

            I’m not sure Mich or USC would ever drop ND (maybe Mich but not USC). Unless that is, ND just falls so far off the map, that the game becomes irrelevant (and the ratings show it). There is still a benefit for USC to go to ND every other year. It gets them a good prime time game enhancing their brand in the east. But I get your point.

            I guess the question for ND should be, can they stay relevant and good staying as an independent – which will be tougher and tougher as they fall further and further behind in terms of the money they receive. If yes, then stay Indep. But I think only Domers truly believe that will be the case. For the rest of us, it is a legitimate question. I guess I’m not saying anything that we don’t already know.

            Like

          • NDman says:

            You are saying the USC, Michigan, Michigan St, & Purdue are all going to walk away from their annual ND games?

            If you are from a B10 school, the academics angle has been way overplayed.

            Like

          • Patrick says:

            Yes, maybe not all of them but most of them would because they want the home game ticket sales. Traveling to ND and losing that ticket revenue on top of adding another difficult game (when you already have a very tough conference schedule) is pointless.

            Acedemics will play a huge part in this for the Big Ten. CIC is a big deal. Wisconsin / Michigan spent 10 times as much for acedemic research as they made in Athletic revenue. Presidents are going to make the decision, not AD’s, so when you have a budget item that is 10 x higher than athletics…. it is a higher priority.

            Like

          • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

            I actually asked this question to FLP before, if the Pac10 went with the Big6 bloc, and he said he wasn’t sure.

            It would take a lot, and wouldn’t be immediate by any means, but if USC’s suddenly facing Oklahoma, Texas, and A&M plus their original Pac10 members every year I could see them walking away from ND eventually. Winning titles and championships are going to outweigh OOC opponents, and it might not be worth it for them in the long run. Not to mention, new conference members means new rivalries will form. Texas and USC could form a hell of a rivalry in time.

            I’m unsure if it’s the same case with Michigan. In that scenario only Nebraska would be a new, constant threat.

            As for Michigan State and Purdue? Don’t know to be honest. The exposure is nice. But they could definitely find themselves losing games to all three expansion schools (Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers). For Purdue and MSU, adding those three does make the league significantly more difficult. The exposure they get from the ND game might not be worth it if they find themselves missing bowl eligibility consistently.

            Ultimately, it’s a valid question. Two 16-team conferences changes the landscape into something no one knows about. It seems silly to dismiss things out of hand just because you doubt it.

            As for the “academics angle”, don’t know what to tell you. It matters to the BigTen. If it didn’t we’d probably agree to Tech and/or OU to get UT/A&M, but it seems unlikely at this point. Have a friend who’s an Auburn fan, and he doesn’t understand why academics should matter when trying to pick teams for an athletic conference. Told him it just matters to the BigTen.

            Although, in this particular case, I’m wondering if your comment of it being “way overblown” contains the unspoken comment of “because all BigTen universities suck anyway.” Perhaps that’s just a stereotype I’ve come to expect from ND fans though.

            Like

          • SH says:

            I guess a good point was raised. Why do you even care about conference expansion NDman. How does it concern you if ND will never join B10?

            Like

          • eapg says:

            “You are saying the USC, Michigan, Michigan St, & Purdue are all going to walk away from their annual ND games?”

            It wasn’t that many years ago that not having Nebraska and Oklahoma to watch as the turkey digested would be unimaginable. Then Donnie Duncan, faced with having a one game tougher schedule than other teams, sh*tcanned that game.

            Don’t assume anything.

            Like

          • Can't Get Enough says:

            How could you forget that ND would also get to play Reno?

            Like

          • angryapple says:

            Patrick, I think you missed NDman’s point RE Big Ten academics.

            He was labeling you an idiot for daring to disagree with his opinion and he was suggesting that if you went to a Big Ten school, then all Big Ten schools academics must not be very good.

            You should really spend more time on the other 500 bazillion sports blogs and message boards on the interweb and learn how to properly detect ad homonym attacks.

            Like

      • SH says:

        How do you feel about an open invite to UT/A&M. I guess that would affect your ND plans.

        Like

    • Paul says:

      The more I think about it, the more it seems that ND will only join a conference if the ultimate result of all of the expansion is going to be four super conferences. The keys to ND, then, are (1) getting the Big XII South into the Pac Ten, and (2) having the SEC desire to expand to keep up with Pac Ten and the Big Ten.

      If that plays out, then the ACC will surely absorb the leftover Big East teams in order to become the fourth super conference. Notre Dame will want to be a part of either the Big Ten or the ACC/Big East.

      But I now agree that ND will not commit in the near future. It needs to see the Pac 16 form and the SEC 16 forming before it pulls the trigger. The Big Ten will have a spot open for ND when that happens.

      Like

  25. GreatLakeState says:

    I think Mizzo has great upside. I believe they are only now starting to come into their own and with the help of the Big Ten has top tier potential. I would take them over Syracuse all day long. I wish Oklahoma was had better academics with a larger population because I think they would have been a nice trophy as well.

    Like

  26. Robert says:

    Posted this on the last thread but it was killed right after I did with the new blog post, so thought I’d put it up here:

    Let’s talk about the ACC for a second. Let’s assume the Pac 16 comes to fruition and the Big 10 moves to 16 as well. Wouldn’t it then be in the ACC’s best interests to be proactive and try to move before the SEC does?

    I realize the ACC just signed a pretty nice deal and moving to 16 teams would probably mean less money for its current members. But the upside is that if you move before the SEC and get to 16 teams first, maybe your conference is stronger in the long run.

    Maybe it doesn’t matter, and Florida State, Miami, Clemson and whoever the SEC may target jump regardless if they get an SEC offer. But I have to think if you’re in a stable 16-team conference already, you’re far more likely to stay put than if you’re at 12 teams and you fear the SEC is going to tear your conference apart.

    Like

    • DJ says:

      I’ve been saying for weeks that the ACC is missing out on a huge opportunity and could have done the exact same thing the Pac-10 is doing right now. If the ACC were smart, they would go to UConn, Syracuse, Rutgers and either Pitt, West Virginia or East Carolina right now (I would recommend WVU) and invite them to join the ACC, making the conference much more powerful, and claiming some of the NY market in the process. They would also be cutting off the Big Ten and the SEC from going after some of their members in the process. So why won’t they? I read somewhere that the reason why is because John Swofford is spineless, and UNC/Duke are too stodgy to realize what’s best for them. Sounds about right.

      Like

      • ezdozen says:

        I have been saying that too. If they grab Syracuse, UConn, Pitt, and WVU… that is two great football teams and two great basketball teams. Pitt/WVU are no slouches in hoops either. Meanwhile, Syracuse and UConn can return/get to regional relevance again soon.

        With BC, Virginia, Va Tech, and Maryland, you have a great ACC North. The South would be Miami, FSU, Duke, UNC, Wake Forest, Clemson, NC State, Ga Tech.

        Who leaves that?

        And if someone does leave for the SEC… you replace them… East Carolina, USF, Cincy, Louisville.

        The ACC can let the Big 10 have Rutgers.

        Like

        • Robert says:

          If I’m the ACC, and let’s assume the Big 10 takes Syracuse and Rutgers, I target Kansas, Louisville, UConn and either Pitt/K-State (only taking K-State if its tied to KU).

          I realize that’s not a lot on the football side. But the ACC is never going to be huge football conference. It tried that move and failed with Miami and VT. It’s just not in the ACC’s blood. So it might as well become the hands-down best basketball conference it can.

          Besides of the school’s the ACC can pluck, there’s not really a big football brand anyway. So I wouldn’t even bother with that.

          Like

        • c says:

          Re ACC expansion (ezdozen)

          Such an expansion package would almost certainly be very attractive to the northern schools and could lay the basis for an ACC channel by adding northeast markets.

          The Pac 10 has absolutely set an example for the ACC. The question is motivation despite the fact the ACC now extends from FL to Mass.

          Perhaps there is no single school like Texas that galvanizes action. Yet combined there is a lot of population that could be added to the ACC footprint.

          Like

    • PSUGuy says:

      While true, the problem for the ACC still remains the lack of conference network.

      People need to remember having 16 teams, especially if most of them are regional draws, only dilutes the national tv contract signed with ABC/ESPN. Eventually, the national networks say “thanks, but no thanks” and you are left with a bunch of non-national programs playing without any tv coverage to help pay for the event. The conference tv channel rectifies this problem, but until you have a conference tv channel (and even then it could be argued a conference tv channel will only be successful under very specific circumstances) you can’t just assume 16 teams will work, let alone well.

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

        This. This is why the SEC and ACC will stay at 12 for the next decade. Preventing this is the brilliance of the BTN.

        Like

    • Art Vandelay says:

      The biggest problem with that is if you dilute the money that much by adding four more teams, what stops any of your new members from jumping ship to the Big Ten or SEC? If each member is now getting $12 or $13 annually, which is what I think it is from their new deal, that’s about $144 million to $156 million for the conference, which is more like $9-10 million a piece. If the SEC can give them closer to $15 million, and the Big Ten can offer them $22-40 million, is Rutgers really worried about the ACC? Especially because any team would get more academic benefits joining the Big Ten than they would the ACC with the CIC. I can’t imagine a school like Rutgers or Pitt wouldn’t leave in a couple years anyways.

      I will be disappointed if Missouri gets invited and Rutgers ends up missing the cut. Missouri is marginal academically for the Big Ten and should be seen as a mild concession, where Rutgers would fit perfectly in that mold. They are the Big Ten’s biggest chance to get into the NYC market. Without them, the only other way to grab the Northeast is for the BTN to become a national network ala ESPN for college sports, and that would be very hard to do without the Northeast.

      Like

  27. Mike B says:

    Nice “Risky Business” reference, Frank.

    Like

  28. loki_the_bubba says:

    Let’s play “Guess when this one will cross the thousand mark”.

    I got 11:30 a.m. tomorrow.

    Like

    • SH says:

      Loki – I’m in. I’m predicting 2:30 tomorrow when a big rumor comes out. It will turn out to be false of course. I’m just not sure there is much of anything left to be said that wasn’t stated on the last board.

      Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Pacific Time, of course, because now that’s the only time zone that matters anymore. 🙂

      Like

      • James says:

        Don’t you mean SPECIFIC time? 🙂

        This one is crossing the threshold tomorrow morning, whether it’s at 4 or 11 AM. There’s just too much going on right now for the rate of posting to slow down from the last thread (1700 posts in two days, which was itself faster than the previous thread). Sorry for going all meta, but if the posts so far are any indication, we’re starting to move past the hypothetical expansion posts and forming opinions about moves that are happening, like Nebraska and Missouri going to the Big Ten and the ND posters going apeshit, which require less time to type–hence, more posts.

        Like

    • MIRuss says:

      @ Loki,

      Dude…I’ll take 11:00 P.M. tonight.

      Everybody in for $10?

      Like

    • Big Ten Jeff says:

      10:30 am tomorrow. No trolls planting false rumors to make it happen quicker!

      Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Seven hours and we’re half way there. Doubt we make it overnight unless something interesting happens. But I fear 11:30 is just too far from now.

      Like

    • Phizzy says:

      As of 8:57 AM EST, we’re at 1075.

      Like

  29. Michael says:

    Regardless of what Notre Dame does, I think I´m convinced and comfortable with a first phase expansion of Nebraska and Missouri.

    With ND:

    12: ND
    13: NU
    14: MU

    At this point, you wait for the Big 12 to crumble and the rest of the dominoes to fall. First option is still UT and A&M. If they come around to the B10, you stop at 16 and have your super deathstar conference.

    If UT, A&M and OU head West, you wait out the SEC. In this case, the SEC presumably looks to FSU, VTech or NC State. If they add two, then, as the Big 10, you pounce. GTech and Miami are the first additions and put you up to 16. Then, like before, you sit back and wait. Maryland, UVa, UNC and Duke are most likely a package, and if they are decide to give up on the ACC, you expand to 20 and call it a day.

    Without ND:

    12 and 13: NU and MU

    Then, like in the other scenario, you wait. Maybe ND, UT and A&M step to the table as conference affiliation starts to crumble. If not, you wait on the SEC again and try your luck on three of the big 6 from the ACC.

    Either way, I think the Big East, apart from ND, is a last resort. First you try for the home runs from the Big 12 and then you move to the ACC. If both fail, then you finally consider the Big East.

    Like someone else posted, the Big East is much safer than we all originally presumed for the exact reasons they were supposedly vulnerable: their weaknesses. Apart from ND, there are no home runs in the Big East.

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I’d also invite RU….then you could wait for TX/A&M (won’t happen) or ND/Pitt (50% chance 2 years from now).

      Like

    • PSUGuy says:

      If Texas/TAMU go to the Pac the Big10 needs to get to 16 immediately. Take the best of the rest and let the SEC/ACC/BigEast scramble.

      Like

  30. Dan says:

    The BYU-religious angle is way overblown. BYU doesn’t have academic freedom. They pay some of their professors there NOT to publish.

    In other words, the objection to BYU isn’t on religious grounds but on grounds of how the school’s religion curtails academic freedom. I don’t know if that’s a problem at Baylor or not, but it’s not a problem at many religious schools in the country.

    No one would object to Notre Dame joining the Pac-10.

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      You mean like a conservative or libertarian on Berkeley’s campus? The curtailing of freedom-of-thought is an epidemic on campuses around this country but religion has little to do with it.
      No, I am not trying to insert politics into this discussion, just responding to Dan’s comment.

      Like

    • Oneforthemoney says:

      “They pay some of their professors there NOT to publish?”

      Come on, Dan. Seriously? I went to school there for seven years. The school has been pushing for its professors to publish more than they currently are. That assertion is absurd.

      Like

    • jd wahoo says:

      This is an overlooked point – all religious schools are not exactly the same. There’s a spectrum, with BYU on one end being very dogmatic (to the point that professors clearly don’t have freedom to publish/teach anything the church doesn’t approve) and schools like TCU and Wake Forest that have only nominal religious ties and confine religiosity to their separate divinity schools. Notre Dame is much closer to the Wake end re: academic freedom, although their religious commitment is more than nominal, as their position on stem cells reflects.

      Baylor consciously tries to pattern itself after Notre Dame and takes the academic-freedom-vs.-faith issue very seriously, to the point that it actually has a small academic division (Institute of Faith and Learning) that researches and publishes on the proper balance between the two. If it’s true that the Pac-10 would not reject ND on religious grounds, it’s plausible that they would also accept Baylor.

      Like

  31. derek says:

    So after months of everyone deciding how the Big East will fall apart, it seems they might come out of this relatively unscathed. The headlines went from them losing rutgers, pitt and syracuse, to them losing notre dame basketball. I think they can live with that.

    Like

    • Kyle says:

      maybe. or maybe the Big East will have to look fearfully at the SEC’s potential expansion. Louisville and WVU are somewhat attractive for SEC expansion, or maybe they’ll take some ACC members and then the Big East will have to worry about their invites.

      Like

  32. Hopkins Horn says:

    Good read, Frank, Just one minor quibble:

    If Texas can’t fend off the legislators or the school actually would rather be part of a provincial Eastern appendage to the Pac-10 or keep the Big XII as opposed to joining the top national conference, then it is what it is.

    I would call an eight-state, three-time-zone, 16-school conference, with seven (or, sigh, eight) schools from the two most populous states in the country, a pretty damn good national conference as well.

    Still personally hoping for the Big 10 solution, but, as I’ve said before, I’d be quite OK with the Pac 10 move, as proposed, if the Baylor Problem can be resolved.

    Like

    • If Texas is off the table and Colorado is available:

      ND, Nebraska, Mizz, Colorado and whoever would be a great expamsion.

      Like

    • Hank says:

      I see your point Hopkins (btw really enjoy your posts) but there is a risk to the national status of a Pac 16. It certainly would be in name but what is the perception if predictions that this merely recreats the old Pac 8 and an upgraded SWC? If the sceduling focus and the like really is on the division you wind up with with two regional conferences that just happen to have a shared television contract, some share resources and an agreed championship game. Texas will still in effect be in the Big 12 South but expanded to include the Arizona schools. The affiliation with the Pac 8 will be realtively loose and eventually the perception as well.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        f the sceduling focus and the like really is on the division you wind up with with two regional conferences

        No offense meant, because I would certainly call myself a realignment nerd, but I think the only people who would look at the proposed Pac 16 and term it this way are realignment nerds. I think the vast majority of people who don’t follow realignment as obsessively as we do will see the conference but not the supposed segregation.

        Like

        • Hank says:

          perhaps.

          still hoping for Texas in the Big Ten

          Like

        • M says:

          Lol HH, you are the king realignment nerd, or at least second in command to Frank.

          It’s hard to say what the perception will be as far a separate conferences, but it is a definite risk. The Big XII had a lot of North v South divisiveness in perception (e.g. the Big XII North sucks meme) and that was with less of a physical/cultural divide and with playing each other more often (once every two years). In the new setup, there would be more natural physical division (Surf vs Turf) and cultural division (Southwest vs West Coast). Add in playing the other teams less often (once every 4 years with 9 conference games or once every 8 years with 8 conference games) and who knows what perception will be.

          Like

          • SH says:

            This is a good reason why the division concept is a bad one (or has negatives). Only the SEC has made it work. It may simply be a unique circumstance.

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            And why pods are a great way to counter the issue and help to maintain scheduling flexibility and some level of conference cohesiveness.

            Like

        • hmfic04 says:

          @HH, How do t.u. & A&M end up in the B10?

          The only way I currently see it is if we can get BU and TT a home prior to us bouncing. How does that happen?

          Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            If, as rumored, the Pac 10 says they can’t take Texas Tech or Baylor, it would seem to give the administrators some cover to then accept a Big 10 invite as a pair. They can say that they can’t really accept the downgrade in academic standards* that the SEC would entail.

            In any event, I’m confident there will still be a BCS conference that will include the Big 12 schools that are left behind with some other MWC/Wac schools. TCU and Houston will likely see their situation improved by this move.

            *Yes, I’ve heard A&M is studying the SEC. I’m hoping they really prefer the Big 10.

            Like

  33. I don’t believe the Big Ten will risk another rejection by Notre Dame. That is, I don’t believe we’ll extend an invitation unless we already know the answer is “Yes.”

    Like

  34. Ken Smithmier says:

    adding

    Like

  35. BoilerBart says:

    add

    Like

  36. Gumbynuts says:

    Add

    Like

  37. Gumbynuts says:

    2nd attempt

    Like

  38. NeutronSoup says:

    Best thing about this post for me is that Delany’s “double chess # of moving parts” now actually makes some sort of sense. 🙂

    Like

  39. SH says:

    “KU Pleads to Nebraska” Not a great headline on ESPN.com for Kansas. I guess they could be the big loser in all of this. Would you ever want them in the B10? Just goes to show you, how much lower basketball is viewed.

    Like

    • derek says:

      If it was up to me, I’d pick Kansas over Mizzou 99 out of 100 times. Is Kansas really that far behind Missouri academically? From my perspective Kansas is superior when it comes to athletics. Maybe I’m missing something though. I did read somewhere Missouri has the least amount of Big 12 championships…even behind Baylor.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Kansas is only superior to MO in basketball. Missouri has a much larger stadium, and a much stronger football history. Missouri has a larger enrollment, and is in a more populous state. Missouri is a better gepgraphic fit.

        Like

      • FloMoDa says:

        Although I prefer KU, too, KU has a “State” problem.

        Like

      • jd wahoo says:

        “even behind Baylor”

        Baylor is actually third with 28 Big 12 titles, behind only UT and A&M. This illustrates the reason why, as a Baylor alum, I want Baylor in the Mountain West: Baylor has an outstanding overall sports program and is nationally competitive in sports like track, tennis, baseball, etc., but because the football team is outclassed in the Big 12, the frequent perception (not just Derek here, but lots of people) is that Baylor must be crappy at everything.

        Like

        • AggieFrank says:

          Baylor is behind NU in conference championships as well. I’m almost certain OU has more too. I would agree with your main point though that Baylor has a better program than the credit it receives.

          Like

        • derek says:

          Guilty as charged. Thank you for enlightening me!

          Like

      • Ryan says:

        You’re missing lots of things. KU is only superior in basketball. MU is a solid basketball program with a lot of tradition, but it can’t match up to KU in that regard. However, the team has been quite strong in recent years (4 NCAA wins over past 2 seasons) and will continue to improve under Mike Anderson.

        MU is far superior to KU on the football side of things. Better team, more stable, solid coach, nice stadium, KC and STL fans, etc.

        Like

    • MIRuss says:

      @SH,

      You need to read all the prior posts…It’s all in black and white in Frank’s blogs…Mizzou is bigger financially for the Big 10. Plain and simple. Kansas is actually quite low in the Big 12, if I recall.

      Like

      • SH says:

        @MIRuss,

        I don’t disagree with Mizzou being better than Kansas (for B10 purposes). I was just pointing out two things I guess: 1) for a school with such a rich basketball history, that sort of headline has to hit the school pride – pleading to Neb, and 2) with that being the case, you really see how in this country, football moves the needle much more than bball (which I think we already knew).

        But I certainly didn’t mean that KU was a better get than Mizzou. But if B10 was at 15, would KU ever make a good 16th team? I guess it depends on who those 4 other schools are and who else is available?

        Like

        • MIRuss says:

          @SH,

          Unfortunately, you’re thinking like a fan, not a school president that has to start dividing his share of the pie with more schools. If you’re already sitting on $22M annually, why settle for $22M with another mouth to feed when $30M or more is out there looking for some place to go?

          Yes, the appeal of Kansas from a B-Bal viewpoint is clearly superior to Mizzou…just not dollars and cents wise…

          Like

          • SH says:

            How am I thinking like a fan? I’m not even advocating anything. I’m merely making an observation, and then asking if Kansas would ever make a fit. You say no. I bet a lot of people would say yes. I really don’t care. I think my whole point was basically sux to be Kansas and football trumps bball.

            Like

        • Bullet says:

          Back in one of the earlier iterations (between ND invites), KU was one of the 3 finalists with RU, UM. BTN has changed things, but KU would still be a possibility as a #16. Having a bb school gives the fb schools someone to beat. Its probably not likely, but I don’t think they can be counted out if TX & TX A&M don’t join.

          Like

  40. El Roberto says:

    I’ve loved your blog, Frank. I, however, think you haven’t caught onto the fact that Texas WANTS to bring its conference mates along. It wants to bring 3 (maybe 5) rubber stamp votes into whatever conference it ends up with. Texas is more than happy to see Baylor replace CU with regards to the Pac 10. In UT’s eyes, Colorado is an alien university whose culture and alumni would lead it to vote with existing Pac 10 schools on conference matters. The B12 South schools will be reliable rubber stamps for everything Texas wants–special financial splits, the “longhorn network,” and moving the championship game to the Jerry Bowl.

    What scares the hell out of Texas is ending up in the Big Ten…alone and with no special privileges.

    People of the Pac 10: The University of Texas is of Peace…Always.

    Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      The B12 South schools will be reliable rubber stamps for everything Texas wants–special financial splits, the “longhorn network,” and moving the championship game to the Jerry Bowl

      Do you know anything about the voting patterns within the Big XII on issues like revenue sharing and a Big XII Network and tiebreaker procedures?

      Like

      • M says:

        Speaking of voting patterns in the Big XII…

        Right now, it requires a >3/4s vote in the conference to change the revenue distribution model. As you know, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Nebraska form that block currently. In the new conference (“Not Mexico Anymore”), it would presumably also take >3/4s or 5 votes. I am wondering who the 5th vote would be, as Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, and USC would all be in favor. UCLA? Cal? Oregon?? I really have no idea. Does anyone know how the uneven split is currently maintained in the Pac-10?

        Like

        • angryapple says:

          UCLA currently supports it in the Pac-10. Oregon is becoming something of a big player in college football, so I would expect them to vote for an uneven split if it is determined by TV appearances.

          You’re assuming A&M would be one of the supporters, which I think makes sense to appease Texas, so wouldn’t it follow that Texas Tech would also vote with Texas?

          My guess is USC, UCLA, Berkeley, Oregon, Texas, A&M, and Tech would all vote for unequal shares.

          Like

    • Husker Al says:

      Hopkins is right. NU has certainly agreed with Texas on most of the revenue questions. My understanding is there have been disagreements as to how specific things would be implemented, but by and large this is a Big Revenue/Small Revenue issue with the middle schools usually following the Big.

      Whether that was to change with the LSN is speculation at this point.

      Like

  41. […] According to Frank the Tank….. Double Chess for a Super Death Star Conference FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT Frank the Tank's slant: a Nebbie/Notre Dame invite is all about getting Texas. Still. /cue […]

    Like

  42. zeek says:

    Alright, for some reason people in the previous thread were skeptical that Nebraska would get an invite (despite that fact that Frank and most commentators on this site have re-iterated that Nebraska is guaranteed an invite).

    Here’s why. Nebraska is guaranteed to be #12 or #13 in any scenario that plays out. There’s no way the Big Ten stays at 11 this time with Nebraska on the board.

    Scenario #1 = Delany’s preferred scenario (ultimate offer to Texas/A&M)

    ND -> Nebraska/Missouri -> Texas/A&M
    (Texas/A&M/ND/Mizzouri pod for regional travel for Texas/A&M -> Mizz)

    Scenario #2 = Delany’s preferred backup; dependent on Deloss Dodds hinting that Texas would stay in Big 12 if only Nebraska leaves.

    Nebraska is 12. Nebraska isn’t Arkansas; no Pac-16, etc. Pac-10 probably just gets Colorado/Utah.

    This scenario is preferable because it allows the Big Ten to easily have space for ND/Texas/A&M + 1 more later on, while getting one of the 3 whales in play. While I doubt this would play out, it might if Texas crunches the numbers and doesn’t think the Pac-16 pays off as well as it could by staying in a slightly depleted Big 12.

    Scenario #3 = Delany’s second backup if Dodds and co. at Texas hint that they will leave for Pac-16 if Nebraska is pulled.

    Nebraska is 12, Missouri and Rutgers or whoever are probably 13-14 if Texas is gone to the Pac-16. We only need 1 or 2 spots open to get ND at the end when 4×16 is upon us and ND finally joins.

    Scenario #4 = no one goes anywhere.

    Won’t happen. Nebraska pays off as #12 in spades.

    The question in all of this is how long does Nebraska have to commit to the Big 12 and set this rolling. This isn’t Osborne’s first rodeo. He knows exactly how the scenarios will play out with Nebraska, and he knows that Nebraska is guaranteed of being #12 or #13.

    In fact, Tom Osborne would prefer to be #13 and Notre Dame #12 because he can see the big picture and would prefer a Big Ten (14 with ND/Nebraska/Missouri) for the sheer profitability and the ability to make a final offer to Nebraska.

    So Nebraska is in on all of this in my mind. Nebraska is in no hurry to set off the dominoes and play the role of Arkansas if Delany’s preferred strategy is in play. After all, it may just be Osborne’s preferred strategy as well. He knows he’s going to have Nebraska in the Big Ten so he wants as strong a Big Ten as possible. That means waiting to see if Notre Dame will join.

    Of course, both Osborne and Delany are realistic. They know that at some point they have to strike if ND says it won’t be #12. At that point Nebraska will be #12 and it will be up to Dodds to indicate whether Texas is going to leave. Then we’ll see the rest of the pieces fall where they may…

    Like

    • zeek says:

      that was make a final offer to Texas/A&M in the 3rd to last paragraph…

      Like

    • SH says:

      Do you think that Nebraska has been a B10 target (or on the wish list) for a long time (whether as a one off or part of a strategy to get TX/ND), just that Callahan threw a wrench in the whole plan by tanking the Neb program. I doubt the B10 wanted to take a program that looked liked it was dying (of course they always want ND). Now it appears that Neb is on the rise again, so it is a good time to get them.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I’m skeptical that Nebraska ever lost value at any point. Nebraska’s always been valuable in terms of tradition/brand/fans/TV ratings, etc.

        The thing is, that people who are watching this process need to understand that Osborne and the Nebraska brass should want the Big Ten to get Notre Dame before pulling the trigger on Nebraska. That fact has been lost.

        Of course it’s much easier for a program to move when things are much more stable (i.e. not Kansas).

        Regardless, I’m one of those who think the process is going along fine.

        It had to be a very public, very noisy process with Pac-16, SEC-16, ACC-16 threats on the horizon for ND to ever consider joining first.

        Nebraska knows that. Osborne knows that. He’s probably as much in on Delany’s thinking as anyone out there.

        He also knows that once Nebraska leaves, the Big 12 either collapses totally or it goes on, so he would want the Big Ten to also have ND locked in by that time as well, so there’s not a scramble for Texas and ND at the same time, which is not going to work as well…

        Like

        • eapg says:

          I think you may be wrong about who’s in charge of Nebraska’s effort, zeek. With all due respect to T.O., this is Perlman’s baby. The academic side is the big win here. Nebraska writers have focused on Ozzie, in words and pictures, because that’s what they do. And that may be the way Perlman wants it, with the spotlight off him. But before Texans get all giddy with thoughts about Delany using Nebraska as a pawn, and they’ll eventually come crawling back hat in hand, well no. An article that kind of got lost in all this talk, complete with a couple of important titles Harvey Perlman currently sports, which put him in a good place to quietly shepherd Nebraska into the Big Ten:

          http://www.omaha.com/article/20100424/BIGRED/704249814

          Perhaps why you read articles about Osborne being serene about all this.

          Like

    • Paul says:

      Great comment. Thank you. Makes perfect sense. But I can’t see scenario one happening unless ND knows that Texas is coming through to the Big Ten (which would seem to be an impossible thing to know, given all the politics involved). ND really only makes sense in a 4×16 world. That requires Tex to go to Pac 16. Getting both Nebraska and Missouri into the fold early is the best way to prompt a 4×16 world.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Agreed. That’s scenario 3 in a nutshell.

        If Nebraska is pulled and Dodds says “we’re Pac-16”, then the Big Ten will grab Missouri and probably Rutgers.

        Then we’ll be at 14, Pac-16, SEC makes its moves on ACC, and perhaps we get Maryland or GTech or whoever and ND.

        Note that the Big Ten is going to feel out Dodds first on what Texas plans to do.

        If they don’t plan to actually pull the trigger on the Pac-16, then the Big Ten may just take Nebraska as #12 and roll it back.

        The Big Ten won’t force Texas into the Pac-16 arms if it doesn’t have to, but we’re not waiting forever.

        We will pull the trigger on Nebraska even if Texas indicates it’s going to the Pac-16.

        I’ve laid out the reasoning before that Texas/OU/OSU/A&M going to the Pac-16 forces an SEC raid on the ACC which may open the Big Ten up to coveted schools in Maryland/VA/NC region.

        There’s a lot at play here, we just have to focus on which parts know what’s going on and when.

        Like

        • Paul says:

          Since Nebraska fits into all scenarios, the Big Ten should invite them soon.

          Missouri would freak out if the invite included only Nebraska. I think they are coming as a package (based on promises already informally extended).

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Fair enough, but that’s consistent with what I say.

            I say only that Nebraska would be “#12 and stop” if Dodds/Texas indicates that they’ll stay in the Big 12.

            We’re not going to leave Missouri high and dry either way. I’m sure Delany is telling them that under the table.

            Frankly, if you are a Missouri or Rutgers fan, you should be cheering for a Pac-16 as hard as you can.

            If you’re a Rutgers fan, you do not want ND to sign onto the Big Ten until after Rutgers does.

            ND signing onto the Big Ten early means that Texas is in play…

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Given that MSU’s Simon declared that academics are the most important priority, BT would look pretty silly inviting only MO and NEB at this time. Both would be rated at the bottom of the BT academically. I think RU also gets invited, because that’s been the p[lan all along, and for some academic cover.

            Like

    • twk says:

      Neither Nebraska nor Missouri do much to help the Texas schools from a travel standpoint. Once you get on a plane, there’s not much difference between Lincoln and Minneapolis.

      Like

      • @twk – The thing is that the only road trips for UT are to Waco and College Station. The state of Texas is massive, so even Lubbock is a plane flight from Austin. I think that the geography is more psychological than truly being related to travel costs and time.

        Like

        • twk says:

          Don’t have to tell me how big Texas is. Texas spends money like it’s going out of style, thus, they charter a plane to Lubbock even in non-revenue sports like baseball. A&M usually busses, unless there is a convenient commercial connection. It’s the travel in the non-revenue sporst that makes the Pac 16 proposal look attractive, and one reason why Baylor would be fine with Texas–even the Horns bus to Waco.

          Like

        • glenn says:

          frank, not only is the distance to lubbock an issue, but there is no relief in the form of limited access roads unless one wants to loop around through okla city and amarillo. the trip up through goldthwaite and roscoe is slow-going and grim.

          you wanna fly.

          Like

    • Bullet says:

      It appears that NU will be invited. The ultimatum gives the impression that NU has significant value. But there were good reasons to doubt NU would be invited. They are in a small, slow growing state, raising questions as to how much TV value they have. They really don’t match the B10 universities except for Iowa as they are not very restrictive in enrollment. They have been anything but leaders in improving academic qualifications among athletes (not that they haven’t done pretty well in graduating those they bring in). The B10 has been talking about like schools with a focus on academics. NU is not a like school academically. What they are is a top flight athletic program and a football national power.

      What all this says is that we have probably been over-estimating demographics. Maybe the SEC discussion of FSU makes sense even though they already have FL. Demographics matters, but its not destiny.

      It also means its really hard to judge the meaning of what these people are saying. We were mostly convinced the P10 comment about changing college fb had to do with a network, not expansion. And almost noone thought it would be a massive expansion proposal. Delaney also claimed this was heavily about academics and would be an open process. Maybe academics have to be at an acceptable level (read AAU), but beyond that they are irrelevant. It clearly has not been an open process and was always much further along than publically indicated.

      Like

      • Husker Al says:

        “They are in a small, slow growing state, raising questions as to how much TV value they have.”

        NU’s 3.7 average national TV rating over nine games last year seemed to surprise a lot of people.

        Like

  43. Dirty Dog says:

    Number 1 this makes no sense, one rumor has Mizz, Nu and ND all getting invites, another rumor has ND coming in and stopping at 12, wow someone must have bad sources.

    Number 2 if ND comes in with and the little 10 does not stop at 12, you can best be gauranteed that Pitt will be included, out of all the schools being courted by the big 10 they have the best research aside from Maybe Texas, look it up, find the facts the info is out there. By adding in Pitt the CIC can increase their income by millions and I mean millions of dollars, many more than any athletic income will bring. Also Pitt-ND have been rivals for years, check the record books, who do you think they would want to come with them if this goes more than 12.

    Like

    • Dirty Dog says:

      To further my point, look at the recent study produced by Arizona State on the top research universities, Pitt ranks right up there with Mich, Illinois, Wisc, OSU and PSU, the other schools be considered for expansion are nowhere near the research powerhouse that Pitt is, not even in the ballpark.

      On top of that remember on Sunday Mich St president alluded to the fact that academics are extremely important in this process, do not lose sight of that.

