Big Red in the Big Ten

Posted: June 11, 2010 in Big East, Big Ten, Sports
Tags: ,

I deal with Domers, Wolverines and Buckeyes on a daily basis, but I will say that there is no fan base that I have ever encountered that is as rabid and devoted as Nebraska fans. The discussions on this blog have only reinforced that – we’re getting fan base like no other. All of the Big Ten schools are going to be invaded by a sea of red sooner rather than later, as the Huskers are starting conference play in 2011. This is something that I noted was on the table a couple of weeks ago, where the Big Ten would provide financial concessions (such as a faster vesting of NU’s share of the Big Ten Network) in order to compensate for the higher 1-year notice exit fee from the Big 12.

So, is this the end of expansion for the Big Ten or are we going to get the equivalent of the “Her Majesty” track on the Abbey Road album… or maybe an entirely new album added on? The Board of Regents of the University of Texas is discussing conference realignment on Tuesday. Despite what many of you may think, I’m a realist – if Texas A&M refuses the overtures of the SEC, then the heavy odds are on the creation of the Pac-16 with UT and friends. The situation, though, continues to be extremely fluid. There are enough dominoes in this game to keep this discussion going for awhile.

In the meantime, congratulations to the University of Nebraska! It’s about time that the Big Ten had a Memorial Stadium that could sell out.

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

Advertisements
Comments
  1. Sportsman24 says:

    NU, welcome to the family. I look forward to the Iowa-NU rivalry starting/heating up very quickly!!

    Like

  2. K says:

    just caught up on the e-mails from the last post.

    Like

  3. GopherKH says:

    Looking forward to the Huskers coming to the Bank and the Barn. Welcome, Big Red!

    Like

  4. Jefferson PSU says:

    Welcome to the Big1T2en, huskers.

    Note that this is the conference that Penn State won in 1994, and McCloskey was in bounds in 1982, when we won another National Championship.

    WE ARE!

    Like

  5. John says:

    Congratulations to Nebraska and the Big 10. I lived in Minnesota for a very brief part of my life and while I don’t recall who they played, I do recall seeing Big Red flood an otherwise empty interstate heading east to flood someones stadium.

    Also, congratulations to Colorado on joining the Pac 10 which I think is a great move for them.

    Like

    • Sportsman24 says:

      Agreed. CU to the Pac-1# is a natural move. And, it trumped the BU vs. CU debate. Now, BU has a pot to piss in, but no window to throw it out.

      Like

      • Michael says:

        Congrats to Nebraska and all their fans on here. I think you can count on all of us cheering for you during your last season in the Big 12.

        Don´t get to comfortable though – a year from now and it´s all business.

        Like

  6. Dave says:

    From Tom at MGoBlog, ND is cancelling its game with Army in 2013.

    http://www.collegefantasyfootballinsider.com/news/16751/2013-ArmyNotre-Dame-no-longer-planned

    Most teams take 2 years to join a conference (NU being an exception). I think this does mean something is happening. That goes double since there’s been a lot of smoke around the idea of the BE giving ND an ultimatum about getting in or getting out.

    Like

    • Dave says:

      Yeah, and I should definitely also say welcome to Nebraska. I’m very glad that you’re joining us. As a Michigan fan and alum I respect you greatly… although I can think of one thing we might argue over.

      Regardless, I think you’ve got a great football tradition and I’m glad to now have a great excuse to see a football game at Nebraska. You guys are crazy, I saw when you played ND at South Bend, I thought the pictures were from a home game for you. Nice.

      Like

      • Welcome Nebraska to the Big Ten!! First order of business for every Nebraska fan: Explain to that school up north who really won the NC in 97.

        At least i can say THE BIG won the NC in 97!

        Like

        • Albino Tornado says:

          We got the pretty trophy with the crystal football; they got the one that’s a vo-tech reject.

          We beat #3 Tennessee. Soundly.
          They squeaked past Wazzu (!) with the aid of a motivated timekeeper.

          We know what’s what.

          Like

        • Huskerhydes says:

          I seem to remember OSU’s previous coach ruining our outright national championship that year. Had he just decided to keep running it when he got inside the 20, OSU beat Michigan that year.

          And Michigan thinks it could have stopped Nebraska’s running attack that year. Come on!!

          I still debate that every poker night with a MI alum and we are both here in Austin, TX.

          Like

  7. Matthew says:

    So when Delaney said “we’re not interested in any more Big 12 teams” he was lying then? Or maybe misquoted? I guess I don’t get why you think Texas is seriously still on the table.

    Like

    • James says:

      Maybe he’s interested in Missouri- after the Big XII is dissolved 😀

      Like

      • duffman says:

        I think Missouri knows they have been played in a gambit for Nebraska, if they get in now it is the last team to get the Big 10 to 16. There are plenty of schools with a better place in line for slots 13 – 16. Missouri is the kid watching the bus pull away without them. i really feel for them and the situation they are in. Like Kansas, they are knowing what it feels like to have AAU status, and no new home.

        Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      He’s not interested in them at this time. ‘This time’ could have been yesterday, this month, or this Summer.

      It could also be given this environment. Texas A&M going to the SEC could ‘force his hand’ again.

      Like

  8. Carl says:

    Welcome Huskers!

    Like

  9. duffman says:

    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!
    WELCOME BIG RED!

    we are 12, welcome to the family!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like

  10. pioneerlion says:

    Welcome aboard Nebraska!! Can’t wait for the PSU-Neb rivalry to start up again. Good games and good fans.

    Like

  11. duffman says:

    duffman says:
    June 11, 2010 at 5:03 pm
    Right now we are a chess game and the Big 10 and the SEC are equal.

    Both have 4 slots open in the race to 16

    Who wins and who loses depends on how wisely each use those 4 slots

    just my observation.. but I am going to keep this in my mind as I watch the expansion talk going forward (yeah the Pac 16 and ACC 16 may happen but from a football expansion they are the several levels down in the competition and it is still about delany and slive.

    sorry just tagging this to the new thread….

    Like

  12. GreatLakeState says:

    To which I say Abbey Road (Nebraska) is far superior to the overrated Sg. Pepper (Texas).

    Like

  13. Steve03 says:

    Add

    Like

  14. SDB10 says:

    OK who is next? Sure seems the P10 is going to 16 in a week.

    Like

  15. Sportsman24 says:

    Here’s a thought from the previous blog… it is rumored that OU is going with UT. That is not good news for the “UT to the BT” sect. OU is obviously a non-starter for the BT. I’d much rather UT & TAMU be linked w/o OU/oSu, TTU, BU, etc…

    Like

  16. Kyle2MSU says:

    Adding

    Like

  17. Josh says:

    I could not be happier about this. Nebraska is a great addition to the Big Ten. Like Delany said, they’re just a perfect fit. Even if the state isn’t big, every single person in the state is crazy about Cornhusker sports.

    I value money, but more important than that is the stability that Nebraska brings to the conference. With other, perhaps sexier, schools, you’d always be worried that they wouldn’t be looking out for the good of the conference as a whole. I don’t get the sense that’s going to be a problem with UNL.

    I can’t wait for the first Hawkeye/Huskers game.

    Like

    • Chelsea J. Rockwood says:

      Agreed. If presented with a choice of Nebraska alone versus UT plus 4 as a bloc, I’d take the former ten out of ten times. TT, OU, and OSU are just too dilutive of the academic brand and TAMU would be just tagging alone because mom and dad told them to stay close to their big brother. UT would be great on their own, but I have this notion that they would always feel like an outlier, never fully integrating into the conference. Five to ten years out, I could see them getting restive and this whole process playing out again with Big Ten on the bad end of it.

      Like

  18. duffman says:

    Frank,

    BTW, I am guessing 1,000,000 comes this weekend!

    congrats for showing that a blog with good content can draw!

    Like

    • Sportsman24 says:

      FtT,
      You should be very proud of yourself. You’re responsible for the premier Conference Realignment site. From your initial BTEI and continuing throughout all 27 follow-ups, you’ve been a knowledgeable & courteous host. Because of this, you’ve attracted scores of likewise posters. This site is a one-stop shop w/ many links and insights into universities that I may have never learned much about otherwise. I want to thank you for this forum. I’ll be a little disappointed when the realignment carousel stops, as this is very entertaining.
      Thank you Frank. And thanks to all the posters here.

      Like

      • @Sportsman24 – Thank you so much for the kind words. Honestly, reading all of the comments is way more fun than actually writing the posts. We have lots to talk about for awhile, though.

        Like

        • Sportsman24 says:

          I agree about the reading vs.writing. I’ve been reading your blog since the original BTEI, but I didn’t start posting until F/U #18. : )

          Like

        • Hangtime79 says:

          Here, here Frank. Its been awesome to read your posts and read everyone’s responses. You should be extremely proud.

          Like

          • jj says:

            Agreed dude, in particular the courteous part. I have no doubt you are a gentleman lawyer. Go get the next scoop!

            Like

        • Paul Thalacker says:

          Frank the Tank,

          First: WELCOME NEBRASKA!!!
          I agree with the above posts. You have been AWESOME with your analysis of conference expansion. I have been reading your posts for the last 4 months (incidently I love the super death star conference). Thank you for all the hard work and I will continue reading your blog.
          By the way who do you think the match-up for the Big Ten conference championship game in 2011 will be?

