Chicago Blackhawks Honorary Expansionpalooza Thread (and One More Super Death Star Conference Rumor)

Posted: June 9, 2010 in Big East, Big Ten, Chicago Blackhawks, College Basketball, College Football, Illinois Fighting Illini, NHL Hockey, Sports
Tags: , , , ,

Any other evening I’d be writing a full blown expansion post considering all of the news and speculation today, but the mighty Blackhawks have just won their first Stanley Cup in 49 years!!!  It was a little weird that Patrick Kane was the only person in the building that realized that he scored a goal for about 5 minutes, but it more than worth the wait considering that Chicago hockey fans have been suffering for five decades.  A tad over 3 years ago, I went to a Hawks-Red Wings game with one of my buddies where the United Center was about half full and the majority of people that were there were Detroit fans.  Yet, Rocky Wirtz has been able to completely reverse what seemed to be irreversible damage that his late father had caused to its fan base.  I wrote this piece last year about the Hawks being the “Prodigal Franchise” of Chicago and how it has gone about regaining an entire generation of lost fans.  Well, those fans definitely aren’t lost anymore.  As I sit here in my Blackhawks sweater tonight, I’ve been able to witness arguably the greatest NFL team ever (the ’85 Bears), the greatest set of basketball teams ever (the ’90s Bulls dynasty), my baseball team crush the Curse of the Black Sox (the ’05 White Sox), an Illini berth in the national championship game (with the ’05 Elite Eight comeback game against Arizona that was the most unbelievable sports event that I have ever witnessed) and now a Stanley Cup.  Heck, Illinois might retroactively win the Rose Bowl that I attended 2 years ago depending what sanctions get hammered on USC.  Looking back, the Sports Gods have blessed me beyond belief.  Plus, we’ve got many more years to enjoy Patrick Kane and Jonathan Toews.  Congrats Hawks!!!

Now, as for the latest on expansion:

Reports all over are confirming that Nebraska has been invited to the Big Ten, including the Chicago Tribune.  Most of the regular readers of this blog established fairly early on that Nebraska would be the most likely school to be invited to the Big Ten and I’ve been getting info for awhile supporting that.

It can’t be that simple, though, right?  If you’ve been following my Twitter feed (@frankthetank111), I had a brief interaction with @FakeJimDelany where he asked me whether I had bugged his phone, to which I replied, “I only get my info from Northwestern message boards.”  Well, the Northwestern message boards put up another doozy of a rumor tonight: in addition to Nebraska, the Big Ten will be offering invites to Texas, Texas A&M, Notre Dame and Missouri.  The Missouri invite, however, is contingent upon either Texas or Notre Dame accepting.  Who knows how this is going to play out and whether the Big Ten would truly hand out invites (or more specifically, asking the candidates to fill out the applications for invites) without knowing whether the answer is yes, but I do know that the poster (who had written the infamous post that reportedly sent Jim Delany flying off the handle, was removed for a couple of weeks and is now back online) has a legit and direct connection to the Big Ten office.  So, if this offer is true, the choice for Texas is what I laid out in yesterday’s “Double Chess” post: the comfortable Kia of the Pac-10 that won’t upset its Lone Star neighbors or the Rolls Royce of the new Big Ten.

Regardless, Chicago is the center of the sports world on multiple levels for the next few days.  The Blackhawks are bringing the Cup home.  Let’s see who Jim Delany ends up bringing over to Park Ridge.

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

(Image from Chicago Tribune)

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Hopkins Horn says:

    Congrats again, Frank!

    Like

  2. zeek says:

    Playoffs Now! put this up recently, lets see if anything happens. From Chip Brown’s twitter:

    Nebraska and Texas officials are denying what Orangebloods.com is reporting. Let’s see how it plays out. I like our chances. 33 minutes ago via TweetDeck

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      Chip has no inner knowledge of what is going on at Nebraska at all.

      Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      And, Chip, it’s a bit late in the game to start trying to create some plausible deniability that you’ve been feed all this info by UT up until now.

      Like

    • Scott C says:

      My reply to this on the previous thread:

      In their defense, they are denying that a vote took place and that an invitation was extended. Can’t have a vote because it has to occur at the public meeting due to laws and the invitation will never happen as Nebraska has to apply, not be invited. I’m sure they have assurances, from the Big Ten that they’d be approved, though.

      Also, Chip Brown was reporting that a vote took place while the conference call was still going on. So unless these regents are sending him secret IMs, he’s just pulling it out of nowhere. Remember, this is the guy that stated Missouri was a lock and Nebraska should be worried it would left out of the expansion last week. He has no contacts with Nebraska or the Big Ten, he initially was just inserting his own speculation about Nebraska and Missouri into the Pac-10 story, and now he is just regurgitating the same stuff that’s being reported by writers with actual connections like Teddy Greenstein and Lee Barfknecht and stuff that’s talked about on this board.

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        It wasn’t even a full Regents meeting. It was an executive meeting with a few members of the board of regents to formally add the expansion topic to their public agenda (something that had to be done by noon central Thursday. And Yes, Chip reported they had voted to go to the Big 10 without A) legally being able to vote and B) while they were still on their conference call.

        Like

  3. K says:

    Another day another full inbox

    Like

  4. Hopkins Horn says:

    Oh, I think we’re in endgame now. I didn’t believe the NW board before and I don’t believe it now. The dreams of State College and East Lansing will remain, alas, mere dreams.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Oh I agree. I’m already on the Maryland bandwagon.

      Like

    • Cliff's Notes says:

      I do believe the fact that the Big Ten hasn’t finalized a Plan B. If ND, UT, and A&M join with NE, then it doesn’t matter who #16 is. There are probably too many variables to sort out to have a Plan B right now. Also, I do believe that the Big XII deadline did force The Big Ten’s hand, and the Nebraska invite would not have happened were it not for Dan Beebe.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I’m not entirely so sure.

        There are only really a couple of routes that the Big Ten can rationally follow if the focus is on ND and Texas the entire time.

        Yes Plan A is to focus on Texas until the last moment, but Plan B is to create a plausible 16 team conference around Nebraska/ND.

        You can easily accomplish that by looking east at Rutgers and possibly Maryland/VA or something else in the ACC if those teams are willing to move.

        Admittedly, Plan B is as hard to pull of as Plan A due to the ACC being a stable conference.

        But it’s not a horrible backup plan by any means. Losing Texas to the Pac-10 is a lost opportunity but it doesn’t mean demographics will destroy the Big Ten by any means. Removing the only BCS conference outside of the South/East is a huge deal for the Big Ten and Pac-10 brands…

        Like

        • Cliff's Notes says:

          zeek,

          Plan B including any of Maryland, UVA, UNC, Miami, Ga Tech, Vanderbilt…. I’m obviously guessing, but I don’t get the feeling that any of these schools have reached the point where The Big Ten has been told “we’re coming” as openly as Missouri, or as much as we assume that Rutgers or Pitt would jump at the chance. Also, some of these schools might only join conditionally. Maybe Miami only comes if Notre Dame joins.

          That is why I don’t think the Plan B is etched in stone.

          Like

        • DavidPSU says:

          I thought that Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State just pledged their loyalty to the Big Twelve last week. So 2 schools just left– Nebraska and Colorado. Find two new schools (perhaps Utah and BYU) and move on! Didn’t those schools just pledge to stay in the Big Twelve? Why is everyone saying that the Big Twelve is dead? If those schools move to the Pac 10, then they are hypocrites and look worse than Nebraska and Colorado. At least those schools were honest about their intentions.

          Like

    • twk says:

      The impression I’m getting, from the A&M angle, is that all the leaks have been coming straight from Bellmont (it’s going to be painful for Chip Brown when he has Deloss’s hand pulled out of his ass), and that they’ve put together this Pac 10 package without much consultation with anyone else. The A&M camp is divided on which way to go, so this meeting tomorrow could be interesting. Do Deloss and Bill Powers turn on the charm, or do they lecture on the Aggies on this is how it’s going to be, and cause A&M to pull in the opposite direction?

      Like

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        Do Deloss and Bill Powers turn on the charm, or do they lecture on the Aggies on this is how it’s going to be, and cause A&M to pull in the opposite direction?

        Hilarious how many Aggies think in cartoons.

        Like

  5. Sportsman24 says:

    Exhange MU for Pitt and that would be about as close to perfect as possible.

    Like

  6. Kyle says:

    Bacon

    Like

  7. Scott C says:

    Grats, Frank. Makes me wish I had an NHL team to follow (still holding out for KC getting a team someday 😦 ).

    Like

    • PensfaninLAexile says:

      Bettman & Co are morons for trying to keep the Yotes in the desert. That’s never gonna work — bad arena situation, plus you can’t get loyalty when your fanbase thinks you could move within a year or two.

      Let them go to KC or Seattle before the Memphis Grizzlies do.

      Like

      • Scott C says:

        There’s something about Phoenix and hockey that just doesn’t make any sense. Seattle and KC would be great hockey cities.

        Like

      • JJ says:

        How bout this? Send them to Winnipeg?

        Like

        • PensfaninLAexile says:

          Does that mean they regain all rights to the ‘white out?’

          And, is it just me, or does Philly’s orange crush make their arena look vacant? Reminds me of the old joke about fans showing up disguised as empty seats.

          Like

      • pioneerlion says:

        Better yet, contract the Coyotes. There are too many teams in the NHL, and too much dilution of talent. KC cannot support the Royals or Chiefs without the whiny small market windfall of “revenue sharing”, and neither of them are competitive with the tens of $M they do get.

        Seattle may be a better home, give the successes of the WCHL, but can they also support the NHL when they can barely support the Sonics???

        Just contract the Coyotes and stop the madness that is/was galactically stupid NHL expansion below the Mason-Dixon line. NHL should focus on promoting the established franchises – like the ones that just finished a great Stanley Cup final with huge TV ratings increases – than continue the folly of expansion and expedient expansion “fees”. Its all fools gold, as it just dilutes the product and talent into markets that cannot support their teams year in-year out and the rest of the league fans could care less about them; markets which then whine for more “revenue sharing” and more special favors to stay competitive.

        Like

    • Derrick says:

      I’m in KC too, and these playoffs have been the first time I’ve watched any hockey since the early 90’s (last time the Hawks were good). I would definitely support a KC team- those arenas are NUTS during the playoffs!

      Like

  8. PensfaninLAexile says:

    Here’s a puzzle for the lawyers out there:

    The schools leaving the B12 will have to forfeit about $10 million each in 2010 TV money (I think that’s from ESPN). So, let’s say Mizzou makes it out (50-50) – that’s $80 million that could be split among the 4 rump schools, or $20 million each.

    Now, it takes 9 votes to officially dissolve the B12. Assuming that none of the remaining 4 take a bribe to vote to dissolve (looking at you, Baylor), then the B12 will not be officially dissolved – only 8 votes are out there to do that. It occurs to me that the rump schools would not want to go to the MWC or CUSA – if they accepted invites to those conferences while the B12 is still in operation (until the end of the 2010-11 season), they might not be able to get the $20 million severance. Would that be the case?

    If they forfeit the cash by accepting an invite within the next year, I doubt they go. You better believe the bankrupt Colorado program would make every effort and look for every loophole to keep its $10 million.

    So, let’s say the B12 has to legally exist and the leftovers cannot accept invites for the next year. What do they do? The best move seems to be to invite teams from the MWC or CUSA to the B12 (or 8). The other possibility is a ‘reverse takeover’ by the MWC.

    In that scenario, the question becomes: do the departing teams still get to vote on conference matters? If they do, then they would probably vote against inviting new schools in order to force a dissolution. After all, the remaining schools need to get a conference schedule for 2011 (unless they want to do a bunch of home-and-home games). If the departing schools lose their voting rights upon accepting an invite, then the leftovers can invite whoever they want and get a $20 million severance check.

    If the leftovers can only get the $20 million each by keeping the B12 alive and are the only ones who get to decide on conference matters, then it seems likely that they will invite MWC/CUSA teams to come into the husk of the B12 – KU, KSU, BU, and ISU would then stick together. That would be an attractive option for MWC and CUSA teams – prospective entrants might even get a little financial inducement. The B12 would survive (at least in name – or maybe it would revert to the B8) and might have enough decent teams to hold onto its BCS bid.

    Any lawyers out there know if the above scenario is plausible?

    Like

    • Nostradamus says:

      There is conflicting information on whether or not dissolution is the super majority 9 or or simple majority 7 (6 if Nebraska is already gone). I personally still think it is the simple majority per Delaware Corporate Law as the Big XII bylaws don’t contain an overriding dissolution provision.

      Like

      • PensfaninLAexile says:

        I think I read the 9 votes bit on ESPN, but could be wrong.

        Like

        • Nostradamus says:

          No you read it right, there are just conflicting reports on what is accurate. The Big 12 requires 9 votes for most decisions, but it doesn’t specify 9 votes for dissolution in its bylaws, which potentially opens the door for a simple majority dissolution of 7 (6 if the Huskers have left).

          Like

      • PensfaninLAexile says:

        Is Nebraska really gone?

        Do you think that acceptance of an invitation from another conference constitutes a legally-defined departure?

        Or is the departure the date of the last game played in the B12 — i.e. the last activity that will occur within the structure of the B12?

        Like

        • Michael in Indy says:

          When VT and Miami accepted invitations to the ACC in the summer of 2003, they remained official Big East members until 6/30/04. The next day they were officially in the ACC. Same story for BC, except they became members on 7/1/05.

          Best guess is that it would work the same for the Big 12.

          Like

    • zeek says:

      While you’re right that in theory they could stay and vote as long as they don’t leave the conference in some sense, I doubt we’d see that happen.

      Maybe they’ll all cut deals so that they can join the Pac-10 in a year.

      But more likely, they’ll let those 4 teams remaining decide on schools to invite into their fold. I don’t see them trying to shaft them more than they already will be affected negatively by all of this. Then we could see politicians jump all over this much more than they already are, and it would turn into a public relations nightmare.

      Like

      • PensfaninLAexile says:

        There’s $10 million per school at stake. If there’s a chance to save some of that cash, I can’t imagine all 8 just walk away — could be a negotiation.

        Everyone is taking some kind of PR hit — it’ll all be white noise soon.

        Like

        • jtower says:

          But if a simple majority can dissolve the conference and the supermajority is needed to waive exit fees, it seems that they would want to come to agreement to keep the conference, waive the fees and bring on new members to maintain AQ status. OTOH if AQ status is given to the top six conferences, without the b12 I believe the mwc would automatically become AQ.

          Like

      • Guido says:

        That’s going to be the interesting thing to watch if the Big 12 is left with 4 teams. I tend to think your point on starting Pac-10 play in a year is the most likely scenario. It also kills a lot of the money teams might owe, because as I understand, you forfeit 50% of the league revenue, but there is no revenue if the teams are all playing elsewhere.

        Like

        • PensfaninLAexile says:

          The drop-dead date for 50% was June 1 (I believe). At this point, I think the forfeiture is 80%.

          The forfeiture is for TV money that will be paid for the upcoming season. So, the 7-8 departing teams essentially play for 20 cents on the dollar this season.

          I am guessing the TV contract is then canceled for 2011-12. Lawyers agree or disagree?

          Like

    • Albino Tornado says:

      I don’t know that we’ve established exactly what conference dissolution rules are — they’re not stated in the bylaws ( http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410/pdfs/handbook/Bylaws.pdf?DB_OEM_ID=10410 ), and one would have to access the Delaware Article of Incorporation for the Big 12. I’m sure someone in the press is going to pony up for a copy Real Soon Now.

      Like

      • GOPWolv says:

        If 9 is still required, the chump schools get the cash. Nebraska and the B12South are in breach as soon as they officially join another conference (or leave the B12). The Chumps could stick around just long enough to collect the cash and informally accept invite to another conf.

        Like

        • Pezlion says:

          I highly doubt it will happen that way. First, the departing supermajority will figure out a way to get it done legally without having to forfeit all of that money. Second, I’m pretty sure that the four can’t remain a “conference” under NCAA rules for a long enough period of time to collect on the payments.

          Like

          • PensfaninLAexile says:

            NCAA rules don’t seem applicable. I believe from a legal standpoint, the B12 is a non-profit corporation / association with rules and bylaws. It is still a legal entity. There are still contracts. What do the courts care if there are 4 or 12 members?

            Like

    • angryapple says:

      Delaware Corporation all the way.

      I think it is highly possible that Nebraska and the six new Pac-10 members will vote to officially dissolve the Big 12 next week, before any of them sign any papers related to joining the Big Ten or the Pac-10.

      The Big Twelve could cease to be a conference before the fiscal year end date of June 30 and Nebraska could be playing @Iowa on October 2, 2010. Is it really that big a deal to re-release the Big Ten and Pac-16 schedules on July 1 for games that won’t take place until three full months later?

      I see no reason to sacrifice a $10 million exit fee, an 80% reduction in Big 12 TV revenue from a year of conference play no one wants to be involved in, and a potential $30 million first year payout from the Big Ten voluntarily. Tell the four or five left-behinds that they’re going to get nothing and like it, and then fight the lawsuits in the courts just like Boston College and the ACC did in 2003.

      Like

      • buckeyebeau says:

        well said.

        if 7-8 of your members are leaving for other conferences, those 7-8 vote to change whatever rules need to be changed to avoid whatever needs to be avoided.

        I’d add the thought that, maybe for PR and to smooth some hard feelings, the 7-8 DO offer the remaining 4 something in terms of $$.

        But, your last sentence hits the right note; if you can’t buy out the remaining four, then say “you get nothing” and just deal with the litigation.

        Like

  9. Playoffs Now! says:

    Dang, I’m really torn on this. Love the P16 idea, even if the Agghats go to the SEC (we’ll just plug in UH or KS or Utah.) Better road trips, hipper, a more natural fit, Sun N’ Fun. The best chance at getting true symmetry in college football: 4 or 5 16-team conferences. If TX goes B10+, it is virtually impossible for the P10 to get to 16, so we’d forever be stuck with unbalanced conferences and a higher risk of not getting any kind of playoff.

    OTOH, love the unsurpassed academic heft of a conference with 15 AAU members. Love playing ND every year. But really bleh with MO being the 16th. Far better to get GT or Vandy instead. Each only a 10-20 minutes further plane ride than Columbia, about the same as Lincoln. Each would be a great fan trip, both are academic stars, and Vandy would be a great shot across the SEC’s bow. Yeah, the SEC types would try and blow it off as improving their football SOS, but it still would send a huge message of “You’re academically 2nd-tier.” Thus Vandy or GT would be a more sexy addition.

    TX and aTm to the B10+ guarantees there will be at least 5 BCS conferences, and perhaps doesn’t kill the B12. A reloading B12 paves the way for schools like TCU, UH, Utah, BYU, and maybe even SMU to move up to a BCS AQ conference. OTOH, the BEast may well survive while Boise could be stuck on the outside. 6+ BCS conferences could actually work against creating a bowl-based playoff, because there may not be enough wildcards to satisfy the power conferences.

    With a P16 there’s a risk of going to 4×16 and leaving too many schools out, but that’s so politically risky that we’d probably see a 5th leftover super conference to mop things up. 5 conf champs and 3 wildcards is perfect for feeding 4 BCS bowls, (since the P16 and B10+ would share the Rose.) Even if the ACC didn’t go to 16, we’d still probably end up with 5 power conferences. And that could trigger an early
    renegotiation of the BCS contract, so a good shot at just 2 more years without a playoff.

    Wow, I’m near flip a coin territory, but leaning P16 in preference. I guess either way there’s plenty to be happy about. I expect the P16 invites will be accepted.

    BTW, if the Ags screw this up and go to the SEC, hopefully the legislators force them to take Baylor with ’em!

    Like

    • AggieFrank says:

      A&M to the SEC doesn’t screw anything up and it still has a real chance of happening. UT will just have to deal with it.

      Like

      • glenn says:

        who? ut? who dat, ag?

        Like

      • IrishTexan says:

        I might be wrong, but isn’t the legislature okay if Texas and A&M split, so long as both are headed to healthy conferences?

        Like

        • Kyle says:

          That was my impression as well. I thought Texas did not want A&M to go to the SEC because that would give them some recruiting momentum. Texas would prefer A&M close and mediocre for their own recruiting purposes.

          Like

        • Playoffs Now! says:

          I might be wrong, but isn’t the legislature okay if Texas and A&M split, so long as both are headed to healthy conferences?
          Reply

          Probably, though the governor wants them to stick together. Could also be an attempt to force TX to the SEC with aTm. Screw that.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            The best solution to the penalty and dissolution problem is to let A&M go to the SEC, freeing up another slot in the Pac 10 for Kansas. If Mizzou gets a Big Ten invite, then you have 9 of the Big XII member voting to dissolve. Only K-State, Iowa State, and Baylor are left.

            Like

          • Midwest Aggie says:

            The rumor mill is is now saying the governor of Texas, who is an A&M grad but sucks up royally to the school in Austin, is trying to keep the band together. That includes the Baptists on the Brazos. The meeting this afternoon may become a “Come to Jesus” meeting, or end with a whimper. Former coach at A&M and Alabama, as well as current regent at A&M, Gene Stallings is pushing for A&M to ditch the others and go to the SEC.

            The problem arises with the politicians holding back funds, earmarked as academic, associated with the oil business to both the A&M and Texas schools. Will either Texas or A&M want to upset the politicians by losing out on academic monies? The ultimate decision making is to convoluted and there are ramifications if someone were to feel jilted.

            Texas will not be shoe-horned into the SEC. They have made that perfectly clear.

            Like

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        Take OU with you….um…but we’ll have to bring our kid brother along is that ok? I’ mean he’s not a bad kid really

        Like

  10. Sportsman24 says:

    FtT,

    Congrats to you & your ‘Hawks. Alas, my Blues aren’t going to contend for the Cup any time soon. Have some champagne for me!

    Like

  11. Scott C says:

    Off-Topic *BREAKING NEWS*
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    http://bit.ly/9YXMNa3
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    “The USC football program will receive two-year postseason ban, a reduction in scholarships and a forfeiture of wins from at least the 2004 season when the NCAA releases it sanctions on Thursday, a source told ESPN’s Shelley Smith.”

    Like

    • zeek says:

      If only USC didn’t have such a huge cloud over it, the Pac-10 may not have been as willing to give the store away to Texas and co., and we may have seen a Big Ten endgame.