      Like

      • SH says:

        Certainly, if B10 gets ND and Neb, but can’t pick up UT (and haven’t already picked up Mizzou), Pitt may make perfect sense. Getting some big national brands gives you leeway to invite Pitt which seems to have everything except a good location (for expansion purposes that is).

        Like

        • Dirty Dog says:

          Again another good point, with big national brands on board it does cushion the blow of Pittsburgh not bringing in a new market. It also does not dilute the quality of football or basketball like a Rutgers would. And it satisfies Penn St’s request for an East coast partner.

          Like

        • Hank says:

          I love Pitt as a school so nothing against them but why would the Big Ten feel a need to take a hit when there are still other options available. They want additive not dilutive. Pitt’s a great school but I think they are pretty far down the list and if they wind up in the Big Ten is because a lot of other things fell through.

          Like

          • Kyle says:

            the point is that nebraska and notre dame are academically dilutive.

            this is brand/market driven expansion, but adding Pitt in addition to that group would make the less savory academics of those schools more palatable to CIC university presidents.

            Like

    • I think to maximize research $$$, new states need to be added bringing in more Senators and Congressmen to steer money to the CIC

      Like

      • Cliff's Notes says:

        I see Pitt as a possibility only if The Big Ten adds 4 other flag-ship schools, and they need the Brand Name.

        Nebraska and Notre Dame add a national name, but don’t necessarily add households to the BTN footprint (unless ND gets NYC, which I think we’re assuming it doesn’t). If you added Pitt, that would be three schools that don’t expand the BTN footprint, which I don’t see happening.

        Like

  44. BCSBuck says:

    add

    Like

  45. Just Say No to NJ says:

    Pittgers ? Ha ! You shoud have picked a worse school to combine with Rutgers then – it would be way funnier. Rutgers can only aspire to Pitt’s history of Marino, Dorsett, Ditka, Revis etc. Pitt brings that football history, “do you like apples?” goodwill hunting-style academics and has been owning Big East hoops. Rutgers brings, er, Jersey Couture, Real Housewives, Jersey Shore, etc etc etc etc. Not to mention the school is a financial catastrophe, their football team hasn’t won a game since Pottsville was in the NFL and their basketball coach just got them some national attention (uh-oh) for heckling players at a baseball game. Just the image the Big Ten is looking to associate with – can’t imagine why the invite hasn’t arrived yet. So whether it’s Pittgers or Rutcuse or Rutconn or whatever, no other school being mentioned “distinguishes” itself like Univ of NJ and shouldn’t even be mentioned in the same sentence …

    Like

    • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

      Bringing up Jersey stereotypes and television shows does nothing but undermine any point you want to make, and some of the points you *do* make (ie. “financial catastrophe”) have already been debunked in previous threads.

      The Big Ten will avoid Rutgers because their basketball coach heckled players at a baseball game? You seriously think that’s going to factor into things, or that it even should? I find it funny that your entire purpose on this blog so far has been to troll the idea of Rutgers joining the Big Ten.

      Like

    • Cornography says:

      You mad?

      Like

      • Phil says:

        In the last 5 years Pitt’s Illustrous History has a record of 1-4 against Rutgers in football.

        Like

        • ezdozen says:

          Is there any Rutgers stat that includes a period dating back more than five years?

          Kansas St. had a nice five year run too, right?

          Not saying Rutgers can’t become a factor… and not saying that you are responding to what can only be characterized as an absurd post… but the reality is that Rutgers has a 5-year period of success and that is it.

          The interesting thing is that Rutgers and Syracuse seem to be up and down at different times. It may be that there is only enough talent left over for them for there to be 12-15 wins between them. If Rutgers gets 10, Syracuse gets 3, if Syracuse gets 9, Rutgers gets 4.

          Not sure how splitting them up would impact the dynamics.

          Like

          • Phil says:

            Rutgers has only been playing “big time football” for about 30 years. Before then they had some success but it was against the likes of Princeton and Colgate.

            RU fans only give stats of the Schiano era because the coach before him was abysmal and only recent stats look halfway decent.

            The difference between RU and Kansas St was that KSU is not in a fertile recruiting area and had their success with good JUCO recruiting, while there are a LOT of good football players that come from a 100 mile radius from Rutgers and their success looks more sustainable.

            You are not wrong about the Syracuse comment. The problem for the Orangemen is that they were the team that most took advantage of Rutger’s “sleeping giant” status in recruiting New Jersey, and now that RU has built their program there is no compelling reason to think Syracuse will ever again get NJ high schoolers to ignore RU and leave en masse for upstate NY like they used to.

            Like

    • pioneerlion says:

      PSU already has the state of PA locked down – for TV sets and for recruiting. Pitt is not coming to the big10. Not happening in Joe’s lifetime, not after Pitt voted against PSU coming into the bigLeast.

      Also, basketball means nothing in this conference expansion; its all about football, which is a sport that Pitt consistently CANNOT sell out; and you don’t even have your own football stadium. Chumps.

      Like

    • R says:

      Hellooooooooooo Maize-n-Brew! Please do a Rutcuseburgh Orange and Scarlet Panther! Place the university in……………….South Bend!

      (I’ve got to get a fricken life!)

      Like

  46. SH says:

    Frank, I’m curious after all these months since your first index. If you went back, would you redo how you allocated your points any? I’m sure you would. I know you gave football a lot more points than basketball, but maybe bball was overvalued. And cultural fit undervalued. Probably a useless exercise, but you have Syracuse above Neb and Miss.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Considering Kansas’ predicament, I’d say basketball is worth nothing in this equation.

      And that we all severely undervalued Nebraska originally.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        And underestimating the extent to which Texas is the root of all that is evil in the world.

        Like

      • Justin says:

        You are all going to be disappointed when we get Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse instead of ND and Texas.

        We have no shot at Texas. Its done. They are going to the PAC 10.

        ND is a long shot, but possible. If they join the conference, it will be the Big 10. I doubt it will happen.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          It’s going to be Nebraska or Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers.

          No one is crying about the Big Ten with 12 or 14 in those scenarios.

          Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          ND is a long shot, but possible. If they join the conference, it will be the Big 10.

          Is it because this is a Big Ten blog that this is assumed?

          Like

  47. Scott says:

    Why not make a move for Colorado? 17th largest TV market in America (as opposed to Kansas City, 31st). They fit academically, have a better football program historically than Mizzou, and a good rivalry with Nebraska.

    Like

    • bigredforever says:

      if Texas is out of play and Baylor goes with them to the PAC10, CU might be in play. Really depends on who is on the table.

      CU’s biggest problem is their AD is broke. They have very few programs realitive to a Big10 school and they have very limited success. Denver is a big market, but is it a CU market? Then again, Missouri might be going so TV sets do matter, to an extent.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Good points, but I think Denver is like a lot of big cities, it becomes a “CU market” when the Buffs are winning. I grew up in Illinois and I’d say the same thing about Chicago being an “Illinois” market. The potential is there, it just needs to be tapped.

        I just feel like, other than geographically, CU is a better fit than Mizzou. Better market, better tradition, better national brand. And one could argue that travel costs would actually be cheaper because Boulder is easier to get to than Colombia.

        Like

        • SuperD says:

          …and if we’re going to play the same card Baylor’s making noises about we have 3 times as many Big 12 championships as Mizzou, lol. If your rightly don’t care about non-revenue sports then we also have 3 North titles this decade…and a BCS game appearance (sore subject for Mizzou fans I know). We also have considerably better academics, particularly from a research perspective.

          Like

        • Will (NU) says:

          CU is a great fit academically. Culturally and athletically it belongs in the Pac 10. That’s where it wants to go, and it should be way down on the Big Ten priority list.

          Like

          • Cliff's Notes says:

            I think there are also a lot of midwesterners that have moved to Denver, too. So like NYC and DC, I think that Denver would become a Big Ten town, even if it wasn’t fully a CU town.

            Like

          • Will (NU) says:

            @CN

            A lot of midwesterners have moved there, but a lot more Californians have bought ski lodges there. It’s definitely more California than it is Chicago.

            Like

  48. Hopkins Horn says:

    @zeek:

    You might like this: I’m encouraging BON to play in some game theory to solve the problem about how to get Texas into the Big 10:

    http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/7/1505152/realignment-chronicles-larry-scott#39282550

    Like

    • zeek says:

      That’s quite a conundrum.

      Hopkins Horn, there’s one or two possible solutions that I see. Dodds pulls back on the Pac-16 talk and is willing to be in a Big 12 without Nebraska only. i.e. Big Ten only gets Nebraska to go to 12 this time.

      Pac-10 settles for nothing or Colorado/Utah, either way Texas cares a bit less. I’d argue that the ordering of importance for the Big 12 is Nebraska > Missouri > Colorado. Perhaps, the Big 12 can survive with Missouri and Colorado but without Nebraska, but that’s up to Dodds to decide.

      This opens Texas up later on to the Big Ten. The Big Ten having already signed Nebraska has a much easier road to Notre Dame and Texas than when multiple chips are in play because the Big Ten will only have to aim at Texas/A&M without having to get Nebraska as well out of the Big 12 (which set off this domino storm).

      If you think Texas leaving is fait accompli, then the only solution I see is for the SEC to blow up the Pac-16 invites by launching a bid for A&M/OU.

      Even if Texas declines, there’s a chance that somehow Tech could be forced onto the SEC with A&M/OU/OSU. Yes that’s a very small chance, but perhaps it could happen. I think Tech knows that being latched onto UT is the better long term play, so that’s what they’ll do.

      Either way, blowing a big hole in the Pac-16 scenario is the best way to do it. Then Texas/Tech/Colorado is all that’s left of the invite (for that sake, you’d better hope Baylor gets the spot instead if you really want that to play out).

      I think if A&M/OU/OSU get SEC invites, then Texas can leave behind Tech for the Big Ten. I really do believe that is a viable course of action because going to the Pac-10 with Tech/Baylor/Colorado seems worthless. Even putting Utah in isn’t going to excite Texas.

      The question is, how badly does UT want the Pac-16 invite blown up. Putting Baylor in and letting A&M solicit the SEC may be the best option. Of course you don’t want to have a Pac-16 with Baylor…

      What has to happen though is that the SEC determines it wants OU and A&M badly. Then it jumps in with its OU/OSU/A&M bid. The Big Ten has to get Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers invites if this does go down with the SEC jumping in… Then the Big Ten has to get Texas/ND to the table and willing to talk about joining as the 15th and 16th invites.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Anyways Hopkins Horn.

        I don’t think your premise that “Tech has to land on its feet” is valid.

        Why? Only the Pac-10 has played its hand.

        The SEC hasn’t and the Big Ten hasn’t.

        The Big Ten must wait for the SEC to make a move on OU/OSU and possibly A&M before the Big Ten can make a move on Texas (maybe A&M if SEC doesn’t).

        That’s what this is all contingent on; essentially the Pac-10 invite getting blown up by Stanford or the SEC.

        Why? Because the Big Ten cannot blow it up on its own since it only wants Texas/A&M.

        Mike Slive and how badly he wants OU/OSU/A&M are going to determine whether Texas/A&M go to the Pac-10 or whether they both go to the Big Ten or Texas goes to the Big Ten and A&M goes to the SEC.

        That guy who posts on BON; learned hand is right that we’ve only seen one hand played.

        The SEC must go before the Big Ten in the game of Texas Hold ‘Em.

        If the SEC folds, then the Big Ten will lose Texas in my mind unless Texas somehow can stay in the Big 12.

        Like

    • Kyle2MSU says:

      Hopkins,

      Didn’t post this on BON but,

      If Texas politicians are controlling who gets invited when do backers of TCU, Houston, et all get involved. What if they turn the PAC-10 invite into 6 teams from Texas. Drop Ok, OKst, & Colorado.

      The idea is to increase the demands Texas makes for them to be invited. At some point the PAC 10 would have to say No way.

      Although, the push for these “extras” needs to come from someone other than Texas or A&M.

      Personally, I’d love to have the Horns in the BigTen, but don’t think it will happen.

      Like

  49. Hopkins Horn says:

    Random question: do y’all prefer “Big 10” or “Big Ten”?

    Like

  50. Paul says:

    One thing that will be fun: If ND actually joins the Big Ten, its many fans will howl with discontent and disgust for the Big Ten schools. This will bring the level of Notre Dame “hatred” within the old-Big Ten schools to an all time high. I expect to see some VERY intense rivalries develop. And I look forward to seeing the Buckeyes (not my school) put one of those 38-0 beat downs onto the Irish.

    Like

    • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

      I think that’s kind of a good thing, to be honest. I imagine ND fans will hate other schools fans and vice versa. So long as it stays in the stands and off the field (for the most part) I’m fine with it. But passion is how you develop ties, so I’m fine with it. I mean, wouldn’t PSU feel more of an outlier if they hadn’t developed a nice rivalry with OSU and Iowa? If all they had was the manufactured rivalry with MSU?

      Like

  51. fivetitles says:

    I can’t imagine that NU would be happy after doing everything it could to escape UT only to have the Longhorns follow them to another conference.

    I see absolutely no way what Frank is saying here comes to pass. Unless, this was never really about Nebraska’s disagreements with Texas to begin with and the whole topic is really overblown.

    In fact, I find the idea of a Big 10 with NU & UT to be a true nightmare scenario. Of course, UT will not hold the same sway in the Big 10 that they do in the Big XII. It won’t be the same type of singular driving force, but imagine existing as NU in a conference with the combined egos of UT, Michigan, Notre Dame, & Ohio St.

    To make matters worse, a scenario where the Big 10 adds NU, MU, UT, & AM inevitably splits them to 4 divisions. Who do you think will be in the same division now with NU rather than just the same conference. It would be those 4 in a hybrid mini-Big XII within the Big 10. They won’t split up the existing Big 10 teams. NO THANK YOU!

    I’d rather be in the Mountain west at that point.

    Like

    • @fivetitles – Chip Brown noted today (and he’s been poking Nebraska fans more than anyone over the last week) that there is a HUGE difference between how Tom Osborne and NU president Harvey Perlman perceive Texas. His understanding is that Perlman and UT president Bill Powers actually have the closest relationship out of any 2 university presidents in the entire Big XII. Remember that those are the guys that are going to make the decisions (not the ADs).

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        So says Texas.

        Like

      • fivetitles says:

        very true. I have heard many of those notions that the perceived rift between NU & UT are mostly overblown. That’s why I mentioned it and it seems like many of those rifts are made worse by the Basketball schools in the North (ISU, KSU, KU, & MU) being unwilling to challenge UT on anything football and pretty much always voting with them if it ensures that they get the basketball tourney up north.

        Still, what do you think about the notion of 4 divisions and NU being relegated to a division with UT, A&M, & MU. I know most NU fans are excited about a rivalry with Iowa and maybe even Minnesota. To be placed in a mini Big XII has the potential to create a rift between the Big 10 old timers & the new schools.

        Like

        • StvInILL says:

          I think if these four teams were added to the conference it would be better to have no more than 2 of them in the same division. Otherwise it will seem like the Big ten and the BiG 12 refugee league.
          Would rather see Nebraska and Iowa in the same division along with either IL or NW.

          Like

          • SH says:

            I say no divisions. Maybe Pods, but we really have to come up with a better name for it. I guess divisions is all that will work. How about this I say no title game. Really, you just must maximize your assets by creating as many must-see games as you can – realizing you have to have competitive balance. But all things being equal don’t you want Nebraska playing PSU, OSU, Mich, ND, and UT every year. Those are all ratings winners.

            Like

          • fivetitles says:

            if they add nu, mizzou, rutgers, syracuse, & ND they could have the following divisions.

            a: nu, mizzou, iowa, minnesota

            b: Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Indiana

            c: Michigan, Michigan St. Purdue, Notre Dame

            d: Ohio St., Penn St., Rutgers, Syracuse.

            that’s a better set of divisions if you ask me and as long as you ensure the rivalry games still get played, no one would care.

            Like

          • StvInILL says:

            Not really. I don’t need to see those games setup each year. else why not have a conference of the 5 or 6 of them. This is what happens when you make a conference so big. You get scheduling problems. There are enough weighted programs in such a league that you might see a game like that every 3 weeks. Which would be fine with me. Else the Minnesotans don’t get a chance at the upset. Which for Minnesotans would be an even better game than the games you promoted.

            Like

          • fivetitles says:

            well, you’d play the 3 teams in your pod every year & maybe have one other guaranteed rivalry game. Other than that, you’d have to rotate between 5 other matchups every year to get to 9 conference games. It isn’t perfect, but I don’t think any scheduling is going to be perfect each year. also, the 4 division setup requires 2 rounds of playoffs. that probably predcludes it anyway.

            Like

          • allthatyoucantleavebehind says:

            I don’t know all the factors involved…

            but my best analysis has a pod of Nebraska with Iowa, Wiscy, and Minnesota. Nebraska fits best geographical and culturally into this group.

            Then, you’re left with a pod of aTm, UT, Illinois, and Northwestern. This way you’re integrating the Big 12 schools into the league better. Plus, if there’s a place where more UT/aTm grads are most congregated in the Big 10 right now, it’s the Chicago area. It’s geographically very close to Texas too (only Iowa is closer!)

            (Sorry I don’t think Mizzou is getting in)

            Like

    • SH says:

      Its a point worth remembering – you have to worry about all the big egos. However, the B10 is perfect for this because there are already a lot of big egos. Mich and OSU aren’t going to let UT throw its big ego around.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Wait a minute — schools other than Texas have oversized egos?!? That’s not what I’ve been reading on here.

        Like

        • SH says:

          You betcha you don’t want to double cross Minnesota.