          Like

  19. Playoffs Now! says:

    http://twitter.com/schadjoe

    # Jim Delany: “We’re back to the ‘slow tempo’ game” half a minute ago via txt

    # Jim Delany just said he expects a Big Ten championship game 13 minutes ago via txt

    Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      Seems like a simple east-west division at the IL-IN state line would make the most sense at 12.

      Like

      • SH says:

        Ugh. If B10 is going to do a CCG, don’t do divisions. Take the top 2 teams. Get creative.

        But if they do CCG, do they bid it to the networks or show it on BTN? Obvious answer seems to be bid it out (ABC would likely pay quite a bit for it), but I don’t know enough about it. Patrick may know, would it make sense to keep it on BTN?

        Like

        • Playoffs Now! says:

          NCAA requires divisions for a CCG. However I have yet to see anything that says you can’t simply change division alignments every year. Not necessary with 12, but for 14 you could do 3 protected annual games and then play the 5 of the other 10 per year. For 16 do 3 protect and 6 of 12 per year. Everyone plays everyone at least twice per 4 years.

          Like

          • SH says:

            Just b/c that is the NCAA rule now is no reason why it can’t be changed. It’s a rule that has no real point? Why is it necessary to have divisions? It’s not a like a rule saying that you cannot have any contact with an alumni booster – that at least has a point. The only reason the NCAA wouldn’t change it is simply because it wants to exert control over the B10. Not a good battle for either to get into. So I think they would change it quickly.

            Like

          • jj says:

            That rule blows and is part of why the B12 blew up and no gives a crap about ACC. Change It! Ask USC, rules were meant to be broken!

            Like

    • DavidPSU says:

      And I thought that the Big Ten was against having a Conference Championship Game. I thought that the focus would be to move the traditional rivalry games to first weekend of December to go against the other conferences championship games. I know that Osborne is also not a fan of a CCG.

      In other news…
      The only times Notre Dame has a real chance to beat USC is when USC is on probation. Better make the most of it. Whose your coach this year?

      Like

  20. Steve03 says:

    Adding

    Like

  21. Josh says:

    One thing about Nebraska does bother me. You can’t be called NU anymore. First of all, that’s Northwestern. Second, if you’re the University of Nebraska, you can’t be NU. That’s backwards and reminds me of the old joke that the N on your helmet stood for “Nowledge.” You’re smarter than that.

    I know, we can’t count past ten. But neither can the Cornhuskers anymore since it doesn’t sound like the name is changing.

    Since Nebraska seems to dislike being called UN but seems OK with UNL, I’m fine with calling them UNL from now on.

    Like

    • ChicagoRed says:

      Josh,

      UNL is perfectly acceptable in Nebraska and in deference to our senior BT Northwestern colleagues seems only proper.

      Besides we kicked their ass last time we played them in a bowl 🙂

      Like

      • Albino Tornado says:

        I believe that is the current record (66-17, 49 points) margin of victory in a bowl game.

        Like

      • eapg says:

        Seems like a good idea for the traveling trophy. Who gets to use NU?

        Seriously, though it goes back to the fight song, “there is no place like Nebraska, dear old Nebraska U.” You’ve been calling an academic conference with 11 members the Big Ten for quite a while without hurting your heads. You’ll get used to two NUs.

        Like

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        Hey there! Watch your mouth; we just voted for you! LOL. And I was at that asswhoopin’, I mean game. I think we were still in the new to this, happy to be there stage. But we’re much better now 😉

        Like

        • eapg says:

          It hasn’t gone unnoticed in our part of the world that Northwestern is moving on up also. Wouldn’t want to make any enemies, we might need you to pick off somebody ahead of us in the standings.

          Like

  22. duffman says:

    BIG RED THRASHING MACHINE:

    welcome to a battle between tOSU and NUl

    in women’s basketball, bring it on!

    😉

    ps.. for those that do not follow it, both are good!

    Like

  23. duffman says:

    anybody have a link for a replay of the Nebraska news?

    I was watching BTN, but I got on late and missed Jim and Tom speak dagnabit!!!!

    Like

  24. es says:

    Can we please get a Nebraska vs PSU annual end of season rivalry game to replace the land grant trophy?

    Like

    • Sportsman24 says:

      Sorry, but Iowa has dibs on UNL as our new season-ender. If we continue to expand, I hope we get an eastern rival for PSU. Would you prefer Pitt, MD, RU, SU, etc…?

      Like

      • jj says:

        Agreed. NB/IA is better.

        Leave the PSU/MSU alone. It’s fine. They played for the championship like 2 years ago. It beats the crap out of PSU Rutgers or PSU Syracuse.

        Like

        • Cliff's Notes says:

          I would prefer to spread out the Big Games during the season.

          Michigan-Ohio State the final weekend is big enough. Any other game is generally overshadowed – even if UM or tOSU is down. Let Penn State-Nebraska be the marquee game on a different weekend. Same thing for Iowa-Nebraska , Ohio State-Penn State, Michigan-Michigan State, Ohio State-Wisconsin, and lately Iowa-Penn State. Each of these rivalry games deserves their own weekend to shine.

          Like

      • es says:

        None of the above. I want a game that elicits emotion, and Nebraska is our first opportunity to have that.

        Come on Iowa, you took away our most recent shot at a title, can’t you give us this one?

        Every other team in the BigTen that PSU fans have an emotional rivalry with….has a longer, more established rivalry with another school.

        I won’t be bitter if it doesn’t happen, but as the two newest members it would be nice, and we both have national appeal.

        Nothing against Mich St., I like and respect them, and I hope that we continue to play every year; it is usually an entertaining and sometimes unpredictable game….but, the emotion just isn’t there.

        Like

        • jj says:

          well it didn’t help that state blew the big one after saban left for about 10 years.

          Like

        • Husker Al says:

          I’d love an end of season game with Penn State.

          If Iowa is in our division/pod it will still be a meaningful rivalry. But older Husker fans remember the tremendous games from 1979-1983. We’ve been keeping an eye on PSU for 40 years.

          Like

    • HuskerZac says:

      I’m a Husker in Iowa, so believe, me, I can’t wait to start playing the Hawkeyes, and I think it will be a great rivalry.

      That said, Penn St-Nebraska is my vote for the season ender. There is some serious history with 1982 and 1994, and the angle of being the two newest members (for now, anyway) is an angle I hadn’t thought of before.

      Mostly, there are now four traditional football powers in the Big Ten, and I’m told the other two already have a rivalry. 😉

      I think Nebraska’s first Big Ten game should be in October 2011, in Iowa City.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        HZ,

        agree PSU vs NUL as they are the “new” but also they are now the “arms” or “wings” of the Big 10.

        (it helps to see the Big10 states in black, and the rest of the USA in white when looking at a map)

        Like

    • Jefferson PSU says:

      Absolutely. The 1994 National Champion Trophy could be played for every year.

      Like

    • DavidPSU says:

      It’s amusing how many Penn State alumni are ready to end the final game rivalry with Michigan State and start one up with Nebraska. The Land Grant Trophy wins the National Championship for ugliness and needs to be retired now. Maybe we should start a Facebook page and ask Betty White to do the inaugural coin toss!

      Like

      • jj says:

        It wont be so amusing when MSU sends joepa into retirement with a loss and takes that ugly-ass trophy back to EL! LOL!

        Like

        • jj says:

          Just do something to piss dantonio off and watch him get all crazy about it. He’s a grudge-holder. THe UM/MSU rivalry went nuclear when he showed up. If PSU wants some excitement, just piss the man off and watch him go nuts.

          Like

          • Pezlion says:

            He already pissed us off with all of his last second antics and timeouts in 7 degree weather after we crushed MSU in ’08.

            Like

          • Art Vandelay says:

            Was it really Dantonio that made the UofM-MSU rivalry “go nuclear”, or was it RichRod coming along that made it more of a rivalry?

            Like

          • jj says:

            Dantonio is an old MSU guy. When he first came, he made UM the priority game. Others had been playing the old “its not a big deal, we focus on each game” routine.

            MD went back to “we will destroy UM come hell or highwater”. he was very public about it and stared it when carr was still around.

            i suspect UM hates losing to MSU more than anything b/c they really think of MSU as inferior fools. i work with a mass of UM law grads. they hate MD. Bobby W and John L were viewed, rightly, as fools.

            Like

          • jj says:

            you cannot underestimate just how much they schools hate each other on some level. UM / OSU gets the headlines, but UM /MSU is where the blood boils really. the UMers don’t like admit it either, it is really funny in a way to watch their heads pop and then be all like, “oh, no big deal”.

            i’ve lived in EL, AA and Detroit. I’ve been to basically every combination of UM/MSU/OSU/ND in every stadium (BB and FB). MSU/UM is the big money pissed off time.

            You have to bear in mind that these people compete for literally everything – every sport, recruiting, local men/women, jobs, the biggest piece of chicken in the bucket. you name it – they fight overt it.

            they can draw 100,000 for a hockey game. I’m going!