      Like

  12. es says:

    As a Pens fan since ’88 (when i was 11 yrs old) I was so fucking pumped when they won the Cup last year. It had felt like they hadn’t won it in decades even though it had been a (relatively) short 18 years.

    I can’t imagine how great it must feel to win one, as an original 6 franchise, after 49 years of waiting.

    Congrats to the ‘hawks, their fans, and the great city of Chicago. Soak it in and enjoy the next few months. You’ve just won the greatest trophy in all of sports.

    Oh, and good luck dealing with the salary cap…maybe trade a skilled winger to the Penguins for next to nothing???

    Like

  13. HoosierMike says:

    I guess now that the Pac-10 have gone “public” with their invitation, the Big 10 may have to go public as well to level the playing field. I’m sure the Pac10 seems like the natural fit for the entire B12South (sans Baylor) for the majority of folks. Plus, B12S to the P10 has ruled the airwaves for the last 48hrs. If the B10 wants a fair shake in the court of public opinion, they need to go public. Then at least they’ve got a shot of changing the discussion from

    B12S to P10 v. Status Quo

    to

    CIC for UT v. No CIC for UT?

    Would a public conversation about Research $$s be enough to break the Tech shackles?

    Like

  14. greg says:

    go hawks!!!!!

    Like

  15. Playoffs Now! says:

    Brought over from the other thread, because it mirrors what the B10+ has been discussing (reconfirmed tonight in Teddy Greenstein’s article):

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5270048

    …The coach said it’s possible the Pac-16 would push for two automatic bids to the BCS, one for each division champion. That potential bonanza could open the possibility of the two division champs from one league playing for the national title, and it would eliminate the need for a conference championship game.

    “The Pac-10 doesn’t believe in a championship game,” the coach said. “And coaches in the Big 12 don’t like it anyway.”

    In one sense you could say TX would be going from a 12 school conference to a de facto 8 school one. However it still would require playing 9 conference games to get the BCS bid, just as now.

    Might this suggest that we’d see one or more bowls added to the BCS?

    Like

    • es says:

      The Cotton Bowl (played in the Deathstar, aka JerryWorld) will be a BCS bowl in the very near future.

      Like

    • Scott C says:

      Cotton Bowl for sure. I don’t know what would come after that. Capital One Bowl, maybe? Though, I’d they’d force them to start calling it the Capital One Florida Citrus Bowl again or just drop “Florida” from it.

      Like

    • HoosierMike says:

      I can’t see any of the other BCS AQ conferences agreeing to this. It puts them at an immediate and significant disadvantage in terms of grabbing BCS bowling
      dollars.

      Like

    • buckeyebeau says:

      hmm… that would sadden me if the P16 and B16 eschew their respective conference champ games; with 16, the cross divisional games are few and far between. TX plays @ Washington once a decade, IIRC other posts and posters who actually did the “math.”

      So, my Buckeyes wouldnt get to play Big Red very often. and even less often without the champ. game. (grin)

      so, to that idea: BOO HISS!

      Like

  16. Cochese says:

    yay hockey is over (for like 2 weeks)

    scrapple

    Like

  17. Hoffa says:

    Dear Big Ten: Roll out the red carpet for the Big Red

    By Dennis Dodd
    CBSSports.com Senior Writer

    Nebraska’s history is filled with legendary players such as quarterback Tommy Frazier.

    They’re special, Jim, so be kind. In fact, a red carpet of some kind wouldn’t be considered over the top.

    They are the Big Red. The only Big Red that matters. Nebraska. A program that forged its reputation playing walk-ons from the state’s cornfields. It was recruiting New Jersey before Rutgers had a clue. At one time, its coaches used to know California better than The Governator.

    It is a national program with incredibly deep local roots so be gentle, Jim, because Nebraska football isn’t a “brand” or “inventory” as you like to call the games you sell to networks. Nebraska football isn’t just something to fill air time on the Big Ten Network. It is a culture. It is brawn. It is Outlands, Heismans.

    It is the Great Plains version of Michigan — with its pride still intact.

    Now it’s all yours, Jim. Don’t mess it up. Don’t make Nebraska football into … Purdue, something lost in the haze of a 16-team conference. I’m talking to you, Jim Delany. This is on you, the Big Ten commissioner. You didn’t just invite a school or a team or a program. You invited a state, its people, its past, its future, its ethic.

    You invited 45 percent of Notre Dame Stadium. That’s the percentage of red that showed up in the Irish’s football shrine when the teams met in 2000. You invited one half of the Game of the Century. You invited those thousands of balloons that are released into the Lincoln sky after the home team’s first touchdown. You invited Devaney, Osborne, Gill, Rozier, Alberts, Wistrom and Suh.

    You invited the Corn Belt to the Rust Belt. Will the fit be more comfortable than Nebraska’s long-distance relationship with Texas? We’ll see. Nebraska AD/legend Tom Osborne didn’t want to leave the Big 12. He really didn’t. Nebraska would have been fine staying in the conference if Texas hadn’t taken over the league in everything from academics to finances.

    Once Texas issued that “ultimatum” last week, it was over. Nebraska knew it couldn’t go back to a league where one of the members was issuing deadlines.

    It is sad because the Huskers have played members of the old Big Eight for a century. It usually beat the hell out of Missouri, Kansas and Kansas State but that’s beside the point. Back then, they were all partners who genuinely liked each other. Now a school like Kansas suddenly finds itself reduced to second-class citizen status. At least KU has basketball to perhaps save it. Where is Kansas State going to end up?

    Where is Kansas City going to end up? If the dominoes topple as projected, the ancestral home of the Big Eight/Big 12 is diminished. The city hosted multiple Big Eight/Big 12 tournaments and those leagues’ championship games. The city built the Sprint Center just so the Big 12 wouldn’t move the basketball tournament. Now what does it do? Nebraska’s in the Big Ten, Missouri might be headed there. Iowa State will end up in the Mountain West, if it’s lucky.

    It’s all collateral damage and it’s only the beginning. The way it looks, Jim, this isn’t going to be expansion, it’s going to be waterboarding for the affected fans. Nebraska today, Notre Dame tomorrow, Syracuse on Monday. It’s all so torturous and tawdry.

    Nebraska is not a domino to be tipped over, Jim, it is a tradition. Before there was Tim Tebow, there was Tommie Frazier. Florida State and Miami showed Osborne and Huskers how to win during a series of beatdowns in the 1980s and 1990s. Osborne calmly took the knowledge, retooled and ended his coaching career with a flourish — winning three out of four national championships.
    Will it happen in the Big Ten? That’s a key question. With 14 or 16 teams, there is the danger that Nebraska will become Purdue, a middling program with a diminished pedigree. Nebraska is at a tenuous point in its history. Football is strong, but not back — not all the way. How will that comeback be affected by a Big Ten schedule?

    Or does matter? Twenty million per year is 20 million for Big Ten schools. The figure reportedly will double in coming years if Delany does this expansion right. If not? Well, there is a chance that Nebraska will never be itself again. For all its greatness, the program does not have a recruiting base. The hire of Bill Callahan showed just how close Nebraska could be to ruin.

    Now it is changing everything. Without Nebraska football, the state would be a slightly warmer South Dakota. With Nebraska football, the Big Ten has inherited a jewel that had better not be damaged.

    These are humble, proud people who have created their own “brand.” That goofy overalled mascot who roams the sidelines might be a stereotype but so is Osborne. He is a solid rock of a man who, for better or worse, has gotten to Nebraska to this point. It might be the high point of the school’s history. Nebraska certainly is going to make money and make history, but it’s also going to lose part of itself.

    So when you officially admit Nebraska into the Big Ten, Jim, avert your eye from the bottom line for a second. The Huskers’ decision didn’t come lightly. Osborne probably told you at some point that Nebraska liked the Big 12 — it loved the Big Eight even more. This Big Ten is going to take some getting used to.

    All those great Oklahoma games? Relegated to the media guide for good unless the Sooners agree to a non-conference matchup.

    All those Orange Bowls? Thank God for DVDs.

    All those dollars? Nebraska just couldn’t say no.

    We ask just one thing, Jim. Treat them right. Roll out the red carpet for the Big Red. They’re special.

    Like

    • Scott C says:

      Hoffa, try to refrain from posting entire news articles or columns on here Especially when you don’t link back to the site it was pulled from. It’s not exactly fair to writers or the company that pays them.

      Like

  18. Chas. says:

    It won’t be long until Bruce Weber coaches the Fighting Illini to the national title. Depending how well Jereme Richmond plays it may be sooner than you think. Two extra basketball victories over the Huskers a year should pad the conference resume.

    Like

    • @Chas. – I’m completely pumped for Richmond and the class coming in – we’re going to be extremely good next season.

      Like

    • Scott C says:

      Don’t write them off completely. We’ve surprised Kansas once or twice in the past 10 years or so. 😉

      In all seriousness, they are building a brand new arena in Lincoln, so there are going to be higher expectation with the basketball program in the coming years. If we have to bring in a more expensive coach, then so be it. We will be getting 20+ million a year soon. 😀

      Like

      • PensfaninLAexile says:

        I did read that NU’s pending new 16,000 arena may have helped them with the B10. New arenas = instant success — just ask Penn State.

        Like

    • coldhusker says:

      One downfall of the move for the Huskers is in basketball. I am frustrated beyond beleif on how piss poor the basketball team is year in and year out.

      I guess now there will be a rivalry with Northwestern to see who is the first team to win a NCAA tourney game. Although at least Nebraska has made 5 tournaments.

      Like

  19. GOPWolv says:

    Fair to say that Delaney is a man of his word. Any thoughts on when he informed Beebe of the Big Red invite?

    Like

  20. Thank you, Rocky Wirzt, this one was a long time in coming!

    (Yes, I’m a Blackhawks fan. I’m from Pennsylvania, but I’ve lived in Chicagoland since 1996.)

    Like

  21. GopherKH says:

    Add

    Like

  22. loki_the_bubba says:

    1000 by dawn.

    Like

    • Scott C says:

      ~200-300, but I’d bet it’s 1500+ tomorrow night. Friday will be insane during the regent meeting and subsequent press conference.

      Like

  23. Kyle2MSU says:

    Add

    Like

  24. El Presidente says:

    Strap yourselves in: behind the scenes talks between A&M and the SEC…

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/06/10/aggies.options/index.html

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Looks like the SEC wants to bust this party wide open.

      The problem is that Texas has the Aggie gov on their side. That looks to be almost insurmountable, especially if Dodds and co. push the screws in tomorrow at a meeting to get them on the same page (i.e. Texas’ page).

      The SEC needs to make a hard play at OU/OSU. They’re the easiest picked off, not A&M, although A&M is key to breaking the deal apart.

      Like

      • Guido says:

        So many moving parts left to be resolved.

        Like

      • crpodhaj says:

        Zeek –

        Does’t A&M talking with the SEC work in the B10’s favor?

        Is this a possible conversation:
        A&M: I don’t wanna go to the Pac10.
        Texas: I don’t want you in the SEC.
        A&M: So, where can we go that makes us both happy?
        Texas: How about the B10.

        Just wondering.

        Like

        • @crpodhaj – I had thought that before, too. Maybe Texas loves the Pac-10 proposal but hates the SEC, whereas A&M is the opposite. However, both of them possibly like the Big Ten well enough where that’s the one place that they can both agree upon as a mutual neighborhood (and the financial estimates for adding the BTN onto basic cable in Texas probably make them like it a whole lot more).

          Like

          • Rick says:

            Frank: given that Delany went bonkers over the NW board leak from someone in his office and that he probably read the riot act to staff, do you actually believe that same leak person is blabbing away again risking Delany’s wrath again and putting their job in jeopardy? If so what an idiot.

            Like

          • Michael says:

            @Rick,

            This time it´s in the Big 10´s best interest for an invite to be made public. Given the fact that that guy disappeared for the last few weeks, tells me that this latest information isn´t as sensitive.

            Like

          • Rick says:

            I don’t buy that. I don’t think Delany lets staff know what is sensitive and what is not. I think if he in fact did go bonkers at staff he told them in no uncertain terms that they should STFU and that any and all leaks would be planted by him alone or via a proxy. I doubt that this NW lead was by Delany thru the same guy as the first time as his proxy. Another leak to the NW board from a big mouth staffer sanctioned by Delany doesn’t sound credible or likely to me. Either that or Delany runs a loose ship or in fact the leaker is an idiot like I said.

            Like

          • loki_the_bubba says:

            What are the odds that the guy that posted that stuff got fired after an internal investigation and now feels justified in posting again?

            Like

        • zeek says:

          I agree with you and Frank on this.

          If A&M really is pushing against the Pac-10 solution, then perhaps the Big Ten can come in as a compromise. But I think the Big Ten would need to be more proactive to set itself up like that.

          And you’d need Powers and co. to be willing to suggest that as a compromise.

          But yea, the conversation would go as you say.

          Like

      • AggieFrank says:

        Zeek

        The Aggie gov is a politician so he needs the perception to be one that does not jeopardize his election. However he is also going to maximize this opportunity for A&M. He isn’t on-board with Dodds by any stretch of the imagination. The SEC option is still very much in play.

        Like

    • Very interesting that Texas is meeting with A/M only and not with “problem” Texas Tech.

      Like

      • Midwest Aggie says:

        Not so fast. Both Baylor and Texas Tech have been invited to sit on the meeting. Great, lets keep the band together (rolling eyes).

        Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          That was bad info. Apparently UT and aTm are meeting alone. And they’ll then tell TT and Baylor what they decided.

          Like

          • Midwest Aggie says:

            Chip Brown has justed reported in the last hour that A&M and Texas will have a meeting, and then tell Tech and Baylor of what the plan is.

            According the news/rumors from this morning and not from the Minister of Information, the four schools were to hold a meeting with their representatives and a few politicians. It was thought, at least from the Aggie POV, to take a look at our cards in this poker game.

            Like

          • Midwest Aggie says:

            It turns out the earlier report of Tech and Baylor to the meeting were incorrect. Reports by Austin American-Statesman and a guy from Lubbock’s ESPN radio are saying the meeting is to see what A&M is thinking about the SEC.

            Like

    • Josh says:

      I think this is a big fly in the ointment of Texas’ flight to the West Coast–A&M doesn’t want to go. Now that’s not an insurmountable obstacle–the Pac 10 wants the Longhorns and the Aggies are just a nice side benefit. But I can’t see the Pac 10 going to 14 schools. If TAMU goes elsewhere, then either only UT and TTU go west, or they have to take Utah to replace them.

      Or TAMU could just be talked into the Pac16. Probably the most likely option, but if the SEC is really on the table, they’d have to consider it.

      Like

      • buckeyebeau says:

        What’s wrong if every conference stops at 14? scheduling is easier (that is, a extra cross-divisional game per season for everyone); it’s an incremental change and everyone can really find out how difficult 14 is before everyone commits to the 16 school model. the 16 team conferences created so far have failed. that’s not good history.

        so, let’s see how 14 works. 14 may be stable in a way that 16 is not.

        just some thoughts.

        Like

        • Josh says:

          I’ve got no problem with a conference at 14, but for the Pac whatever, it provides a major scheduling headache. None of the current ten schools would agree to go to a different division without their instate, or cross-metro area, rival. The only way would be to split the Pac 14 down the middle with USC and UCLA (and all the pairs) in separate divisions and with a protected, cross-divisional, rival. But then there would be years where the Washington and Oregon schools would not get to play a game in Southern California, which everyone around here thinks is a non-starter to them because of recruiting and alumni issues.

          Like

      • buckeyebeau says:

        oh, and 14 can still lead to viable playoff ideas and means more conferences (so fewer “orphans” and less chance of political meddling).

        Like

    • SuperD says:

      Let’s have the Texas legislature make Baylor A&M’s baggage if they’re going SEC. I’d take UT and Tech vs. the other combo any day of the week.

      Like

      • Midwest Aggie says:

        In regards to those left behind from the Big12, there is always the MWC. TCU has done well for itself in that league when the SWC split in the mid-90’s.

        The addition of the Bears could kill any offer A&M were to receive from the SEC. If A&M were to bolt for the SEC, the Bears are more than welcome to their slot in the new super-PAC, but suspect Kansas would be targeted if they would drop KSU.

        Like

    • Stopping By says:

      Quick scenario question: If aTm truely wants no part of the Pac – and UT truely wants not part of the SEC – and UT truely has to take Tech with them (therfore ruling out the B10).

      How likeley is it that A) TX legislators let them go their separate ways (which has been mentioned as a possibility earlier in the game). B) Can UT and TT carry the state (including Hou market) from a cable subscription standpoint (combining with OU?)?

      If the answer is yes to both – than the Pac should keep the train moving to 16 with Utah or KS in its place (I know KS has mentioned they are tied to KSt but they would have to seriously consider ditching them to ensure a spot at the tier 1 BCS table).

      Pure speculation on my part but aTm just wants no part of the Pac (through their public comments) and feels more at home with the SEC (and they are no doubt a better culture fit there) but it seems like OU would be ok with either (Pac or SEC) – true or not from OU fans – is there a preference?

      Like

      • JohnB says:

        I don’t think the Texas legislature would prevent UT and A&M from separating if they both wanted to do so and had good places to go, though it could be more complicated if it seems Tech could get left out.

        UT alone would carry the state for cable for whatever league it’s in.

        As an OU guy, I’m somewhat inclined toward the P16 — so long as Texas is in the P16 — as that keeps OU playing in our primary recruiting areas, in which loads of OU alums also live, and playing our biggest rival in-conference. If A&M were to head for the SEC, that would make things more interesting.

        Going to the SEC would be loads of fun, too.

        Like

    • Aaron Musfeldt says:

      If A&M wants to go to the SEC and Texas wants to go to the PAC-10, why wouldn’t the PAC-10 just take Colorado and UT and stop at 12?

      Like

      • Stopping By says:

        Because if UT is going to the Pac over B10 it will only be because of the need to bring TT with them. At least that is my understanding….

        Like

  25. Hangtime79 says:

    Frank loving all this and congrats on the Hawks. Spent a summer in Chicago and loved it. Now on to this night’s events.

    aTm and UT have a Tech/Baylor problem. While it may seem easier to leave Baylor behind it may even be easier politically to leave both. Why? As I have pointed out, you nuke the conference in the Pac-10 scenario and set Baylor outside.

    For those who remember these things, it wasn’t Ann Richards, it was Bob Bullock – the de facto power in the Texas Legislature as Lieutenant Governor that got Baylor into the B12. While Richards helped, Bullock was the man strong arming left and right. There is a reason his name is on one of the libraries at Baylor.

    One interesting development in all this is probably the emergence of David Sibley as State Senate candidate again, currently running in a special election for his old vacated seat. Sibley represented Waco and surrounding counties for about a decade, retired and went into lobbying. Before he left he was very influential member of the Senate, and overlapped during the SWC upheaval and Bullock, and coincidentally a very big Baylor alum who I believe sat on Baylor’s regent board for a time.

    Sibley in a State Senate seat could make things very unpleasant if Baylor gets too much of shaft.

    (Yes, I know way too much about the area, grew up there, my grandparents still live there, and grandfather was best friends with one of the country commissioners).

    Politics in this entire scenario are just oozing, I would love to be a fly on the wall at that ranch tomorrow.

    My best advice: aTm and UT go to the B10. Whether you bring Tech or Baylor if you can’t bring both – bring neither. Tech has just as, if not more juice then Baylor. aTm and UT will catch the same crap either way if they can’t take both so make your best deal or do a Texas 4-Pack to the SEC.

    Like

    • @Hangtime79 – I was actually thinking about that where it might actually make more political sense to leave both Texas Tech and Baylor behind than just Baylor. That’s because if that were to happen, the Pac-10 doesn’t expand to a superconference and the Big XII survives with at least Oklahoma as a headliner. This keeps both Baylor and Texas Tech in the BCS club and there’s an added bonus that TCU and/or Houston might move up to that level, too. That’s the political compromise that I’d be pushing if I were UT and A&M (if, in fact, they actually do want to ditch the other Texas schools).

      Like

      • zeek says:

        How credible would that be though if within a minute the SEC sends invites to Oklahoma/OSU?

        Either way you get a political firestorm about Tech being left behind in a gutted league…

        Like

        • zeek says:

          One thing Frank, is there any interest at all at A&M for a Big Ten invite?

          We keep talking about the potential fit of A&M, but the AD is firmly in charge and Aggie watchers have indicated that he’s likely to get his way.

          Does that mean the Big Ten has no shot or behind the scenes has sent signals it would take A&M or what?

          It’s just impossible to get a read on whether there’s any movement at all for A&M to the Big Ten, if at all.

          Byrne seems to be 100% control of this bus, which means that it’s the Pac-10 or SEC unless Texas wants to drag them North…

          Like

          • twk says:

            I think the A&M folks find a Big 10 offer interesting, but the politics of leaving Tech would make it difficult. As long as Texas takes Tech with them to the Pac 10, A&M can probably go wherever it wants. However, it seems that the leadership at A&M is leaning Pac 10 (which will not go over well with many former students).

            Like

        • Hangtime79 says:

          No chance zeek. No reason for the SEC to bring OU/OK State. You get OKC and Tulsa as a market, but there is no Texas, no natural rivalries. OU while a historically powerful school it isn’t always been let I remind you of the years between Switzer and Stoopes. While it would be great to get these two with aTm, I guarantee you the rest of the SEC would rather stand pat then divide the pie further while receiving just the 45th and 61st media markets (OKC, Tulsa).

          aTm and Texas will get a s**t storm either way so why not take your best offer?

          Like

          • JohnB says:

            I’m not sure that OU and OSU are non-starters for SEC expansion even without UT and A&M. Putting Tech into the mix would help assure that the SEC has prime access to Texas TV, as OU, Arkansas and LSU already feed loads of grads and other followers to Texas.

            Like

      • glenn says:

        i think dodds wants to leave a legacy. there is no finer accomplishment that he could leave his name on than giving texas its freedom.

        another thing. whenever you buzzards are told that texans believe in earning their keep and not accepting things they haven’t deserved, ask them what states tech and baylor hail from, because it sure couldn’t be texas.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s one of the more underrated narratives.

          Look at the Florida/FSU/Miami situation for how all three developed identities in different conferences, etc.