          Like

        • Hank says:

          just a bit.

          I’m a Michigan guy. Some of the factions, egos and politics make me want to throttle people.

          Like

          • James says:

            Are the politics really that bad in the Big Ten, though?

            I can’t think of any school dissing another school or having loyalty issues anywhere close to the Big 12 or Big East. If the reports are true, the Big 12 has set a deadline for two of its schools and seven others are interested in jumping ship, and Baylor’s regent referred to Nebraska as “a bunch of corn shuckers” not in the core of the Big 12. The Big East has a better time of it, but four of its members (UConn, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse) have been under serious consideration by the Big Ten, and everybody save South Florida and Syracuse would accept in a heartbeat. Also, Paul Tagliabue’s statements to discourage the Big Ten from taking Rutgers slighted the school’s stature, IIRC.

            We haven’t had that problem in the Big Ten. Can you think of any school or conference officials taking potshots at the conference/another school in the last several years, outside of Joe Tiller’s comments about Rich Rodriguez? We’ve got it lucky, though if Notre Dame joins we’ll never have an end to the complaining.

            Like

          • Hank says:

            James,

            I was referring to internal issues and politics but yes there are politics in the Big Ten. Probably not as much as elsewhere but they are still there. And there are still many Wolverines, of a certain age, who fume over the conference vote after the 1973 season to send Ohio State to the Rose Bowl.

            Like

          • Cliff's Notes says:

            Back in the 80’s when there were random calls to kick Northwestern out of the Big Ten because their athletics were losing record numbers of games, there was a ‘protect the little brother’ mentality and a whole lot of respect for NU academically.

            I think that mentality has always existed of protecting the conference.

            Plus, The Big Ten seems to have a lot of Traditionalists who loathe change, so that goes in hand with sticking by your colleagues.

            Like

          • Will (NU) says:

            @James

            Of course you don’t — because you’re fat and happy. There wasn’t this sort of public in-fighting until it became clear that teams were not getting what they were worth in the Big XII and started looking elsewhere.

            If Michigan were taking a disproportionate share of already paltry earnings and saying everything in the conference had to run through Detroit, there would be issues in the Big Ten, as well.

            Like

        • bigredforever says:

          but you guys have cowboy hats to go along with those egos. big difference

          Like

        • zeek says:

          Hopkins Horn, look at any article about the Big Ten inviting Penn State.

          That was a gigantic fiasco. The Big Ten has a lot of oversized egos, but it generally works.

          Like

        • Mike B says:

          Mizzou fans have over-sized egos, and they don’t even have a reason to.

          Like

    • Mike says:

      This is all about the new revenue stream in college athletics (network subscription and advertising revenue) that Texas has no interest in sharing with the little sisters of the Big 12. Unfortunately, Nebraska doesn’t have a large enough market to start a Cornhusker network like Texas does, so the Huskers can either stand by in the Big 12 and fall behind or join the Big Ten and its network. The only way the Huskers will stay (with a Big Ten invite)is if Texas agrees to join/start a Big 12 network.

      Like

    • RedDenver says:

      As a Husker fan, let me make a distinction here. Husker fans aren’t happy with the B12 because of how the teams bend over backwards for UT – not necessarily with UT outside of the politics of the B12. Personally I’m much more irritated with our old B8 “allies” who have pandered to UT than with UT getting everything out the situation they can. The recent 11-1 vote over keeping the CCG in Dallas is a perfect example. NU wants the CCG to continue rotating between the north and south, but the other B8 schools don’t want to aggravate UT and need the recruiting help by having more games in Texas.

      Both NU and UT in the B10 would work fine because the rest of the conference isn’t so dependent on pleasing UT. UT wouldn’t always get its way and neither would NU. In fact I’d bet UT and NU would vote together more often than not. OSU, UM, PSU, etc. are NOT going to want a CCG played every year in UT’s backyard because of the competitive disadvantage. But most would probably want the CCG to be in Dallas as part of a rotation – including NU.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        @RedDenver – You are right, the fans are not happy with UT (losing football games will do that). The 11-1 votes are not a big deal (both Osborne and Pelini have said so) to the Administration. NU and UT have more in common than the average Husker thinks, most of the time what is good for Texas is good for NU. What you don’t hear about is all the votes (i.e. revenue sharing) that NU and UT see eye to eye on.

        Like

      • Husker Al says:

        I’d have no problem being in the Big Ten with Texas. It’s an outstanding school and an outstanding athletic program.

        Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Personally I’m much more irritated with our old B8 “allies” who have pandered to UT than with UT getting everything out the situation they can. The recent 11-1 vote over keeping the CCG in Dallas is a perfect example.

        So, you’re pissed that the “11” vote as though they’re members of the Big 12 Conference rather than as members of the Big 8?

        Like

        • RedDenver says:

          No, I expect the universities to vote as they see fit. However, I don’t naively think they vote in a vacuum without regard to conference politics. What I’m referring to is the idea that the B12 is controlled from the state of Texas, which I find to be more true than not. Ask around the B12 fans outside of Texas and I’m guessing they’ll mostly agree that Texas has gained an unhealthy control over the conference. But I do not blame UT for this situation and NU could co-exist with UT in a different political environment. The problem lies in how easily UT and the old SWC group can influence the voting of the old B8 members.

          And now schools are encouraging (and pleading) with NU not to leave the conference. And writers in Texas are making it out as if NU leaving is the death blow to the conference. Aren’t there 11 other teams? Why do they suddenly need a single team they’ve been voting against for so long? And who upholds the dreaded uneven revenue split?

          Like

      • Josh says:

        The difference between UT in the Big Ten and UT in the Big12 is that Texas would not be a threat to destroy the conference at any time. The Big12 lets UT have its way because they know that if UT picks up its ball and goes home, the conference is all over. I know UT is trying to put this on UNL, but it’s not true. The B12 conference would survive without the Huskers, it just is no longer a conference that Texas wants to be in, so they’re threatening to destroy it.

        Texas would never be a threat to destroy the Big Ten. If they threatened to leave, we’d ask them to stay, but the conference would go on and be strong.

        Like

    • bigredforever says:

      MW is a death sentence. Any neb fan who thinks that is using emotion over logic.

      Texas in the big10 would not have the same power they have in the big12. It is the power that is the problem. The 2 AD departments actually got along until just recently.

      I’m not saying I’d want it, but the problems neb has with UT would be muted in the big10.

      Like

    • ChicagoRed says:

      Personally, as a Nebraska fan I’ve always found the TX angst a bit overblown. And it wouldn’t bother me a bit to continue in the same conference with them, whether its the Big 12 or the Big Ten (hey I read the previous posts on proper names).

      Like

    • Sportsman24 says:

      @fivetitles,

      If the BT does sub-divisions, then I think it would be…

      * Iowa, MN, UW & NU

      The season-ending games being… Iowa vs. NU & UW vs. MN.

      I think NU vs. that triumverite would be compelling.

      Like

    • HuskerZac says:

      As a Nebraska fan, I think going to the Big 10 with Texas (and aTm, Mizzou and Notre Dame) is the best case scenario. Nebraska gets to keep its recruiting ties to Texas, the revenue per school would be absolutely sick, and you get the top 6 winningest programs in the history of college football in the conference, and you get to play at least 2 games a year against these giants.

      I don’t think Nebraska wants to get away from Texas, they want to get away from Texas running the conference. No way Texas could dominate the Big 10 in this scenario. Sign me up!

      Like

  52. GOPWolv says:

    Some of the posters here ought to be in the press shops of their alma maters. If Pitt, MO, etc doesn’t get into the Big10, the world wont stop turning.

    Pitt may be a great research school, but it simply doesn’t measure up to the benefits of a TX, MD, UVA, ND. They wont be invited, there are too many good reasons to invite other schools. Pitt suffers from all the problems of a rust-belt state w/out having the courtesy to provide an expanded BTN footprint.

    Like

    • SH says:

      I think that is somewhat true. Just for sake of argument, let’s say you get UT/ND and just those two. And now there is a 3rd slot open. At that point, the Presidents may covet Pitt’s research over any other benefits the other schools may bring. Also Pitt would join in a heartbeat. I’m not saying Pitt is likely, but there are scnearious where taking Pitt would be more amendable than others.

      Like

      • StvInILL says:

        Problem for Pitt is I believe that Texas comes with at lest one. (A&M). Somee times a college takes the twin brother of a prize recruit but the the cousin?

        Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      MD and UVA are not relevant. They are not available.

      Like

      • Mike B says:

        I guess you are incapable of posting anything other than XXXX won’t come to the Big Ten.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Trying to be an adult here Mike–and who the hell are you?

          Like

          • Howard Hemlock says:

            I don’t think it’s “adult” to simply repeat that so-and-so is not coming or is not available, without stating your reasons.

            Really, what do you think you’re adding to the discussion?

            Like

          • Kyle says:

            he has. mushroom had been around here for months.

            You’re the one who is arriving late to this party, howard. Search more, read more, post less.

            Like

          • Rick says:

            God has been an articulate poster since Frank’s first Expansion Index. Some of the points and observations posted lately have been discussed at length prior to many of the current posters. It might be helpful to read some of Frank’s earlier articles and the over 10,000 posts prior to now. Most of this ground aside from the “Southern Strategy” and the “Pac Ten Texas Package” has been analyzed to death already.

            Like

        • James says:

          That’s not true; I’m sure Iowa State, Louisville and Cincinnati are viable options in their minds.

          Like

      • greg says:

        I think mushroompud is a macro.

        Like

  53. M says:

    For all the people who think there will be congressional intervention in whatever BCS system arises from any scenario, I did some analysis. I divided states into 3 categories. The first is states that under almost any remotely sane scenario will have at least 1 BCS school. Basically, any state with a Pac-10, Big Ten, ACC, or SEC school, as well as Texas for obvious reasons. The next group is other states with current BCS schools in unstable conferences (rest of Big XII, Big East). The third group is states that currently do not have a BCS school, but do have an FBS school. (I suppose the 4th implicit category is all other states, but I’ve left them out).

    In the safe category, there are 26 states:
    California
    Texas
    Florida
    Illinois
    Pennsylvania
    Ohio
    Michigan
    Georgia
    North Carolina
    Virginia
    Washington
    Arizona
    Massachusetts
    Indiana
    Tennessee
    Maryland
    Wisconsin
    Minnesota
    Alabama
    South Carolina
    Louisiana
    Kentucky
    Oregon
    Iowa
    Mississippi
    Arkansas

    Combined, these states have 52 Senators, 234,346,659
    people, and 331 congressmen.

    In the second group (states that could theoretically go from having a BCS school to not having one) are 9 states:

    New York (probably wouldn’t care)
    New Jersey
    Missouri
    Colorado
    Oklahoma (almost certainly will be in a BCS conference)
    Connecticut
    Kansas
    West Virginia
    Nebraska (Fun fact: Nebraska has the smallest population of any state with a BCS school)

    These states have 18 Senators, 52,902,001 people (19,541,453 from New York) and 78 congressmen (29 from New York).

    There are also 6 states that currently have FBS schools but no BCS schools:
    Utah
    Nevada
    New Mexico
    Idaho
    Hawaii
    Wyoming

    These states have 12 Senators, 10,822,577 people and 14 congressmen.

    In summary, BCS states have 52 Senators to 30 from the outsiders, 331 to 92 congressmen, and ~234 million to ~64 million people. These numbers get even worse with some very simple assumptions (New York wouldn’t care, Rutgers, Nebraska, and Oklahoma will likely still be in a BCS conference) Unless many elected officials are willing to support something that would harm his constituent BCS school (or at least a school in their state), no Hatch-like action will be successful.

    Like

    • SH says:

      If Pac 16 crumbles, you run the risk of freeing up a lot of representatives from CA/TX.

      I just operate under the assumption that eventually Congress will get around to holding hearings on any industry. In fact, they have already grumbled about the BCS. For this purpose, Utah being in the P16 would be much better than Baylor.

      Like

    • MIRuss says:

      @M,

      Uh, dude….What do you do for a living and does your boss know how much time your spending on Frank’s website?

      Like

    • Josh says:

      If the Big 12 crumbles, under current rules the MWC would become a BCS conference because the rules say that any conference that is among the Top 6 in various categories gets a automatic BCS bid. Since the MWC is at least 7th in all of them, then if one of the conferences ahead of them crumbled, they’d move up to #6. That was a big issue in the BSU non-invite yesterday. They realized they might not need BSU to get BCS status.

      Now it’s possible they change the rules to keep the MWC out, but then you really get Orrin Hatch on your ass. But since Hatch really only cares about UU and BYU, if those schools get in, he drops his campaign.

      Like

  54. I’m continuing to get a number of tidbits about both Nebraska and Missouri getting invited to the Big Ten. I’ll update here and on Twitter accordingly.

    Like

  55. omnicarrier says:

    Frank, I love your blog, but really – after all the research I know you’ve done on Notre Dame, do your really believe the Irish want to join a Big Ten with Missouri in it, especially since if they were truly “on-board” with joining, they get a say as to who else, if anyone else, gets in?

    Do you think the Irish have any interest whatsoever in playing in Columbia, MO or even St. Louis for that matter?

    How do you think Notre Dame views Missouri’s academic standing?

    Do you think the Irish would perceive the addition of the Tigers has making the Big Ten conference more national in scope or simply make the Big Ten even more of a “mid-western” conference?

    If ND were truly “on-board’ with joining the Big Ten, do you truly believe the Tigers are ahead of the likes of any of these other candidates that have been mentioned over time: (listed alpha) Boston College, Maryland, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, or Virginia?

    Personally, I think you are listening to Big Ten people who don’t have a clue about the Irish.

    Like

    • Hank says:

      I don’t believe anyone has suggested ND wants to join a Big Ten with Missouri. What they have suggested is they would join a Big Tne with Texas. And the thinking is Missouri is an acceptable to the Big Ten school that would be helpful in attracting Texas because of some of Texas’ geographical wishes. So Missouri helps with Texas and thus with Notre Dame.

      Like

      • Orange says:

        The thing this article doesn’t take account of is the fact that Missouri is at the center of destroying the Longhorn’s beloved B12 and has basically shown its disdain for Texas’ control of the B12 for a long time now. This doesn’t seem the basis for the type of relationship proposed by Frank.

        Like

    • Lobills says:

      @Omni–

      It’s been posited throughout that ND would want UT in the BigTen/massive conference realignment if it were to join. And step one in that process, as Zeek has pointed out, is to ensure the Big12’s demise. Maybe Nebraska alone does that, but Nebraska coupled with Missouri most definitely does.

      ND joining the BigTen is several moves down the line. Delaney has to setup the playing field first.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        We’re playing chess. As you correctly point out, the Big Ten/Delany are thinking about where the pieces are now and where the pieces are several moves later.

        Thinking about the pieces individually as a lot of the speculation that we see in the news reports do completely misses the goal of all of this.

        Like

      • ezdozen says:

        If the Big 10 wants Mizzou, fine.

        I remain entirely, thoroughly, completely perplexed by the suggestion that Missouri is somehow a draw for Texas. Not a single compelling reason has been offered.

        If Texas comes to the Big 10, it is because Nebraska started the dominoes rolling AND Texas wants to. If anything, Texas and Notre Dame come despite Mizzou.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yes they come despite Mizzou.

          The only thing Mizzou offers to Texas is a Texas/A&M/ND/Mizzou pod where the travel to Mizzou makes it slightly less burdensome on Texas/A&M who have made indications that they care about not being geographic outliers.

          Like

          • Zeek, Since you keep harping on this pod thing, here’s my pod set up.

            TX, aTm, Illini, NW
            Neb, Minny, Wiscy, Iowa
            ND, MSU, Purdue, UM
            OSU, PSU, Rutgers, Indiana

            Each team gets one fixed Out of Pod opponent (ND/Texas. UM/OSU, PU/IN. PSU/MSU. etc.) whom they play every year.

            It works for ND…and it works for the Big 10.

            No need for Missouri in any case. Nebraska alone will destabilize the BIg 12 enough.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Texas/A&M want to be in a pod with ND most likely; the whole focus of the NW Rivals rumor, etc. was that. Texas/A&M also don’t want to travel as much if they don’t have to; hence Missouri. Notre Dame guarantees itself a game inside the state of Texas every year (home/away with Texas/A&M).

            Texas/A&M/Missouri/ND

            Nebraska/Wisconsin/Iowa/Minnesota

            The other two I’m not certain about…

            Michigan/MSU/Northwestern/Illinois

            Ohio State/Penn State/Indiana/Purdue.

            ND-Michigan would have to be a rivalry, but I don’t know hot to fix it with Ohio State-Michigan…

            Regardless, I think the Texas pod is going to be set based the notion that Texas/A&M/ND are joining for each other and ND will want to play a game in Texas every year…

            Like

          • Your pods aren’t bad.

            On travel distances, I think having a ton more money would be more important to Texas/ATM than having to travel a wee bit farther for a few games. Rutgers, I believe, would offer TONS more cash than Missouri. NJ has 9 million people…MO has 6 million. Rutgers sports might not have the allegiance that Mizzou sports does, but when you factor all the good teams that would come with Rutgers on the BTN, I think it woud sell. (Oh, and did I mention that Rutgers is on the doorstep of NYC and its 9 million people?)

            Mizzou might end up in the Big 10, but I don’t think they are part of Plan A.

            Like

    • Paul says:

      Believe me, we all know a whole lot more about the Irish than we want to know.