            Like

          • Art Vandelay says:

            @jj

            I don’t disagree with you at all about the hatred aspect between UofM and MSU. I’ve been a big Michigan fan my entire life, and it gets bad. I feel somewhat badly for MSU (I’m not a hater), because Michigan fans are so arrogant about it. Sometimes I think they treat the rivalry with MSU like it’s second tier to the rivalry to OSU because UofM fans try to act and feel superior to MSU in every respect. You’ll constantly find UofM fans talking about how it’s “so much better of a school than MSU”, acting like MSU is a school for rejects. They’ll talk about how all that matters is the rivalry with OSU, and do things like call and treat MSU like “the little brother”.

            It’s both unfair and foolish. MSU has great fans (generally speaking, much better than Michigan’s), is an excellent school, and has a solid tradition in both basketball and football. The only thing I would say is that MSU always played UofM tough, even before Dantonio got there. It wasn’t until RichRod came along that they really started winning, though.

            I would even go to say that I think MSU made the right choice in hiring Dantonio over Brian Kelly (and I’ve been a fan of his since GVSU). Dantonio brings more stability to a place like MSU than Kelly. There’s no saying that Kelly wouldn’t have left MSU to go to Notre Dame if State started winning more. Dantonio probably isn’t ever going to leave, and he’s brought a tough attitude and better in-state recruiting to the Spartans. He probably isn’t going to win any national championships at State, but he could produce a Rose Bowl team or two over the next ten or 15 years, which is what MSU needs. Good, talented teams and good consistency.

            Like

  25. GreatLakeState says:

    Kirk Herbstreit (the guy who cost Michigan Les Miles) says that Notre Dame needs to be next.

    http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/06/herbstreit-on-big-ten-nebraska-a-huge-coup-notre-dame-should-join-too.html

    Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      After winning everything in sight on his way to the top, only to get passed over by Michigan State and not even receive the courtesy of an interview with Michigan, I have to wonder if Brian Kelly doesn’t hold a grudge against the Big Ten. Not that he will decide anything.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        I also agree with Herbstreit that Georgia Tech should be one of the four.

        Like

        • jj says:

          Oh, he’s pissed allright. I like Mark D, but can’t help think what could have been. Kelly’s a friggin’ beast and this should be an interesting year. If ND were to join the B10, the ND/UM/MSU trifecta of hate would explode into previously unseen depths on this Earth. The thing about these guys that creates animosity unlike UM / OSU is that the former have to live and work with each other all year round whereas the Columbus crowd only pops by once a year to pants UM on national tv and then heads home.

          Like

          • Paul says:

            The “ND/UM/MSU trifecta of hate” is a great description. As a UM or MSU fan, it’s so confusing who to root for when the other is playing ND. You want both to lose.

            (Maybe if ND joins the Big Ten its fans will actually care about who wins UM vs MSU. Nah–probably not.)

            Like

      • Richard says:

        I’d choose Miami (which is more of a “Northern” school) over GTech.

        Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      NE-ND-GT-VA-MD would be a home run from every angle.

      NE-ND-GT-Vandy-Rut would be awesome.
      NE-Vandy-GT-VA-MD would be a great all around success.
      NE-GT-VA-MD-Rut nearly as good.

      NE-GT-Rut-Syr-Pitt or NE-GT-Vandy-Syr-Rut would be a solid expansion.

      Right now it is still hard to go wrong, even without ND. Plenty of good choices left.

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        I think your top list is a distinct possibility

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Right now ND, MD. and VA aren’t choices, and GT leaves a lot to be desired. Vandy?? Are you joking?

        Like

      • DavidPSU says:

        I would definitely agree that Virginia would be an extremely good fit in the Big Ten. Virginia is not only an academic peer, but would rank in the top 3 in many academic categories in the Big Ten. Great location too! I would LOVE to see it happen. It would definitely put more credibility into the “academic peer” angle. Just about every sports story ends with the “this is all about dollars” sentiment.

        Like

  26. Greg says:

    Hawks top 30!!!!!

    Like

  27. mushroomgod says:

    With ND and TX apparently out of play, I believe SEC prospects in going to 16 are somewhat brighter than those of the BT.

    I do see 13 and 14 for the BT being Missouri and RU. Amoung other reasons, the Neb addition sets up a very nice East/West division. The East is somewhay stronger (OSU; UM; PSU v. Neb.; Wis; Iowa), but otherwise it sets up nicely:

    East:OSU, UM, PSU, MSU, IU, Pur

    West, Ill, NW, Iowa, Neb, Minn., Wis

    Adding one eastern team and one western team seems most logical.

    So who are the prospects?

    RU, Pitt, Sya, U Conn, MD, VA, GT in the East. I would agree with some of you that MD is the strongest school here; however, I see MD and VA as being very unlikely to bolt to the BT.

    In the West, MO., KU are basically it.

    Hard to see a strong 4 team expansion here.

    On the other hand, SEC has 3 strong prospects in FSU, Clemson, WV. WV is a great candidate, imo, if you ignore academics, which SEC seems able to do. OK and A&M seemingly being off the table for the SEC is huge, if true….but I think I like Clemson, FSU, and WV are better than any 3 presently available to the BT….

    Like

    • K says:

      I suppose it is perspective… you are obviously talking strictly from a football standpoint?

      Like

    • duffman says:

      shroom.. from the last blog..

      this is where it may go now, as i think FSU / Clemson / WVU / GT
      is less likely than A&M / UNC / UVA / MD

      duffman says:
      June 11, 2010 at 3:58 pm
      sorry to do this.. but my follow up did not attach correctly so I am running omnicarrier first and my followup attached..

      omnicarrier says:
      June 11, 2010 at 8:47 am
      “Of course Texas wants A&M to follow it. If the two schools moved together to the Pac-10, Texas could maintain the status quo. With nothing still to differentiate the two schools, the Longhorns could continue their recruiting momentum.

      But Texas A&M can change that dramatically by joining the Southeastern Conference.

      It could offer recruits a choice, a chance to play in the best football conference in the nation, in front of rabid fans and in sold-out stadiums, in cities and college towns that their families can drive to.”

      Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/06/11/1492807/draw-swords-texas-am-and-carve.html#ixzz0qYU7yig3

      Someone who gets it. The worse thing that could happen to UT is for A&M to go to the SEC while they go to either the Pac-10 or the Big 10. They must go together or UT to the Big 10 and A&M to the Pac-10.

      Since the latter scenario definitely isn’t happening, UT will USE Texas politics to tie them together and once Texas politicians do that, in return they will want to save TTU as well. Which is why the only realistic possibilities are the Pac-16 or making the Big 12 work with the two defections of Nebraska and Colorado.

      duffman says:
      June 11, 2010 at 3:45 pm
      omni,

      some points I noticed….

      A) this is a charlotte NC paper saying A&M should go to the SEC

      B) it goes on to say what I have voiced grave concern here before

      “Through this whole conference upheaval saga, the loudest sound in the room has been the silence coming from the SEC. Anybody else find that odd?

      SEC commissioner Mike Slive, however, has been anything but a disinterested bystander.”

      C) then my jaw drops

      “My educated hunch is that the other SEC targets would be Oklahoma, Virginia Tech and North Carolina. If Oklahoma wants to tag along with the Longhorns, the SEC will look at Maryland and the Washington, D.C., market.”

      This was what I have feared all along IN PRINT in a NORTH CAROLINA newspaper. We keep saying UNC to the SEC is a no go, but here it is in a NORTH CAROLINA newspaper. Folks, a 16 team SEC with A&M, UNC, Maryland, and UVA or Va Tech is not only possible, but a very REAL threat to Big 10 expansion plans!

      Reply
      zeek says:
      June 11, 2010 at 4:00 pm
      Never going to happen.

      It just won’t. Maryland/VA/UNC. None of those schools will go anywhere near the SEC.

      Reply
      duffman says:
      June 11, 2010 at 4:28 pm
      zeek,

      I hear you, but as things are moving on NEVER seems to be an almost quaint word now….

      some points to consider….

      a) slive (ESPN) and delany (FOX) are THE players….

      b) my early theory that the BIG 3 would survive, and the little 3 would not (at least with less power, not more)

      c) tv (via football) is driving this bus

      What combination could the ACC make that could rival a Big 16, Pac 16, or SEC 16 from a football/TV revenue standpoint?

      The power of ACC football is in schools ALREADY in dominant SEC football territory, and the SEC has end of season rival games already (Ga Tech/UGA, USC/Clemson, UF/FSU/Miami) so they [the SEC] has already picked the low hanging fruit from the ACC tree….

      If Nebraska can leave Oklahoma behind, and A&M can leave Texas behind, can it be so hard for UNC to leave Duke behind [UNC – state school with abilty to sustain a BIG football stadium vs Duke – private school with 30,000 seats they can not fill now]?

      Money matters, and those that can grow (UNC & Maryland) will see that Duke and Wake can not….

      We keep saying academics matter so if Slive wants to really fire the shot heard round the world, what better way to do it than with an end run NOBODY thinks can happen.

      Add A&M + UNC + UVA + Maryland to UF + Vandy + UGA and a few more and you have created a NEW conference of academics & sports (I agree the Mississippi schools are the academic “dead weight” of the SEC, but if you read mrsec, the other schools are not that bad as a whole..

      We keep focusing on ND, but what if the SEC pulls Maryland in the meantime?

      The SEC just added another single state flagship school to the fold along with new markets and senators / congressmen….