          Texas already has its own identity, but A&M especially could really want to become its own brand. The SEC would have it as its “Texas” in a sense, which could have the same effect on it becoming a national brand if it becomes competitive in the SEC as say FSU (of course FSU v UF is a different kind of relationship of history/tradition, etc.).

          Like

      • Hangtime79 says:

        Could not agree more Frank and I think that will be part of the calculus today. However, one part has to remain – aTm and UT have to be joined at the hip. While B10 wouldn’t make a play on OU, SEC defintely would. I think SEC would take aTm, OU, and OK State + one someone from the ACC or BE, but they are not taking OU and OK State alone. That does not accomplish what the SEC wants (entre to Texas).

        Like

  26. Brad says:

    In regards to the forgotten 4.

    How about K-State, KU, Mizzou and ISU join with the 8 Big East football teams to make a conference? People forget that K-State was a power until 2003 in FB (2 BCS games, 1 Big 12 title). Obviously, the basketball would be insane.

    Like

    • Kyle says:

      That would necessitate a catholic/football split first, of course. But I’d be in favor of it.

      Like

      • Bryandagamer says:

        How many voted do the Big East need for expansion?

        Like

        • Phil says:

          It wouldn’t be a Big East expansion, it would be a split between the football and non-football schools. I believe they have a period where a bunch of the basketball $$$ was held in escrow to keep the football teams from leaving which ends this summer.
          Big East football fans would love matching the four Big 12 leftovers in a 6 team division with Cinn and Lville.
          They may be the scraps of the Big 12, but they are much better options than Memphis, ECU, etc.

          Like

    • Bobestes says:

      I think it’s more likely than one initially realizes. The jilted Big 12 schools are gonna want to go to an AQ conference – now. And it arguably makes the Big East a stronger conference. It becomes a Big Ten lite (same geographic footprint)

      Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      K-State a football power? Are you serious?!? Until Snyder got there, K-State was historically the worst team in a major conference in America. The only success the Wildcats have ever had was with Snyder at the helm.

      Still, you raise an excellent point. I don’t know how much juice the football programs have vs. the basketball teams at Syracuse and UCONN to force the issue. I don’t know if the others would walk out on the basketball conference to add the BXII-leftovers. I don’t know how much more the extra travel will be.

      This is a good idea for later if the ACC and SEC get expansionistic and the Big East needs to reload.

      Like

      • bobestes says:

        The football schools at the big east would walk out tomorrow on the basketball-only schools to form a conference with Big 12 leftovers.

        I would venture to guess that Iowa State’s football program probably brings double the revenue to the table than does the highest-grossing basketball-only school.

        Like

  27. btrealign says:

    add

    Like

  28. PensfaninLAexile says:

    What is it now, week 3 of the Mizzou suicide watch?

    Preface: They could still get in the B10 – maybe soon. But …

    Has any school fallen further faster in this whole goat rodeo? There’s the (slim) possibility they could be an independent for 2011-12. Catastrophe.

    What are the scenarios left? Let’s accept that the ‘Texas 6’ go to the PAC-10; NU to B10; and the SEC is not interested in them. Then it’s B10 or bust.

    The B10 could:

    1)Stop at NU (remote chance)
    2)Add ND plus one of the usual suspects that aren’t Mizzou. (more likely)
    3)Add ND plus three of the usual suspects that aren’t Mizzou. (also reasonable)
    4)Just add ND (remote chance)
    5)Add 2-4 of the usual suspects that aren’t Mizzou. (not too likely)
    6)Decide they like Kansas more than Mizzou. (brutal turn of events)

    I will grant you that #1, 4, 5, 6 are not very likely – but they are plausible. Put those scenarios together and are you at a greater than 50% likelihood that Mizzou is screwed?

    What happens to them if they’re left out? Schools have got to know within the next few months where they’re going to be so that a 2011-12 schedule can be made up. Let’s say the B12 dissolves (my earlier post notwithstanding), who wants Mizzou? Will any conference take them knowing that they’re just waiting for a B10 invite? If a B10 invite doesn’t come before fall, what are they going to do about 2011? KU, KSU, BU, and ISU will be looking for permanent homes and don’t have any realistic hopes of a B10/P16/ACC/SEC membership (KU might have an outside chance at SEC). So, MWC and CUSA could be comfortable with any or all of them. BEast is a very remote possibility for the Kansas schools.

    Do MWC or CUSA want to let Mizzou slum around for 1-2 years? Not without a big pricetag.

    So, consider this scenario:

    B10 keeps evaluating and talking to ND through the summer. The window has passed to get any of the BEast teams into the B10 for the 2012 season (27 month departure clause), so there’s little pressure to move on Rutgers. Clock ticks. 2011 will have just a 12-team B10. KU, KSU, ISU, BU and Boise State get invites from the MWC. Mizzou is left high and dry for 2011. Can they even fill out a schedule? What about B Ball? Games in January and February against NJIT and A&M-Corpus Christi. Even if Mizzou gets an invite for the 2012 season, how much does a lost season set them back?

    And here’s the last big thing: with NU, the B10 is at 12. Are they going to 13 for Mizzou? Doubt it. The 27 month separation clause precludes pairing them with a B East team. So, if the B10 will only now go up in increments of 2, only the arrival of ND will allow Mizzou to get in for the 2011 season (unless an ACC team can be poached).

    Hide the razor blades.

    Like

    • PensfaninLAexile says:

      I should amend my post. I suppose if they get into a conference, there are ready-made games and most of the OOC is in shape. So, maybe they have a few more months grace. But every day that goes by with them in limbo is troubling.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      As you point out, I don’t think the Big Ten goes to 13 for Missouri or Rutgers because no one seems to have interest in taking them off the board. When that changes, the Big Ten stance may change towards them.

      I think the school to watch is Maryland if the Pac-16 materializes. Delany is undoubtably going to go for hard to get schools and then pair them off with Rutgers or Mizz, etc.

      He’s going to have a list of targets that are hard to nail down (topped by ND as always), but the targets will likely be paired off with easy gets if the targets don’t come with a pair (i.e. Maryland/Virginia).

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I would point out though, that Missouri has a big disadvantage in that the only good pairing it has is Texas/A&M (for a pod or regionality situation or whatever).

        Rutgers on the other hand pairs extremely well with ND or Maryland or other Eastern scenarios that the Big Ten presidents may want to focus on with Texas off the table.

        Like

        • PensfaninLAexile says:

          This is where the plodding pace of the B10 is maddening and shortsighted. As much as I am entertained by Mizzou’s troubles (mostly b/c I think they have been incredibly incompetent through this whole process), the fact is they might get into the B10. Yet the B10 (so far) is leaving them hanging. They knew about the ‘Tech’ problem for weeks and dithered. So, Texas et al got sick of it and jumped. Texas has/had options, Mizzou has almost none.

          They only moved on NU quickly b/c NU had options and forced them into it. Now a prospective member is stuck in a humiliating limbo. That is a fundamental lack of respect for not just a prospective member, but a fellow AAU member, colleagues, etc. The B10 is crapping all over them simply b/c they (Mizzou) has no options.

          Maybe the B10 proffers an invite next week — which makes this all moot. But nothing in their (the B10) past actions indicates movement. We’ll see.

          Like

          • Vincent says:

            If Missouri’s entrance to the Big Ten is contingent on Notre Dame approval, it’s doomed. If ND enters the Big Ten, it will want at least two eastern schools as partners so it still has some ties to the New York to Washington corridor where it has many alumni and recruits many students. That’s why Rutgers and Maryland, along with a third eastern school (Virginia? Syracuse? Pittsburgh, if worse comes to worst?) are keys to getting Notre Dame. The folks in South Bend could care less about Mizzou.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Vincent, why not take the Eastern partners and go to 14 then?

            I mean Rutgers/Maryland works as a solid move to 14. Then you sit back and wait on ND and take Mizzou or someone else when it finally does come around…

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            I would agree with this. Delaney is a very smart man, but he’s also a dick.

            Like

          • Josh says:

            Delany completely misread the college landscape. I think he really wanted 12-18 months to think this through, and the only reason he announced it was because he didn’t want a replay of the ACC situation where everything came out of the blue and then Mark Warner screwed everything up. He didn’t want any surprises.

            But he didn’t realize that as soon as he made an announcement, a giant game of musical chairs started. It was probably worse than a shocking, out-of-the-blue announcement.

            Like

    • Derrick says:

      I think if Mizzou doesn’t go B10, they would be a candidate for the SEC.

      Like

    • Phil says:

      I wouldn’t call the Kansas schools a remote possibility for the Big east if it survives. Since football is so important, the only strategy for the Big East is to have enough basketball power to keep the big conferences from punitive action. Remember, the Turner/CBS deal is billions of $$ for the basketball tournament.
      For example, if the Pac16/Big Ten(16)/ SEC (16) tried to force the idea that only 16 team fb conferences get an autobid to the BCS, the BE and ACC could say “fine, and by the way we are starting a new post-season men’s basketball tournament and inviting all the mid-majors to it, but not you”.

      Like

      • bobestes says:

        Cincinnati, Louisville, West Virginia, UConn and USF would split the Big East tomorrow to join forces with Kansas, KState, Iowa State and Mizzou.

        Like

  29. GOPWolv says:

    Have to hand it to Mandel, he did call it pretty early. Article gives some perspective, I mean, like he says, Nebraska is joining the freakin’ Big 10.
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/stewart_mandel/06/10/nebraska.big.ten/

    Like

  30. Michael in Indy says:

    Which situation would give Missouri, KU, K-State, Iowa State, and Baylor the softest landing in a worst-case scenario?

    Option A) A 14-team Big “East” with those five schools plus TCU and SMU/Memphis/Houston/whatever in a West Division; and USF, Louisville, Cincy, WVU, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn in an East Division. (This assumes that ND and Pitt have capped off the Big Ten at 14.)

    Option B) A 14-team Mountain West where they all join and Boise State stays in the WAC.

    Option C) A remade Big 12 Conference with those five schools plus TCU, Utah, BYU, and a ninth school (New Mexico, Col. State, Houston, etc.). Only nine ways to slice the pie. Markets covered, at least to some degree, include Kansas City, St. Louis, DFW, Salt Lake City, and either Albuquerque, Houston, or Denver.

    Like

  31. Michael in Indy says:

    *I meant to delete Pitt for my East Division in Option A.

    Like

  32. IrishTexan says:

    [i](html practice)[/i]

    Here Come the Hawks

    Like

  33. While I’m totally a biased Big 10 fan and pulling for Texas/aTm to join, the Big 10 getting their dream scenario and effectively shutting the PAC10 off from making it to 16 MIGHT actually be the best thing for a ton of schools nationally.

    Assuming that the PAC10 would take Colorado and Utah to be at 12, the Big 12 would only be left with OU, OkSt, ISU, Kansas, KSU, Baylor, and Tech.

    It’s a foregone conclusion that the SEC won’t stand for being at 12 if the Big 10 is 16. OU and OkSt and Tech seem like a great way for the SEC to open up the Texas markets. Whomever they take for #16, it’ll be inside their footprint.

    The ACC will withstand any minor hit to its membership by the SEC.

    The BIg East would theoretically escape with its life.

    The MWC could either disband and take the penalty money-rich (and BCS bid endowed!) Big 12 moniker…or they could invite the final four schools to their conference.

    My point in all this is…
    Big 10…at 16
    SEC…at 16
    ACC…at 12
    Big East…at 8
    MWC/Big 12…at 12
    PAC10…at 12

    Super conferences aren’t on the horizon yet.

    However, if the PAC10 manages to pull off their coup, the Big 10 will gut the Big East and SEC will make it to 16 eventually too. It would be inevitable that the ACC would follow suit. And I’m not sure ANY of us will like that landscape of college athletics.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, the one benefit of the Big Ten taking Texas/A&M (obviously self-interested) is as you point out, that the land of superconferences will be long delayed. The Pac-10’s only shot is Texas to superconference glory. If they ever get stalled, then there’s no real reason for every conference to go there.

      But if they do, then the Big Ten will go with ND to 16, and the SEC will figure out some path to 16 through the ACC most likely if they can. And of course the ACC will merge with remnants of the Big East and thereby hit 16 as well.

      You get 3 “have” BCS superconferences, 1 “slightly less have” BCS superconference, and then 1 or 2 BCS conferences MWC, etc.

      Don’t necessarily think though that a part of Delany’s plan isn’t to take the system there.

      Delany knows that the Big Ten teams have sort of been hurting in terms of recruiting in local stomping grounds etc. as compared to Florida/Texas/California, so removing a lot of teams from the BCS “have” conferences is a way of evening the playing field dramatically because top players will want to play for Big Ten/SEC/Pac-16 teamas more than any others.

      It also substantially upgrades the brands just thinking about losing competitors between the Pac-10 and Big Ten geographically, i.e. Iowa v. Iowa State.

      Like

      • WhiskeyJack says:

        As a PAC-10 guy, I obviously want the expansion to occur as planned. However you two make excellent points.

        The one problem I see however, is that if the Pac-10 doesn’t pull this off then, due to a lack of serious options, they are relegated to “second tier” in the minds of most college sports fans.

        Now that shouldn’t matter, but the perception can heavily influence the influx of students as well as the amount of available funds for the colleges involved.

        Yeah, I’m bringing it back to the money. Without these teams, the PAC-10 falls much further behind the likes of the SEC and the BIG-10.

        Bah, it’s late and I’m not making myself very clear am I?

        Like

        • WhiskeyJack says:

          (Wish there was an edit option)

          To add, the era of the “Mega-Conference” is already coming. If not now, then soon.
          This could very well be the PAC-10’s only chance.

          Like

        • zeek says:

          Yeah, I got what you were saying.

          I also think USC’s troubles played into this. USC could be set back a half decade.

          That had to play into the Pac-10’s calculations.

          Of course, the fact that only Texas can get the Pac-10 to a Pac-16 is of primary importance, but everything played into this situation rolling out.

          And of course the fact that the SEC and Big Ten were rapidly becoming the only two “have” conferences due to the power of football/national footprint/brands was becoming a perception issue for the Pac-10.

          Like

      • Michael in Indy says:

        “and the SEC will figure out some path to 16 through the ACC”

        I can’t stand the freaking SEC.

        Keep your academic dignity and stay in the ACC, Miami, FSU, GT, VT, and Clemson!

        Like

  34. WhiskeyJack says:

    Only found this from one source, so not verified. Colorado has recieved, and will accept, an invitation from the PAC-10.

    http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/06/09/pac-10-expansion-on-thursday-it-becomes-the-pac-11/

    The main bit:

    “Just got off the phone with a source familiar with the negotiations between the Pac-10 and Big 12 schools, who said:

    * Colorado “is likely to formally accept” an invitation to join the Pac-10 on Thursday.

    Repeat: Colorado to the Pac-10 on Thursday.”

    If this is true, then that’s two down…

    Like

    • Michael in Indy says:

      Well at this point, if Texas… excuse me, if the Big 12 has any chance at surviving, then BYU and TCU had better be receiving phone calls from Tex… from the Big 12 soon.

      BYU has a large enough fanbase to soften the blow from the loss of Nebraska, and it could also soften the blow from the loss of the Denver market. TCU would just keep the league at a comfortable 12. St. Louis and Kansas City markets would be salvaged.

      It really depends on how much Texas wants to do the Longhorn Sports Network

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I don’t necessarily think that’s an option as much as I may before.

        The problem is A&M/OU. Those two schools can automatically get invites to the SEC, particularly A&M. So any situation where Texas stays in the Big 12 with an LSN is tenuous at best.

        Like

        • Michael in Indy says:

          A&M/OU was the same problem BEFORE Nebraska applied for the Big Ten. If the SEC came calling, they’d have gone there for the same reasons they’d go now. With or without Nebraska, the SEC is a more lucrative option for those schools.

          But a Big 12 sans NU/CU with BYU & TCU would allow A&M/OU to remain in the much more-winnable Big 12.

          With that in mind, why does NU’s move change things so much for OU and A&M, not to mention the rest of the league?

          Like

          • zeek says:

            You lose one of the three big brands (and A&M is a big brand, but not as big nationally as the other three).

            That matters a lot for the Big 12 TV contract. You go to the market based on teams that can sell top games.

            You can’t replace Nebraska in that respect.

            You’re just replacing your average inventory with BYU or TCU.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “With that in mind, why does NU’s move change things so much for OU and A&M, not to mention the rest of the league?”

            Well, it probably doesn’t change much for OU, but the Big 12 was never A&M’s idea. It’s only there because of politics, so why should they want to stay in a 15 year old political bargain that suddenly took a hit to its value?

            Everyone in this thread needs to understand that UT has a long, rivalry with OU, but A&M didn’t play the Big 8 schools much before the Big 12 was formed. There are no traditionalists at A&M saying we have to play OU and OSU every year, because that’s not really a tradition. Certainly we appreciate OU as a big game on our schedule, but there could certainly be other good teams to schedule.

            If you’re into athletic tradition, the SEC has more appeal, as there is more history with LSU and Arkansas than any non-Texas Big 12 school. If you’re into academics, the Big 10 or Pac 10 is stronger. If you’re into the best financial deal for the university, each of those conferences are better for the university.

            The only thing that would tie A&M further to the Big 12 is politics. Nebraska (and now Colorado) is evidence the University can go to the public and say that the last political bargain failed; it’s time to find a new situation, and it would be much healthier and stable if there isn’t politics this time around (though I know that’s inevitable).

            Like

      • WhiskeyJack says:

        Agreed, and in all honesty, Texas pulling something out to keep the BIG XII alive wouldn’t surprise me. Though I do think that it’s about 90% that the BIG XII is done.

        Like

    • Guido says:

      This is a false rumor started by a Big 12 “anonymous” coach. A coach in the loop enough to have this info would not be sharing it to reporters. More likely another plant to fuel the fire regarding the Texas mess.

      I’ve been hearing Colorado is actually out on the Pac-10 thing too, which basically means people are just guessing hoping to catch it right as some sort of scoop.

      Like

  35. Bryandagamer says:

    Awesome

    Like

  36. Gumbynuts says:

    Adding

    Like

  37. Gumbynuts says:

    Add again

    Like

  38. djinndjinn says:

    +

    Like

  39. Jeepers says:

    Poutine.

    Like

  40. Jeepers says:

    One:

    I wish I watched Lost (wait, I don’t. you all got suckered into watching that crummy show just because you needed closure) so I could put it in better words. If all the college conferences were stuck on an island, the Pac10 would be the Big10’s best friend. Agreed? Why kill off your best friend and get stuck with those other guys you don’t get along with as well? If the whole mega-conference scenario goes down, the Pac10 must, must, must get UT. And therefore if the B10 takes UT, they murder the P10. I’m pretty sure I was the first person to propose the theory that the Big10 *wants* UT to go to the Pac10. I’m not saying it happened, but I wouldn’t be surprised. I’d imagine it’d go something like this. Delaney: “Look, man, I’ve got this idea. We really want ND, but they won’t come unless there is a big shakeup. If we leave UT alone, could you try this strategy I have? All we care about is the SEC not getting them.”

    When this is all over, and UT isn’t in the Big Ten, you will all take your blinders off and realize that it was a terrible idea. I just don’t see them working long-term. I think a lot of you B10 fans have tunnel vision. You want all homeruns. I can understand that. But it’s just not necessary. All that’s needed is a tightly knit group that’s competitive. UT to the P10 is just much better for college sports. What’s bad for college sports is bad for the B10. Gotta spread the love.

    Two:

    Here’s an NYC strategy. Big Ten takes RU and SU. Rutgers would play some games at the Meadowlands. Syracuse would play some games at Yankee stadium. That’s how you get NYC interested in college football. Meadowlands = NJ host = Rutgers. Yankees stadium = NY host = SU. With ND in there, I think you have a pretty good chance to crack that market.

    Like

    • angryapple says:

      Syracuse University is 250 miles from Yankee Stadium. They’re completely unnecessary if you have Notre Dame and Rutgers. If anything, Notre Dame will be the one playing home games at Yankee Stadium.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Look, at the beginning, every person here acknowledged that the Pac-10 had limited scenarios. Only three schools really fit the profile of what they wanted, Texas/A&M/Colorado. Even adding Utah to that, they had to take 2 more schools that they don’t really care for to make it work.

      Syracuse is interesting but are they really that strong a fit? AAU means something if you actually make an effort in terms of research. Having a historical AAU invite and staying in the AAU means nothing if you don’t put up the research numbers. The Big Ten presidents know this. They’re only really going to make an exception on research capabilities for Notre Dame because its mission is expressly more undergraduate focused, but its football brand is at the top.

      Rutgers/Maryland are the best possible fits on the East Coast.

      Both in terms of size (Rutgers 50000+ students, Maryland at 37000 is second largest in ACC) and location with Rutgers right off Manhattan and Maryland off of the D.C. markets where there’s lots of alums.

      Also, both are solid academically and in good recruiting states.

      You might go after Virginia or Missouri after that and pair it with Notre Dame as the final ones.

      Syracuse/UConn are more of oddballs in all of this. Both are better fits in the ACC and if they end up there, won’t hurt the Big Ten (just as Texas in the Pac-10 won’t hurt the Big Ten).

      Like

    • buckeyebeau says:

      @jeepers. and I have been echoing your ideas re: TX to P14/16 is a GOOD THING for B10+; the B10+ WANTS the P10/16 to be a premier conference for the next 50 years and, as you say, TX to P14/16 is essential for that to happen given the limited geography for the P10.

      to repeat: TX to the P14/16 is not a “loss” or “fail” for the B10.

      Like

    • Big Ten Jeff says:

      @ Jeepers: Yes, the Pac-10 is the Big Ten’s best friend. Think big picture. The end game will be the Big Ten/Pac-10 ‘s networks collaboration for joint national distribution. Thus it doesn’t matter as much if the Pac-10 gets Texas. The Big Ten reaches east to NY/NJ/DC and the entire country short of the south is reached, and the joint project gets on first tier networks everywhere.

      Like

      • Rick says:

        I totally agree with this Tx 6 to Pac 10 is a good thing for the Big Ten. I believe the network joint venture is a big time money maker and that this grand master plan is what Delany and Scott are devising. Then SEC/ACC divide up BE and stubb B12 and Delany”s vision of 4 Supers and a playoff is reality and his final legacy.