      Like

    • @omnicarrier – ND doesn’t care about Mizzou at all. It cares a whole lot, though, about the chance on being in the same conference as Texas. Nebraska or Missouri leaving alone probably keeps the Big XII intact, but both of them leaving means that Texas is truly a free agent. If going after Texas fails, then it works for the Irish to add on 2 Big East schools (likely Rutgers and Syracuse).

      IF ND is going to join (and I won’t believe it until it’s announced because they’ve left the Big Ten at the alter before), then they have come to the conclusion that they’re going to have to join a conference no matter what. Whether the Big Ten acts first or the Pac-10, it’s going to happen if 16-school conferences come to fruition. So, if they know that they’re going to have to join a conference no matter what (and mind you, they can’t ever say this to their alums), then the Irish will want to be at the front of the line forming it rather than having to be plugged into a place with no say or without a chance for even greater things (i.e. a Big Ten with both ND and Texas together). It’s kind of the same public posturing that Texas has set forth – in public, they’re supposedly “waiting” to see how the landscape changes, but in private, they’re being very proactive in securing the best possible place. DeLoss Dodds has had several months of bland comments about how much they aren’t going to do anything, yet in the past week we’ve already seen what Texas has gotten from the Pac-10 and Gordon Gee’s emails show that they’ve been talking with the Big Ten for awhile, too.

      Like

      • @Frank
        Are you saying that the Big 12’s ultimatum (if Nebraska or Missouri are out, the conference is through!) is just a bluff? I’ve seen it reported numerous times as such. I was supposing that the overall financial punch of the conference would have been SOOOO dinged by replacing Nebraska with anyone else, that the presidents would fold up their tents if Nebraska ALONE left. Not your take?

        PS I’d love to make Jim Delany’s voice saying “Delany out” my ring tone for the next few months.

        Like

        • ezdozen says:

          There is just no logical explanation for Missouri, other than the Big 10 just likes them. There are ample reasons to consider Missouri a safe and reasonable add. That’s fine.

          But Missouri does not “lead” to anything else. It does not lead to Notre Dame. It does not lead to Texas. It does not help pods develop. Nothing.

          Like

          • omnicarrier says:

            Exactly. And there is nothing wrong with a midwestern conference wanting another midwestern team in their conference.

            But this notion that somehow Mizzou is the lynchpin to getting both Texas and ND is a poor strategy.

            And personally, I think Scott has one-upped Delany and Delany is not handling the pressure well at all.

            Of course, when its all said and done, it may turn out that both the Big Ten and the Pac-10 were working together all along. LOL

            Like

          • SH says:

            As I stated before, if they are selected, I hope it is because they like them and not because of some grand strategy. Now if they offer strategic value in inducing other schools to join down the line so be it. But if they are going to take Mizzou, it really ought to be because on its own they offer some strategic value. A “you were only taken to get X” reasoning poisons it from the start – even if Mizzou is basically standing there with a “Pick Me” sign.

            Like

          • Rick says:

            I agree that Missouri is not a lead to either Texas or ND. The Nebraska invite should be enough to move the needle on Texas either way. I also cannot buy Delany passing on NY market. Too much money at stake. Passing on any combination of SU, RU, UConn, or Pitt is a major miscalculation. I also don’t see ND coming aboard without a guarantee of Texas already in hand.

            @omni: I think you are right that Scott has either one-upped Delany or they are working together.

            Like

          • pioneerlion says:

            I believe Missouri was the “lead” to get to Neb, who then gets to TX or ND. Big10 rumors involving Missouri stirs the pot in Lincoln, because it opens all the old wounds of Big12 N v S battles that Neb has lost – “why should we let Missouri leave and get that big10 $$, and leave us with the big12 still run by TX???!!!”. Then rumors of Nebraska in play stirs the pot in Austin or South Bend, because Neb moving to another conference causes their head to turn, but Missouri doesn’t. Missouri was a means to get Nebraska’s attention, which then leads to the other desired possibilities.

            Like

      • c says:

        Re ND and plan B (Frank)

        In your main post you say if ND is in and Texas is out, then Pittgers is likely in (Pitt and RU?). SU is not needed since ND is sufficient.

        Yet here you say if ND is in and Texas is out, then RU and SU are likely.

        Sorry, in the same blog you seem to be saying both that ND, RU, Pitt is likely
        without Texas AND that ND, RU and SU is likely without Texas.

        You sound as confused as the rest of us!

        Like

      • omnicarrier says:

        Even assuming the since we want Texas so bad we’ll settle for Mizzou getting in strategy is correct (and I don’t buy it for one minute myself), why in the world would ND say yes knowing that Texas will most likely be forced by its state government to accept the Pac-16 offer that saves Tech as well?

        And yes, I realize Baylor may be a “poison pill” for the Pac-16, but if the state government is stupid enough to sacrifice a safety net that involves Tech for Baylor, then we all know what happens when all 3 – UT, A&M, and TTU become “free agents”.

        And it won’t be A&M to the Big Ten.

        Like

      • ChicagoRed says:

        Frank,
        Why is the BT so interested in ND? Been turned down before by ND admin, lots of anti BT among fans/alums, many non-fits institutionally, and other money making options for the BT. Seems like a lot of negatives.

        I’ve asked this before on this blog, and no one’s given an answer so I assume I’m not the only one who’s confused.

        Like

        • @ChicagoRed – … “other than money making options…” – That’s what matters the most. It’s arguably the nation’s most preeminent sports program that’s right in the middle of Big Ten territory. The normal rules don’t apply to ND and that’s really going to be stance of any conference.

          Like

          • ChicagoRed says:

            Money I get, but still seems like mega-negatives especially all the anti BT sentiment at ND–and not just with the fans. Awfully “un-Big-10ish”.

            Mind you, I’d love to see NE & ND together in the BT. I was part of the Sea of Red when the Huskers visited South Bend (as a bonus, I paid face value for my ticket at the last minute even though I was perfectly happy making the drive from Chicago just to soak in the atmosphere and watch the game from a nearby bar).

            Like

      • Will (NU) says:

        @FtT

        Here’s what I don’t understand. Why would the Big Ten want to blow up the Big XII at this point in order to get UT?

        It’s already been well established that UT has a “Tech” problem and possibly a “Baylor” problem to boot. Those are political issues. They will only be resolved in time. They will only be resolved when they’ve been given opportunities to be shopped around and either find a spot in a decent conference or realize that they never had any hope of being in a major conference. And it doesn’t appear they’ve been resolved yet, given the reaction from the likes of Baylor.

        UT’s only hope for going to the prom is to find dates for all its ugly stepsisters. Otherwise, those sisters tell daddy and make sure UT doesn’t get to go.

        So if the Big Ten really covets UT, why would they blow things up before UT has been able to find available suitors? Given an extra year they might be able to work things out. At this point, they might not have time. And the Big Ten may just be forcing UT along with all the other Texas schools into the Pac 10s arms.

        (And yes, there are some weird incestual, polygamous relationships happening in this analogy.)

        Like

        • @Will (NU) – I don’t know if more time would change that political situation. I think that IF Texas decides that the Big Ten is its best potential home, then its selling point to the legislature is that it’s being forced to turn down a shit-ton massive amount of money on the athletic side and huge opportunities on the academic side. This isn’t just a matter of a couple of million extra dollars – for UT to turn down the Big Ten, that institution might be missing out on $200 million or more over the course of a decade. Add in Texas A&M and the two of them are giving up $400 million more money over 10 years in order to placate the interests in Lubbock and Waco. Now, politicians obviously aren’t rational beings. These people may very well care about a couple of extra football games at Texas Tech and Baylor compared to $400 million more over the course of a decade for its two top public universities. However, no one is really framing the discussion in that manner. The political conversation right now is that Texas Tech and Baylor are getting screwed. Instead, the political conversation would need to change to Texas Tech and Baylor are holding $400 million over the next decade from Texas and Texas A&M.

          Like

          • Will says:

            Agreed. And I assume UT/aTm are vociferously making that point. Still, I don’t think it matters what amount of money they are leaving on the table, Tech will likely screw them out of it if there is even a hint of an alternative where it could end up in a major conference.

            I was under the impression that aTm and UT ran the legislature, which ensured those two would both be taken care of, but I’ve since been told that Tech is not as politically impotent as they might seem. If so, UT’s options are severely limited in the short term.

            Like

  56. SH says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/ann_killion/06/08/pac-10-expansion/index.html?eref=sihp

    I just read this article on Si.com from Ann Killion and it just reminds me of how idealistic writers want to appear to be.

    Here is the passage the got me laughing:

    “The dollar signs have changed prevailing notions about academics and tradition, about putting the student-athlete first. The Pac-10 presidents suddenly don’t mind changing travel schedules, ditching tradition and making a geographic mud pie out of their conference as long as it means they all get more money. Lots more money.”

    I mean how late to the party is she. News flash, conferences care about $$$ and schools use their athletic program as a way to generate more $$$.

    Like

  57. mmc22 says:

    added

    Like

  58. Guido says:

    While I maintain ND is nowhere near being interested in joining a conference at this point in the process, I wonder why the Big 10 would really want to invite them to begin with. Sure the quick answer = $$, but I see that the Big 10 can have it’s cake and eat it too. This may sound like ND bashing, but it’s really just an observation from the outside based on actual results as at least 1 person sees it.

    Right now, ND has self-selected itself out of being relevant from the standpoint of competing for National Championships, or even top 10 status as a football powerhouse. They’ve done so by staying out of a conference and being less than desirable to most top recruits who want conference rivalries, championship games (something the Big 10 is also struggling to resolve, whether they admit it or not), Sat. night games on ESPN, etc. Now they seem like they recruit ok because anyone recruited by ND generally gets an extra * by their name, and when they win 9 games they get a high ranking, but can you tell me the last time they were legit as a National Title condender? I can tell you nobody in High School right now has ever seen it. Rivalries, kids love them. Notre Dame thinks they have some good ones, and they are OK. But when Notre Dame gets psyched for the big game against USC, the USC players have it around #3 on the list of important games, at best. #1 is UCLA and #2 is anyone else in the Pac-10 competing for the league title against USC. Maybe I don’t know, but is there 1 converence school that considers Notre Dame it’s true #1 rival?

    But, ND does still have Brand (at least to the alumns and NBC folks), and they still sell seats where they play. Thing is, Big 10 teams already play Notre Dame. They already reap the benefits that come with playing Notre Dame every season. Why not get the benefit of playing Notre Dame without the threat of them beating you?(Yes, I know they win sometimes, but I mean they are no powerhouse right now). Why give them the platform to correct all the problems that they are self-selecting to maintain with their independence? If they are in the Big 10, how many recruits that go to Wisconsin are going to be lost to Notre Dame? Do they then become the National Power they think they are, but actually just once were? Does a conference really want to wake that sleeping Giant up? Maybe if Notre Dame decided to end their Big 10 schedule of games, but short of that, why do it?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Because they’re Notre Dame.

      They’re actually immune to regional population demographics in the sense that they’re not tied to any state or region in terms of their fanbase.

      But they have a huge advantage in that the Catholic population generally recognizes them and that they have a massive bandwagon fanbase outside of their alumni grouping.

      Combine that with Latino/Catholic demographics trends, and Notre Dame is an incredibly valuable football brand.

      Like

      • Pezlion says:

        42% of the student population of Notre Dame comes from the Midwest. That makes them more of a regional school than either NW or Duke (41% Midwest and 38% Southeast, respectively).

        Like

      • Pezlion says:

        I do, however, understand the bandwagon fanbase issue.

        Like

    • StvInILL says:

      For the Big ten ND is unfinished business. I think it must be an itch they MUST scratch as they are nestled deep in Big ten country and are not a part of the league. The do have a national following. People love to love them or love to hate them and they tune in to see that. I personally love to see them love the 2 – 1 in their annual Big ten 3 pack but root for them playing other teams. They can and will be more relevant nationally when they join the conference. One thing about a conference is that “you know what they got and you know what you got.” Playing the same teams 3 out of 4 or 5 years will be an advantage for a national recruiter like ND.

      Like

      • Guido says:

        I agree with both posts, but doesn’t the Big 10 already get the benefit of playing Notre Dame without giving ND that national recruiting advantage?

        Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      I’m sorry, maybe I’m too old, but I never dreamed of winning conference titles.

      Like

  59. Hank says:

    I don’t think Notre Dame has self selected itself out of rivalries. even big rivalries. they are just not in conference. They have very high profile rivalry games with USC, Michigan and Michigan State. in that order of importance.

    Like

    • Guido says:

      I agree they have rivalries, just nothing like Texas-OU, Mich-Ohio St, USC-UCLA, Auburn-‘Bama, etc. And that hurts them in recruiting.

      Like

    • Justin says:

      ND has two rivals — USC (respect) and Michigan (hatred).

      If you spend a few minutes on NDNation, you will see they rejoice at any troubles of SC and Michigan. If a Navy, Purdue or MSU football player gets in trouble off the field, you’ll be lucky to find one post on it. If a Michigan or SC player gets in trouble, its all over the board.

      Like

  60. zeek says:

    As I noted to Hopkins Horn above in his problem of determining how Texas might get to the Big Ten, a lot of this depends on whether Slive or Stanford or someone breaks up the Pac-10 invite other than the Big Ten.

    The Big Ten won’t do it because we don’t want Tech. Thus, there’s not going to be a Texas/A&M/Tech/Nebraska/Notre Dame or whatever offer. That’s no the Big Ten’s ultimate offer.

    Alan or any of the other SEC commentators; just how much does Slive and the SEC value OU/OSU and A&M. Would they jump into this and disrupt the bid in an attempt to grab the two Oklahoma schools and A&M?

    I know Texas would fight back to keep A&M with it, but if even just Oklahoma/OSU leave the bid, that makes it a lot easier for the Big Ten to swoop down and make an offer to Texas/A&M because the regionality part of the Pac-10 bid loses a bit of luster.

    Perhaps not enough to entirely sink the bid, but Colorado/Texas/A&M/Tech is a wash versus Nebraska/Missouri/Texas/A&M. Yes the Tech problem is still there, but the geographical benefits are somewhat gone. More crossover games on West coast, etc.

    If A&M actually gets an invite along with Oklahoma/OSU, I think the Pac-10 invite is totally busted without possibility of repair.

    Texas will have to weigh an invite to the Big Ten more heavily and may be able to get A&M to go along for the academic benefits of the CIC if A&M gets an invite to the SEC.

    Thus, Texas would be able to argue to the legislature that rather than splitting up the schools at least Texas and A&M ended up together…

    Regardless, A&M going to the SEC or getting an invite from the SEC, seems to be the best possibly chance that the Big Ten would have of grabbing Texas (and possibly A&M).

    Like

    • bigredforever says:

      perhaps the failure of moving the entire state of texas to the pac10 would be the evidence texas needs to say enough is enough. Then, they and the aggie force the issue. Long shot, I know.

      Like

    • SH says:

      Ah, but doesn’t OK have a State problem akin to UT’s Tech problem. Why would SEC want Ok St. You get A&M for Texas and Ok for the brand. Plus it is even # expansion. Tech and Ok St needs to pull for the Pac 16 option. Kansas is saddled with its own State problem, but it is also finding out how much football trumps bball. This is what makes OK a valuable asset, but if you have to take Ok St, don’t you significantly diminish its value.

      What about these steps (apologies if I am just repeating from previous bloggers, I’ve read so many posts)

      1. You need to destabilize the BXII – and taking Neb may not by itself do it.
      2. Stanford must say no to Tech and Ok St.
      3. SEC offer A&M and OK.

      By this point, the Texas and OK state politicians must realize that Tech and State are holding back their flagship universities. So either they let those institutions fight for themselves, or we’ll see a modified version of the BXII. Maybe BXII adds Utah and BYU. Who knows. As I’m writing this, I’m wondering could the BXII survive if Neb and Mizzou leave – due to the TX and OK politicians?

      Like

      • SH says:

        Hopkins & Zeek – as far game theory goes, I think the best option is to take Neb and Mizzou and then publicly invite A&M.

        I see this as the only move that would really push the other actors to act – SEC, P10, TX Politicians, A&M.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah I’m a big fan of the A&M approach.

          But it might be unrealistic, no one knows whether they view the Big Ten as distant and would want to even consider publicly the option of being an outlier.

          It’s much easier to have the SEC jump in and break up the bid and then have the Big Ten swoop down.

          You are right though that if the SEC does nothing, then the Big Ten should go after A&M to outflank the Pac-10 as it were.

          Like

      • zeek says:

        SEC can go to 16 with Oklahoma/OSU/A&M/FSU or something along those lines.

        There are a lot of universities that they can take as the 4th.

        SEC wouldn’t want to create a “state problem” at OSU if it is trying to disrupt the Pac-10 invite.

        Thus, they would invite OU and OSU as a way of cleanly removing them from the Pac-10 invitation and blowing this thing sky high.

        Inviting just Oklahoma makes it easy for Oklahoma to turn it down and claim that it has a “state problem.”

        Like

        • SH says:

          Lots of unknowns. This is what makes this such a great game theory case study. With respect to A&M, I don’t think it matters if they want to join or now. My reasoning is this. It forces them to do one of the following: (1) flat out reject by saying no thanks – I think this will then make it tough for them to go to SEC if they give an invite, (2) say we will think about it – now it will be discussed by the public at large, and UT will have to consider the possibility they will be stuck with Tech, (3) reach out to SEC to get an SEC invite – which gets you back to #2, (4) say we will go but only with Texas, or (5) say we will stick with the Texas 3 – which means you at least no where you stand.

          Anyway, this is all way too much game theory for me. I just think the discussion needs to be made public. The tech people need to defend their stance. They may win, but I don’t think the B10 loses any face over it.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            I agree with you on all points.