      I am not saying anything WILL happen, what I am saying is it is pollyanna thinking to think the Big 10 will sweep everybody else, and they will just sit there and watch it happen. In chess you are plotting moves that are still to be made are we not thinking Slive is a worthy opponent?

      pride goes before a fall….

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Maryland won’t even let me type……………………………………….
        …SEC on the same sentence.
        How about Yale?

        Like

      • jtower says:

        If the SEC could get UNC, UVa and Maryland, they could get Texas.
        If the SEC could get Texas do you think there is any chance in for aggy to get picked?
        The SEC can’t get any of those schools (currently) so they can settle for aggy and ou – good fits for the SEC.

        Like

      • Art Vandelay says:

        The problem I have with the UNC, Maryland, and UVA to the SEC is that all three would be accepted in the Big Ten, which can offer them all more money – both academic and TV, and is a MUCH better academic fit. If the Big Ten could get those three schools, all three would get invites. If the Big Ten can’t get them, neither can the SEC.

        Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      Neither Clemson or West Virginia are as strong as any of the ‘weak’ BT possibilities you mentioned. Oh, except (to me) Syracuse.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Clemson has a NC in fball, a huge fan base, and is a top 60 type school academically.

        WV has strong fball and bball programs, and one of the most loyal and enthusiatic fan bases around.

        One odd thing if WV were to gt to the SEC…VW was craeted by the Civil War…seperated from the rich plantation boys along the coast. If WV went to the SEC it would be taking the Union into the Confederacy….

        Like

        • GreatLakeState says:

          Hatfields and the McCoys

          Like

        • Bobestes says:

          Nowadays WV might as well be the south.

          Like

          • Vincent says:

            WVU was in the Southern Conference for several decades, and wanted to join the ACC at its outset but was blocked (as was Virginia Tech) because it voted in 1951 to punish Clemson and Maryland for violating the conference’s no-bowl policy. When the ACC was formed in the spring of 1953, I believe Maryland was neutral on WVU and VPI, but Clemson was adamantly opposed to both.

            Like

        • Phil says:

          You should be disqualified from describing Clemson as a “top 60 school” when it was a whistleblower from that university that gave the biggest hit to the credibility of the USNWR ratings by leaking how Clemson was fudging their numbers.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Well, I didn’t say they weren’t cheters…they wouldn’t fit in the SEC otherwise….but as to academics, Clemson’s Princton Review academic rating is 92 (Pitt’s is 90 for comparison), and Clemson is more selective in admissions than Pitt. And Pitt is the #1 academic institution being considered by the BT, other than ND>

            Like

        • Josh says:

          And how good has Clemson been since they stopped paying players?

          Clemson hasn’t been back to a BCS level bowl since that Orange Bowl. They were lucky to avoid the death penalty in the 1980s.

          Like

    • DavidPSU says:

      If the SEC were to grab a few schools from the ACC first, I can see Virginia being persuaded to leave to go to the Big Ten and eventually being a member of the CIC. Remember…. think like a University President, like Frank always says!

      Like

  28. SH says:

    No matter how things turn out, I think college football is going to be a lot more interesting in the next few years. A good shakeup is always interesting. That first Neb – PSU game will be pretty exciting. Same with the first UT – UCLA game in the Rose Bowl. I do hope this somehow leads to the Cotton Bowl returning to its rightful place in bowl hierarchy. Though I’m afraid the Fiesta Bowl will remain there. Either way, despite what the pundits at ESPN and SI think, I think college football may be getting better.

    Like

    • Stopping By says:

      UT at UCLA in RB next year or non conference – they signed a home and home years ago.

      Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        Yep, we’re scheduled to play at UCLA next year. We have a home-and-home with Cal 2015-16.

        It will be interesting to see if they get incorporated into the conference schedules or, as I suspect, canceled.

        Like

    • Stopping By says:

      Also – I think that the Cotton will be elevated to a BCS. I think eventually – 16 team conferences will get 2 autos w/ limit moving up to 3.

      Thinking about math out loud 4 megas w/ 2 autos each. One auto from MWC/B12 hybrid and 3 other at larges to get the 12 BCS spots (10 coming from Rose, Orange, Sugar, Fiesta, and Cotton + 2 in rotating NC)

      Like

    • DavidPSU says:

      Would Texas really go to the Pac Ten when the Big Ten is still a real possibility? In the Pac Ten, some of their games may not start until 10 pm on the east coast. The travel times really are not that different when comparing the two conferences. They get so much more in prestige, academics, and, like Nebraska stated, more stability and security from the Big Ten.

      Like

  29. cjb56 says:

    If the Pac 10 gets Texas and OU, along with A&M, Colorado, Ok State and Texas Tech…the Big Ten might win the short term game, but not the long haul. The money will come to that enlarged Pac 10 eventually.

    If the Big Ten doesn’t come away with Texas, ND or even Virginia Tech, Delany is going to lose his mystique as a power-broker and is going to look like a boob who tipped his hand too soon and got his bluff called in a big way.

    I’m all for bringing in the Huskers…but it is not enough to counter what the Pac 10 and SEC can do if they make their rumored additions.

    The Big Ten could be headed to third banana status real quick…or even fourth, if ND joins some sort of Big East/ACC mega-conference down the road.

    The next few days are huge for the Big Ten’s future.

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      Damn…pretty defeatest there…..BT now has 4 of the 7 all-time winningest fball programs of all time. Hardly 3rd banana status.

      Also, Pac 10 might be the long-term loser in all this; they have essentially set up two leagues, with two entirely different cultures. No matter what the Big 10 does 13-16, I think it will be a good fit……

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        To expound on that===

        PAC 10, with 16 teams, now has 3 of the top 10 football programs–Tx, USC, OK. And USC is out of action for 5 years effectively…

        BT, with 12 teams, has 4 of the top 10 fball programs ever–Neb., UM, OSU, PSU.

        Like

        • Ryan says:

          History is great and all, but what does that do for the Big 10 right now?

          OU, UT, and USC are all top 10 type programs right now (not counting off OU year due to Bradford’s injury), while UM and NU have been completely mediocre the last couple of years.

          Like

      • cjb56 says:

        That’s fine. I’m all for Nebraska in the Big Ten. It’s a great football program with a fantastic following and stellar tradition.

        The winningest programs of all-time thing is nice, but they combine for as many national championships in the last 30 years as the SEC has in the past 10.

        If Texas goes to the Pac 10, what big fish does the Big Ten land in a future expansion if ND isn’t a candidate?

        Now for the immediate plusses for football…

        Nebraska makes the Big Ten bowl pool much deeper, leading to more favorable bowl match ups all the way down the line. I love that aspect. When we send two to the BCS, it usually means Big Ten teams have to “play up” in all the other bowl match ups. Nebraska helps alleviate that issue. That can help with the conference strength perception, as the Big Ten wins more bowl games (hopefully).

        Like

    • BuckeyeBeau says:

      I 100% disagree; TX to the P16 is perfectly good for the B10; B10 and P10 are coordinating; the B10 is not slipping to “third banana” anytime soon with the B10 Network ensuring that.

      Like

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        I doubt they are coordinating, but as long as TX ends up outside the SEC the B10+2 comes out ahead.

        TX to the P16 provides balance for college football. TX to the B10+2 or SEC would have created permanent lopsidedness that probably would have been bad for college sports.

        Though until the official announcements are made, I won’t completely rule out anything.

        Like

      • Sportsman24 says:

        @cjb5,
        I disagree with everything you said, except for the last paragraph. I agree that the BT has been “playing up” to the competition in Bowl Games due to the second BCS Bid. This fact is oft ignored by media pundits.

        @BuckeyeBeau,
        I agree that a healthy Pac-1# is good for the BT, and about the only way the P1# can expand is with UT.

        Like

      • DavidPSU says:

        I would agree with that, especially since if the Pac Ten does expand to 16, they are taking some mediocre teams just to get Texas and Oklahoma. They may be damaging their strength of schedule in the process.

        Like

        • TheBlanton says:

          Mediocre academically, but the Big XII South has been FANTASTIC (sans Baylor) for the last decade athletically.

          Like

          • Pezlion says:

            TTech had one really good season and a handful of solid seasons. OSU has had like two solid seasons. I’d hardly call UT and OU being great cause for labeling the B12 south as FANTASTIC for a decade. In fact, I’d say your description of the B12 south over the last decade is ridiculous.

            Like

  30. duffman says:

    The Big 12 is burning, what if the ACC is next?

    we are playing what if here on this blog, so here goes….

    In my old theory I argued for the Big 3 and the scraps….

    In my theory the Big 12, ACC, and BE were the prey….

    My theory has been correct so far about the Big 12, so….

    what if the ACC is next and NOT the BE (vis a vi ND to the Big 10)?

    now some things on my mind

    a) the Big 12 was surrounded by the BIG 3 (B 16, P16, and SEC 16) and were most at risk.

    b) the BE has no appeal to the P 16, and little or no appeal to the SEC 16. this means the only threat to the BE is the B 16

    c) the ACC has no appeal to the P 16, but is a tasty place to feed for both the B 16 & SEC 16.

    now add it football and TV..

    Big 16 (FOX) and SEC 16 (ESPN) want to add strength….

    d) the ACC is ESPN territory not FOX territory

    If I was ESPN, I want my ACC teams not already tied to SEC teams (Clemson, Miami, G Tech, and FSU) to find a home with the SEC over the Big 10, as every ACC team to the Big 10 means FOX wins and I lose.

    comments????