        Like

      • jcfreder says:

        I disagree somewhat. Texas to the Pac-10 is perhaps a “moral victory” but is still a loss of a sort, because Rose Bowl or not, the B10 does compete with the other conferences for prestige. So we beat them in research dollars. That’s nice, but my guess is that most of us are in a frenzy about all of this becuase we love college football. I want the B10 to be considered better than the SEC on the gridiron, not just in the classroom. Taking Texas out of the equation hurts that and perhaps even evelates the P10 over the B10. The Rose Bowl is fun, but less so if the B10 team gets blown out by the P10 team every year.

        Like

  41. Scott says:

    Step away from the crack pipe. This entire forum seems to only consist of Franks delusions of getting Texas to join the Big 10 on the big 10’s terms.

    That is NEVER ever gonna happen. The pure arrogance from the Big 10 types is amazing. The Big 10 has been irrelevant for decades. Congrats on taking Nebraska… another team that has been irrelevant forever. You guys should have some great stories about the 90s.

    So congrats on your tv sets and your big 10 network. I suppose someone needs to watch all those meaningless games between average at best teams. Super Death Star Conference? for reals?

    You like star wars Frank? dork.

    Like

    • derek says:

      The Big10 is more relevant around the world than any other conference. With 11 AAU members (maybe 12 now) and the exclusive CIC, Big10 schools are recognized globally. Now if you want to talk football, I will still argue that they are relevant…but it just goes to show your ignorance to the big picture. My degree is from an institution that conducts research for bettering the world…yours says that you can slug a few beers before noon and watch a game shirtless. Congratulations.

      Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        Don’t mind him, he’s just cranky that it in all the matters that actually, you know, matter (academics, stability, growth) the BigTen will continue grow and soon far outpace any other conference in the nation.

        Eventually the combined weight of the Pac/Big will be able to force the academic standards, over-signing rules, and a host of issues that force them to operate at a competitive disadvantage down the NCAA’s throat.

        Like

    • HoosierMike says:

      I always thought using the term “for reals?” in one sentence and then calling someone else a dork in the next for liking Star Wars was a bit like licking your dog’s ass… once people find out you did it, it’s much more likely you’re going to be called a douchebag.

      Like

    • SH says:

      Doesn’t everyone like Star Wars?

      Like

    • Patrick says:

      Is the Big Ten sure that they want Texas anywhere near them?

      They have almost as much baggage as ND, hell with the polititians involved it’s probably more baggage. At least ND speaks of tradition, independence, and religion as reasons for their superiority. Texas theoretical superiority is based purely on geography, and they like to call everyone else arrogant, freakin’ hilarious.

      Like

    • Ryan says:

      I think Scott has a pretty good point. Adding NU doesn’t suddenly make the Big 10 a good football conference. Neither does adding Rutgers, ND, or Syracuse. If anything, the football in the Big 10 would be even worse than it is currently. Adding Missouri or Pitt would help some, but the fact remains that the Big 10 is a weak football conference.

      Like

      • derek says:

        I’d take a degree from a mediocre football conference that is a leader in profitability and puts a premium on EDUCATION (hence COLLEGE sports)than a degree from, oh say, and SEC school that pretty much means I showed up to class when I wasn’t tailgating.

        Like

        • Ryan says:

          Derek, do you honestly believe academics are that important in this debate? If so, why would the Big 10 add Nebraska first? Nebraska’s academics are far worse than any other Big 10 school. This move is all about money and football. Academics plays a small part, which explains the Tech problem, but in the end it’s all about the $$$.

          Like

      • pioneerlion says:

        I disagree. NU joining the big10 brings a program with success, tradition and one in the midst of a resurgence. Every other school in the big10 will step it up to be more competitive, just like they did when PSU joined – resulting in Iowa and Wisky being perennially competitive, and sometimes BCS-bowl-bound, teams.

        Like

    • duffman says:

      Scott,

      For better or worse, Frank has let me openly post here and I have never felt that Texas was a good idea. Not in an “research” or “sports” way but in a personal feeling that being in the Big 10 is being part of the team, not being all about ME, ME, ME in this modern world. Big 10 is WE and Texas screams ME! That said the fact that I am still posting tells me that no matter what Frank’s feelings are, the discussion has been VERY open to differing views.

      a) you do not have to post here

      b) you seem free to post opposing views, and are encouraged to offer supporting reason / logic

      c) somebody likes Star Wars as they made $$ and 6 movies

      Like

    • R says:

      So much to say, so little time worth wasting! GFYA!!!

      Like

  42. Matt says:

    SEC fan Scott? If the Big 10 is so irrelevant why is the entire college football world talking about them? Seems there was a National title team from the Big Ten in 2002, how is that decades, go back and try math again.

    Like

    • pioneerlion says:

      He’s in denial that Penn State spanked LSU, or that Iowa and tOSU both won their BCS games.

      Might even be a jilted, closet sPitt fan.

      Like

  43. GreatLakeState says:

    Thrilled with the Blackhawks win but as a Redwings fan my overriding concern is whether Scotty gets his name on his Twelfth Stanley Cup.

    Like

  44. Playoffs Now! says:

    Forget NE, the biggest change in college football may be decided in a few hours when TX and aTm meet on RC Slocum’s ranch, Fort Sumpter.

    A Houston radio host is reporting aTm was offered an SEC invite last night. Then again, the host is a fat, clueless, LSU blowhard who is always trashing TX, so who knows its veracity. Right now he’s moaning that no Horns are calling in. Horns not listening to a rabid TX-basher? Who would have guessed?

    Whether an invite has been issued or not, we all know it will be extended by the SEC if asked. There’s a gambit that if OU also goes to the SEC, TX will basically be dragged east. I don’t think it will work, but it isn’t an idle threat. And the SEC will let TX keep its LSN.

    Like

  45. duffman says:

    BLOGGERS UNITE!!

    Just hit ESPN that Izzo is on a plane to cleveland!

    I know most folks here are football guys, but Izzo needs to keep calling the Big 10 home (If we get Maryland, but lose Izzo, not good for Big 10 basketball).

    SAVE FERRIS! SAVE IZZO!

    Like

    • Bad on multiple fronts for me. I don’t like what that does for Big Ten basketball and Cleveland isn’t offering Izzo a massive contract unless LeBron is staying and not heading to his rigtful place: the Chicago Bulls.

      Like

      • Vincent says:

        If Izzo leaves MSU, Maryland (and Syracuse) rise a notch to Big Ten officials, if only to preserve the men’s basketball brand.

        BTW, Frank, congrats to the Blackhawks; once the Capitals were eliminated, I hoped Lord Stanley would end up in Chi-town. Hear the parade is Friday — get it done early so people can watch the Sox and Cubs on the North Side that afternoon.

        Like

        • willarm1 says:

          Don’t believe the MSU brand drops so far to effect expansion.

          It is MSU

          they will be fine.

          Like

          • Big Ten Jeff says:

            Don’t know about that. A basketball crazy state and great University like Indiana still hasn’t found it’s way after Bobby Knight was sent packing.

            Like

      • willarm1 says:

        Time to call Brian Gregory?

        Tom Crean wouldn’t leave would he?

        Like

        • duffman says:

          willarm1,

          i am IU basketball guy, and am very happy to have Crean as the guy to bring IU back in baskeball!

          My happy future has Izzo vs Crean in a long and happy Big 10 basketball world.

          Like

        • Derrick says:

          Spartan alum here, and my “Oh $hit” meter is at 8 on this Izzo to the Cavs thing.
          But, our AD Hollis said yesterday he is prepared to hire a coach “right now” if Izzo leaves. That tells me he has Brian Gregory ready to go, as getting Crean would take some wheeling and dealing to get him out of IU.
          I don’t think Izzo affects expansion one bit. Bball is just not a driving factor in expansion- if it was, Nebraska would not be the B10’s first add. And even if BBall was important, one coach does not make the league (even though Izzo is the baddest mofo ever!)

          Like

          • duffman says:

            derrick,

            i know Izzo is nothing in the expansion thing, but I have said all along that I am a basketball guy first and foremost. If IU lost Crean or MSU lost Izzo it may not be a big deal to the football folks on this blog but for me it would be like losing a member of my family. it is all emotion here, as even as an IU guy, Izzo is da bomb.

            I know gregory has MSU roots, but he is not IZZO! Maybe I am just older, but it would not be great news!

            frank,

            I know this is off topic, but if not gregory who would MSU fans like to see if Izzo goes to cleveland?

            gregory is younger
            tubby is izzo “lite”
            crean is IU
            ????

            Like

          • Josh says:

            If Izzo left MSU, they’d fall back to the bad old days of Jud Heathcote.

            Wait a minute. That doesn’t sound right.

            Like

          • jcfreder says:

            MSU should only be going after Crean if Dwayne Wade has another year of eligibility left. Never has one coach cashed so many paychecks on the back of a single player.

            Like

          • Gumbynuts says:

            Self might be available for MSU if Kansas is relegated to the MWC

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Duff- I’m also an IU fan. I would be thrilled if MSU took Crean off our hands.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom,

            I would trade Crean to MSU if IU got Self but I am still not in the Crean out the door group yet. In a few more years, but I want him to get through a few more classes.

            I do not want to see IU mired in muddling basketball teams, but I do not want IU to become to basketball what bama became after the ‘bear’. long term I would be happy as hell to see IU vs UK take back the glow that UNC vs Duke has taken from them.

            Like

      • MIRuss says:

        @Frank,

        Come on, Frank…One mega Superstar per city every 50 years…Until you knock down the Jordan Statue, be happy with whatever you get…

        If Izzo is going, it’s only because LeBron is staying. Izzo is too smart to leave otherwise…Actually, I thought Gilbert was too smart to hire a college coach when that path has been tried and no one has succeeded…Of course, the college coaches turned pro coaches never had a LeBron.

        Like

  46. mmc22 says:

    added

    Like

    • Wes Haggard says:

      http://ncaafootball.fanhouse.com/2010/06/09/a-beautiful-move-texas-aandm-to-sec/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ClayTravisFanHouse+%28Clay+Travis+FanHouse+Columns%29&utm_content=Twitter

      http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/7044884.html

      Hey! Ags, ChiTown, Zeek and other Big Ten people, BamaMan and AlaninBatonRouge, JohDDenver, SEC folks and PAC 10 guys.

      A&M – Texas meeting in Austin today?

      Could be a request from UT to the Ags for an attitude adjustment to get the SEC out the door, or
      Could be a planning session for the announced six to the Pac 10 East
      Could be a planning session to placate Tech and OU to the Pac and A&M and UT to the Big 10

      Which of the following new looks do you like the best? Which look do you logically, logically! think is most likely?

      PAC: Tech, CU, Missouri, Utah, KU, OU, Az, AzSt or
      TX, A&M, OU, OSU, Tech, CU,Az, AzSt

      Big 10: PSU,OSU,Ind,Rut
      Mich,MSU,Pur,Notre
      Wisc,Iowa,Min,Neb
      A&M, UT, Ill, NW

      SEC: Tech, A&M, UT, OU as new west division or pods of

      A&M, LSU, UT, ARK
      Miss, MSU, Ala, Aub
      Ten, Ky, Van, SC
      UF, Ga, FSU, Clem

      Like

      • JohnB says:

        I don’t think Pac16 works without UT. Keeping the 3 big Texas schools and OU together is part of what makes that go, and UT is the cultural and academic bridge. It’s dicey even if just A&M splits off, though it could probably be workable.

        Pac16 solves a lot of political and some practical problems.

        Like

      • duffman says:

        wes,

        thanks for the link..

        the point 5 is what I am looking at..

        “The game at the end of the year would still happen, it would just be an out-of-conference tilt. Honestly, the brand new Pac-16 vs. the SEC would probably make it a bigger national game than it already is.

        And the game would retain all of the regional hate that it already has. There’s already a template for these out-of-conference rivalry games in the SEC since Florida plays Florida State and South Carolina plays Clemson on the same weekend.”

        A point I keep making that seems to get lost is that the SEC is the master of the OOC Rival GAME! The SEC gets the Texas market without taking the ego of UT and can actually do BETTER by not adding UT. i know we keep ragging the SEC for academics but they are stuck with the Mississippi schools (the only tier 3 schools) unless the SEC tells Mississippi to become the Pittgers of the SEC (which oddly enough makes sense as it merges resources in a low population state).

        from a football standpoint A&M keeps UT as an OOC eod of season rival game and trades OU for Arkansas (an old rival). Texas heads west with the lesser sisters, and A&M goes to a conference where it already feels at home.

        Like

        • JohnB says:

          Although the Pac16 is doable without A&M, A&M makes the Pac16 much more stable.

          If A&M goes to the SEC, the SEC has no reason not to try to get OU as another marquee name to cement the idea that the SEC is where the best football is played and get a school that fits in pretty well geographically and has a rabit fan base, plus brings more TV markets, even if it’s just two mid-markets.

          For OU, which has some history with Arkansas and recently played Alabama in a home-and-home, played Florida and LSU in bowls in the past 10 years and already has Tennessee on the OOC schedule in a few years, the sure thing of SEC TV money could trump staying with UT for a Pac16 move.

          Especially with USC likely to have a few mediocre years, the allure of a Pac16 would be diminished without OU.

          Like

      • zeek says:

        Well it’s an interesting discussion, but at this point the Pac-16 looks like a reality until/unless A&M really looks like it’s going to leap.

        We’ll know what’s going on after the Texas/A&M summit of sorts, to see if they’re really as much on the same page as we all assumed they would end up being.

        I think if A&M splits, UT might be gettable. It all depends on what UT’s admins are thinking about.

        Of course they may just replace it with UHou or someone else.

        Still, political pressure is going to be immense (from the very top of the state down) on the Aggies to join UT and go west.

        Like

  47. Gopher86 says:

    Chip Brown television interview:

    http://news8austin.com/content/sports/ut_sports/271657/conference-realignment-developments

    Obviously pretty Texas-centric, but it is a good summary of what he’s been reporting over the last week or so.

    Like

  48. chitownhawk says:

    adding

    Like

  49. Cougar High says:

    If I’m the SEC or even the ACC, I’m offering Texas and Texas A&M a deal similar to what the PAC-10 is offering. I would invite Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Baylor and form a 16 team mega-conference. This would avoid any of troubles from the Texas Legislature that the PAC-10 deal would bring.

    Under this scenario the SEC would end up like this:
    SEC WEST: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State.
    SEC EAST: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vaderbilt, and Kentucky

    If the ACC would make the offer, it would end up like this:
    ACC SOUTH: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson
    ACC NORTH: North Carolina, NC State, Duke, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Maryland, and Boston College.

    The only real losers under this scenario would be Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and possibly the Red River Rivalry.

    Like

    • JohnB says:

      I know it solves certain political problems, but for the SEC to pick up Tech and especially Baylor and leave OU on the table is very sub-optimal for the SEC. Baylor brings little value in any event and Tech brings little marginal value if UT and A&M are in.

      I don’t think the ACC makes sense for the Texas schools, and the two divisions you outline are less balanced than the Big12’s divisions were.

      Like

  50. duffman says:

    Morning Folks!

    a) WELCOME NEBRASKA!!

    b) The A&M issue

    from the SI link….

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/06/10/aggies.options/index.html

    “If they choose the SEC — and the SEC subsequently agreed to choose them — entry would be simple. Texas A&M would need approval from nine of the 12 SEC presidents. It also would have to pay $50 in annual membership dues.”

    1) not huge, but this looks like an easy pass, ie in early discussions about what the Big 10 would ask new members the numbers ranged from 5 Million to 50 Million (50 dollars to join – WOW!)

    “That number will rise whether the Aggies stick with their Big 12 south brethren in the Pac-16 or strike out on their own in the SEC. Schools such as Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech and Clemson have been tossed out as possible SEC targets. Those schools don’t make sense, because the SEC already has a stranglehold on the markets they would deliver.”

    2) Much bigger deal, as I have said this all along about the SEC adding the usual suspects (Miami, FSU, Ga Tech, and Clemson). It benefits both sides as A&M can now recruit the south, and the SEC gets to recruit Texas. I know most folks kept saying how valuable UT is and I kept saying A&M was the real jewel (UT without the EGO). I am not happy at the prospect of A&M in the SEC.

    “Texas A&M also is a member of the Association of American Universities. Only two SEC schools (Florida and Vanderbilt) are members. Plus, Texas A&M has grown from about 25,000 students in 1976 to about 47,000 now. That means more alumni than ever are about to enter their prime giving years.”

    3) This gives the SEC an AAU school and increases the academic credibility of the SEC. This would open the eastern flank of the SEC to go after UNC, UVA, and MD. Suddenly you are looking at an academic swing that puts the SEC more in line with the PAC 16, while adding 4 new states. An earlier poster said the SEC has a CIC like setup in its infancy and adding these 4 schools would mean they would be at or near the core of how this would grow in the future. If the SEC could land these 4 you have a vibrant football, basketball, and academic conference.

    “Slive didn’t take the SEC to the top of the college sports world by doing nothing. It was his league’s two 15-year contracts with ESPN and CBS (totaling more than $3 billion) that convinced the other leagues they needed to ramp up their revenue. Those contracts give the SEC security. It can still thrive as a 12-team league even if the Big Ten and Pac-10 supersize to 16, but a component of Slive’s success is his ability to read the tea leaves. After years in the new landscape, would the SEC be positioned to command a plum deal when next it sits at the negotiating table?”

    4) I said in an earlier post that Slive being so quiet was bothering me. My thinking early on was the chess match was between Delany and Slive and something like this makes more sense that Slive going after FSU or WVA. The SEC and ACC are both ESPN turf, so adding A&M + UNC + UVA + MD would mean a new contract negotiation (and a possible SEC deal like the BTN – if ESPN thinks FOX will have the BTN and PTN in their pocket).

    I know we keep thinking Texas and A&M will go together, it would be foolish to think that it would not to appeal to A&M to find their own identity. Not to be crude but if we look at the Aggies from the military context and their choices are the Big 10, the Pac 10, and the SEC it would appear that the SEC will get the Aggies from the “intangible” fit angle. A&M goes to the SEC, and Texas and company find a new home in the Pac 16.

    commentary?

    Like

    • Richard says:

      I’d be shocked if UT’s political power is so slight that they can’t keep the Aggies with them. Considering that Texas politicians seem to have tied TTech to Texas, I would be beyond amazed if they let TAMU do its own thing.

      Like

      • Rick says:

        Richard!!!! Holy shit.

        Like

      • gas1958 says:

        Good Morning Everyone!
        @Richard
        I was of that view also, but ….
        UT/A&M will always be an intense rivalry, but maybe the only thing that is inviolable is that they play every year. The predicate of “Tech problem” was that A&M and UT were together. If UT and A&M were to enter separate conferences–good situations–that might just keep the legislature at bay, and TTech and Baylor would have to deal with it.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          1. Texas & TAMU going to separate good conferences doesn’t solve the Tech problem any more than just the 2 of them heading to a good conference together would; one of them will have to bring Tech along (if not Baylor).

          2. Texas has no incentive to let A&M go to the SEC alone, and would do everything in its power (including it’s political power) to keep little brother close (preferably to the Pac10 or Big10). The only way I can see the SEC forcing Texas to join them is if they propose to take Texas, TAMU, TTech, and Baylor as a package.

          Like

          • bigredforever says:

            Texas would come off as the bully then. It would be interesting to watch.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            They’ve come off as a bully before. I don’t see how it would affect their standing.

            Like

          • AggieFrank says:

            Texas can do nothing to stop A&M from going to the SEC other than hope A&M decides not to go. It is still 50/50 at this point in time.

            Like

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          I think the power of the Texas legislative forces are such that, if there is a “Tech Problem,” A&M has to live with it as well.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            Hopkins – I think that’s wishful thinking. I get the feeling that TTech and Baylor are UTx’s problems. Letting A&M go to the SEC actually opens a spot up for Baylor in the Pac 16. Cal and Stanford might not like it though. UTx is the oldest, strongest member of the Texas clan. If A&M, as the 2nd oldest, wants to strike out on his own, that should be his choice, but the oldest almost always gets stuck with little kid brother and goofy cousin.

            But for that run from the mid-80s through the 90s, the Ags have been living in UTx’s shadow. Or as Sting would say, if you love somebody, set them free.

            Also, thanks for the kind words in the last thread, Hop.

            Like

          • m (Ag) says:

            “UTx is the oldest, strongest member of the Texas clan. If A&M, as the 2nd oldest, wants to strike out on his own, that should be his choice, but the oldest almost always gets stuck with little kid brother and goofy cousin.”

            OK, I just want to point out to everyone who has been talking about A&M being the younger member…Texas A&M is actually the oldest public university in Texas.

            Like

      • Ron says:

        Best case for state of Texas political concerns would be for Baylor to join Texas A&M in an SEC expansion while Texas and Texas Tech go ahead and join the PAC10 as planned. There’s plenty of orphan programs in the west if the Big XII breaks up, so the PAC10 could grab Utah, Missouri or Kansas to replace Texas A&M in the PAC10 package. (In the case of Kansas, one would hope their politicians would be smart enough to unbind the rumored Kansas/Kansas State linkage so they can keep at least one in a major conference).

        Like

        • Patrick says:

          I don’t think that the SEC want anything to do with Baylor either.

          The Texas legislature can “attach” Baylor or UTEP or Tarrant County Community College to who ever the hell they want. Eventually it will just be flat out rejected by the new conference. While Texas and A&M are both great schools they only carry so much dead weight before it becomes a negative (or less attractive than some other school).

          Attaching Kansas State to Kansas is a good way to kill BOTH of your state institutions. Kansas has value, but not enough to carry K State also.

          Like

          • Ron says:

            @Patrick, Guess we might find out fairly quickly about Baylor’s status. If the SEC has trouble prying schools away from the ACC, their options are going to be limited to expand to sixteen. A Texas A&M/Baylor combination would deliver a huge chunk of east Texas (the key would be whether Texas A&M administration decides to go that way). Am convinced that Texas and Texas A&M aren’t necessarily linked as it is generally being portrayed. If they decide to split by mutual agreement between the schools, the state legislature would go along so long as Tech and Baylor both have a safe place to land. The SEC would probably be happy to swallow all four schools at once, but that does not work for UT…Looks like a job for SuperGameTheoryMan!(Who is actually a country cousin of Hancock, for those who’ve seen that movie. Hancock was notorious for wreaking massive economic collateral damage while coming to someone’s rescue.).