            I think the premise of my argument is more that the Big Ten doesn’t have very many angles from which to blow up the Pac-10 invite.

            You and others (and I) have pointed out that inviting A&M is a good strategy to attempt to break it up.

            But the best possible break up of the Pac-10 invite comes from within (Stanford/Cal rejection) or without (SEC invites OU/OSU cleanly and possibly A&M).

            That’s all I’m really saying.

            Like

    • Derrick says:

      I think the situation in Texas isn’t really that Tech and Baylor must be attached to UT, but rather that if UT moves, there needs to be a safe landing place for the little brothers. Theoretically, if you could find a suitable conference for Tech and Baylor (rebuilt B12, P10, maybe even the MWC), UT could go Big10, and TAM to the SEC without a big fuss.

      Like

    • Bamatab says:

      If the SEC were to expand, it would value aTm and OK at the top of their wish list (since we all know that UT isn’t coming). The problem is that the SEC really (and I mean really) doesn’t want to expand. I wish they would go ahead and jump on aTm and OK, but something tells me they are content with sitting back and seeing what happens over the next week or two. With that said, I’m guessing that the SEC has already had some informal talks with both aTm and OK. I really would have to assume though that aTm and OK are at the top of the SECwish list.

      Like

  61. Playoffs Now! says:

    http://twitter.com/ChipBrownOB

    My AD source with knowledge of B10 says Nebraska still better positioned for a bid from B10 than Mizzou if Notre Dame stays put. less than a minute ago via TweetDeck

    Like

  62. SH says:

    ND and the B10 are linked now – maybe not formally, but in terms of geography, traditions, rivalries, etc. Maybe I’m wrong, but I think when most people think B10 football, ND is on the back of their mind, and vice versa. Sure they also think USC and Navy as well. It is to both institution’s advantage to maintain this connection. Do you do this formally within the confines of the B10 umbrella, or under the status quo – playing Big 10 teams. Or even one better, by using the BTN as the platform for distributing ND content (i.e., televising its football games).

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      No thanks to “distributing ND content”. ND always wants to have it both ways…

      Like

      • StvInILL says:

        I agree. I have a reflexive feeling against any of this special treatment that is often brought up to woo TX or Notre Dame. It’s not like becoming a conference member is such a terrible thing in itself. Otherwise there would not be such a robust discussion since December. And the BT has gotten where it has without such internal pot sweeteners.

        Like

      • Mike R says:

        At some point BTN may be in a better position than NBC to offer he best bid to televise ND football games. I think there is a future for BTN as a rights buyer.

        Like

  63. duffman says:

    This was at the bottom of the last blog..

    so I am reposting it here.. I am still not sold that the SEC will not be VERY aggressive if they feel they will move from the top of the football world.

    Theory on SEC moves….

    a) UL – with much family in Louisville, 95% that is no go for SEC, If you think Cincinnati has a chance in the Big 10, you think Louisville has a chance in the SEC. Louisville has a BIG UK fanbase, and a decent IU fanbase (no new market, and small stadium by SEC standards).

    b) UC – Cincinnati is like Louisville, as their biggest fan bases are UK in the SEC and tOSU in the Big 10 (yes Frank you have made me see the ways of my alma mater). UK has played HOME games in football and basketball in Cincinnati (Louisville as well in Freedom Hall – UL home court). When UK plays football in Cincinnati they play in Paul Brown (home of the Bengals – and the Bengal training camp is just outside of Lexington KY (UK’s home) in Georgetown KY. (UK and tOSU already own southern Ohio, and Nippert stadium would be a joke in the SEC).

    c) WVA – Think of the SEC like the Big 10, in this blog we have gone over why WVA would not work in the Big 10. We are armchair quarterbacks, do you think if we can see this Slive can not (footprint, state population, and a stadium at 60,000 it would be one of the smaller in the SEC). I am not making the Big 10 argument here about academics, I am just saying look at the overall numbers. I know we keep talking about Arkansas to the SEC, but WVA does not have Wal Marts HQ right down the street. I have been to Fayetteville many times in the past 20 – 30 years and unless you have been there you can not appreciate what Wal Mart has meant to Arkansas. (and a reason I keep seeing OSU and Boone in a different light).

    d) Miami – always listed as one of the first to the SEC, when everything tells me they would be the last. 1) Miami is full of Pro teams – more folks in Miami probably root for the Dolphins and the Heat (why I am still not sold on an expansion by the B 10 into the NYC market). 2) Miami is PRIVATE, and the SEC is PUBLIC. 3) Miami is not southern. Just because they are in the south, does not make them southern. FWIW they are not midwestern either, which is why I would not be happy to see them in the Big 10. 4) Miami does not own Miami much less the rest of the state (Think if I said Cincinnati and Xavier own southern Ohio if it helps). 5) Miami is new, the SEC is old (remember we are in the south where this matters). Howard Schnellenberger put Miami on the football map in the 1980′s (before he went to Louisville). 10 – 20 great years may seem like a big deal but the SEC is the old guard. Maybe I am wrong here, but the fact that Miami has been down is not lost on the SEC. If I were picking a home for Miami, It would be with the likes of ND and other PRIVATE schools.

    e) FSU, Clemson, Ga Tech – In descending order.. All already are second fiddle to an SEC team in their home state. When the SEC expanded last time they went into NEW markets, to not think this would be their PRIMARY plan in this expansion would be folly. Football drives this expansion talk, and these three offer no new revenue stream. Heck, Tech can not even command the city it calls home.

    Now if I was the SEC I would go back to my roots and consolidate control that way…. the SEC & ACC have common roots in the old SIAA, from that sprang the Southern Conference which composed of (Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech, W&L) later additions were (Florida, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tulane, Vandy) last to the party were (Swenee, VMI, Duke).

    The SEC came from this group in 1932 and the ACC in 1953….

    Now look at rivalries (rivals drive ratings)

    Arkansas – Texas / Texas A & M
    Florida – Miami / FSU
    Georgia – Georgia Tech
    Kentucky – Indiana (historic) / Louisville (modern)
    LSU – Tulane
    South Carolina – North Carolina / Clemson

    The SEC already has their in state rivals covered, so expansion would be Texas or North Carolina to capture new markets. I keep hearing people pooh pooh academics in the SEC but think of the SEC in the same vein as the Pac 10….

    If the Pac 10 goes to 16 we have the Pac 8 division (academic) and the Texas division (sports)

    now overlay the SEC as east 8 and west 8.. pooh pooh if you will but UF, Vandy, and UGA have good academics..

    SEC east (academic – UF, UGA Vandy + UNC + NC State + UVA + Maryland (leaving UK – with a current top 20 plan in place, UT, and USC – a natural rival for the North Carolina schools)

    I guess if people can see a Pac 16 with split academics, why can folks not see this in the SEC east…

    If I am silve, my expansion plans would go through Texas and North Carolina FIRST! (the states).

    I know academically Stanford is tops, but the bottom of the Pac 10 are no Stanford..

    I am not saying this will happen, I am trying to see this from a non Big 10 view (just because we may want WVA to the SEC does not mean Silve does). I just think the long history of the SEC and ACC with common roots might not be reflected here (if i am in my 30′s it may be no big deal, but if I am in my 60′s or 70′s or older (see also decision makers and BIG donors) I can remember a different history of the SEC and ACC.

    just some points to think about….

    FWIW Ga Tech, Clemson, and FSU already play UGA, USC, and UF so how does adding them to the conference help.. the SEC already has the rival game as things exist right now….

    Right now the 800 lb gorilla is Silve, and it concerns me just how little he and the rest of the SEC have said. The quiet from a conference not know for being quiet.. makes me think something we may not see at all is already on the table.. We keep talking about the power of ND and Texas and forget the REAL power is Delaney and Silve! If there is a conference that has benefitted from the last expansion, it is the SEC. The Big 12 may be falling apart, but the SEC is not..

    MY guess is to decipher what Silve will actually do and figure out how Delaney will against it. My friends this is the real chess match in all of this.. at least this is how I am looking at it..

    Say the SEC lands Tx, A&M, TT, and OU.. we keep saying it can never happen.. but what if it does?

    Say the SEC bags Tx, A&M, UNC, UVA.. we keep saying it can never happen.. but what if it does?

    If delaney and silve are the folks playing the game of chess? which strategy allows their side to win.. this is where the game will be won or lost.. ND and UT are just the pieces on the board.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      ps.. i added some new thoughts at the end

      Like

    • StvInILL says:

      Thanks Duffman. Way too much SEC talk for me though. About the SEC. Thinking purely from a football standpoint. I think they are the one league best set to sit pat. I mean they have the quadrant of the country with the most athletes per capita than any other.
      Another thing in their favor is they are not shackled by Collegiate concerns. I really don’t know of a lot of those athletes they recruit that get turned away because of academics. The very best of them never leave school either,r though they do have some of the worst graduation rates in the SEC. Funny how that works?
      Going to sixteen in my mind would be a running scared reaction. However getting Texas or A&M or both would be a great strategic move that would open a new market. Unlike raiding their ACC brethren would only be trolling familiar territory..

      Like

      • duffman says:

        StvInILL,

        thanks, it just keeps bothering me from the last expansion as everybody said the same thing about the SEC back then and history looks like they were the big winner..

        a) the Big 10 and Pac 10 never got to 12
        b) Miami and FSU have faded not maintained
        c) The SEC has dominated the NC in football the same way the ACC did in basketball after the ESPN deal in the late 70’s (Duke and Uconn should send ESPN a portion of their checks).
        d) The Big East is still not a football threat
        e) The ACC is still well behind the Big 3 in football

        FWIW c) is not to imply the Big 10 or SEC is better. It is to point out like the NCAA Tourney, the masses just remember the winner, before everybody gets bent out of shape.

        2 points to put in the back of your mind

        1) the Fiesta Bowl upstaged the Cotton Bowl by going non conference and getting the independent teams.

        2) the Rose Bowl has a diminished value when it is not for the NC game.

        Like

  64. From someone who’s been immersed in Texas football and politics for 40 adult years.

    I’ll make it simple for you – Texas is not going to join the Big10 under any circumstance whatsoever – with ATM, without ATM, with ND, without ND. Whatever scenario you want to cook up – it’s not going to happen.
    It’s not that we don’t like the Big10; it’s a simple matter of logistics, compatibility, and money.
    Logistics – would be expensive and an inconvenience to every member of the proposed conference.
    Compatibility – Big10/Rust Belt/Yankee mentality, whatever you want to call it, would be alien to our somewhat regionalized sensibilities.
    Money – without a Big10 tv contract, we’re near perennially both the highest grossing and netting college athletic program.
    Maybe if we were 500 miles closer…

    Like

    • duffman says:

      RFB,

      glad to know I am not the only older voice on this blog.

      Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Well, there you go. It’s been nice chatting with everybody!

      Like

    • SH says:

      Anytime someone says there is no f*ing way it will happen, I’m convinced it will. Of course, if it doesn’t happen, it is easy to gloat. But if you are telling me that if the B10 offered, A&M, UT, and Tech invitations, they would all turn them down, then I think you are nuts. And the reason is the final one you gave – Money. Why wouldn’t you want to add another $30 MM to the coffers (or whatever it would be)?

      Are you so sure UT won’t join the Pac 10, because it creates the exact same problems.

      No the reason UT won’t join the B10 is not Logistics, Compatibility, and Money – it is Tech.

      Like

      • It’s not “another $30million”, it would be about another $12million.
        And for what it’s worth – Texas is serious about it’s own network. Doing that or joing the Pac10+whoever, then there’s really a net gain without the Big10.
        Understand, I have nothing against the Big10. But, thinking it through, it’s not the right thing for them or for Texas.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          The Pac-10 has already stated that its network will be an “all rights in” network.

          Like

        • SH says:

          Ok, well there are some arguments. I don’t actually know the numbers. I feel safe in saying, that UT would make more from TV in the B10 than any other conference. Whether the additional $X is worth it – that is a business decision. Worth noting they could be leaving research money on the table. The UT network is a highly risky (but potentially highly) profitable venture. They may go that route. But what i hear you saying now is that UT has better reasons for not joining the B10. I may disagree with you, but really I don’t know (and I doubt you know either) the exact business/dollar amounts behind a decision. It is simply better to make that argument than flat out say UT will never join those damn Yanks in the B10. No way, never, not going to happen.

          Like

          • where would Texas make more tv money: in the Big10 or in a conference/region with a far larger population and 7 of the top 10 tv markets?

            Like

          • zeek says:

            In the Big Ten.

            It’s not even close.

            “Intensity” in the Pac-10 footprint outside of Southern California is nothing like in the Big 12 or Big Ten.

            The Big Ten Network is already up and running across the footprint, whereas a Pac-10 Network may find it harder to get on better tiers across the Pac-10 footprint.

            The Pac-16 is estimated to pay out $20M per team. The Big Ten already does that. With Texas, the Big Ten would be looking at $30M+ per team easily within the next few years.

            Like

          • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

            Uh, here’s the DMA market ranks from Nielson for 09-10:

            http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/medialib/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/documents/pdf/misc.Par.39091.File.pdf

            1 New York 7,493,530
            2 Los Angeles 5,659,170
            3 Chicago 3,501,010
            4 Philadelphia 2,955,190
            5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,544,410
            6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,503,400
            7 Boston (Manchester) 2,410,180
            8 Atlanta 2,387,520
            9 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,335,040
            10 Houston 2,123,460

            Texas already controls 3 of them, so that’s likely a wash in either scenario.

            Going to the Pac10 adds LA and SanFran, totaling 5.

            Going to the BigTen adds Chicago and Philly, although I think Philly is debatable. Going with ND, however, could affect New York, Boston, Philly, and possibly DC (to what degree, I don’t know).

            Note, extending the top 10 out to 15 does nothing — both regions have 2 in 11-15. 16-20 gives 2-1 for the Pac10 only if you count Denver.

            Additionally, I do agree with Zeek that market “intensity” would have to be a factor here. I don’t see LA or SanFran caring as much as Chicago or even Detroit (#11). But that’s opinion.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “where would Texas make more tv money: in the Big10 or in a conference/region with a far larger population and 7 of the top 10 tv markets?”

            The Big 10 has a far larger population than the Pac 10; even in 2030 the projections are they would be even. In addition they do follow their colleges more fanatically.

            So Texas + the Big 10 will be more profitable now, and more profitable in 20 years than Texas + Pac 10, even without considering adding markets like New Jersey or Missouri to the Big 10.

            Of course, Texas will do well in the Pac 10, just not as well as it could have done.

            Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Y’all be gentle with RFB. He edges into senility occasionally. 😉

      Like

    • StvInILL says:

      Thanks for your comments on this RFB. I’m sure those thoughts have some merit but probably not to people who matter in making the decision. First off the biggest impediment to this issue is another school/politics . Otherwise it’s a done deal. The seconded The university of Texas is not moving from the central time zone any time soon. Neither is half of the big ten not including NE or Mizzou . You move to the Pac ten then that becomes a problem. Back to you. The people making the decision will have academics, money and the future trajectory of the university. I would bet that your provincial concerns will be one but it will be the least of their concerns

      Like

      • “Politics” favors Texas going to the Pac10
        Airline tickets and moving equipment via semi is done based on mileage, not “time zones”.
        “Academics, money and furture ‘u’ trajectory” would also favor moving west. Two outstaning academic U’s in both conferences; 2,3 or 4 below that, the rest below that. Texas would fit in either conference.
        My “provencial concerns” are best sated by stayin in the Southwest.

        Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          So, who is the Big Ten equivalent of Arizona State?

          Like

          • StvInILL says:

            Do you mean academically? or by sports?
            roughly academics shapes up like this.
            1. Northwestern
            Gap here
            2. Michigan
            3. Illinois/Wisconsin
            5. Purdue
            6. Indiana
            7. Penn State
            8. Iowa/OSU/MSU/Minnesota
            The last one her might be rated 70th in the nation

            Like

          • M says:

            @loki

            The answer to your question is Iowa. It’s ASU but with fat drunk guys instead of attractive women.

            Like

          • greg says:

            AWRU rankings:

            8 Chicago
            15 Wisconsin
            18 Michigan
            19 Illinois
            20 Minnesota
            22 Northwestern
            32 PSU
            41 OSU
            42 Purdue
            48 MSU
            52 Indiana
            56-70 Iowa

            Like

          • greg says:

            If you want fat people, you gotta go SEC.

            State top 10:
            Mississippi
            West Virginia
            Alabama
            Louisiana
            South Carolina
            Tennessee
            Kentucky
            Oklahoma
            Arkansas
            Michigan

            Iowa is 19th.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity_in_the_United_States

            Like

          • Pezlion says:

            StvInILL,

            You’re way off with your academic rankings. PSU is definitely not 7th in the league, and Minnesota is not even close to battling for the bottom.

            Like

        • StvInILL says:

          RFB, The move to the Pac ten hinges on that blockbuster deal. It was never thus for going to the big ten .I think Texas will have done fine in either case. The problem with the deal is the compactions forced upon it by the state legislature. Otherwise, I reiterate. It was a done deal.
          By the way RFB, I often thought what it would have been like for a Texan to see Texas vs A&M in the Rose bowl with Texas representing the Big ten and A&M representing the Pac ten. To me that would have been a safer deal between the two conference.