    Like

    • SH says:

      Intriguing theory, but at this point, I still don’t understand why B10 or SEC wants/needs to expand. Simple answer is more money – but isn’t this what the NHL was thinking when it expanded in the 90’s? I don’t think it has worked out as well for them. Of course, it has worked for the NHL. If you get a home run, you probably do it. ND for B10. OU or A&M (again UT/A&M are different animals b/c of size of Texas) for SEC.

      But if you are going to raid the ACC, I want brand names. And UNC is at the top of that list – IMO.

      Anyway, I’ve been thinking about this, and Nebraska is to college like GB is to NFL. Small market, but with the most passionate fan base. And not simply johnny come lately fans – fans who will root for them always. In sports, that is an extremely valuable asset. That is why Neb is a home run.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        Good analogy with GB—I’ll give it a triple, but Neb.’s no PSU overall……

        Like

      • michael z. says:

        SH, I think you have referenced the NHL thing before. It’s not a good analogy. The NHL moved into new (and in my opinion bad) markets. Here, college football markets are already established, they are just moving the conference pieces around. It would be like moving the blackhawks from the west to the east; had that happened, fans wouldn’t have suddenly stopped following them. Bad analogy in my opinion.

        Like

    • aps says:

      First, you are assuming that SEC can think it through. They are first and last FOOTBALL. That is all they care about. College is not for academics but to play football. Conferences are for playing sports, not academics.

      The problem with UNC is Duke, Wake Forest & NC State. Those 4 carolina schools are linked at the hip, more so than Texas & Texas A&M. Plus they only care about basketball.

      The SEC will go after the football schools. FSU, Miami, Clemson and Virginia Tech. Georgia Tech is not likely. GT left the SEC in the 1960’s due to academics. At the same time, Tulane left for the same reason. Having read the GT forums, they would prefer the Big Ten, just they don’t believe it is possible.

      The ACC would have the better schools and better demographics. Lots of people from the north have retired to the carolinas and georgia.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        apps,

        I study history, 20 years ago the big 10 won the battle with PSU, but lost the war to the SEC. Before everybody goes nuts, keep in mind that I view things through 2 lenses (one being small long term thinking and the other being the “masses” which see things short term and sorta like ADD kids). While we here see that the Big 10 has good schools and good football, the “average” person just sees the end result. We may know what happened in the tOSU vs Michigan game in 1972, but the average person does not (and probably does not care).

        The “masses” can probably tell you who won the BCS NC game the last decade, the NCAA BB NC, The Super Bowl, The NBA, or the KY Derby. These folks remember the winners, but not who finished second. At the time PSU won, but history has been kind to the SEC in recent years. I do not want to argue merits, just methods. The SEC took Arkansas and USC (not a Nebraska or PSU) yet they were the ones who made the most with them. They did not go to current markets (Clemson, FSU, Miami, or GT) but went to NEW markets. They made lemonade from their lemons, and sold it well to the “masses”. To not see this is foolish, and to run them down for their academics just makes us look “snooty” to the masses.

        Maybe it is because I am older, but when you predict your “enemy” will do what you want them to do, instead of thinking what they would do in their own best interest – you have already lost.

        My point in posting here is to offer long term thinking, and not just views through “Big 10 rose colored glasses”. I said early on what I want is not as important as figuring out what the other side wants.

        Like

        • rich2 says:

          “Maybe it is because I am older, but when you predict your “enemy” will do what you want them to do, instead of thinking what they would do in their own best interest – you have already lost.”

          Excellent point and I could not agree more. Still tonight should be a good night for the Big Ten: adding Nebraska improves the value of the BTN and its finances, adds stability, complements your league’s research mission and upgrades the overall academic reputation of the league.

          Like

  31. Bobestes says:

    So does anyone smarter than I care to proffer a guess as to how things are looking for my UC Bearcats, or is that beneath y’all?

    🙂

    Like

    • duffman says:

      bobestes,

      I am a UC alum, we are hosed.. when we went public in the 70’s we got strangled by tOSU and it is what it is. When UC was private, the P&G folks (see also the nipperts) kept it as a good academic private. When we went public, we became the State U to tOSU (what damage U college brought to UC) and it went downhill from there. CCM and DAA are still good, and the Med and Law school are steady, but ENG has slid far from the 70’s (when we were more like Ga Tech or Purdue).

      *sigh*

      Like

      • Bobestes says:

        Do we stay BCS? That’s all I really care about in this shakeup.

        Right now I feel like we have 55% chance.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          bob,

          a proposal i floated early on was the BIG 3 and the “scraps” that would battle every year for a chance at a 4th spot in a football playoff

          the “scraps” would be more regional players with an underlying asset such as God & Country (east and West versiions) and Magnolia (a collection of solid PRIVATE schools with a “southern feel”).

          My God & Country East would be the “new” BE and The Magnolia would be “duke, wake, tulane, rice, SMU, Miami… etc..

          In a God & Country you have 8 football + 8 basketball like the Big East.. with the 8 football schools being..

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

          this was just a suggestion, but It would allow ND to remain “independent” but has schools in catholic cities close by (UL + UC) plus Armed Forces network (Army + Navy) and East Coast (syracuse + uconn). This could keep ND at the table as the BIG 3 would all need OOC and such a conference would offer decent opponents to say Miami (OH) or WKU….

          just my thinking, but offers possibilities

          Like

        • Playoffs Now! says:

          Just a completely unscientific guess, but I’d say above 80%. Thing is, if the B10+2 and/or SEC raid the ACC, the number of replacements could run out quickly if the ACC wants high academic standards as a requirement. Cincy should qualify, while WV, Lou, Mem, ECU, maybe S. FL might not.

          Like

        • indydoug says:

          I am also a UC grad, double actually, & I don’t think it looks too good for our alma mater to stay in a BCS Conference

          Like

      • Bobestes says:

        Things are getting better back there academically.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          yes, but I will give frank much credit for getting me to see the difference between “education” and “research” as I now see that they are NOT one in the same, the best thing UC could do would be to lobby the state for a bigger slice of the pie. As a realist over the years I think tOSU has made chances slim to none as that would mean competition. Delany works for the Big 10, not the state of Ohio.

          Just observations from an old fart.

          Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      BEast could survive unless the B10+2 and SEC both go to 16. Cincy might then end up in the ACC or a MWC-leftover 16 hybrid 5th super conference. It is possible but unlikely that Cincy gets left out of the 4 or 5 super conferences, should they form (ACC might not go past 12, but with a P16, SEC16, and B10+6 they probably would.)

      Like

      • Bobestes says:

        Yeah, the last couple of years have been pretty damn fun. It would be a shame to go back to the bad old irrelevant days.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          bob,

          it is tough when your primary market (southern ohio and northern kentucky) are the border for the Big 10 and SEC (tOSU & UK). Maybe George Clooney should get vocal for UC. UC’s strength in the “arts” sure has not hurt his career!

          Like

  32. Mike says:

    This Husker would like to thank all of you for the warm welcome. I’m amazed how well this move has been received both here in Lincoln and by Big Ten fans. I can’t wait to see all of you at Memorial Stadium in the near future.

    Like

  33. BuckeyeBeau says:

    Yep, Welcome Huskers!

    Like

  34. Playoffs Now! says:

    http://insidetexas.com/news/story.php?article=2432

    …Our source also spoke to a high-ranking SEC official who reports that no invitation to join the SEC has been extended to Texas A&M and none is expected to be offered.

    Our information indicates that any invitation to A&M was contingent upon either Texas or Oklahoma joining the league as well. But the Horns and the Sooners appear to both be onboard to allign with an expanded Pac-10…

    I’m not burying the aTm to the SEC option just yet. Seems odd that Gene Stallings would be lobbying so hard for this inside the state if the SEC was no longer interested. The guy’s a former AL coach with plenty of connections out east.

    But there is the possibility that the SEC and B10+2 do nothing for awhile, leaving the P16 as the only conference beyond 12. Not a big a handicap for P16 as the numbers would suggest, because of scheduling they’d still only have a 9-game conference schedule, no different than the current P10’s and just one more than the SEC and B12’s.

    Like

    • Wyzerman says:

      I know this flies completely in the face of what is now conventional wisdom, but I was wondering if anyone else is hearing the same rumblings that I have – that A&M is still contemplating the Big Ten?

      If this turned out to be true it would make this one of the most interesting multi-dimensional chess games I’ve ever seen. Tamu’s AD, as you know, was AD at Nebraska in a prior life. The fact that there hasn’t been speculation almost lends credence to this.

      Like

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        Unlikely, but possible.

        Like

        • Wyzerman says:

          Intriguing, though. A&M is AAU, it would sell a lot of BTN subscriptions in Texas, especially SE Texas. If you can’t get UT, why wouldn’t A&M be acceptable as a second choice if they were interested? Of course, expressions of interest like this might be designed to gain leverage with the real desired target destination.

          Like

    • Hangtime79 says:

      Consider the source right now. UT will do everything in its power to get aTm to go with them.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        hangtime,

        i noticed that as well, it is from a LONGHORN site, which makes me think that A&M to the SEC is enough of a worry to try and “spin” it.