            Like

    • jokewood says:

      Seems like Delany would want A&M in the SEC. Yes, A&M would increase the SEC’s power, financial strength, and ability to recruit Texas. However, that move also…

      — fractures the Texas schools. While this does not necessarily eliminate Texas’s Tech or Baylor problems, the first crack is the most difficult.

      — sends the message to Notre Dame that multiple conference expansion is inevitable.

      Like

      • Richard says:

        Fracturing the Texas schools doesn’t do anything for the Big10. In any case, if the politicians won’t let Texas & TAMU go somewhere without Tech, what are the chances that they allow Texas and TAMU to go separate ways? I’d say 0.

        Like

  51. SH says:

    Frank if the NW message board is right, I think a public invite to those four schools would be awesome. What does the B10 have to lose. Let’s make this as public as possible. These are public schools after all (other than ND). The B10 already landed a whale, so even if all 4 rejected, it its not a total rebuke. Just make sure you can accept one or none. None of this conditional BS. You either want a school or don’t. The train is moving, but let’s kick it in high gear.

    Great game last night – great Cup and great playoffs. I’d say its been a great year for hockey.

    Here’s hoping it will be a great year in soccer. Probably not many soccer fans on this board, but I think we can all rally around the flag this Saturday againt England.

    Like

  52. Gopher86 says:

    Bill Self talks expansion:

    http://theshiver.com/2010/06/kansas-coach-bill-self-meets-with-media/

    Sounds like he’s done his homework. Obviously, he’s pimping Kansas, but he’s honest about his concerns and the reality of the situation.

    Like

    • bigredforever says:

      bet he leaves KU ends up in a conference that isn’t considered a basketball power conference or a BCS conference.

      Like

  53. Pariahwulfen says:

    congrats to the hawks…and eggs…

    Like

  54. coldhusker says:

    Frank – Have you heard any rumblings as to when Nebraska would start playing a Big 10 schedule?

    I would guess the 2011-12 academic year because I would find it hard to believe that the Big 12 (if there still is a Big 12) and Nebraska really don’t want to have 2 lame duck years.

    Like

  55. Just Say No to NJ says:

    By the way – how pissed must Turner Gill be right about now. That Auburn gig must be looking pretty sweet in retrospect.

    Also, no matter the topic, I never pass up a chance to mention Rutgers doesn’t belong in the Big 10 (though from reading posts on here their normal fans seem downright – gawd forbid – reasonable and ok) …

    Like

  56. HerbieHusker says:

    adding, and BTW Go Big Red! If this announcement goes down on Friday like it is supposed to; this’ll be just like the day AD Pederson and HC Callahan were fired…time to celebrate!

    Like

  57. Doug says:

    I read somewhere that if a conference loses teams to the point where it no longer has six teams that have been in the conference for at least five years, that that conference is automatically disbanded, which nullifies any exit fees. Can anyone verify that?

    Like

    • Doug says:

      I found the place I’d read this rule. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/sports/07conference.html.
      The article states the following:
      If the Pac-10 swiped six teams from the Big 12 and Missouri or Nebraska went to the Big Ten, the Big 12 would become defunct. Under N.C.A.A. guidelines, a conference needs at least six universities that have played together for five years. The Big 12 would lose its Bowl Championship Series bid and automatic bid to the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament.
      Another site said that rule would nullify the exit fee requirements, since the league would no longer exist.

      Like

  58. Tharvot says:

    Reports this morning say that Colorado has accepted the Pac10’s invite and has agreed to leave the Big12(-2). Good pre-emptive strike by Colorado to avoid being replaced by Baylor.

    Texas and A&M are having a meeting today to discuss their futures, and I have to assume this is a sales trip by UT to get A&M on board with the Pac16.

    If the Pac16 happens, I expect Missouri to have a presser soon after to announce their intentions to join the BigTen, followed by a Notre Dame presser to the same effect.

    Like

    • Rick says:

      Not so sure Missouri has that invite/assurance from Big Ten yet.

      Like

      • Tharvot says:

        I think for the moment, the BigTen is waiting to see what happens in the Big12. If they try to hold the fort together, the BigTen might stop expansion at 12. But, if the Big12 blows up, I expect that invite to Missouri to go out in order to keep the SEC from moving into the St. Louis and Kansas City markets.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          No one expects the Big12 to hold together; Texas has already told its coaches the Big12 is dead. Mizzou just isn’t terribly appealing.

          Like

        • zeek says:

          Well of course.

          If the Big 12 somehow holds together, then the Big Ten has pulled off a huge coup in getting Nebraska this time around.

          Think about how much easier it would be to go after Texas/A&M in 2-3 years after Nebraska is integrated…

          Then again, I’m not certain Mizzou gets an invite unless the SEC actively makes a move on them and Delany wants to outflank the SEC.

          They won’t go to the SEC over bitterness in waiting on a Big Ten invite, etc.

          In any case, the Big Ten’s best course of action is to look Southeast or East if the Texas/A&M summit results in a commitment to the Pac-16.

          Like

          • Just Say No to NJ says:

            I keep reading that there is no reason to rush, that these conferences can wait a year or two or three to add new schools, but isn’t the point to have the schools sooner (schooner) rather than later (fla gator) due to the leverage they provide you in renegotiating expiring tv contracts that only come up every blue moon ?? I thought THIS was the reason this expansion is coming to fruition NOW and not some arbitrary random “hey what the hell we should expand this year just for the f of it”

            btw – No to Rutgers.

            Like

        • Josh says:

          I think the Big Ten just sits for a while and Delany goes back to his “12-18 month timetable” that he always wanted. There are two schools that aren’t going anywhere–Rutgers and Missouri–so there is no need to offer them now. They’ll still be there in two years if ND gives their ultimate no and the Texas schools are off to other conferences.

          Maybe if the ACC goes after Rutgers, Delany has to act. But I don’t see that happening unless they lose schools to the SEC, and I don’t see that happening at all.

          I think we play at least one and maybe two seasons as a 12 team conference.

          Like

  59. Vincent says:

    I was just over at a Washington Post chat and brought up Maryland possibly going to the Big Ten, including the academic and research benefits to College Park, and got this response from Barry Svrluga:

    Barry Svrluga writes:
    I have no patience for any talk about conference realignment that has anything to do with academics. The people who drive these things talk them up, but they are complete afterthoughts while they’re going on. That is an absolute non-factor.

    He covered ACC expansion in 2003, and perhaps simply doesn’t realize the Big Ten looks at this from a completely different perspective. Another reason that viewing this whole endeavor strictly as a sports story is folly (somethimg most sportswriters, even those at places like the Post, simply don’t get).

    Like

    • Michael says:

      @Vincent

      The changes are going so wide-spread, with a clear divide between the winners and the losers, that there´s going to be quite a bit of public backlash.

      You also have to remember that great swaths of the country have been caught with their pants down regarding all of this – only now beginning to grasp its importance.

      As someone who indulges in expansion news and has become a bit obsessed, its tough to for me to understand, but this is what happens when you´re pissed and uninformed but someone´s willing to publish your thoughts: That person ends up sounding like an idiot to anyone who has actually studied the subject.

      I think the media will eventually come around – if for no other reason than that the subject is spelled out for them – but in the meantime, we have to bite our tongues when people like this decide to open their mouths.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Michael,

        I agree 100%, I think many folks are just getting in.. we have been hashing out issues (with good debate – thank you fellow bloggers) for quite some time. Granted this is mostly Big 10 stuff, but maybe we can draw in some A&M folks for their perspective. Maybe some Maryland folks as well.

        Like

    • duffman says:

      vincent,

      if this is the only decision in expansion who would you choose?

      Maryland or Texas A&M?

      no other considerations like the terps bring ND or A&M brings UT type of thing.. strictly one or the other as a stand alone?

      thanks

      Like

      • zeek says:

        I think most here (who doesn’t have a personal stake in A&M or Maryland) would say A&M except for mushroomgod (or whoever it was who said they’re a terrible fit).

        That being said, A&M and Maryland are similar in terms of their value to the Big Ten, so there isn’t really a right answer to that question; they’re both at the top of the list of schools most people would want to see…

        Like

        • SH says:

          For me A&M in a heartbeat. I just don’t get the appeal of MD. A&M is a good school and would only get better. But I recognize both bring different positive attributes to the table. Getting Texas (even through A&M) would be great for the bit 10 though. Hard to pass that up.

          Like

  60. Faitfhful5k says:

    Over on a Badgers board they are running a poll.

    Which eastern program would you want to join the Big Ten?

    The choices were Maryland, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, and UConn.

    When I made my choice I surprised myself. Then I had to think hard about my justification. Bear with me here as I repeat my case…

    I love Big Ten football. I love the big slow Big Ten football that Texas and SEC types love to ridicule.

    I detest spread offenses, run-and-shoot, or any of that crap where you send a bunch of slippery smurfs scurrying all over the field. It reminds me too much of flag football in grade school Phys. Ed.. You would look across the line and realize the “fast kid” and one guy who could throw were over there… and know you were screwed.

    A lot of my enjoyment since the Badgers started winning has been we have whipped the other guys and didn’t trick them. When it hasn’t been so good I can still tip my hat, we have usually been beaten… right up front in the trenches where football is played.

    Give me smash-mouthing, blue-collar kids kicking ass any day. Give me the U huddling around their heaters like a bunch of wounded nancies. I love that.

    When everybody first looked at expansion hardly anybody listed Nebraska because we were all focused on population centers for the BTN above all else. But then the TV-savvy guys quickly dismissed that notion. Nebraska is a proven ratings power, and they have continued to show their brand strength with great matchups against OU, UT, and top bowl games. I am guessing it was pretty easy for the TV consultants to put the Huskers high on the list. And they do have that Big Ten feel and fit.

    Why do I want to emphasize this? Look in that other thread (above-mentioned poll). I have been as big an advocate of all the “smart” metrics as anybody. Academic fit, television markets, institutional fit, ratings, etc. But I voted for Pitt. Others are voting the same way. Screw the footprint in this case. Pitt fits the Big Ten just like the Huskers.

    By most academic metrics Pitt blows Nebraska away. But as we all have heard, the duplicate TV footprint just kills them. It sure hasn’t helped that being in the Big East continues to diminish their “brand”. Crappy Big East football. Lousy bowl tie-ins. I admit I haven’t watched a Pitt game in years. You look back to the divergence from the time when Penn St. came to the Big Ten and Pitt ended up stuck in the Big East…. wow… that just sucked for Pitt.

    How much of that brand value can be restored if Pitt just started hanging out with better company?

    The TV guys did grade school math to put Nebraska near the top of the list. The same grade school math may have knocked Pitt completely off the list. I just hope the media guys are smarter than that. Maybe it is naive, but I keep thinking of those Pitt teams of the 80’s and internally project them coming to Big Ten stadiums. I think that is what that poll is saying for many of us. Recent TV data must make Pitt look like crap. Maybe it will take advanced calculus by the TV guys, but somehow they need to quantify this gut feeling I have that Pitt is a great choice.

    If a 16th spot is still open and Notre Dame is still being Notre Dame, screw them. Take in Pitt. Notre Dame can later settle for their open spot in the Big East. It would be beautiful irony if we could see diverging paths again.

    (No offense intended to any of you Notre Dame guys. I for one do not want to force your hand to join the Big Ten. I think the long-term success of Big Ten expansion requires willing partners. I respect your traditions and differences. If the climate changes enough that you truly want to join the club, I would welcome you gladly.)

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I could see Pitt working if Rutgers/Maryland are 13-14 and Delany doesn’t think Syracuse brings much of NY and Missouri doesn’t move the dial much. At that point Pitt. may help lock down the Northeast more (and make Maryland more willing to come so it’s with a bunch of northeastern schools).

      We’ll see though. I still think the Big Ten needs to make a play at Maryland/Rutgers sooner rather than later if the writing is on the wall about Texas going west.

      In terms of state schools that have massive numbers of alumni and large markets with top notch research, those two have to be near the top of the list.

      Get Gee on the phone with Mote.

      Also, if you have Nebraska/Rutgers/Maryland locked in, you can go to Notre Dame and be like “who are you going to join with…” I’m pretty sure they’ll say Pitt over Mizzou.

      Like

      • Faitfhful5k says:

        I agree your scenario is the likely way it would work out for Pitt to get an invite. As a 1st choice… not likely. But if the Texas teams go off the board Pitt could very well be the best choice for the 3rd team in a move east/southeast.

        My ramble was all about explaining that fuzzy-good feel I got when I voted Pitt on that poll. Footprint be damned.

        Like

      • buckeyebeau says:

        @ Zeek: maybe you didn’t mean the metaphor in the same biblical proportions as it actually is in the Bible, but “the writing on the wall” suggests the end of the world if TX goes West.

        I say it again: TX to the west is NOT a loss or fail for the B10. The Rose Bowl Conferences are going to end up with all the best of what’s out there to be had (that is, neither conference is ever going to get Florida — and, as much as it pains me to say, Florida would be a home run “get”).

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I don’t think it’s much of a loss at all.

          I’m one of those who think the death of the Big 12 is a big, big gain for the Big Ten’s western teams especially.

          Think about what removing Iowa State from a power conference does for Iowa’s value.

          And about how Nebraska will be the only power in the great plains in a power conference since Oklahoma will be firmly attached to the southwest, etc.

          I just think that killing the Big 12, even if the Pac-10 gets Texas/A&M, is too big a gain.

          Think about it, outside of the Southeast, all of the power will be concentrated in the Big Ten and Pac-10.

          That’s not a bad thing at all.

          In any case, I do think the Big Ten has plenty of good expansion scenarios open. The Pac-10 only had one expansion scenario to begin with…

          Of course, this all only happens if the SEC’s run at A&M is not successful…

          Like

          • buckeyebeau says:

            yep, you and I are on the same page then.

            and adding NEB immediately upgrades the “brands” of all the western schools in the B10; wiscy and iowa get big “upgrades” and even IL and Minny and Nwestern will be enhanced.

            as i said up above somewhere, how about NU & NEB playing at Wrigley or Soldier Field. (NU gets slaughtered, but still… how fun!)

            Like

          • Patrick says:

            NU’s stadium isn’t big enough for the traveling Nebraska fans. A friend of mine played there, my sis-in-law graduated from NW, their stadium looks like a practice field.

            Like

          • Josh says:

            I’m not sure that ISU dropping down to mid-major status really helps the Hawkeyes much. When was the last time a football recruit chose the Cyclones over the Hawkeyes? Doesn’t happen much. Basketball might be a different issue, except the Hawks are woeful at hoops right now and you can still field a strong BBall team from a mid-major conference.

            The only area where it might make a difference is wrestling, but I’m one of those weird Hawk alum who really don’t care about the wrestling team.

            The Cyclone fans aren’t going to start cheering for or watching the Hawks now. They hate us. I suppose over a couple decades more children in Iowa will grow up cheering for the Hawks, but that’s already happening, no matter what happens.

            I’d prefer that the B12 stayed together and that ISU had a BCS home. The legislature demands that we play each year, so it counts for more in the rankings if ISU is in a power conference. But I’m not going to shed a tear if they end up in CUSA, nor do I want Iowa to try to influence the process to help them.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah but my point wasn’t necessarily about ISU.

            My point was more about all of the schools between the Pac-10 and Big Ten.

            All of them will be relegated to mid-major status effectively.

            Over time that will have a noticeable impact on viewing patterns etc.

            Obviously, I’m not saying that ISU fans will cheer for the Hawkeyes or something.

            What I am saying is that your average college sports fan without an alumni (or even with) allegiance living between the Pac-10 and Big Ten will be more likely to tune in to Nebraska/Iowa, etc.

            I’m just arguing that removing the Big 12 significantly upgrades the brand values of the Pac-10 and Big Ten because over time, it’s easier to capture eyeballs between the Big Ten and Pac-10 as the power conferences run away with all of the $ and that begins to show up in terms of parity issues (as if they weren’t already there before), but it will become worse in a sense.

            Like

          • bobestes says:

            No offense, but stuff like this is why everyone else hates the Big Ten.

            It’s all about decimating other conferences until you can get to the point where you can say things like “Think about what removing Iowa State does for Iowa’s value”

            Yuck, gross, no thank you.

            Like

          • Josh says:

            @zeke

            As far as watching games on TV goes, I think people who grow up too far from a major college program just don’t become college sports fans. For people to become Iowa fans, it would be better to win a national championship in something than just be nearby. I think if you’re in Kansas, KU no longer is major college football school and you still want to cheer for a school, you’d be more likely to cheer for Penn State or Florida or USC if those schools were winning and the Hawkeyes weren’t, even if Iowa is closer geographically.

            I guess what you might be saying is that there is a group of high school kids in the Great Plains states that want to attend a university with major college sports. I believe that is true. Some of those kids might look to Iowa if Iowa was the nearest school with major sports and become alums and donors. That’s possible. But I think the gains the U of I would get in that case would be very marginal.

            Like

    • buckeyebeau says:

      oh, and yeah, I am totally pro-Pitt as an addition. Great brand; great rivalry; great for PSU (which is good for B10); great academics; great defensive “get” to prevent ACC from entre to PA market.

      Like

      • buckeyebeau says:

        oh, and the B10 Presidents are clearly NOT

        Like

        • buckeyebeau says:

          grrr….

          are clearly NOT as focused on tv markets as are this board/many posters.

          evidence: they just invited/accepted NEB. brings no new giant tv market (or even a large populous state); the key to NEB was/is the brand. I think the Pitt brand is strong enough and the PSU connection is another strong factor.

          Like

        • buckeyebeau says:

          oh, and ND is the same. no new markets; it’s the brand name (that is, tv RATING) and that trumps the tv market.

          if the B10 took Neb and would take ND in a heartbeat, then the B10 is NOT all focused on expanding into new markets.

          Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah, but brand matters in terms of national brand.

        Nebraska has a brand that resonates from coast to coast like OSU/PSU/Michigan or Oklahoma, etc.

        Pitt doesn’t have that. Pitt does have somewhat of a national brand but it’s more of a second tier nature, I’d put it around Iowa or Wisconsin.

        It would be a great add in terms of football, but the Nebraska addition was all about increasing the value of the games that are being played in terms of their national value and Big Ten Network value.

        Every game that Nebraska has against a Big Ten opponent now has a national brand attached. The value of that “inventory” thus goes up in a similar way.

        The effect is even more pronounced by the fact that some of Nebraska’s games will get the national TV ABC/ESPN treatment, and some more of OSU/PSU/Michigan/Iowa/Wisconsin will be on the Big Ten Network. You can’t underestimate that effect.

        Like

        • buckeyebeau says:

          agreed.

          a national brand is better than a regional one and that’s better than an in-state brank.

          and agreed that the Pitt brand is not Neb, TX, OK, MI, tOSU, FL, ‘bama, USC, etc. However, I’d say the Pitt Brand is quite a bit higher than MD, Rutgers, S’cuse, Mizzu, VA.

          So there is a choice; brand vs. tv market (and then add in all the other factors like academics, existing relationship with a big powerful B10 member, etc.)

          All I am really saying is that the tv market is NOT the overriding factor for the B10 Presidents

          And that is based on the only evidence we actually have: who has been invited (assuming the “invite” to NEB is accurate).

          and I think we’re agreed that you take a national brand over regional etc.

          as said many many many times on this Board, the issue is with the choice for teams #14 through 16 (assuming ND is #13). I’d pick Pitt as part of the other three over choices like VA, MD, UCONN, S’cuse.

          Like

          • Rick says:

            Pitt is certainly a nice brand for football, and Wanny has rebuilt the franchise, but for those who think Rutgers will be doormats and tier 3 in football, keep in mind Rutgers is 4-1 versus Pitt the last 5 years. 4-0 until last year. Both Rutgers and Pitt will be very competitive on the field with the rest of the Big Ten. I have nothing but admiration for the Pitt program but lets keep this in current perspective.

            Like

        • buckeyebeau says:

          oh @ those rare posters (and those in the mainstream media) who are suggesting that NEB’s departure from the BXII is not that big of a deal:

          Zeek’s point about NEB bringing a national brand to every game is why NEB is such a loss to TX and the BXII. There is no school/team in the northern great plains who can replace NEB. Consequently, those BXII northern division games have a lot LOT less tv value and that diminishes the value of the BXII’s “inventory.”

          The BXII really can’t survive as a power conference without NEB. It might survive in the way the Big East survives; but not as a power conference.

          Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      None taken. Nothing would make me happier than a strong Big 16 so we at ND never have to hear about us going to what’s now the Big Ten ever again. Institutional fit matter, no offense, either.

      @buckeyebeau

      Considering that PSU only offered Pitt a 2-for-1, I’m not sure the Big Ten rates Pitt’s brand as highly as I do.

      Like

      • buckeyebeau says:

        lol… well, maybe so. I’m not hooked into the pennsylvania scuttlebutt, but I’d guess that 2 for 1 is some payback for old grudges and hard feelings dating to the early 90s. Scheduling games is one thing; conference realignment is on another scale and from what I can tell, PSU would welcome Pitt as a addition. Despite the hard feelings, I think JoePa would push it/is pushing it.

        But if there are PSU/Pitt folks reading, by all means, provide some insight.

        Like

        • Nittanian says:

          Penn State sells out every home game at one of the largest collegiate venues, while Pitt sells out a smaller NFL stadium only when big programs such as PSU or ND visit. IIRC, the PSU athletic dept prefers (needs?) at least seven home games each season. Incidentally, Pitt hosted almost every game in the rivalry until the 1970s, after which the scheduling became more even.

          It is often claimed that Paterno holds a grudge against Pitt for opposing Paterno’s proposed eastern football conference in the early 1980s. I think he has gotten over that, since Paterno has mentioned Pitt as a possible expansion candidate. I think the only school he publicly opposed for expansion was ND, saying that they had their chance already.

          Like

        • pioneerlion says:

          There’s some hard feelings between JoePa and Pitt, especially surrounding the all-sports eastern conference that Joe tried to form but Pitt spurned in the 80’s, and then Pitt did not vote to support PSU into the bigLeast.

          The scheduling issues go back as far as the 30’s, 40’s and 50’s when as many as 8 to 10 PSU-Pitt games in a row were played in Pittsburgh.