          Like

        • Mark says:

          “Manifesto (OhioSt.) said:
          Uh, here’s the DMA market ranks from Nielson for 09-10:

          http://en-us.nielsen.com/etc/medialib/nielsen_dotcom/en_us/documents/pdf/misc.Par.39091.File.pdf

          1 New York 7,493,530
          2 Los Angeles 5,659,170
          3 Chicago 3,501,010
          4 Philadelphia 2,955,190
          5 Dallas-Ft. Worth 2,544,410
          6 San Francisco-Oak-San Jose 2,503,400
          7 Boston (Manchester) 2,410,180
          8 Atlanta 2,387,520
          9 Washington, DC (Hagrstwn) 2,335,040
          10 Houston 2,123,460

          Texas already controls 3 of them, so that’s likely a wash in either scenario.

          Going to the Pac10 adds LA and SanFran, totaling 5.”

          OK–I’ll ask–where’s the third one under TX control? I don’t see San Antonio on that list.

          Like

          • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

            Hah, whoops. Sorry, I wrote that kind of quickly and must’ve double-read SanFran as San Antonio.

            Like

        • angryapple says:

          Maybe I’m lost here, but why are we talking about moving equipment via semis?

          Is it your plan to physically move the University of Texas to Chicago or Los Angeles?

          Like

        • Pezlion says:

          Apparently Bevo doesn’t realize that the Pac-10 and Pac-16 are further from Austin than the Big Ten and a Big Ten with UT, A&M, NU, MO and ND.

          Pac-10 1,646.3 miles (avg)
          Pac-16 1,192.1 miles (avg)

          Big Ten 1,208.8 miles (avg)
          New Big Ten 1,075.5 miles (avg)

          Like

    • willarm1 says:

      Yet the hippie west coast and the evolution destroying Texas legislature is such a perfect fit.

      Yeah I can see Dick Armey and Nancy Pelosi enjoying the Tex v. Cal game together.

      If it was up to melding a Texas mentality with another region, I would consider making a league called the Tex12. Maybe Perry can lead another secession

      Like

    • M says:

      @RadioFreeBevo

      I am beginning to agree with you, though I would argue that all of those issues are even greater when joining the Pac-10: it’s farther away, it’s run by hippies (like Texas the school maybe, but not Texas the state), and it’s less money. The key issue seems to be the schools Texas wants to bring along, not the ones you list.

      Like

      • “it’s run by hippies”?
        “Austin is a little blue dot in a sea of red.” – Molly Ivins

        Bringing 6 schools along and adding UA and ASU to a western division is what makes the deal work for everybody concerned.

        Like

    • Mark says:

      RFB-
      Not disagreeing with your no way/no how assessment, but…you mention logistics and 500 miles closer. Austin is 200-400 air miles closer to to the farthest Big 10 school (State College) than it is to Seattle, Pullman, Eugene and Corvallis.

      The closest current PAC 10 schools to Austin in AZ are about as close as Iowa City is. Most of the rest of the Big 10 are closer than LA or definitely closer than the Bay Area (AUS-SFO is 1500 air miles.)

      Austin is in the same time zone as about half of the current Big 10–more if Nebraska or Missouri join.

      If you’re going to dismiss a potential conference affiliation out of hand due in part to logistics issues, shouldn’t you *start* with the PAC 10?

      Like

  65. Guido says:

    One more thought on ND, seems they are still at least talking to the Big 10, which is causing people to speculate they may be interested in joining. However, ND’s worst case scenario is “Super Death Star Conferences” where they are forced into joining a conference. The longer they keep the Big 10 “on hold”, the odds of massive expansion goes down. Especially if they can stall this process for the equivalent of 1 football season, then say they may be interested in the future….thus holding things back for many future years as well. I admit I’m purely guessing this may be whats going on, but it seems possible if not likely.

    Like

    • GOPWolv says:

      Disagree. ND can’t put a hold on expansion w/ this many players this invested with PAC10 TV contracts coming up. ND has to know that *something* will happen, then can help shape that something or they can enjoy leverage somewhere on par with Teldar Paper.

      Like

    • Or…Notre Dame realizes that Texas is going somewhere. Period. Expansion is happening. Period. In light of those realities, Notre Dame wants to not just be sucked into a conference against its will…but it wants to be in the best conference in the nation.

      I’m not saying this will happen…
      But Notre Dame doesn’t want to see Syracuse and Missouri and Rutgers and Pittsburgh be added…and THEN be forced to join because of no better options. They want to see Texas, aTm, Nebraska be on the roster…and THEN be “forced” to join.

      Like

    • duffman says:

      guido,

      if this is the case.. then the best option would be for the B 10 to invite Nebraska ASAP!

      a) it shows the Nebraska Nation that this will happen (not just a back room promise between big shots).

      b) it starts the Big 12 implosion (as Frank said early on it offers cover for Texas to jump).

      c) it verifies that 16 is the “new” 12 and puts ND on notice

      d) it makes a BOLD statement from the Big 10, not some “watered” down wishy washy public action.

      e) turns eyes and heads back to the Big 10 after the Pac 10 volley

      Like

  66. willarm1 says:

    It seems fairly obvious ND will not be the first domino to fall.

    The play must be to add Neb. Dodds er Big 12 probably wont even ask Mizzou their answer.

    Neb. needs to be added soon.

    Like

  67. c says:

    Re ND – Texas – Missouri (Frank)

    First your post will be judged not by your logic but your prediction.

    If Missouri and ND and Nebraska are invited in near future perhaps by tomorrow, you have good sources.

    However from a logic perspective if ND wants in not for Missouri as you state but for Texas but Texas is no lock, then why would the Big 10 offer Missouri and why would ND committ to the Big 10?

    Texas was deeply involved in the Pac 10 Texas 6 offer. It gives them regional competition and a lot more. They chose their partners. Not exactly passive.

    They could easily have agreed to an announcement that Texas and ND and A&M and 2 schools of mutual choice (perhaps Nebraska and Pitt or whoever) were going to be invited as a package.

    That would allow Texas to resolve the Tech issue and allow ND not be locked in to a Nebraska, Missouri expansion and allow the Big 10 flexibility as to plan B.

    So the logic of this seems to be the Big 10 either considers Missouri a KEY target school or ND and the Big 10 are gambling that Missouri is key to attracting Texas to the Big 10 despite the fact Texas is about to move to a PAC 16 with selected partner schools.

    Or it seems to imply the Big 10 believes probably rightly that scenerios of Maryland and so on are not worth pursuing and Missouri stands equal to Nebraska and any other likely target school.

    So for fun without any inside sources I’ll predict Texas is not coming and is Pac 16 bound.

    If as you say ND is interested because of Texas, then using that logic my guess is ND either doesn’t join or at best joins at the last minute as team 16.

    Interesting that recent twitter by Joe Schad and Thamel say ND not likely.

    Note this prediction is subject to change based on the next rumor.

    “One source close to Big Ten cautions me that ND is “not budging.” Joe Schad Twitter

    ——————–
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/sports/ncaafootball/08colleges.html?ref=sports

    Pete Thamel article

    Swarbrick, however, said he had not been engaged in any discussions with the Big Ten.

    “First of all, there haven’t been any sort of deliberations,” he said. “Internally, we talk about this stuff all the time. We have not entered into discussions with anyone.

    “The only thing we’ve done externally is try and work as closely as we can with the Big East and try and help them.”

    Like

  68. Rick says:

    OT: For those that have been on this blog for more than the last 30 days or so, whatever happened to Richard? From the days of Frank’s first Expansion Index blog and 10,000 or more posts later, Richard always had the most frequent and insightful views. He has virtually vanished, only to be replaced by Zeek in frequency and indepth analysis. Richard, if you are out there, what do you think about this whole mess these days and this chess match unfolding? Hmmmm

    Like

  69. Vincent says:

    Sub Virginia Tech and N.C. State for UNC and UVa (neither of which have any interest whatsoever in the SEC) and you might have a realistic Slive-Delany chess scenario.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      vincent,

      I will meet you half way..

      maybe silve offers UNC and UVA, maybe he gets V tech and NCST.

      still leaves maryland open to big 10.

      Like

  70. Pariahwulfen says:

    vodka

    Like

  71. Playoffs Now! says:

    http://www.texasmonthly.com/blogs/burkablog/?p=7184

    Monday, June 7, 2010
    Realignment blues

    posted by paulburka at 5:12 PM

    The latest twist on the Big Twelve realignment is that Oklahoma and Texas A&M might depart for the SEC. This from an Aggieland source. UT doesn’t have to worry about finding a place to land, but it has never been interested in the SEC, mainly for academic reasons. Only two SEC teams are members of the prestigious American Association of Universities (Florida and Vanderbilt), though other SEC schools are said to be in line (Georgia, for one). The UT academic hierarchy prefers the PAC-10, but UT does not want to be stranded without its two longtime rivals.

    Most readers know by now about the ultimatum the Big Twelve gave to Missouri and Nebraska at recent meetings, setting a deadline for whether the two schools that are reportedly being courted by the Big Ten will commit to staying in the Big Twelve. The ultimatum is somewhat silly since Missouri and Nebraska are the schools that hold all the cards; it’s a little like saying, “Either make up your mind or kill us.”

    Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      This would actually solve a problem if one of the goals is 4×64, because it is politically impossible to get there without a huge congressional fight if at least one of Utah and BYU isn’t taken.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Wow. This means Slive may give the Big Ten the shot it needs at Texas.

      Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      BTW, I wouldn’t assume this would put TX in the B10+. Just as likely they’d stay P16 with an add of TX-TT-Bay-CO-Utah (tradeoff for Baylor) and either TCU or KS.

      They could horse trade TT off to the SEC as part of the political settlement with aTm, or might have aTm reach an agreement with the SEC that OU would not be offered. Lots of way for this to play out.

      Like

      • Derrick says:

        I doubt Kansas goes anywhere without K-State. Not just politicians, but the schools are part of the same academic hierarchy (I believe they share the same board of regents)

        Like

        • SuperD says:

          I dunno, if I were Kansas and faced with the Sophie’s choice of no BCS school or leaving KSU behind. I choose KU to the PAC every time. Even if the PAC gets screwed a bit on money this might be the best thing overall for college athletics to make sure Utah and KU end up in a BCS conference NOT called the MWC.

          Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Again, I don’t believe for a minute they’re going to the P16 without the Aggies and Sooners.

        Like

      • Justin says:

        Oklahoma and Texas A&M aren’t filler material. They are valuable brands. If they are removed from the equation, I’m not sure the PAC 10 or Texas are interested in a six team expansion.

        After all, Texas would then have to worry about playing OU and A&M out of conference.

        Like

    • Christian in Wylie, TX says:

      So Okie State would also go to the SEC, then? Then the whole Pac 16 falls apart and Texas has no choice but to become the southern outpost of the Big 16?

      Like

      • zeek says:

        If A&M/OU/OSU end up in the SEC, that means the Big Ten can make a much stronger counteroffer to the Pac-10.

        It would look something like Nebraska/Missouri and possibly Kansas although the K-State problem may be daunting…

        We don’t know the turns that this tale will take.

        The only thing that should be reasonably certain is that the Big Ten is hoping for an SEC strike on the Pac-10 deal if it really wants a shot at Texas at this point.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Or go to the SEC………

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          If A&M, OK., and OK ST. are serious about going to the SEC, I think they drag TX in with them…….losing your wife and biggest rival to join a conference only 9% of the fans want?? Don’t see it….

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Would add….going to PAC 10 with no A&M or OK. but with Tech and Baylor?? Don’t see that either…

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Texas has another option with a potential rival… Nebraska.

            Texas considers 3 schools to be on the same level with it in terms of athletics.

            A&M, OU, Nebraska.

            Right now A&M, OU are going with it to the Pac-10 in a new SWC. That’s all good and well and Texas likes that offer as it should.

            But if the SEC grabs OU and A&M. Then Texas is joining the Pac-10 with no marquee schools in terms of athletics.

            It may consider much more heavily going north with Nebraska.

            Until the SEC plays its hand, no one should prejudge Texas’ final decision.

            Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            If A&M, OK., and OK ST. are serious about going to the SEC, I think they drag TX in with them

            Texas will not be dragged by A&M and OU to the SEC. Are you drunk?

            Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom,

            going by the ESPN vote just in Texas.. the SEC was the leader behind the Big 12, the last thing you want is the state voters to get involved because the academics go out the window and the political guys will send texas to the SEC wether UT wants it or not.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Hopkins—As Duff mentions, SEC is more popular option in the public mind than Big 10 or even Pac 10. Throw in A&M and OK to the SEC, and you’d have a lot of momentum in that direction. I remember Powers’ comment to the effect that he wasn’t gonna send the women’s softball team to the frozen tundra…I think he meant it.

            Like

          • glenn says:

            does mushroom have a swastika in his little doily?

            Like

    • Christian in Wylie, TX says:

      Why is A&M free to do whatever they please, but Texas is weighed down by the Tech Problem and Baylor Problem?

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Because Tech and Baylor are smart enough to know that as long as they stick with UT their bread will be buttered.

        Texas is the one that will always land on its feet no matter what happens. Tech and Baylor are going to attach themselves to the most powerful host with the most options.

        Like

      • Hank says:

        why does the oldest child in the family gets more responsibility to look out for the younger siblings while the next oldest gets more leeway? it’s just the way things work out.

        Like

      • SH says:

        The perils of being the top dog. But UT knows this, A&M has an indirect Tech problem – meaning UT won’t allow them to just go leaving Tech to UT. Better to spread the Tech problem around – unless UT is fine going to Pac 10 without A&M.

        Like

      • StvInILL says:

        Tex A&M is seen as a more acceptable throw in if you can get a Texas out of it. Tech is a deal breaker. That’s about as clear as I can state it.

        Like

    • C Says says:

      OU can play UT in OOC game and still have no bearing for conference championship, not unlike old Big8/SWC setup. For A&M, they can still lose conference and win against UT for bragging rights. (actually no different than present). If I’m OU, I’m going east and taking UT with me to the Dallas dance each year. Could be that UT ends up with no one except Baylor and TT.

      Like

  72. Jeepers says:

    Garlic Naan.

    Like

  73. Robert says:

    Does anyone really have any idea what’s going to happen to Kansas in this mess? I mean, REALLY have an idea where they’re headed?

    I find it hard to believe that one of the five greatest basketball programs of all time is going to be relegated to the Mountain West. I know these super conferences are about money, TV sets and football for the most part. But still. I just have trouble wrapping my head around the concept of Kansas playing Wyoming, Air Force and Colorado State every year.

    Surely they’ll have a better option than that, even if it’s in a somewhat retooled Big East, right?

    Like

    • MIRuss says:

      Check Frank’s older posts, but I thought he had Kansas possibly ending up as part of the ACC or in a beefed up Conference USA in a future scenario? I know I had questions about Kansas and several others if the Big 12 were to fold. There would be additional fall out as the Pac 10 will grab some crumbs and possibly others (Utah and BYU – big if, too… Yes, it will be a mess for some otherwise great institutions.

      Like

      • Robert says:

        I imagine in we hit four 16-team conferences, there’s no way Kansas is left out of that. Surely they’ll wind up in the ACC-based conference at that point. I checked and there are only 65 teams in the six BCS conferences right now. So unless the BCS conferences start pulling a bunch of outsiders from other conferences like the Mountain West or CSU, there’s no way Kansas is left out at that point. But I also imagine that four superconferences may be several years down the road and they may have to take a temporary home elsewhere for the time being like the MWC or Big East.

        Like

    • zeek says:

      Yes, but if you’re a Kansas fan who wants the best possible landing spot, you should be hoping that the SEC blows up the Pac-10 deal or that Stanford does. Unlikely that the Big Ten can blow it up on its own.

      However, if the SEC moves in on OU/OSU/A&M, then the Big Ten might be able to offer Texas a spot in a Nebraska/Missouri and possibly Kansas grouping.

      The Pac-10 may also try to replace lost Big 12 teams in the deal with Kansas/KState. So the best thing Kansas can hope for is to blow up the Pac-10 deal.

      Kansas should land in an AQ conference, probably the Big East or something like that…

      Like

      • StvInILL says:

        Problem is in Kansases case , the Big ten needs to turn their eyes east after this if ND is not in the Mix. I also believe that Missouri’s slot is on the bubble if texas coems in with its wife, Texas A&M

        Like

        • zeek says:

          True but the Big Ten is only going to keep its eyes on Texas and Notre Dame until there’s clarity in terms of their direction.

          Right now, everyone’s waiting for the next piece of news (i.e. Stanford rejection or the SEC pounces or the Big Ten does something).

          It’s all a holding pattern until we get a blitz of movement and then deals will start to collapse and have to be remade.

          The Pac-10 deal looks certain right now, but the Pac-10 went all in. They have no alternative hand to play.

          Thus, the SEC and Big Ten are on the board. There’s no way they let time expire while they have hands to play.

          I don’t think Missouri is on the bubble. Missouri makes sense to finish off the Big 12 if the Big Ten really believes that Texas wants to move and that A&M/OU/OSU will bold.

          Why? The Big Ten will be waiting to make a deal with Texas after that.

          Texas will lose A&M/OU and then choose to go to the Pac-10 with who? Tech/Baylor/Colorado/Kansas/Kstate? Or will they come to the Big Ten with Nebraska/Missouri and possibly Notre Dame and even Kansas…

          Like

          • StvInILL says:

            I agree with most of what you said but I really do think that Missouri is on the bubble. A very favorable one. Nebraska is in and the big ten is holding out to get both ND and Texas. As you know Texas comes with baggage. I think they are really only looking to go to 14 and not directly to 16. Historically they have been a very conservative in membership. If the best case comes to fruition and they add NE, ND,TX Ta&m we have 14. If they are serious about 16 then they have to look east for somebody from the old neighborhood to make Joepa more comfortable. Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, Syracuse? So then its one of these and Mizzu or two of these and NO Mizzu. I can see this happening.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            When all is said and done, Missouri may end up being the lucky one in terms of its location instead of Rutgers. That’s a fascinating thought.