        Like

    • AggieFrank says:

      Mik Slive is in College Station communicating the detais f the SEC offee this evening. Of course the Texas site wants to pretend the offer doesn’t exist but one does.

      Like

  35. Gumbynuts says:

    Addict

    Like

  36. Derek says:

    So basically the PAC-16 will be east vs west. Two different cultures and seemingly each division will have their own agenda. I just don’t see how they can create a strong sense of comradery. However maybe that’s the idea. I can see a strong rivalry between the Texas and California schools forming. That would makefor some fun games and an awesome ccg.

    Like

  37. jj says:

    Welcome Huskers. Though you beat the living holy crap out of my beloved Spartans when last we met, Nebraska is a home run addition to the B10. Welcome Aboard!

    Like

  38. monty says:

    What outside a poster on the Northwestern Board and a Radio station in KC points to Texas being any option for the big 10? Am I missing something?

    Like

  39. Phizzy says:

    Latest from PURPLE Book Cat, FWIW:

    6/11 Evening Update

    “There is an unanticipated and fiery power struggle within the Texas academic and athletic leadership over conference affiliation. Notre Dame, likewise, is positioning itself. The Big East is no longer sustainable for Notre Dame.

    It comes down to the concessions the Big Ten is willing to make. Will the Big Ten schools allow the Big Ten to scale back to 7 games for certain schools, for all schools, or will the entire conference stay at 8 games? Thought is that if it involved BOTH Texas and ND, the conference will agree to it.

    Big Ten believes Texas will not settle for the Pac 10, and that there is a major split within the administration about what is best for Texas. Unclear, at this point, which side will prevail.

    Texas also must wait until the Big 12 completely dismantles, and wants to make sure as many former Big 12 members get homes. Pac 10 targeting non Big 12 members as well.

    Texas is up in the air – there is real anger that the Big 10 broke up the Big 12 with some Texas decision makers. Other Texas decision makers were complicit all along.”

    Like

    • Phizzy says:

      More

      “Also, the sense is that Nebraska may have came too soon for the rest of the conference. Admins on the phone with the schools to hang with the plan.

      Nebraska complicating things with comments toward Texas, fueling the anti-Big Ten crowd in Austin. Emotional tension high in Austin meetings. Another phone call with conference presidents tonight.

      That’s all I have for now.”

      Like

      • eapg says:

        What was said that wasn’t true? The Big 12 is financially viable without Nebraska and Colorado, it isn’t with the South gone sans Baylor. The same case, that schools were replacable, was made by pro-Texas posters many times early in this process. The problem for Texas is that it isn’t optimally financially viable. Which is fine, again, nobody realistic has a problem with looking out for #1. Just don’t expect blame-shifting to go unanswered. If Texas has a problem with that, and it truly cuts off the Big Ten as an option, then they were never seriously considering it anyway. Maybe they should have run the numbers a long time ago, if they wanted a healthy conference for everyone and not just themselves.

        Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        I’m not buying it….I think he’s covering his butt for prior posts………

        Like

      • Husker Al says:

        I’ve wondered about the consequences of Perlman’s statements.

        But during Delaney’s press conference he also mentioned that one team leaving should never bring down a conference, and played up the family/small company atmosphere of the Big10. There is no question this was meant to be in contrast the Big12’s dysfunctional union.

        Like

        • eapg says:

          “I’ve wondered about the consequences of Perlman’s statements.”

          What consequences? If the Big Ten thought they were getting a pissing post for Texas political spin, they haven’t been paying attention. Do you really think that at some point in the last two weeks that Texas didn’t indicate their displeasure with the Big Ten for desiring Nebraska? Didn’t stop the Big Ten. Whatever bridges were burned were burned at that point. Quite possibly no bridges were burned, just have to see how it all unfolds.

          Like

    • jj says:

      Should not be done. Equal members. Period. All in or get out!

      Like

    • Richard says:

      Let’s have 7 official home games for all. 4 pods where you only play the teams in your pod and another pod. Annual rivalries between traditional Big10 schools that aren’t in the conference schedule can be played non-conf.

      I’d be for it (though I don’t think Texas by itself in the southwest would be a stable configuration).

      Like

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      Total BS.

      Why would Texas care about finding homes for other Big 12 members. Really are they helping K-state? Iowa State?

      Like

  40. angryapple says:

    What do people think about the Pac-16 plan to have only two interdivisional games, no championship game, and send the Pac-8 Division champ to the Rose Bowl and the Texas Division champ to the Fiesta Bowl?

    Seems like an awful deal for Texas and Oklahoma (no Rose Bowl) and an awful deal of Colorado and the Arizona schools (only one game in California every two years).

    Shouldn’t be a problem for Tech, Ok State, or A&M/Kansas since they’ll like mostly playing their old conference rivals and they’re no threat to win the division and go to the Rose Bowl or Fiesta Bowl anyway.

    Like

    • loki_the_bubba says:

      I can’t imagine the other conferences let them choose two BCS bowls.

      Like

    • angryapple says:

      If the Pac-16, Big Ten+, and SEC end up as the only three relevant 16 team conferences and they want to keep the BCS format in place instead of starting a playoff, I’d do it like this:

      Rose Bowl – Pac-16 Champ vs Big Ten+ Champ

      Sugar Bowl – SEC Champ vs Big Ten #2

      Cotton Bowl – SEC #2 vs Pac-16 #2

      Orange Bowl – At Large vs At Large

      Fiesta Bowl – At Large vs At Large

      At Large selections can be a third team from the Pac-16, Big Ten+, or SEC or a champion of another league that finishes the season ranked #14 or higher (any champion that finishes #8 or higher is guaranteed a spot).

      Like

    • Chelsea J. Rockwood says:

      If those particulars are true, I’m sure the shotgun marriage that is the PAC 16 will last about as long as the WAC16.

      Like

    • twk says:

      That’s one of the reasons that I want A&M in the SEC. The Pac 10 proposal is largely a sham. The only thing it delivers is more TV money (and how much more is extremely speculative, and probably overstated). I’m a huge baseball fan, and the setup they are talking about for that sport since Colorado does not field a team (three pods of 5 teams playing a double round robin, but no cross pod competition) is even worse that “joining the Pac 10” and not getting a chance to go to the Rose Bowl.

      Like

    • Hopkins Horn says:

      I don’t see it happening. Join the Pac-10 but be segregated from the Rose Bowl? Nope.

      Like

  41. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Just adding. Why do I keep allowing work to get in the way of expansion-palooza??

    Like

  42. Playoffs Now! says:

    Either this article or the rumor mill has it backwards as to the split inside aTm:

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/061210dnospoaustinreport.92f8114a.html

    … The official, who has knowledge of Thursday’s meeting in Austin between Texas and Texas A&M officials, said the Aggies are torn about which direction to take. When asked to confirm rumors that A&M president R. Bowen Loftin wants to explore joining the SEC but that Aggies athletic director Bill Byrne wants to go the Pac-10, the official said, “I think you’re 100 percent right.”

    Also, the official said, even A&M regents are split. That includes former A&M and Alabama coach Gene Stallings, who is pushing hard for A&M to go to the SEC.

    ”A&M is sitting on the fence,” the official said.

    As for the future of Baylor, which seemed in doubt Thursday when Colorado accepted the Pac-10’s invitation to join, the official said the Bears could still end up in the Pac-10.

    It all depends on A&M, the official said.

    ”If A&M doesn’t go, Baylor’s got a window to go,” the official said. “(Texas, Texas A&M and Texas Tech) — none of them have anything against Baylor. We’re not opposed to Baylor, and we’ve said positive things about them.”

    But, the official continued, “The schools on the West Coast just don’t see the benefit of Baylor. The Pac-10 is talking more about Kansas and Utah because they bring different (television) markets. Baylor’s been lobbying everybody around Texas. They need to be lobbying California…”

    Like

    • Daniel "Redhawk" Dayton says:

      as an OU fan…I have something against Baylor. They are not a BCS school sorry. Go join the WAC.

      Baylor or Kansas? Please………really?

      Like

    • crpodhaj says:

      This has the potential for drawing out the Pac 16 from happening time wise. The longer that A&M hedges, Texas cannot accept a bid to the Pac 10. Why? Because, if the Pac 10 does not want Baylor, they want the freedom to choose their own replacement for A&M, so that, instead of 5 open spots, there are only 4. I am wondering if the Pac 10 will extend offers over the weekend to Texas et al.? This could drag out a bit.

      Like

  43. jj says:

    Nice tweet re the Lions. Jesus-h-Christ, is there a more inept organization of humans on the planet?

    Honestly, if you gave this board of posters the NASA budget and literally no training, we could be better at launching shuttles and putting things in orbit than the Lions are at football. No doubt.

    Like

  44. eapg says:

    Just want to add without reading any comments yet, thanks Frank for put up a new entry. Didn’t seem right for Nebraska’s day to be under “it’s all about Texas”. I can understand wanting to humor them any other day, just not today. 😉

    Like

  45. Richard says:

    Right now, if the Texas Two are off the table for the Big10, I think the Big10 should try to get ND or the Maryland/Virginia pair or sit on 12 for now. Outside of those 3 (and longshot candidates UNC+Duke, FSU & Miami) only Rutgers is attractive enough on its own merits. However, Rutgers needs to be paired with someone, so unless ND or Maryland/Virginia budge, there’s no reason to take them + they’ll always be there. Mizzou just doesn’t do it (except maybe as filler as school 16). They have enough population to pay for themselves, but their brand is meh, their athletics are meh, and their academics& research would place them below all current Big10 schools.