          The first football chant I learned at PSU in 1979 was “PITT SUCKS!”, followed by “BEAT PITT!”. No love lost, many hard feelings between PSU and Pitt. What goes around, comes around, and has stayed around.

          Like

          • SH says:

            Sounds like JoPa ought to be thanking his lucky stars that Pitt spurned him. Well PSU should. I’m not sure JoPa knows what conference he is playing in.

            Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        I’ve always thought the 2-1 split for PSU-Pitt games was an indicaiton of how highly PSU thought of Pitt.

        PSU simplay cannot lose to the only other top notch football program in PA (especially one in another conference) because it needs to recruit to maintain its status in the BigTen.

        You have to figure the home team is going to have a marked advantage in those games and thus PSU wanted to ensure they’d win more games than not and also ensure the big time recruits keep wanting to come to PSU.

        If Pitt was in the BigTen I think they’d take the tact that at least the conference is winning, even if they (PSU) are not.

        Like

  61. Guido says:

    The CU rumor is pure guesswork, someone hoping to be first to report. Nothing to see there at the moment.

    I think the Texas and OK schools are somewhere in the Anger/Bargaining stages of grief related to Nebraska leaving. Once some time passes, they’ll realize staying in the Big 12 actually works best for them in the long run….or they’ll act now out of anger, which would be foolish.

    Like

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      The fans might be in anger, but I really hope that the Regents, and the Presidents and the Athletic Directors who are all well paid and running what is a multi million dollar business are a little above that.

      Like

  62. jhetfield99 says:

    I absolutely love this blog, like you’ve said, this expansion thing is a drug I haven’t been able to get enough of. Here’s my take one the new divisions (unless Texas or ND wants to join now, I’m assuming not):
    —we’ll probably stick with 12
    —there will be a conf champ game
    —then it makes sense to have divisions

    ……………how do you see it it to split up the divisions?

    Naturally every says East/West which we all can figure out in 6 secs:

    East…….West
    PSU……..Neb
    OSU……..Wisc
    MSU……..Iowa
    Mich……..Minn
    IU…………IL
    Pur……….NW

    Positives:
    It truly follows geography.
    You preserve many rivalries and they will play every years:
    –power circle (OSU, PSU, Mich) of recent rivals which has been good for the conf and make it so they play every year, TV will love that. Iowa-Minn-Wisc. In state battles: IU-Pur. MSU-Mich. NW-IL.
    –I set it up so if we want to use the SEC model and have a guaranteed cross-over rival, you can do that. This would bring back an annual battle for the Brown Jug, preserve the annual IU-IL battle, preserve the annual Pur-NW battle (though I don’t think either fanbase cares about that. The first 3 pairs could trade teams, I just took a stab at it with TV-appetite in mind. I know a bunch would prefer PSU-Iowa or OSU-Neb.

    Negatives:
    –The East will be stronger than the West in most years on paper. So did we just create the “new Big 12 South”. I’m sure Delany would prefer our auto-berth is our best team each year. With that in mind, this set up allows for a 6-2 conf team to knock off 8-0 team, which I think would be more likely to be West and East, respectively.

    Given that I think they’d rather spread out the powers, the Big Ten may do the ACC model and just pick out of a bucket. I hate that. To this day I have no clue who is in the Coastal and Atlantic Divisions in the ACC. I only know UNC-Duke are in the same and FSU-Miami are opposite with the goal of having that be the CCG (which has blown up in their faces big time). So what’s another choice? Do North/South. It’s actually pretty natural, and only cheats geography a little bit.

    North…..South
    Mich……..OSU
    MSU……..PSU
    Wisc……..NW
    Minn……..Pur
    Neb………IL
    Iowa……..IU

    Positives:
    –The only way it cheats geography is putting farther Nebraska in the North instead of NW. Is there a soul that cares?
    –It spreads out the power really well I think. If anything you’d argue the West would usually be better on paper, but with PSU and OSU in the other side, does anybody care? Once Mich gets it going again I think this type of split makes everybody smile.
    –It maintains all current annual rivalries. It let’s the Brown Jug go to annual. If we go with the one-cross-over rival-model, the first 3 preserve current ones or are logical. The last 3, I basically made up and would be new ones. Similar to the current annual NW-Pur game, I think a lot of the fan base wouldn’t care if PSU-MSU was no longer a forced annual game.

    Negatives:
    –the big one. The main one. The only one? “The Game” between OSU and Mich could be played in back-to-back fashion. With the way the 90’s/00’s worked out, this would have happened probably 2 of every 3 years. I don’t think that’s very appetizing. Both coaches would say they’re going to go 100% for their reg season match up, but if they’ve already clinched both divisions and both are out of the serious nat’l title race, you don’t think a game of poker will be played that will include some back up QBs. Sure the media and fans will roast them, but if it’s all about winning the conf the next week. If you want to do that, you don’t show your opponent anything the week before. Is this negative enough to put a kibosh on the whole thing?

    What are your guy’s thoughts? If ND finally decides to play and we add one more you could add them to either scenario without disrupting too much, though to maintain rivals they’d already to go to a loaded East in that model (to guar games against MSU, Mich, and Pur), even more reason to go with the North/South model.

    I prefer divisions as opposed to sticking with 8 games and doing what we do now, which is cycle out 2 teams every year. Without division this would become 3 and I think that really increases the odds someone misses the best 3 teams in some years and wins the conf with a very lopsided 7-1, 8-0 record.

    Like

    • buckeyebeau says:

      the east west is best (and not just because of “the game”)

      there is no reason that NEB, IO and WIS cannot be consistently good and ranked

      I don’t think that B10West will be the BXII north. B10 West is full of traditional and proud football powers (even if faded powers). Minny may be bad now, may have been/will be bad for many years, but at one point, MN was the best. IL has been playing football for 100 years. IOWA and Wisconsin speak for themselves.

      By contrast, who’s in the BXII North: KS (basketball school), KSstate (don’t know), IOstate (who cares), Colorado (where?) and um … hmm… um … i could google, but that requires effort… lol

      well, anyway, the point is that it’s okay to have tOSU, MI and PSU in the same division.

      Like

      • Mike R says:

        There is no school in a notional “Big 10 West” that, with the right coach, the right investment of resources, and the right approach to recruiting cannot be a national power. Minnesota in a new stadium, Illinois with a good associate HC who can coach up Zook’s recruits, to name just two.

        Like

        • M says:

          FWIW, Northwestern has a winning record against every team in the proposed Big Ten West since ’95 (except for an 0-1 against Nebraska).

          Like

    • MIRuss says:

      It’ll be East-West…And believe me, the Big 10 West with Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota will be tough. Okay, maybe not the Gophers, but they are always in there messing things up. Not to mention that Illinois and Northwestern have been good to better from time to time.

      Like

  63. Hopkins Horn says:

    Big 10ers more familiar with the benefits of the CIC than I:

    Someone who claims to have a research background (and I have no reason to doubt that he’d be telling the truth about that) came by my most recent post to criticize (in a good way) my assumption that the CIC really would be as beneficial as I have been claiming it would be.

    Anyone care to take a shot to refute/substantiate what he’s saying? It’s an interesting side-debate, one way or the other.

    http://www.burntorangenation.com/2010/6/7/1505152/realignment-chronicles-larry-scott#39426044

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I don’t think you can really accurately measure the tangible benefits of CIC membership.

      I’ve seen articles that have stated that Penn State was well behind the Big Ten in terms of median pay, conditions, etc. for researchers and is now right in the middle of the group.

      The CIC isn’t directly bringing in the $ but it makes the schools more likely to get research contracts due to the fact that it is one of the more comprehensive alliances. Everything it does is a small step in the right direction as it were. Coursesharing, library digitizing, bulk purchasing agreements, etc.

      As I noted above, it also has tended to have a standardizing effect across the schools in terms of pay/facilities/etc. because the schools are much more actively engaged in an arms race with each other and with schools outside of the CIC.

      Like

      • Blake says:

        Zeek summarized it pretty well, but if you were looking for the details, here’s an article that covers a) how Nebraska will/may reap academic benefits when it moves to the Big Ten, i.e. Virology researchers at Nebraska wanting to partner w/those at Wisconsin and Northwestern, and b) how joining the Big Ten has benefited Penn State academically:
        http://www.omaha.com/article/20100609/NEWS01/706099919

        Like

      • gas1958 says:

        This isn’t about research, but … I have a friend/colleague who teaches in the School of Music at PSU; she was there when they joined the B10 and is still there. At that time, PSU evidently undertook a campus-wide benchmarking process to compare themselves to programs at the rest of the B10. The issue wasn’t necessarily “What should we do to come up to a particular standard” but my friend said the benchmarking was very helpful to them. PSU had then, as it does now (until NE joins), the smallest School of Music in the B10, but they were able to get some things they had been needing for some time as a result of the benchmarking. This may seem trivial compared to CIC issues, but it is one example of what happens when a school joins a conference for reasons other than purely sports-related and does so intelligently.

        Like

    • Blake says:

      Okay, I don’t think my previous comment ended up going through properly, so I’m posting it again just to be safe:

      Zeek summarized the benefits really well, but if you were looking for specifics, here’s a nice article that goes into the details of how a) Nebraska may/will reap academic benefits, i.e. Nebraska’s Virology researchers wanting to partner w/those at Wisconsin and Northwestern, and b) how joining the Big Ten has benefited Penn State academically: http://www.omaha.com/article/20100609/NEWS01/706099919

      Like

  64. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Adding. Its getting harder and harder to bill clients.

    Frank – from a guy who watches Olympic hockey every 30 years, congrats on your Blackhawks winning the Stanley Cup. Chicago is a great sports town and deserves many more championships than its teams have delivered.

    Like

  65. Ken Smithmier says:

    adding once again

    Like

  66. M says:

    http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/06/baylor-tech-now-part-of-meeting-with-ut.html

    Double secret meeting now has Baylor and Tech. Possible scenarios:

    A&M wants to go to SEC, Baylor brought in as substitute for Pac-16.

    Texas and A&M have brought the kiddos to tell them that they are leaving for the Big Ten.

    Texas and A&M forgot the super secret location part and Kenneth Star crashed the party.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      What in the world is going on?

      Perhaps this was all a feint to get into the SEC in which case A&M played its hand brilliantly.

      I still have to think Stanford/Cal will balk at the addition of Baylor to the Pac-16 slate.

      And who gets left out now, OSU?

      Now’s when you want to fasten the seatbelts if there’s going to be wheeling and dealing…

      Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      Another possible scenario, they’re actually trying to salvage the B12.

      Like

      • @loki_the_bubba – Possible. It continues to perplex me why Texas would want that outside of some amorphous notion of “control”, but it’s possible. Regardless, it shows that the Pac-16 deal isn’t necessarily a slam dunk.

        Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        That makes a lot more sense that a solution which requires Texas to allow itself to be saddled with both the Tech Problem and the Baylor Problem while A&M gets away scot-free.

        Especially since, if the SEC gets A&M, that would be an odd number, and we know who the even number would be. And that makes the package Texas would bring with it to the west that much less attractive to all parties.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Why would Texas even want to go West without both?

          Thinking about it, Texas wanted to be in a conference with 4 brand names: Texas/A&M/Oklahoma/Nebraska.

          They lost Nebraska. The second best option is the new SWC with the other three brands.

          Losing 2 of the remaining 3 means they’re the only ones trudging west.

          In that case, what options do they really have other than trying to roll this thing back or forcing a political solution on A&M by bringing in Tech and Baylor and Perry (if he has any power at all over this…).

          Going to the Big Ten may even become more preferable since they could stay with Nebraska even though that’s not really of that much value to them…

          Like

          • Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

            Zeek,

            You are spot on, pal! The point is that U of Texas’ options are narrowing down very fast. Ta&m does not want to be in the Pac 10! Ta&m has always seen itself as a southern school and wants in the SEC.

            UT is losing its dancing partners very quickly. And thus UT is losing its options. UT has to be very apprehensive now of the ultimate outcome. They may go independent, but that is a high risk scenario. UT is running scared.

            Like

        • Faitfhful5k says:

          Could UT’s plans for their own network be at play here? I believe the SEC made it known UT would be able to keep the LSN as an incentive for coming over, but there are all the noted objections to that option. If the Pac-16 option is followed with a BTN-style tv contract does that put limits on broadcasting rights for the LSN? If so… and the LSN is projected to be a huge cash cow, is saving the BigXII in any form the best possible option for UT? Political coverage is provided for the Texas brethren and the LSN can get rolling without restriction.

          Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Hop – if the A&M comes alone to the SEC, Florida State would be the logical choice to balance East and West and stand pat at 14. SEC gets a national draw in FSU, and coloful tradition and big state with A&M.

          FSU leaving the ACC doesn’t cause it to implode, they just go get Syracuse to replace it.

          Tech and Baylor problem solved for UTx, but Stanford & Cal go crazy.

          Like

        • JohnB says:

          Agreed – without A&M it’s a toss-up whether OU would stay with Texas to go to an untested Pac16 or head for the more sure thing of an expanding SEC. The SEC move would become far more attractive if there were any perception of risk at all that UT could change its mind and go north.

          Like

      • M says:

        @loki

        “Another possible scenario, they’re actually trying to salvage the B12.”

        That’s an entirely reasonable explanation that did not at all occur to me. I am totally in “grab the marshmallows” mode with the Big 12.

        Like

        • loki_the_bubba says:

          The fact that Baylor and Tech have been invited makes me think this explanation is close to the top of the list.

          Like

          • Rugby says:

            Go back and look at the original link. Story has been updated to say that it is in fact ONLY Texas and TAMU (no TT or Baylor) at the meeting.

            Like

      • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

        I think that is totally possible. The Big 12 only needs to add 2 schools to replace CU and Nebraska.

        Like

      • MIRuss says:

        Loki,

        That’s what I believed at the beginning and I am starting to get a sense of right now. The Big 12 is UT’s own little Petri Dish to grow whatever it wants with whatever it wants…If it can get the TLN off the ground, it might survive. It being the Big 12. At least UT can play with it for 5 years and see what develops. Then, if they decide to shitcan the whole thing, what have they really lost? Everyone will still be waiting with open arms.

        Like

    • twk says:

      My personal preference is for A&M to go to the SEC. If that allows Baylor to slide into the Pac 16 deal, or tag along with us to the SEC, that’s fine by me. Everyone gets taken care of in that scenario, so the politicians could have no complaint. Seems to me that only party that wouldn’t like it is UT. I’ll give A&M President Bowen Loftin and AD Bill Byrne credit for keeping a poker face through this whole thing if they can pull something like that off.

      Like

    • StvInILL says:

      Kenneth Starr crashing a party? hes never had a history of that??? :- )

      Like

    • willarm1 says:

      SEC making a play?

      Like

    • Hangtime79 says:

      The fact Baylor and Tech got invited speaks VOLUMES at this point means a whole lot of lobbying. I think the scenario of aTm and Baylor to SEC and Tech and UT just got a lot more credence. No need to invite Baylor and Tech to the party to tell Baylor sorry sucks to be you.

      Like

      • Rugby says:

        Go back and look at the original link. Story has been updated to say that it is in fact ONLY Texas and TAMU (no TT or Baylor) at the meeting.

        Like

  67. M says:

    http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&style=2&tid=143839427&Page=3

    Purple Book Cat is at it again.

    “I do have somewhat of an update as of this morning. I say somewhat because it depends not on the Big Ten itself, but on a number of non-Big Ten schools. This whole process (the expansion strategies, not the message board banter) is absolutely fascinating.

    So let me first say that the Big Ten is aware of the original message board thread and believes that it has played a role in bringing about the discussions to where they are now, for better or worse. My friend has kept me in the loop continuously, and as of this point there are some things, if disclosed, that can hurt the negotiation process for the Big Ten. There are others that can help. And I’m a low-risk outlet for information because I have no credibility (other than the 30,000 page views primarily from large southern and eastern states – to you I say thank you for giving Northwestern a moment to occupy the center of the college football world. I believe this will become more commonplace in the future as Pat Fitzgerald continues to build a program of excellence in Evanston.) (One other thing: Northwestern owns justIowa. Remember that.)

    The “somewhat” update is two parts, as follows: some very interesting things are happening in the Big East right now. If I said anything more about that, it would jeopardize the position of the Big Ten, so suffice it to say that this depends on the status of that school in South Bend.

    The second thing is that after the hasty entry of Nebraska, the Big Ten presidents are less unified on letting schools of questionable academic merits into the conference. In fact, blocs of voting Big Ten members have emerged in support of and in opposition to certain schools becoming admitted into the conference. This relates to the first part in that disclosures of the schools in discussion would jeopardize the position of the Big Ten.

    Sorry for the “somewhat” update, but things will become clear soon enough. For now, keep your eyes on South Bend and Austin.

    – PBC

    P.S. Hey Lou, do I get a commission for driving all this traffic to your site?”

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Clearly Missouri has run head on into opposition…

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Oh, and I would bet anything that Michigan is at the heart of the Missouri opposition.

        In any case, looking East is far more interesting.

        I actually think Syracuse may be the hold up in all of this. Syracuse may have AAU, but it doesn’t really have the chops in research for that AAU to be much more than a relic. The Big Ten presidents already know this, so if Notre Dame is saying it wants Syracuse, that may be troublesome…

        Like

        • NDx2 says:

          Um, I think you have it backwards. ND isn’t saying, “We’ll come, but only if you also take Syracuse with us.” Rather, the B10 probably thinks (and maybe correctly) that ND will capitulate if the B10 takes a sufficient # of BE schools to blow up the BE . . . but that is causing a split among the B10 presidents.

          Like

        • MIRuss says:

          Well, of course it’s Michigan blocking Missourri…I mean, look at those ridiculous “M’s” on Mizzou’s helmet’s and tell me you want that in the Big 10?

          Seriously, I had several doubts about Mizzou all along. Granted, big school, decent football tradition, history, etc, but something just never sat well with me when discussing Mizzou. But I kept following the data on this site as far as revenue, TV sets, Etc. and started to believe it.

          Not saying Mizzou will never happen, just thinking that there will be better Big 12 opportunities in the VERY NEAR FUTURE, which I’m sure everyone at the voting level is thinking as well.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            MIRuss – If Michigan has a problem with Mizzou’s “M” on the helmet, make the Big Ten invite condition upon Mizzou adopting the Cincy Bengal’s tiger stripe helmet design.

            Like

        • Phizzy says:

          @zeek: Just curious, why do you think Michigan is the primary school opposed to Missouri?

          Like

          • MIRuss says:

            Michigan is traditional and it was one of the shcools that tried to stop PSU from joining. I believe, but I don’t have any evidence whatsoever to support my belief, that the University of Michigan thinks their brand brings in a lot of the Big 10 money and that by splitting it up any more, further dilutes their contribution. But, it’s kind of like the Yankees in Baseball: To be great, you need to have some good teams around you. It’s just the way it is. You want healthy competition in order to prove to the world that you are as good as you claim.

            Michigan is Michigan. It’s just the way it is….

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Because the Michigan administration has historically been among the most tradition minded, even when it came to bringing Penn State in, as I recall, they were the primary ones opposed.

            I’ve always viewed Ohio State as the one pushing for change and Michigan as pulling back in terms of their relationship. Having those two split up on things like expansion as they did when Penn State was being considered, and it seems now that Gordon Gee is taking the lead on it in some fashion, allows the other schools to vote one way or another easily (not that they’d really care if both Michigan and Ohio State were in favor of a specific school or something, everyone’s self-interested).

            Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Zeek, I’m ashamed of you. Your first word in a response to a post about the NW guy is “clearly”? 🙂

        Like

      • m (Ag) says:

        While everyone is talking about Missouri, I thought this was a last ditch effort to take Texas Tech that has failed.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          (Don’t let Swarbrick see this post…). Well I think the point is more that the Big Ten is telling Notre Dame that we’re about to blow up the Big East.

          But we actually aren’t because no one wants to admit Syracuse, so only Rutgers/Pitt. would come and ND might stay in that situation…

          ND might only be willing to join if there’s a real threat that the Big Ten takes Syracuse/Rutgers/Pitt.

          Like

    • Michael says:

      I took this to also mean that a number of Big East schools – apart from Notre Dame – are fighting an up-hill battle.

      Nebraska´s first in and we already have national columnists calling the Big 10 hypocrites for all the talk about academics. I think Nebraska fares better in the research department than it does in the US News rankings, but that doesn´t necessarily change public perception. And at this point, I think we hold out for some of the academic home runs (ND, UT, A&M, Maryland, UVa, UNC, Duke).

      From that perspective, I´m not sure where that leaves Rutgers – I´m not sure the national media would see that as an academic addition – but it may help Pitt, in the case that the more strategic additions fall through.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Pitt is one of those schools that probably has a block of schools in favor, i.e. Michigan/Penn State/Wisconsin, but the smaller schools might be balking on it…

        Like

      • michaelC says:

        Academically RU >> ND and TAMU. It is a little behind UT, and on a par with Pitt. It is somewhat behind Duke, UMd, and UNC. From a research perspective it is significantly better than UVa, but the is no question about UVa’s academic brand overall, especially as an undergraduate institution.

        Short answer RU is very desirable academically. Remember the USNWR ratings are a joke and will not be the standards used by the Big Ten presidents to evaluate the academic chops for the expansion candidates.

        Like

    • crpodhaj says:

      This means to me one of two things:

      1) Notre Dame could be trying to enter the BigEast where they would be the big fish in a small pond and control things (like Texas in the Big12). This is risky, though, because the BigEast is in constant danger of being blown up (again similar to the Big12).

      or 2) Notre Dame is now in discussions with the Big10 about which teams to bring along with them, and they are trying to work out ND’s choice with the Big10 Presidents who already feel they bent over in bringing in Nebraska.

      Or neither could be true; but seems like a strong possibility.

      Like

      • crpodhaj says:

        So here is a question:

        Does this enter Vanderbilt into the talks? It is southern (closer to Texas) and private (like Notre Dame) and excellent acedemically.

        Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        I doubt it. ND would have little interest in taking the prestige hit of joining the Big East of all football conferences. I don’t care how much they would prefer to save the league for the other non-football schools.

        Because of their preference in trying to save the hybrid model, I seriously doubt they would be complicit in selecting which football schools to take and thus destroying the league.