            I’m one of those who believes we’re more in line with a Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers line of expansion.

            But the Big Ten may invite Nebraska/Missouri and then wait to see what the SEC does if it gets an inkling that the SEC is about to make a move on OU/OSU and disrupt the Pac-16.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “If the best case comes to fruition and they add NE, ND,TX Ta&m we have 14.”

            There are 11 schools in the Big Ten; adding 4 schools gets you to 15.

            Like

          • StvInILL says:

            Yeah Zeek, I think missouri can do nothing but win a slot when you lose a texas or a ND or for sure both. Then the focus turns to an eastern expansion. ot that there is anything really wrong with Mizzu, just the big dominoes in the way. but at least they are not kansas. KU would fall further down the line.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah it’s tough to see how Kansas gets a spot in the dance unless A&M accepts an SEC invite, and the Big Ten and Pac-10 have to scramble to fix their offers…

            Like

          • StvInILL says:

            M(AG)I caught that after the fact. That’s just me forgetting adding Texas = 2 additions and not 1. Any way that leaves one slot and not two. its more critical then for #16.

            Like

    • Paul says:

      When all the dust clears, there could be three super-conferences (Big Ten, Pac-16, and SEC). Big Ten has Neb, Mo, ND, Rut, and Syr. Pac 16 has Big XII South with Colorado instead of Baylor. SEC will want to keep pace and so will grab four southern football schools from the ACC.

      That will leave 8 ACC teams, 6 Big East teams and one opening for the fourth super conference. The most logical thing to do in that case would be to have the 6 Big East teams plus Kansas and Kansas State merge into the ACC.

      ACC North: Boston College, U-Conn, Pitt, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville, Kansas, Kansas State.

      ACC South: Maryland, Virginia, Virginia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Duke, Wake Forest, South Florida.

      That would be an amazing basketball conference and an OK football conference.

      Like

  74. Ricky Bobby says:

    Also hearing supposed “inside” info that ND, Neb, Mizzou, Rutgers & Syracuse are headed to Big 10 as early as this week.

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      There is no way the BT is closing the door on Texas yet with those five.

      Like

      • Ricky Bobby says:

        Agreed. Just passing along rumors. Maybe Texas has closed the door though? It’s not like it’s going to be publicly announced.

        Like

    • duffman says:

      link??

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Very doubful….if ND was going to join, which is very unlikely, they would probably want long-time rival Pitt over Syracuse.

      Like

      • omnicarrier says:

        @mushroomgod said – “Very doubful….if ND was going to join, which is very unlikely, they would probably want long-time rival Pitt over Syracuse.”

        Agreed. Assuming ND even wants in, ND would want Pitt way more than SU, but they’d want SU over Rutgers and they would want Rutgers over Mizzou.

        The chain doesn’t stop there at simply Pitt or SU. Which is why an invite to Mizzou tells me ND is not on-board yet.

        Like

    • zeek says:

      Look.

      Only one hand has been played. The Pac-10 went all in and offered to create a new SWC for Texas.

      The SEC and Big Ten have not yet played their hands.

      Until the SEC declares that it does not want OU/OSU/A&M, we cannot make any assumptions about what will happen.

      Perhaps the Pac-10 deal goes off without a hitch. Then the Big Ten will have to start thinking differently. But that would require the SEC to entirely forgo the option of Texas/Oklahoma markets

      Like

      • JohnB says:

        Oklahoma alum here. A viable Pac16 option with Texas involved seems better for OU than going to the SEC without Texas. A hypothetical SEC schedule plus Texas OOC every year would be pretty brutal, while the Pac16 would leave OU with mostly familiar foes. The demographics of the Pac16 are good enough that adequate $ should be there.

        OTOH, if Texas heads north or Pac16 appears non-viable for some other reason, the SEC would be very attractive to OU and probably vice-versa. Cumulative numbers of Oklahoma, Arkansas and LSU-affiliated folks in Texas’ big markets would mean that any SEC network would get traction in D/FW, Houston, San Antonio and maybe Austin.

        Any thoughts why SEC would be more attractive to OU than Pac16?

        Like

        • M says:

          “Any thoughts why SEC would be more attractive to OU than Pac16?”

          Because OU views the NCAA as a menace rather than a guide? 😛

          Like

          • JohnB says:

            Our problems are chiefly in hoops now. And since Indiana hired Sampson from us AFTER he was caught and UM is having a few problems, maybe we’ll send our compliance team to the next Big Televen conference to give y’all some pointers on how to clean up. 😉

            Like

          • JohnB says:

            I meant “conference meeting”

            Like

    • doogie says:

      Doogie predicts:

      Mizzou/Neb/ND to Big 10

      Big 12 stays intact (Texas likes itself better than anyone else) and Big 12 stays alive by raiding the Pac 10, asking AZ and AZ state to join.

      Pac 10 gets the shaft and adds BYU and Utah.

      Case closed. Let’s go play football.

      Like

    • Vincent says:

      Extending the Boston College series probably minimizes Notre Dame’s desire to join the Big Ten — especially since the Big Ten has no interest in taking in BC and this would probably let Notre Dame make more scheduling demands on Big Ten officials (number of conference games, etc.), conditions the one-for-all Big Ten won’t accept.

      Right now, I sense the Big Ten is trying to keep the door open with Notre Dame to satisfy Texas, not the other way around. Eventually UT will call the Big Ten’s bluff and the conference will have to go in another direction, finding four partners to complement Nebraska (the only sure thing in expansion as of this time).

      Like

      • duffman says:

        NDman and Vincent,

        I see something else..

        I see it as ND moving to a God & Country Conference

        6 years is a commitment and BC is catholic

        Like

    • willarm1 says:

      Don’t see the connection.

      Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      ACC = Keyser Soze

      Like

  75. Endzone Boy says:

    Gee, for all the talk of money, athletics and such nobody has raise the issue of style. For some people the outfits those college boys wear are important. Of the possible schools, who have the cutest outfits? I really like the Texas band outfits, Village People anyone! Perhaps Hawaii should be considered. Are they still the rainbows?

    Like

  76. Hoffa says:

    I heard Nebraska got their official invite last night from the Big Ten.

    Like

  77. PSU69 says:

    Will all new members of the Big10 automatically become a member of the CIC? If they do, then I assume that each one would have to meet the charter requirements of the CIC. I don’t think Notre Dame does.

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      What requirement do they lack?

      Like

      • PSU69 says:

        Do they have a medical school?

        Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          No. Is that a requirement?

          Like

          • StvInILL says:

            I really dont think its an Auto. They are some hundrid year old insstitutions. They have time to work on it and an inside track.
            So you can play some football eh son? yes sir. well you want to join this here CIC along with Northwestern, University of Chicago, Michigan, Wisconsin amd Illinois? Hmmm????

            Like

          • PSU69 says:

            It’s my understanding that the CIC charter requires that a member have a medical school. I have not verified that yet from a second source.

            Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            Some googling around has not uncovered a copy of the charter. And wouldn’t his have been covered last time ND was invited?

            Like

          • AZ Hoosier says:

            ND does not have its own medical school. It does however house a campus of IU’s med school staffed to some degree by ND faculty. This is part of an agreement IU has with several state universities, including Purdue who also does not have their own medical school. That’s why I doubt a lack of a med school would be a serious obstacle.

            Like

    • James says:

      I’d love to know whether U of Chicago has any sway over who gets into CIC. Is there any reason they would feel slighted by allowing Nebraska, Missouri, et al into the CIC?

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I don’t believe they do. I believe it’s more that they implicitly trust that the Big Ten presidents will not do anything to harm the prestige of the Big Ten or CIC.

        Thus, Tech is not getting an invite.

        Nebraska and Missouri won’t reduce the prestige of the CIC.

        Like

      • Djinn Djinn says:

        First, the CIC is a membership open to Big Ten members. If anyone objects to a new school, it would be in joining the Big Ten. Once you get into the Big Ten, it’s mostly a formaality to join the CIC.

        Second, as much as people on this board criticize Nebraska or Missouri’s research levels as being inferior, it’s in comparison to what?

        Yes, the bigger research schools in the Big Ten do more than Nebraska and Missouri combined, but neither Nebraska nor Missouri is exactly weak in research. In fact, the U of C and Nebraska’s level of research in dollars (about $350 million) are almost identical. Nebraska did more than the U of C (in dollars) in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. U of C was just above Nebraska in 2008.

        Missouri is further behnd, but still, we’re talking a quarter billion dollars per year. It’s not Johns Hopkins or Duke money, but that’s still a lot of money. It would take Frank nearly two years to bill his clients that much.

        The only candidate schools way, way behind in research compared to the other candidate schools are Notre Dame, Syracuse and Boston College.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          DD,

          I am already on the Nebraska and Missouri bus.

          Like

          • Djinn Djinn says:

            Personally, I’m on Nebraska’s bus, simply because the BTN needs football product to show. On the athletic level, Missouri is just “okay”.

            Academically, these schools are again, “okay” to me. Not Texas Tech, but not exactly at a Texas, UNC, Virginia sort of level. They don’t elevate the Big Ten in this regard.

            And while I used to do research in my younger days and am a big advocate for research schools, I have no objection to their research levels. To me, they’re completely respectable.

            So I’d be excited about Nebraska football joining. Looking at the rest of the package, it’s just a so-so addition to me.

            Overall, I’d concentrate on being pleased to see the Badgers play the Huskers.

            Like

    • Mike R says:

      I’m not sure the broader ND community wants in to the CIC. The 1999 experience shows that the faculty of ND deeply want this, and possibly the administration is interested in repositioning ND as a research heavyweight, but students and alums are notceably cool to this. Plus, I’d ask knowledgeable ND commenters like FLP and Rich2 whether ND folk are concerned that CIC would need to accomodate ND’s religious/conscience reservations to some forms of research performed at CIC institutions.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Naw. FLP_NDRox has already alluded to the fact that pretty much everyone cited the CIC as a bonus for ND research, even the people who were opposed to football joining the Big Ten.

        The CIC in its mission statement and by-laws is entirely a voluntary system of collaboration, so ND has nothing to worry about in terms of any research it would not want to take part in. Member universities propose projects and participate in the ones they want to, and the CIC-wide (meaning all 11) member projects are the most non-controversial, i.e. students going to other universities for a period of time or sharing libraries or a computing system, etc.

        Like

      • Djinn Djinn says:

        Do you honestly think Notre Dame could dictate who in the Big Ten is doing what research? Wisconsin is arguably the leader in the US in stem cell research. The work already done there may result in a Nobel Prize. There is no way on earth they would care what priests at Notre Dame think about their research.

        Besides, the CIC doesn’t control who does what research. The only thing it does is facilitate cooperation. Shared facilities, communal buying (for cheaper equipment), etc. You don’t want to cooperate? You don’t want access to one school’s specialized facilities? You don’t want cheaper equipment? You don’t want your students to be able to go to, say, Borneo to study orangutans with a specialist from Minnesota? Then don’t participate with the CIC. But it’s not like it’s dictating who does what.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I agree. Nebraska and Missouri fit in perfectly in the CIC.

          Plus, they have the advantage of being like Wisconsin etc. in not having double state schools…

          Like

        • Derrick says:

          If ND sends its priests to study orangutans, maybe that will mean altar boys can walk that streets safe at night. Win-win for everybody.

          Yeah- low blow. Whatcha gonna do about it?

          Like

    • Djinn Djinn says:

      I don’t have a copy of the CIC’s charter in this pair of pants, but I don’t believe having a medical school is a requirement to join the CIC.

      Like

  78. duffman says:

    If I am Slive my board might look something like this..

    round 1

    TX, A&M, OU, Nebraska (3 new states – football value)

    round 2

    A&M, OU, UNC, UVA (4 new states – nails down east and west)

    round 3

    A&M, OU, NC State, Va Tech (4 new states – nails down east and west)

    this could go on, but goes back to my earlier conversation.. about in state rivals not in the same conference.. with NC state and Va Tech or A&M and OU.. you are actually long term adding strength to the SEC. Texas and UNC will over time strengthen bonds with the SEC via their in state rivals not weaken them. just an observation if things go to 20 or 24 in a decade or two.

    I keep looking at the SEC OOC, and see these pairs as strength in TV viewing not a weakness..

    If Michigan plays Central Michigan OOC where are the national viewers, but if Florida plays FSU OOC there is a national audience. It may be the secret of the SEC as they play these games at the end of the season when the votes are most crucial. Just an observation.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I’m still skeptical of the notion that Slive will ignore Oklahoma’s “state problem” and just go after Oklahoma.

      The Pac-10 move was noted for its boldness in eliminating any political pressures by offering slots to OSU/Tech (and even the Baylor v. Colorado tussle for the last slot). I don’t see why the SEC wouldn’t make the same calculation and cleanly attempt to take OU and OSU away together.

      Taking just OU actually enables OU to reject the SEC if OSU/Oklahoma legislators get on the bandwagon.

      I don’t see Slive making that kind of move unless he really believes that OU and OSU aren’t tied together, which is debatable when you look at the Pac-10 move.

      Like

      • JohnB says:

        I haven’t live in OK for a while, but suspect that state politics would make it tough for OU to go anywhere without OSU (or without OSU having its own good option, which seems less likely).

        Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Why would the SEC want Nebraska?

      Like

      • duffman says:

        FLP..

        a) Football Brand
        b) Chess Move – blocks Big 10
        c) Single State school
        d) AAU

        why not, if Nebraska looks good to the Big 10, why not the SEC? It is why I worry the longer Nebraska is not in the Big 10 family. We keep assuming they will be Big 10, but no formal invitation has been extended. A woman wants to be wanted, the longer the Big 10 waits the more Nebraska is a wallflower.

        Like

        • Husker Al says:

          Nebraska will not end up in the SEC. Not gonna happen.

          Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Yeah, but which SEC team is going to play there in November?

          Like

          • StvInILL says:

            I don’t think there is any doubt here in big ten country that when the dust clears ,Nebraska will be in the BT. However Delany might be waiting on Stanford to Nix the Pac Ten deal, When that happens there are more slots for Texas if he really feels he has to take tech. But then the same applies here. Does NW, WI, IL, Mich all approve tech? Do any of the others? Its 8 out of 11 to pass. My sense is that Nebraska gets their 8 votes when the time comes

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “Yeah, but which SEC team is going to play there in November?”

            Well, if they come in as a pair, Oklahoma would be the natural option.

            Like

        • zeek says:

          The SEC isn’t going to go after a school it can’t get.

          It’s obvious that Nebraska and the Big Ten were going to get together.

          Why would the Pac-10 or SEC embarass themselves trying to pry Nebraska away…?

          Like

  79. duffman says:

    Patrick,

    are you still out there?

    if so what is the value of Texas resell if it is in the SEC?

    I think our friend in Baton Rouge said it adds 10 Million to Florida’s bottom line? I this is true then Texas would have a form of the Longhorn Network under the SEC umbrella.

    I am still not sure how the SEC works this but 17 Million + 10 Million for texas sounds like a better deal than 22 Million from BTN?

    Sorry, Scott van Pelt was suggesting Texas to the SEC when everybody here has said no way. I am trying to see what sweetener the SEC brings to the pot that Silve has not disclosed.

    Maybe it is how secondary money get passed through the SEC?

    Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      Oh, if Scott van Pelt was saying that Texas would go to the SEC, that changes everything.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        nice sarcasm HH, my point is as it was addressed to PATRICK was about the side money. If they can get and additional 10+ million annually out of being in the SEC like Florida then it is a money decision.

        If Florida gets an extra 10 million, maybe Texas can get 12 – 16 Million more a year in the SEC and that is REAL $$. early on I thought it was straight splits like the Big 10, but a later post said it was splits + side money.

        it was a serious question, my point is SVP works for ESPN and I would hazzard a guess the folks at ESPN understand the contracts better than you are I.

        Like

        • Patrick says:

          Duffman, I haven’t run anything for the SEC or looked at the contracts, but they DON’T have their own network, so adding teams to add content is a lost arguement unless they develop one. I am sure that Texas would add value to the league but I have no idea how much. To increase the value for every team in the SEC that much ($10 million) an addition of Texas & Texas A&M to get to 14 teams would have to convince ESPN / CBS to up the value of their contracts by $140 million per year. Possible I guess but unlikely. Probably more money available bu developing a PAC 16 network since the business model is established.

          Overall though, I am not sure. Haven’t calculated that, and don’t have any inside info with respect to SEC teams.

          Like

          • SH says:

            A BTN, an SEC network, a P10 Network. Does anyone else hope that this leads to a weakened ESPN – or an ESPN with some competition. Their monopoly on sports while it has been beneficial is starting to grate on me – and GameDay is probably my favorite ESPN show (outside PTI). Just another added benefit that I see in the long term.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Patrick,

            I was not talking about the SEC with a BTN type system. It was more of a secondary individual to each school. I though I read back awhile ago that it was additive to each SEC school but not on an equal basis so Florida got 10 million last year and LSU got 5 or 6. It would make sense for UK with their basketball because it would help defray a basketball salary that rivals top college football salaries.

            This secondary revenue source (unlike the BTN) passes through to individual schools which might be big for Texas as they are more like Florida than LSU. Which is my the 17 Million (sec) might skew better than 20 Million (btn) we keep seeing in some of these blogs..

            thanks

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            Remember, ESPN has its own network called ESPNU that has a lot of SEC programming on it. Any school it loses to a Pac 10 network or the Big 10 network gives it more competition and less programming. It has a lot of interest in paying for good, large market programs.

            Like

    • Lobills