    Maryland+Virginia may very well become available if the SEC somehow wins the TAMU sweepstakes. I don’t see Texas coming north by its lonesome (unless ND joins), and as the 14th team, VTech makes the most sense for the SEC (I’m sure they’d want UNC, but I don’t think UNC wants them).

    Double chessmatch indeed.

    Like

    • Ryan says:

      You love Rutgers but are anti-Mizzou due to the brand, athletics, and academics.

      Brand? Neither have a big national brand. Even.
      Athletics? Mizzou by a country mile.
      Academics? Decent edge to Rutgers (US news 66 to MU 102).

      Guess I’m missing something….

      Like

      • Richard says:

        In research (the academics that matter to the Big10 presidents), Rutgers would fall squarely in the middle of the Big10; Mizzou would be the worst by far. I agree that they are even on brand (if anything, an edge to Mizzou), but they are about even in football (really the only sport that matters for expansion purposes). Plus, Rutgers offers the potential to penetrate the NYC market; you may argue whether it is realizable or not, but the potential is there. There’s not much potential for Mizzou delivering more than what it currently can deliver.

        As an aside, Nebraska is also worse than any current member of the Big10 academically, but they have a good brand and a fanatical following.

        Like

        • Ryan says:

          Agree that Rutgers academics are better. Do you really want to stick with Rutgers being equal to MU in football? Last 3 years:

          Rutgers:
          9-4 (3-4)
          8-5 (5-2)
          8-5 (3-4)

          Mizzou:
          8-5 (4-4)
          10-4 (5-3)
          12-2 (7-1)

          Mizzou performed much better in a far more difficult football conference. Outside of a couple great years with Leonard and Rice in the backfield, Rutgers football has never amounted to anything.

          Missouri is a far better basketball program as well, with 2 elite 8 finishes in the past 8 years.

          And if you care about ladies golf (jk ladies) Mizzou is in the 50s of the director’s cup standings, Rutgers in the 80s.

          It’s no contest really.

          Like

          • GreatLakeState says:

            Bad-assness of uniforms and nickname definitely go to Missouri. 😉

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Considering that a basketball power like Kansas may well find itslf without a conference, I don’t think basketball factors in to the equation here, much less the Olympic sports. You can quibble about one school being a few wins better or worse in football, but they’d both be around average in the Big10 going forward. Maybe Rutgers would be a little worse, but the slight difference in football doesn’t overcome the big difference in academics, and Mizzou simply doesn’t bring more money (BTN subscribers or national interest) than Rutgers.

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Mo is in the high 30s, low 40s in Director’s Cup standings; RU is in the 90s.

          Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Notre Dame/Maryland/Virginia/UNC/Duke/FSU & Miami.
        I like your thinking.
        I realize those last two would never garner the necessary votes, but together they equal a UFlorida in recruiting and would bring a lot of expanded regional excitement.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Another advantage to raiding the ACC is that it opens up the southern part of the ACC to the next round of expansion when the Big10 can become the Big20. If Maryland & the Virginia schools go, the ACC is weakened, and FSU & Miami will be looking for new homes soon as well; even the Carolina schools would consider the unthinkable. In that phase, the core and southern parts of the ACC will have to decide whether they join the league that already has league stalwarts Maryland & Virginia (and has the better academic reputation) or the SEC. Since I simply don’t see UNC, Duke, and GTech being amendable to joining the SEC (while Florida may not want the 2 ACC schools in the SEC), I think the chances are good that the Big16 could pick up 4 of UNC, Duke, GTech, FSU, and Miami) to become the Big20. If I had to guess, I’d say those 4 would be UNC, Duke, GTech, and Miami. The SEC picks up NCSU, Clemson, FSU, and WVU to go to 18. The SEC gets the better football schools (on average), the Big10 gets the better academic schools.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            BTW, in that scenario, I foresee FSU going to the SEC West (with Vandy) (as a condition of Florida allowing them to join; UF doesn’t want FSU in the same division. Then the SEC West would include ‘Bama, Auburn, FSU, & LSU. Welcome to the SEC, A&M!

            Like

    • Richard says:

      Right now, the only schools I’d be excited about the Big10 getting are those that fall squarely in the middle (or better) of the Big10’s academic range and deliver at least enough cable subscribers to pay for themselves or those that provide a special oomph.

      Rutgers falls in to the first category (and provides the potential of entry in to NYC). Maryland & Virginia as well (Virginia also has decent recruiting grounds). Same with UNC & Duke (plus they’re in the south and a demographically growing region as well). FSU & Miami fit the second category, as does ND to a greater extent. Texas, of course, provides both.

      Like

    • mnfanstc says:

      Since the beginning of these expansion discussions, I cannot understand how Rutgers can be so high on the “supposed” list of BigTen invitees…

      I should have counted how many times Mr. Delaney stated Nebraska was a very good “FIT” into the BigTen. Nebraska is academically, athletically, culturally, geographically a good FIT. FIT seems to be a BIG word, AND Mr. Delany stated that any future candidates would have to FIT as well.
      Rutgers is Jersey, Jersey is not Wisconsin, or Minnesota, or Illinois… and certainly is not Nebraska. Sorry, Mr Paterno, you’ll need to find a different punching bag. If FIT is THE word, then Rutgers ONLY fits academically. Culturally (are you serious?), athletically–not even close. It has only been in Schiano’s tenure that Rutgers is even spoken in football terms. Their overall athletics are bad at best. Plus, having spent a fair amount of my working life along the eastern seaboard, Rutgers provides NO interest to the NYC metro (unless you’re an alum). I have nothing against Rutgers or New Jersey (except for Newark) personally–just seems an odd choice to me.

      IMHO, Pitt–Culture=FIT Academics=FIT Athletics=FIT Footprint=notsomuch (already in BigTen footprint). Missouri–Culture=FIT Academics=maybe Athletics=fit Footprint=FIT. Kansas– Culture=FIT Academics=maybe Athletics=FIT Footprint=maybe. Notre Dame–Culture=notsomuch (see independent, catholic school) Academics=fit (not AAU, but not bad) Athletics=FIT Footprint=FIT. Syracuse–Culture=maybe Academics=maybe Athletics=FIT Footprint=fit (NYC market–maybe, though not necessarily). Texas–Culture=notsomuch (see maybe too BIG) Academics=FIT Athletics=FIT Footprint=FIT. Maryland–Culture=maybe Academics=FIT Athletics=FIT Footprint=FIT. Virginia==Culture=maybe Academics=FIT Athletics=FIT Footprint=FIT. Georgia Tech–Culture=maybe (closer to BigTen culture than SEC) Academics=FIT Athletics=FIT Footprint=FIT.

      Just thoughts… opinions are like ……. we all have one……

      Like

  46. am19psu says:

    It seems to me that after due diligence, assuming Texas is off the table, it would make sense for the Big Ten+ to break up the Big East to force ND’s hand. In the current landscape, ND isn’t going to join. But, if the BT+ grabs Rutgers and two of Cuse/Pitt/UMd, then Notre Dame will be obligated to join the Big Ten. I wouldn’t be shocked if the next expansion doesn’t happen until 2011.

    Like

  47. angryapple says:

    If we go with the boring Divisional format, which division do you guys think will be stronger in 2012?

    East: Penn State, tOSU, Mich, MSU, Indiana, Purdue

    West: Illinois, NW, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Neb

    Like

    • angryapple says:

      Correction: 2011

      Like

      • GreatLakeState says:

        Delany has said there won’t be any divisions labeled North, South, East or West. He said he thought the NORTH/SOUTH divide in the Big 12 is what killed that conference. He claims the criteria for the Big Ten divisions will be competitive fairness, rivalries then geography in that order.

        Like

        • angryapple says:

          I read that comment, but I would still bet anything that that will be the structure. Maybe the Division names will be something cool like Erie and Tundra, but that structure offers the best balance and maintains the most rivalries, in addition to its geographic symmetry.

          Like

          • GreatLakeState says:

            Eerie and Tundra,
            Where those from the WWF Football league? Kidding.
            I think your a little top-heavy in your EAST division. Having Ohio St, Michigan and Penn St. in the same division contradicts Delany’s rule of competitivness. I’d switch Penn St. with Illinois. Other than that it looks good.

            Like

          • GreatLakeState says:

            Weren’t those / you’re a
            I should step away from the keyboard, I’m way to tired to type coherently.

            Like

          • Scott C says:

            Don’t forget, you can have permanent cross-division rivals in 12-team conference. The SEC does it. I was watching a video on the BTN where they talked about this. One of the suggestions was this:

            Bo
            ~~~~~~
            Michigan
            Nebraska
            Michigan State
            Minnesota
            Iowa
            Illinois

            Woody
            ~~~~~~
            Ohio State
            Penn State
            Wisconsin
            Purdue
            Indiana
            Northwestern

            Then they suggested cross-rivals as follows:
            Michigan-Ohio State
            Nebraska-Purdue
            Michigan State-Penn State
            Iowa-Wisconsin
            Illinois-Northwestern
            Minnesota-Indiana

            I’m not a 100% behind this. I think if you’re going to split up the four premiere teams, you should have them play each other in cross-games, so despite the Land Grant Trophy, I’d pair PSU with Neb. Now as a fan that just came into the Big Ten family today, I not familiar with all the rivalries, but is splitting up Minnesota and Wisconsin a good idea?