        But that’s pure speculation on my part.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        I think NDx2 had it right–doubt that BT and ND are in negotiations…BT may be bluffing that it will blow BE up by taking 3 BE schools, which BT presidents probably don’t want….ND says show me, and we’ll talk.

        Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      It’s clear that the only way the Big 10 is going to get ND is to make it think it won’t have a seat when the music stops. You get ND by attacking the Big East, but how do you get them without taking marginal schools?

      My initial response is to attack the ACC for a few home run candidates, which would lead to the collapse of the Big East as they try to swell their ranks. The Northwestern poster didn’t mention the ACC, so I’m not quite certain.

      Taking UVa and Maryland (if they’re on the table), would lead to the ACC taking a Rutgers, Pitt or Syracuse (maybe more if they go beyond 12). Once they get down to 6 or less football schools, the hybrid system breaks down and the Big East becomes a basketball only conference.

      Result: Two academic homeruns (UVa and Maryland) and ND in the fold. One spot left for Texas (A&M to the SEC, anyone?).

      Like

  68. SuperD says:

    Boulder Daily Camera just broke a story saying CU is in the PAC with an 11am presser scheduled for 11am tomorrow.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_15268160

    Looks like Colorado did end up being the first official domino. Now we’ll have to see if the SEC is willing to swallow all four TX schools to make their play, and if TX might be forced by politics to accept.

    Like

  69. Blood & Steel says:

    Great article welcoming Nebraska to the Big Ten

    http://www.the-ozone.net/football/2010/summer/nebraskawelcome.htm

    Like

  70. duffman says:

    OK put some odds on one of these possibilities….

    a) We have just seen a Texas 2 step – The Big 12 stays together less Nebraska & Colorado? (if Colorado has $$ issues maybe only Nebraska goes – Now Texas has the Power with out Nebraska at their heels).

    b) A&M comes out – A&M goes to the SEC, and TX, TT, OU, OSU, CU, and Baylor/SMU/Rice/UHigh find a home in the Pac 16. I am looking at you loki

    c) SEC gets Texas 4 (UT/A&M/TT/BU/SMU/Rice/UHigh – pick 4)

    d) Big 10 gets Texas 4 (same as above)

    show your work for extra credit

    🙂

    Like

    • Derrick says:

      My guesses…..
      a) 25% I think the B12 is completely beyond salvage at this point, too many predators sniffing around their camp. But, TX could hold the rest of them together if they wanted.
      b) 35% This is my highest probability right now. In that scenario, I also think Mizzou gets an SEC invite if the B10 doesn’t take them.
      c) 5% Texas isn’t going to the SEC due to the academic issues related to athletes. When the B12 was formed, TX got them to severely restrict partial qualifiers (Nebraska was on the other side of the issue), and this was a big point of contention. So, I can’t see them going to the SEC where the standards are even more lax.
      d) 5% Can’t see the B10 taking on any of those except for TX and A&M. I don’t think the B10 will be strongarmed into taking on welfare kids just to get the big boys.
      e) other 30%

      Like

    • Since Frank used math at the beginning of this whole thing, I’m going to get jiggy with some numbers.

      For the Big 12, the value of the conference is generously 12.
      Texas=3
      OU and NU=2 each
      Kansas, Colorado, Mizzou, aTm, Tech, OSU=1 each
      Baylor, ISU, KSU=1 all together

      By losing CU and NU, the league’s value is now 9…split among 10 teams. That means that everyone is losing money, money that wasn’t as good as the Big 10/SEC to begin with! Adding Air Force and BYU, wouldn’t even equal one new team. Even if they did, you’d still be looking at a value of 10 teams split over 12 schools. There is no way that the Big 12 can stay together.

      I still cannot imagine that Texas wants to go to the SEC. The SEC cannot act though until that door is shut. Therefore, Texas and aTm get to make their move. A shrewd move for aTm would be to go solo to the SEC. It would put Texas in a rough place. At that point, THEY would be pressured to follow. I don’t see this happening though. I think Texas and aTm move in harmony, either to the Big 10 or PAC10. Once that takes place, the SEC can proceed.

      If OU/Tech/OkSt are on the table, I think the SEC could grab them and secure new markets handily in Texas. Going back to my math, OU is a “2” so they’d “carry” the deal for those old Big 12 three.

      One more math equation before I turn in my paper for a grade…
      Because of the popularity of the SEC in Texas/Southeast, I think when it comes to TV viewership in Texas….

      Texas/aTm + Big 10 = Tech/OkSt/OU + SEC

      Like

      • JohnB says:

        Speaking to your last point on Texas viewership, I think you’re a little off, but only a little.

        A&M+Tech+OU+SEC > Texas+Big10. Both get tier 1 cable in DFW, HOU, SA, AUS.

        A&M+Texas+Big10 > Tech+OU+SEC. Both still get tier 1 cable in DFW, HOU, SA, AUS.

        Like

  71. SH says:

    Maybe this is simply all about brands. As a university, you either have a brand from an athletic standpoint or an academic one – or both. And on the athletic front your brand is developed by your football program to most extent, then basketball or in some cases just your overall sports programs. Certain schools have both (Stanford, Mich, Texas, ND and Vandy).

    Johns Hopkins is a lacrosse national power, but no one will confuse it with an athletic school – it is clearly an academic one. Nebraska is a great athletic school (considering its football brand – it probably does well elsewhere). No one will ever say it is a great academic institution. Stanford, Michigan, Texas (to some degree), and ND have both.

    So if I’m the B10, I want a school that brings one or the other and if possible both. Looking at proposed targets we can tell which schools bring one or the other:

    Mizzou – neither
    Md – IMO neither, but maybe somewhat on both sides
    UNC – both, but athletics on the small side with bball
    UVA – academics, small athletics
    Rutgers – neither
    Kansas – athletics on the small side with bball
    Syracuse – small side on both sides
    Pitt – small on both sides
    Vandy – academics and small athletics
    A&M – small athletics

    Just a different way of doing an expansion index. Clearly, by this standard UT and ND are the top gets.

    Tech does not bring either. I’m not sure MD does. UVA/UNC I believe do. Vandy does. Rutgers does not. Mizzou does not (Kansas does over Mizzou).

    Like

    • SH says:

      That was kind of a jumbled post. I don’t want to imply that a school doesn’t have good academics or athletics – it is a perception thing. Mizzou may be a fine academic institution, but no one is going to call it a public ivy. Baylor people talk about all the B12 championships it has one, which is all well and good, but no one will consider it an athletic powerhouse.

      It is all about marketing. B10 should get a school it can market. Mizzou does not, Rutgers does not.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah, but if UVA/UNC are off the table then what?

        And I’m not really sure the brands thing is as clear as it sounds.

        Yes, you need national brands.

        But, you also need “footprint brands.” That is, a school that can capture its state/TV markets if the local interest is there and the national brands are coming to town.

        Syracuse will never really have that one in terms of the New York TV markets. Rutgers has the potential to do it in New Jersey, and Maryland can and somewhat does do it. Mizzou does it as well as Maryland.

        Texas is so valuable because it does both. Total capture of Texas and a national brand all in one.

        Notre Dame is entirely a national brand with no footprint base.

        Vandy is Notre Dame without a national brand.

        Kansas has a footprint brand, but it’s national brand is basketball which is almost irrelevant for this discussion.

        Pitt. has a small footprint brand and a semi-national brand, probably on the level of an Iowa/Wisconsin.

        A&M has a larger footprint brand than Pitt. and it too is a semi-national brand around the level of Iowa/Wisconsin but maybe closer to Nebraska. The problem is it’s always second to UT so its brand is never the primary Texas brand…

        Like

        • SH says:

          My point being – are we overvaluing footprint brands? UT we all agree brings everything. I agree with you on Kansas – it has an athletic brand in bball. It is basically the equivalent of Neb, the only difference Neb is a lone school, and oh yeah Neb is to football what Kansas is to bball. Football is clearly the most valuable. I think your equation of Pitt to Wisc/Iowa is spot on.

          What will deliver the NY market more, being the preeminent athletic/academic conference or having Rutgers. Same goes for Mizzou, what will deliver Mizzou more. I submit to you it is the former.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Sure.

            The optimal conference configuration is to stop after you get the best brands, i.e. 14 with Nebraska/Texas/ND.

            The one thing that Rutgers and Maryland allow you to do though is staging big games in NYC or D.C.

            That’s something extra that they bring to supplement the national brands, i.e. Texas/A&M/ND/Nebraska.

            So I think Rutgers and Maryland are less easily dismissed as mere footprint brands. They happen to have a location advantage to their footprints. Right on the east coast between the NYC-D.C. area. Those are media markets that the national brands can tap, but physically bringing the national brands there helps as well…

            Like

    • michaelC says:

      Your perception of academic rankings is quite blurry. This has been rehashed many times already. I’ll slot the schools against their position in the current Big Ten:

      MO – below bottom
      UMd – upper half
      UNC – upper half
      UVa – upper half (but lower half on pure research grounds)
      RU – at the midpoint
      KU – below bottom
      Syr – bottom
      Pitt – midpoint
      TAMU- somewhat above bottom
      Vandy – upper half

      ND — below bottom
      UT — a bit above the midpoint

      This will help to explain the issues MO is having and why KU and Syr are hard sells. TAMU is actually decent and perhaps just as important they have been improving significantly over the last decade plus.

      If NE and ND are in, improving the academic profile of the expansion is important. Getting UMd, UNC(very hard), UVa, would be very good. RU and PITT are solid choices, indeed they may well be the best available academic schools.

      Like

      • Jeepers says:

        I’m personally getting a little tired of people mixing up “academics” with research. Two totally different things. Like I said before, ARWU has a school like Cincinnati quite a bit ahead of a school like Georgetown. There is some kid in Asia who got accepted to both and is going to choose Cincinnati based on ARWU rankings. Think about that. The only thing Cin should rank higher over Georgetown is maybe amount of toilets on campus.

        I’ve personally never met anyone who was impressed with a B10 education minus Northwestern, Illinois, and Michigan (Purdue too, I guess). Sure, if you’re a grad student working on particle acceleration at Wisconsin (whatever their specialty is), that’s pretty impressive. But fact is the average person isn’t getting a graduate degree in particle acceleration.

        I guess whoever here said that the Northeast values private education more was on to something. There’s no way, in my mind, that Rutgers is a better school than ND (again, unless you’re studying something like particle acceleration). Rutgers is a great school. Very old. But … no.

        /rant off

        Like

        • duffman says:

          jeepers,

          as a cincy alum, let me clarify your point. UC has a top CCM (music – see also Juilliard) and DAA (art – see also Pratt) but are not the “research” equal to say purdue. If you are a kid in Asia and music or art is what you want, then you go to cincy. if you are a kid in Asia and you think law is what you want to do then georgetown will be your choice. with friends and family at cincy, gtown, and purdue I would say none of them made their choice on how many toilets they had on campus.

          For sake of this blog, it is simple enough to note the difference between “education” and “research” lest anybody on here think the Big 10 is just full of snooty people.

          Like

  72. greg says:

    I think Nebraska’s addition may sink Pitt’s chances. Nebraska may take the one slot for “lack of TVs”. If Delaney still hopes to add ND (which he does), there is another non-footprint add. I understand that ND and Nebraska both have other huge pluses, but I think there are a limited number of slots that don’t expand the footprint.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      That’s a point that hasn’t really been made, and it may end up carrying the day.

      If you really look at the options in the Big East, the focus is on Rutgers/Syracuse and then maybe Maryland from the ACC. You also have Mizzou as a footprint addition being considered.

      But Mizzou and Syracuse are likely to run into opposition on the academic front since Mizzou is effectively another Nebraska academically and Syracuse has less than 1/2 the research funding of Notre Dame…

      Like

    • Bullet says:

      Once Frank started talking about NU being considered, that was my thought as well. NU and Pitt are mutually exclusive. Also NU’s football history makes Pitt’s less important (as it would be if 12/13/14 were Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse).

      Like

  73. duffman says:

    LOVE vs HATE: today is setting me crazy

    LOVE: Nebraska in Big 10

    HATE: Izzo in Cleveland

    LOVE: Stanley Cup in Chicago

    HATE: Kansas (and possibly Missouri) are SOL

    how is today going for you guys.. i am hitting overload..

    Like

  74. derek says:

    Hard to keep track of everything going on today, and especially with these comments. But the old link posted somewhere in the mess above…
    http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/06/baylor-tech-now-part-of-meeting-with-ut.html

    Now says A&M and UT are meeting alone…no longer with baylor and tech.

    So it was A&M and UT, then all four, now the original two again.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Roll back the SEC welcome parades for the moment. Texas is still trying to figure out whether the Big 12 is worth saving.

      Like

      • John says:

        Could be A&M heading to SEC. Texas heading to BT.

        Joint message to other two that you are SOL.

        Political compromise could be that UT and A&M each guarantee games @TT and @BU which would help those two schools land spots in the MWC which has its own network.

        Like

        • John says:

          BTW, the MWC could be a huge winner in all of this.

          Getting not only the Big12’s AQ status but also expansion to 16 teams, new markets.

          Like

    • twk says:

      Other sources are saying that UT and A&M will meet first, then confer with Baylor and Tech later. Who really knows?

      Like

  75. Playoffs Now! says:

    Right now on RC Slocum’s ranch, Big Twelve Oaks, aTm is threatening to secede. Could start a Texas civil war, birthing another goofball Aggie euphemism, The War of Longhorn Aggression.

    This really should be playing every time aTm to the SEC is discussed:

    So we’ll could see another failed chapter from The Prodigal Aggie. Just listen to their delusion contingent: they’re going SEC and will win the recruiting wars, becoming nat’l champs, and never lose to tu again. The same blather we here before every Independence Bowl. “Secede and we’ll soon eclipse them! The North, er Horns, will fold within months! Gentlemen always fight better than rabble!”

    So please, go. We understand. No more excuses Junior, no more living in Daddy’s basement, you won’t be able to blame TX anymore. Though you still will, especially when you again get busted for going all Jackie Sherrill. I do hope you succeed in the SEC (“Someday we’ll find a unicorn!”) as that would make our Thanksgiving victories even more impressive. But if you don’t win in your first 2 SEC years, it will implode and a conference championship will never happen.

    For the rest of us, we’ll boost our SOS by replacing aTm with UH or Utah. Hey Pac 10, here comes the Big Twelve Hillbillies!

    Like

    • StvInILL says:

      They wont have A&M to kick around any more!?!

      Like

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        “As Gawd is my witness, I’ll never lose conference again!”

        Like

        • Patrick says:

          I actually think that it would be smart as hell for A&M to go to the SEC and get away from Texas.

          A&M goes to SEC with the crazy and intense SEC fan base.

          Texas goes to the Pac 16 with Baylor, Texas Tech, ETC. and their fair weather fan base.

          PAC 16 has no championship game so all Texas has to do is beat the also-rans / hangers-on before a bowl birth.

          Texas A&M has exciting tv games every weekend on CBS…. LSU, Alabama, Tennesee.

          Texas plays Baylor, Texas Tech, and Washington State on the Longhorn sports network.

          Texas would be hurt in that senario, is that why there is so much panic in Chip Browns tweets?

          Like

          • StvInILL says:

            You are correct sir! There is a real opportunity for TX A&M to grow up out of the Texas shadow and shine in the SEC. That with no really big expectations to grow exponentially as an academic institution. It might look like a really great deal in 12 years for A&M.

            Like

          • Playoffs Now! says:

            “I seem to be spoiling everybody’s brandy, cigars, and dreams of victory.”

            Like

      • duffman says:

        StvInILL,

        was that in reference to the famous Nixon quote?

        Like

  76. Playoffs Now! says:

    Yes, I know, you hear with your ears here. No preview option.

    Like

  77. jcfreder says:

    adding

    Like

  78. arby says:

    Feels like this playing out pretty much as we might have expected. UT & A&M are doing the prudent thing — collecting the best offers from PAC-10, Big-10 and SEC. Then deciding collectively or separately what works best for them. They have all the power, they might as well use it intelligently. Once they decide, the conferences and schools respond accordingly.

    Like

  79. GOPWolv says:

    I think our Northwestern friend is trying to tell us that the Big East is about to give Notre Dame an ultimatum. W/out ND, the Big 10 leaves the BE alone and stops at 14 (or 16 w/ the Texas two). Notre Dame helps the Big East in lots of sports, but why on earth would they keep ND around if doing so meant their conference was going to get blown up.

    Ditch ND add KS and KSU – a good f’in move by the Big East. Also limits options for the ACC and SEC.

    Like

    • derek says:

      Why would kansas and kansas state join the Big East. They would stick out like a sore thumb! I believe their best move after the big xii breaks up is to head for the mwc. Iff the MWC picks up those two schools, boise state, and maybe missouri (who seems to be on the outside looking in) they are not only a force in basketball but an automatic bcs qualifier. I also read somewhere that the MWC already has their own network…I do not know any details though.

      Like

    • SH says:

      Actually, that makes perfect sense. ND will never join BE in football.

      Like

    • Hangtime79 says:

      If this what’s happening I like the move. ND is bad mojo at this point. Adding KSU and KU along with a “Nobody is leaving this conference unless they are in body bag” to the schools thinking about jumping is a great strategic play and keeps the BE as one of the power conferences going forward. Ready for some BE basketball if that’s the case.

      Like

    • NDx2 says:

      I’m not sure what kind of ultimatum you mean. Do you mean an ultimatum to swear a blood oath that ND isn’t joining the B10? (If so, that might be doable.) But if it’s an ultimatum to join the BE in football, then forget it. Villanova, Georgetown, and Seton Hall have exactly no leverage to exact that sort of ultimatum, among other problems.
      Furthermore, if the BE blows up and ND is still standing as an independent, who do you think they’re going to join with in basketball and baseball? You got it: Georgetown, Seton Hall, ‘Nova, et al.

      Like

      • Rick says:

        NDx2: Do you worry about the fact that Swarbrick and Jenkins have not finally said non means no? The fact they haven’t, to me, means they are negotiating their place in the Big Ten. Otherwise they would just come out and say no. No? Why would they be silent and drag everyone through this if in fact they are signing up? You folks in the nation must be irate by now. I would.

        Like

      • PSUGuy says:

        Which is why I floated the idea of the BigEast surviving and actually having ND join its conference.

        The BigEast ceasing to exist as a football conference only make ND’s ability to remain an independant a more viable option.

        Like

  80. loki_the_bubba says:

    Colorado to the P10 is now in an official press release from the P10.

    http://www.pac-10.org/genrel/061010aaa.html

    Like

    • zeek says:

      And the most interesting part of that statement by far is
      “The University of Colorado is a perfect match – academically and athletically – with the Pac-10,” said University of Colorado President Bruce D. Benson, “our achievements and aspirations match those of the universities in the conference and we look forward to a productive relationship.”

      I wonder what Tech and OSU are going to say…

      Like

  81. Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

    Guys, There’s still another shoe to drop. We’re still playing double check-mate chess! The next shoe to drop is the SEC offer. The SEC is not going to sit tight and let the state of Texas get taken over by their rivals.

    My guess is that the SEC will offer Ta&m and one other of either OK, OSU, or T-Tech spots in the SEC. Why? We all know that the Texas market is the key battle ground for both revenue and recruits. I don’t think anyone would argue that given the Pac 10 offer and the possible Big Ten response posted on the Northwestern page.

    For the SEC Texas A&M is the key school. Why? It gives the SEC enough of the Texas market to get into the cable networks. We know that A&M has always felt that it was a “southern school” and A&M WANTS to be in the Sex Conference (I mean SEC). Getting a school into your conference that actually WANTS to JOIN is key. See for example, Nebraska v ND in the Big Ten and the fact that the Pac 10 offer isn’t really Texas’ first pick. I’m betting that A&M, Oklahoma and OSU really don’t see themselves as West Coast schools, but they can see themelves playing a SEC scheduel. U of Texas wants no part of that per all the reasons stated on this blog.

    So now we need to sit back and see what the SEC offer is going to be. This may “free up” Texas to join the Big Ten without any baggage. Remember Jim Delaney only wants U of Texas….U of Texas fits into the Big Ten much like Nebraska does, Texas A&M … not so much and Tech not at all.

    GREAT BLOG, Frank, and all the contributors here. I’m an Iowa alum and Big Ten fan although I went to grad school at U of Florida and live in Florida. So I suppose I fit the “move south” demographics laid out by Jim Delaney.

    We have to wait for the SEC more now….

    Like

    • Great point. Now the question is, does the SEC make a sweeping (and rather desperate, if you ask me) move like the PAC 10 did? Do they offer UT, aTm, OU, and (Tech or OkSt)? Or do they simply lure aTm away (as rumors have swirled) and let the chips fall where they may?

      Like

      • duffman says:

        all,

        i think they have benefitted by waiting..

        they can cherry pick A&M, and send the rest of the schools to the pac 16, while holding 3 Open slots for future expansion.

        Like

      • Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

        Thanks allthatyoucan…

        The SEC is not desperate, like the Pac 10. All the SEC needs is lock up one Texas school to crack that market. If A&M joins the SEC this will make 13 schools in the SEC. The SEC can then add and eastern school (Miami, Clemson, West Virginia) to round out to 14 schools.

        The PAC 10 move was one of desperation, it looks like they picked up Colorado, but everyone has been forecasting that move for months. The Texas schools don’t want to be an eastern appendage of the Pac 10 and the Pac is going to get played here.

        One point that no one has made here is that Texas is not in the drivers seat now. The U of Texas has the very real possibility of come out the loser in all of this. U of T would love to have the Big XII back, but not “all the king horses” can put it back together again.

        U of T is rightfully running scared now.

        Like

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          Um, no we’re not.

          Like

          • Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

            Hopkins Horn,

            Don’t get me wrong, UT is a super school, great academics, super athletics, big research dollars. But, it seems to me that the way things are unfolding here is just not in Texas’ favor. Nebraska and Colorado have abandoned them and aTm and possibly OK will be next to jump ship and get on the SEC bandwagon. We all know that Texas will not follow them.

            Texas is losing it’s dancing partners pretty quickly here. Unless UT’s primary desire is to go to the Big Ten (alone) then it’s options are getting squeezed pretty tight.

            UT is a super great school and will do great wherever it lands, but it’s options are getting narrowed down quickly, no?

            Like

          • JohnB says:

            UT can get into the Big 10 if it wants. UT can get into the SEC if it wants. UT can make a Pac 12-16 scenario work in a number of ways. It’s still the furthest school from being out of options.

            Like

        • duffman says:

          hawkeye,

          i asked that in an earlier post (where OU,A&M and OSU or TT went to the SEC first (leaving only 1 slot before the SEC got to 16). I do not know if they are running scared, but I do agree that such an option does force some issues

          a) SEC gets A&M, OU, OSU

          b) Pac 16 gets UT, TT, CU, KU and maybe baylor and rice

          texas is “forced” to the Pac 16 in the end, as keeping the Big 12 together no longer is an option. That or they get “forced” to the SEC (assuming the SEC offer is TX, A&M, TT, and Baylor/rice/smu etc.

          Like

          • Hawkeye / Gator Boy says:

            Duffman,

            Your analysis is very sound. The SEC is not going to set aside and watch the state of Texas get cut up without making a move!

            I would think that all the SEC needs is one school from Texas and we know that U of T wants nothing to do with the SEC so the obvious choice is Ta&m for the SEC. Plus we know that A&M has always been interested in joining the SEC!

            I’m not convinced that the SEC wants more than A&M, the SEC can always go east to pick up another school to get to 14. Maybe Miami or GT. Does that make sense to you?

            Like

          • JohnB says:

            I think if A&M and OU were both to go to the SEC, Texas would be allowed to ditch Tech and Baylor to head to the Big 10.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Hawkeye,

            I think we see this VERY well from a chess match strategy..

            a) Big 10 gets Nebraska

            b) SEC gets A&M

            c) Pac 10 gets 6 teams probably Texas and other teams

            e) Big 10 can now raid BE and ACC

            f) SEC can now raid ACC

            h) Check & Mate

            Delaney and Silve win and for all the fuss the Big 10 and SEC still make the big deals, everybody else is just along for the ride

            FWIW with the death of the Big 12 football top to bottom really is the Big 10 and SEC (yes USC and the ACC can have a shot now and again) and will continue.

            I have said all along that Delany and Slive are the only ones really playing no matter what the bloggers or media think.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            hawkeye,

            ps.. fwiw.. look what the Big 10 did by taking Nebraska!

            It eliminated one of the historic football rivals that was not already in the Big 10 or SEC. Go back and look at the Nebraska vs Oklahoma history as it relates to NC’s. I think folks miss what delaney has really done here.

            Like

          • greg says:

            duffman,

            Hey now, don’t go blaming the B10 for ending OU v. NU. That was done by the B12 and Oklahoma. If the rivalry still existed, NU probably wouldn’t have left. It became just another occasional inter-division game, not a rivalry.

            Like

          • SH says:

            Losing that rivalry was a stupid move made because the division concept forced you to make it. I seriously doubt you will ever see the B10 stop the Mich-OSU rivalry. Probably the most valuable asset of the B8 was that game. And they got rid of it.

            Like

        • PSUGuy says:

          Actually, I think the SEC is in more of a straight jacket than it wants to admit.

          Texas, the state, wants all (or most) of the Texas schools to go together because it knows those schools will vote (in whatever conference) more as a block than not and thus will be better able to pull national media to the state (think Big12 Champ Game example). Having single schools go to differing confernces means that each Texas school is just “one of another group” and the state becomes another pawn in the conference’s game of growing itself.

          What’s more, Texas (the state) does not want to be Alabama, Louisiana, or even Florida. It wants to be California. Top notch public universities across the state. Large and diverse industries to include agriculture. A state that is considered a “mini-america”.

          The academic “step up” between the Pac and the SEC is highly visible and something IMO, the politics of the state will take into account very heavily. I mean if you want to be like California, it helps to be associated with them. Going to the SEC shows the only thing that matters in Texas is football.

          Coming back to the point though, if the SEC can’t get any/all of the Texas schools (and OK/OK St will probably go along with them) where else does the SEC expand? It could take a few schools from the BigEast (WVU, Louisville) and it could try the ACC (though I still maintain there is solidarity there that would push back against SEC offers), but in the end its not going to move much further north than it already is.

          I’ve felt it for a while now, if the SEC wanted to expand to 16 it might actually be very limited in what it could do…though in fairness it doesn’t really need to expand at all.

          Like

    • Hangtime79 says:

      Baylor and Tech are the key.

      If you have solution that puts all 4 in a power conference (not necessarily together) it has the easiest time of getting through even a functioning B12 minus Neb, CO, aTm, UT works. If there is any option on the table for all 4 to go to a power conference and it is NOT taken, there will be h*ll to pay. If the SEC wants aTm they will have to take Baylor NOT OU or OSU. Pac 10 won’t take Baylor which means either find a place for Baylor someway into the Pac 10 or B10 or if you want aTm in the SEC start booking those reservations for Waco.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Ironically, we could see the Big 12 teams start to push for the Texas 4 to the SEC.

        Then you get the Big 8 – Nebraska… Although I’m sure Oklahoma will be pissed…

        Like

        • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

          From what I’m reading the OU fans are pissed about going to the Pac16. Really the most positive seem to be lukewarm.

          I think the OU fans would actually like the idea of rebuilding the Big 8/12 even if its’ a lesser conference.

          Personally my pick as an OU alum is in order:
          1) SEC
          2) Pac-10 depending on who’s in
          3) Rebuild the Big 8/12 even with out Texas

          Actually the OU fans are tired of UT’s running and controlling ALL of this…the conference formation, the break up, the group to the Pac-10, now..not going to the Pac-10. It’s all about Texas

          HEY? Any one actually want to ask us what WE want? OU is not Texas’s bitch. (or at least we don’t want to acknowledge it)

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            OU is not Texas’s bitch. (or at least we don’t want to acknowledge it)

            Shut up! Not your turn to speak yet! 🙂

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Yeah, but without Nebraska as well?

            Oklahoma might as well go independent…

            Like

          • SH says:

            Looks like OU and SEC would make a perfect fit. Does SEC really want OU? Or for the SEC is OU acceptable so long as you get A&M? Anyone have any insight or thoughts. I guess OU has their own Tech problem. But assuming that is not an issue, does SEC want OU?

            Like

          • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

            @Hopkins Horn
            OHNOUDINNIT!!!

            We don’t needs no man! We Don’t needs you to pay our rent! We have our own jobs.

            *Rotates head at neck, one hand on hip, other hand pointing wagging finger*

            Like

          • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

            @ SH OU has a “tech problem”. OU and OSU is going to be a package deal.

            They can be separated…but it would be a bloody fight that no one wants to wage, including OU.

            OR…we’ll be joining Kansas and K-state in the new Big 8..yeah you all are jealous haters

            Like

      • Mike R says:

        OU had better start talking to Mike Slive quick. Now that the Pac-10 has bagged CU (target #2), it will be willing to invest three invitations to bag Texas (target #1) — UT, aTm & Tech. I don’t think they go above 14 in this round, as those schools won’t add value for the league. Congrats to CU, by the way, for calling the Baylor bluff.

        Like

        • JohnB says:

          I think Pac10 needs to go to 16 if it goes past 12. Adding only CO + 3 Texas schools breaks the Pac10’s symmetry. Having enough schools to fill out an eastern division is a positive for the Pac.

          Like

      • JohnB says:

        I think the SEC might be inclined to accept the Tech “problem” but would probably tell Baylor to get bent. I don’t see the SEC taking A&M without Texas or OU if the SEC has to take Baylor to do it. Baylor is a negative value proposition – little fan interest, no new market.

        Tech, on the other hand, brings some value, particularly if the SEC is taking A&M without UT.

        Like

  82. willarm1 says:

    Hey Zeek;

    assuming tex and A&M come to an agreement(pac 10) and big 10 goes to 16.

    I think Delany has to make sure ND doesn’t have a Big East to land in for other sports. seismic shift.

    If he took Syracuse, Pitt, Maryland, and ND. I believe this makes the BE crumble faster than Rutgers because of the Basketball effect as well. (could be a stretch)

    I think Rutgers is easier to replace, I guess is what I’m saying. Than Pitt or Syracuse because of the total package.

    I feel Mizzou and Rutgers are similar in this respect. Both conferences really don’t care if they go.

    again I have this weird bias against Mizzou and Rutgers for some reason. I just think they benefit more from expansion than does the Big 10. With that said I feel Syracuse and Pitt bring real value in terms of overall product.

    Set me straight.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Not going to happen. I think Syracuse may actually be a tough one to land academically along with Notre Dame.

      Notre Dame is one thing because of its unique undergraduate focus, but Syracuse spends 1/2 the research money as Notre Dame even with AAU status (which means that their AAU status is a relic of the past). I could see big pushback on adding two schools without institutional fit.

      I think Rutgers/Pitt./Maryland is what you would see added with ND.

      As noted above, there might be a fracturing over adding schools that don’t fit academically since Nebraska is not exactly anywhere near the median of the Big Ten by any academic measure. That may dampen the enthusiasm significantly for Mizzou and Syracuse.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        And as pointed out by others, is ND really that much of a threat to join the Big East for football?

        I mean the prestige of the Pac-16/Big Ten/SEC championships after this will far outweigh the ACC or Big East championships…

        It’s really hard for me to see ND joining a conference other than the Big Ten after this. I could have seen them joining the Pac-10 before this Pac-16 gambit…

        More likely ND will make a decision to forever remain independent (until the Big Ten tries to move to 20…).

        Like

        • willarm1 says:

          ND will not join Big East FB, but their independence depends on a place for their other sport teams to land.

          I can’t help thinking that The Big 10 would vote for Syracuse if ND was attached like Dodd wrote about.

          The situation is so fluid though who knows what will be demanded next.

          Like

    • StvInILL says:

      William, you have a strong argument with the Pitt, Syracuse, Maryland deal. I like Maryland but another BE team would not be the death ell but the autopsy of BE football.

      Like

  83. duffman says:

    It is all a hoax..

    It really is a concerted effort to keep football the american sport. as here is the World Cup and all the news is about football

    😉

    Like

  84. Hank says:

    an ode to the Big 12

    Like

  85. M says:

    Mandel predicts Nebraska joins Big Ten back in 2007:
    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/stewart_mandel/08/01/cfb.bag/index.html

    Also in same article: Steve Spurrier says he has South Carolina ready to compete for SEC title, Mark Richt may be in hot seat

    The more things change…

    Like

    • SH says:

      That was actually pretty interesting. Some observations:

      1. The BTN was a huge risk that has reaped huge rewards in a fairly short amount of time.

      2. Quality of fans matters as much as quantity of fans. A lot of Missourians may want Mizzou to do well, but unless they are, they aren’t watching. Neb fans will always watch and a Neb – Mich game will always be interesting.

      3. I hope B10 remains anti title game.

      Like

  86. duffman says:

    I told you when it went past 12 BAMA would go to DEFCON 1!

    Gene Stallings seems to be the force to send A&M to the SEC

    GS was a player for the “bear” when he was at A&M

    GS was an assistant on 2 BAMA NC’s

    GS is on the A&M BoR

    I told you alabama was gonna get in this somehow….

    😉

    Like

    • Bamatab says:

      Coach Stallings was also the head coach of our 1992 national championship team. He is definitely the SEC’s ace in the hole.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        bama,

        between you and alan as the SEC folks how do you see all this playing out from a SEC view?

        Like

        • Bamatab says:

          That’s just it, no one outside Mike Slive knows. I think that the SEC would prefer to stay pat. But it appears our hand is getting forced now. I would think that the SEC wants to get into the Texas markets. I think their dream scenerio (outside of getting UT because I very seriously doubt that happens) would be aTm, OU, VT, and NC. But I doubt NC would jump for the same reason Ut wouldn’t. It all depends on what aTm does. If they follow UT and OU to the Pac 10, then we go east and grap VT, FSU, Clemson, and try for UNC and if we can’t get them then go to WV or GT or possibly Mizzou.

          Like

  87. SH says:

    Finally we are seeing some dominos fall. Now we are just waiting on the big ones. So if UT goes to P10 and ND remains independent, then what? I am on record believing that an east coast move is a bad idea. It may lock up the NYC market, but doesn’t really help anywhere else. I think this allows the B10 to sit tight until more favorable schools are available. I think a B10 move to FSU and GT to get to 14 has a lot of merit. Look the south will always be SEC country, but they are football fans as well. Those two schools make the B10 a much more interesting conference than adding Syr and Rutgers or some other combo of east coast schools. And you can never underestimate demographics.

    Like

  88. Big Ten Jeff says:

    An above post from an SEC troll and the success of the Blackhawks last night made me realize that I’m interested in something different than he is. Maybe it’s the NU pedigree (that’s Northwestern now and forever regardless of Big Red) in me, but I’ve always viewed college athletics as a means to an end for a University, that end being a solid education, followed by financial and professional success of its students.

    The Big Ten is making moves to improve its member Universities (via large sums of money and affiliation with like minds), not to primarily improve performance on the football field. Yes, athletic success is a consideration (maybe even 1a) and will be a secondary benefit, but I’ve always taken pride in our schools doing well with honor (which is why I was so pissed when Michigan’s streak of never being under sanctions was recently put at risk – and why I’ve been so proud of the singular AAU distinction of the Big Ten while having a couple of the most successful brands in both college athletics and academics). The Big Ten has proven that these things aren’t mutually exclusive.

    Guys, the players are still called student/athletes; and I even played college baseball for awhile before stopping to focus on studies. The memories and pride I have of my college years don’t primarily revolve around sports, although I take great pride in the Wildcat’s emergence as a second Tier Big Ten football team and the success of other sports. This is different that the way I feel when the Bulls, Sox or Blackhawks of a big city’s pro sports franchises win. The pro teams are part of the fabric and identity of the city, and the reason you identify with them is exclusively because of athletic feats (I’ll grant that the same fabric integration and fanaticism can exist in small college towns without pro sports.).

    I couldn’t be happier than to have been educated at Big Ten Universities, even more so now that this expansion is reaffirming the values I thought were in place when I went there (obviously I didn’t go to NU for the sports!).

    Finish the job. Pick 4 from Texas/A&M/Rutgers/ND/Virginia/Maryland/NC (Pitt/Mizzou won’t make me hate you). Excellence requires no apology.

    Like

    • Mike R says:

      My finish-the-job list: Pick 4 from among Texas, aTm, Rutgers, Pitt, UVa, NC, Duke, Vandy.

      ND and the Big 10 should strike a good-neighbor policy, supporting ND’s position in the BCS structure and guaranteeing 4 home-and-home series w/Big 10 teams, with 2 of those games taking place in Oct. or Nov.

      Like

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        I’d rather buy their TV rights in football. I’m not sold on allowing them to maintain special status in the BCS as an independent once 4 super conferences exist, which they know and is the stick to the carrot currently being offered. Why allow them an easier path?

        Like

        • Mike R says:

          ND + Big 10 would be a difficult marriage (e.g., if the Irish insist on a 7-game conference slate, as per the first Purple Book Cat rumor, it would water down the conference championship race and reduce cohesion), but we can and should be good neighbors. A TV rights deal between the BTN and the Irish, and a locked-in number of home-and-home series, could provide benefit for both entities, and to preserve the value of the relationship the Big 10 can support ND’s position in the BCS (AQ if in the top 8 of BCS standings, entry to the NCG if top 2).

          Like

          • Lobills says:

            If ND values it’s independence as fiercely as they lead everyone to believe, what makes anyone think they’d be comfortable having their games televised on the BTN?

            I don’t see this ever transpiring. They would be ridiculed for it. And rightly so. From the B10’s perspective, financially speaking, it might be a windfall. i just can’t see the Irish agreeing to that. Even if that is their best alternative economically.

            Like

          • SH says:

            I’ve been advocating that for a week or so. I think a rights deal could have great mutual benefits. I’m sure its been explored in some fashion. I guess we’ll have to wait and see if it works. It would kind of remind me when Fox outbid CBS for the NFC games. That was shocking back then, and really announced Fox as a power. I think a lot of people would be shocked if BTN purchased rights for a non-BT team (especially one who has spurned the invitation).

            Like

          • Big Ten Jeff says:

            I agree with your sentiment on some level, but a hell of a lot less than I used to. Why the Irish entitlement? Based on what from this generation? Even historically, is their tradition any greater than Michigan’s? Academics any between than Northwestern’s? Of course not; forget the sentiment and look at the objective data. I believe we are graciously extending the hand of friendship and brotherhood to them, and what we have historically gotten in return is public rejection and now ongoing requests for entitlement? Based on what?

            It would be a difficult marriage if we acquiesce to their demands. It might be a difficult marriage if they give up their independence, but I believe they realize it’s time to join the ‘fraternity of nations’. I believe they are closer to us than their fandom think or want to believe, and they will join us, the ACC or the Big East (joke).

            College football is indeed better when ND is good. College athletics is better when the standards of the Big Ten are bought into.

            Like

          • Big Ten Jeff says:

            @SH: I fully expect the Big Ten to be a financial player in whatever programming makes sense, starting with the packaging their product with the Pac-10’s to create national distribution instead of just within their individual footprint. A lot of this is about ND having to eat crow. Obviously they don’t want to do this, but “will if we have to”.

            Like

      • Derrick says:

        If ND doesn’t want to join the B10, then that’s their right. But, the B10 doesn’t have to treat them with kid gloves.
        I’d rather the B10 vow to NOT support ND’s BCS special status. Especially since ND getting a BCS bid could in some year push a B10 team out of a bid.

        What is ND gonna do- cancel their games with UM, MSU, and Purdue? Big deal- those schools would have no trouble replacing ND with another quality opponent to fill the stadium. ND on the other hand, would have trouble scheduling good teams in the new super-conference environment. I’m a Spartan, and even though ND is a traditional rival and I enjoy the game every year, I say to hell with them. Get in or get out.

        Like

    • Mike R says:

      Oops, forgot Md. They should be on the finish-the-job list with the others. All AAU, all high research investment & ARWU rankings.

      Like

    • StvInILL says:

      Couldn’t agree with you more Jeff. I have been attending Wildcat games since the late seventies. I was always quite proud of looking in the program at the NU players and seeing strong majors. I knew they were not compromising academics one bit. This is both through the bad teams and the good ones. Sometimes I go to the early season games and the stadium is not packed. It’s a byproduct of the students not all being in town because of the way their semesters are setup and Nearby Chicago is a big pro town. But the quality of what I see is more often than not really good college football. Either way it changes nothing to the academic focused university on the lake.

      Like

  89. Gopher86 says:

    Missouri has no offer as of yet:

    http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/10/2006487/curator-confirms-mu-has-no-big.html

    It goes along with what the Northwestern board poster said.

    Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      Per Dave Matter’s twitter (@Dave_Matter): “#Mizzou is circulating an email to campus officials reminding them to tell media: “We are proud members of Big 12.”

      He also mentions when the MU Chancellor learned Colorado was gone, he immediately called Texas Prez. Bill Powers.

      Chancellor also said “Anything could happen” in regards to MU & the Big 12’s future.

      Like

  90. SH says:

    College basketball is just getting bad news from all over this week. Kansas is just an after thought. Izzo may leave.

    The whole Kansas thing just confirms, for me, why college football should be anti-playoff. College basketball is interesting for 3 weeks a year. College football is interesting 12 years after the fact (who should have won the national title – Mich or Neb).

    Like

    • Mike R says:

      16 yrs after the fact for me. Why oh why doesn’t PSU at least get a split national title after its undefeated Rose Bowl run. I still want a crack at the 94 Huskers.

      Like

    • Bamatab says:

      If I was Kansas, I would consider joining the MWC in all sports (includinf football) and go independant in basketball. Playing the MWC schools in basketball may hurt the basketball product as a whole.

      Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      I still remember where I was when Mario Chalmers hit his shot, when Acie Law granny shot it over Kevin Durant in triple over time for a win and the joy I took in watching OSU take away Illinois’ winning streak in 2005 (Sorry, Frank). If you follow basketball, these moments stay with you for years.

      Like

  91. ohio1317 says:

    Agree completely SH. I think the bowl are one of the things which separate college football and make it so interesting. As much as people complain about the BCS it has been a success in almost every way. Interest in regular season games across the country has skyrocketed, lower divisions who never would have had a chance before have become recognized names (Boise State!?) The college presidents would be idiotic to give that up.

    Like

    • SH says:

      Just to add to my point. This whole expansion process is interesting because of football. College football is by far the most important and interesting topic in sports right now and that is considering the following:

      1. A resurging NHL with an Original 6 member winning the Cup just ended.

      2. The two marquee franchises in the NBA are playing in the finals, with arguably a top 5 player of all time.

      3. Speculation as to where Lebron will end up is growing.

      4. A baseball sensation was born the other night – Straburger.

      5. The world’s biggest sporting event is about to the start – the World Cup.

      It’s kind of amazing that College Football can steal the spotlight from all those at this time. With a playoff – expansion would be a lot less intersting. And when and if Texas makes a formal move, it will be even bigger.

      Just some observations.

      Like

  92. Faitfhful5k says:

    Holy crap. Frank is now showing 929,569 hits.

    If the Texas powwow runs late maybe we can watch the odometer roll over to all zeroes for amusement.

    Like

  93. Hangtime79 says:

    Just would like to it has been a pleasure speaking to all of you. We have more informed analysis and information coming from this board then anything coming out of ESPN or any other sports outlet.

    Next Prediction:
    BE tells ND to either join us or get out. ND leaves and BE makes an offer to KU and KSU who immediately accept thanking heaven they are not headed for MWC. This shores up the BE and Delany is now boxed into ND or UT or bust.

    Like

  94. StvInILL says:

    Question for ALL.
    Especially those who regularly tune in to the Big Ten Network on Saturday morning/ Afternoon.
    Which Big ten football team more mirrors ND over the past 12 years? I just ask because of all the efforts to woo ND lately. Aside for the history, would the BT spend as much time over a team with a similar record?

    Like

    • James says:

      Over the last 12 years? Well, ND has been feast (1999, 2005-06) or famine (2003-04, 2007-) and been average in the other years. The best comparison I can think of is the poor man’s Penn State, and the Big Ten would absolutely snap up Penn State all over again; remember, location is the only thing holding Pitt back.

      Like

  95. FloMoDa says:

    If the Pac-10 wins the UT sweepstakes, and aTm goes to SEC, what about Kansas to the Pac-10?

    Like

    • duffman says:

      Flo,

      with UCLA in 1 division and KU in the other – pretty tasty from the basketball side.