            Like

          • angryapple says:

            As a Wisconsin fan, I would hate that setup. The teams I most want the Badgers to play are Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, and Michigan in that order. All four are in the opposite division.

            Like

        • Manifesto (OhioSt.) says:

          I read that as: PSU, Michigan, and OSU better figure out which school is getting shuffled to the west, because all three aren’t going to be in the same division. PSU with a protected against OSU? Likely imo.

          Like

        • Bullet says:

          Delany can divine competitive fairness? If you had competitive fairness in B12, you would have split up UNL/KSU and CU the first few years. Then split up OU/UT/TT the next few. B12 North dominated in the early years as much as B12 South dominates now. Don’t see E/W divide killing the SEC. Only thing that killed the B12 was the B10. They simply had too much money to offer and UNL wisely took it.

          If there is something that will kill the ACC, its lack of a sensible division. That was also the trigger that killed the WAC.

          Like

          • angryapple says:

            Agreed. The ACC’s divisions are nonsensical. I follow football pretty closely and basketball religiously and I can’t tell you what the divisions are off the top of my head. I can easily name the Big Twelve and SEC divisions because they make sense either for rivalry purposes or geography purposes.

            Like

        • mnfanstc says:

          Just for fun… some stats to mull over when considering competition…
          Big Ten Football Titles
          1. Michigan-42
          2. Ohio State-34
          3. Minnesota- 18
          4. Illinois- 15
          5. Wisconsin- 11
          T5. Iowa – 11
          7. Purdue- 8
          T7. Northwestern- 8
          9. Michigan State- 6
          10 Penn State- 3
          11. Indiana – 2
          12. Nebraska – 0
          All-TIme Wins——–Win Percentage
          1. Mich – 877 —–.737
          2. Neb – 827 —–.701
          3. Oh St-819 —–.717
          4. Penn St-811 —-.691
          5. Minn – 635 —–.560
          6. Wisc – 614 —–.542
          7. Mich St-592 —–.570
          8. Iowa – 580 —–.513
          9. Purd – 571 —–.516
          10. Ill – 563 —–.500
          11. NW – 458 —–.416
          12. Ind – 433 —–.405

          As has been said once or twice… talk amongst yourselves…

          Like

    • HuskerZac says:

      Ford Division
      Michigan
      tOSU
      Michigan State
      Minnesota
      Purdue
      Northwestern

      Motorola Division
      Nebraska
      Penn State
      Iowa
      Indiana
      Wisconsin
      Illinois

      You could give every school a protected cross division rival. I think nine conference games is the way to go. Such as Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern, Iowa-Minnesota, Penn St-Michigan State, Wisconsin-tOSU, Michigan-Nebraska. How’s that for a start?

      Like

      • angryapple says:

        I love it, except for the selling out to corporations part.

        But with 12 schools, I doubt there will be much support for 9 games and losing an OOC home game every other year.

        Like

      • Dcphx says:

        I saw someone on another board (think IA State) suggest the critters vs the dudes. I was amused simply because there are 6 critters, 5 obvious dudes and a tree.

        Critter Division
        Michigan (wolverines)
        Minnesota (gopher)
        Northwestern (wildcats)
        Wisconsin (badgers)
        Penn State (nittany lions)
        Iowa (hawkeyes)

        Dudes Division
        Michigan State (spartans)
        tOSU (buckeyes)
        Purdue (boilermakers)
        Nebraska (cornhuskers)
        Indiana (hoosiers)
        Illinois (illini)

        Like

    • Sportsman24 says:

      The East/West split is the most natural. They can be called Gr8 Plains & Gr8 Lakes (I’m thinking ahead to when/if there’s 16). It keeps most of the current rivals together. To retain the rest, just have a cross-division rival, such as…
      Iowa vs. PSU
      IL vs. OSU (IlliBuck)
      MN vs. UM (Lil’ BJ)
      NU vs. IU
      NW vs. PU
      UW vs. MSU

      As has been said before, the division strength will vary from year to year. The ACC’s divisional aligmnments are brought up for a reason. (Can anyone really name who’s in which division in the ACC, w/o looking it up?) If the BT tries to be too creative, it may end up backfiring (like the ACC).

      Besides, at present, the divisions would be relatively even. Iowa + UW + UNL are comparable to OSU + PSU + UM. Also, IL + MN + NW is comparable to IU + MSU + PU.

      Like

      • angryapple says:

        I think Illinois/Minn/Northwestern is a better bottom three than Indiana, Purdue, Michigan State.

        Everything else is exactly in line with my thinking.

        Like

    • nuetral says:

      To the surprise of many in the East … it may be the West (2011). Either way, Nebraska is a great addition to the conference. As a warm welcome to to the Big Ten, I would suggest a “movement” within the conference to welcome Nebraska with a standing ovation by all fans to at every Big Ten stadium, and at all other inaugural conference sporting events. What a wonderful way to welcome our newest familiy member.

      Like

  48. MC says:

    Thank you Frank and the numerous posters over the last few weeks who have been positively passionate about adding Nebraska to the Big Ten conference.

    Having our admittance finally come to fruition today has provided me and I assume several thousand other Husker fans a huge sense of relief while looking forward to competing against our new brethren beginning in the fall of 2011. I am confident in predicting that the immediate hospitality you and others have extended in recent weeks and today will be fully reciprocated on your trips to Lincoln in the future.

    Is it bad that I find happiness at the thought of leaving the Big 12 in Nebraska’s rear-view mirror even though we still compete with them in the coming athletic season?

    Like

    • cjb56 says:

      If I were a Nebraska fan, and a traditionalist, I would be a little sad about leaving behind old Big 8 friends like Kansas, Missouri, OU, K-State, Ok State, Colorado, ISU. That’s your history. Your heritage.

      Those annual battles with the Sooners for all the marbles. The trips to the Orange Bowl under the old bowl system. Terry Tagge, Johnny Rodgers, I.M. Hipp, Jarvis Redwine, Mike Rozier…

      That ship sailed 14 years ago, though. The Big 12 killed all of that. Killed the Orange Bowl being the traditional big prize. Killed the season ending rivalry with OU. Forced you to play second fiddle to the Texas schools in the league power structure. Heck, I miss the old Big 8!

      That last 14 years is over now. Welcome to the Big 10.

      Like

      • MC says:

        cjb56,

        As a Husker fan for all 43 years, I do feel bad for Iowa State, Kansas, Iowa St, and now Missouri simply because they seem ill-prepared for their futures. They will always be a part of our history and our heritage just as the Sooners and Okie State have been.

        But you hit it on the head when you said “the Big 12 killed all of that”. It did with the Oklahoma teams when we didn’t get to play the Sooners every year. It will do the same with our B12 North brethren.

        Unfortunately, these last 14 years have caused great devisiveness amongst B12 teams. The unequal revenue sharing (that UNL benefits from) and other power-shifting decisions created a rift that took the unified Big 8 and turned it into a dog-eat-dog world of the B12.

        As a result, along with the lopsided win-loss records against these same B12N teams dating back to the 60s, most Huskers fans will tell you that we haven’t had a true rival these last 14 years (no matter how desperately CU tried to claim otherwise). Therefore, I personally don’t feel any great connection, let alone obligation, to our friends in the B12N. Maybe it was there as part of the Big 8. But it has long since been lost.

        As such, I am quite anxious for a true conference partnership amongst all members of the Big Ten with a true conference rival (or two or three). I like to think playing Iowa on Thanksgiving Friday fits that bill in addition to bringing substantive marquee value. Giving us that sense of connection, that sense of partnership lacking for the last decade plus.

        Like

      • KC husker says:

        Thanks for the welcome messages, everyone. You are certainly right – it is bittersweet in some ways. The relationships with other schools are tough to let go of and there won’t be as many away games near Kansas City. There is a lot to look forward to in the Big 10, however. I wish we could get started even sooner than fall 2011. Best wishes.

        Like

    • Josh says:

      You’re going to love it here. Trust us. And we’re just as happy to have you.

      We’ll learn to hate each other later. But in a friendly “I still want you to kick ass in your bowl game” kind of way.

      Like

      • cjb56 says:

        AND if you win a Big Ten football title more than once every 14 years, you’ll have done better than our last expansion to the league. 😉

        Like

        • cjb56 says:

          Correction. Once every eleven years. 😉

          Like

          • am19psu says:

            3/20 != 1/11

            Like

          • es says:

            Correct your correction:

            every 5.33 years

            started play in 1993 = 16 seasons

            3 BigTen championships: 1994, 2005, 2008

            Like

          • cjb56 says:

            I know. I was being selective, just to have a little fun with our Penn State friends. You got that first one quickly, but it took a while for that second one. 😉

            Actually, I was thrilled when Penn State joined the Big Ten…and I still feel they are one of the elites in the league and all of college football. It’s been a great series with Ohio State, and I look forward to that big game every season.

            I expect the same from Nebraska. The Big Ten doesn’t expand often, but when they do…they do add quality.

            Like

          • Josh says:

            Even if your math is wrong, it’s a good point. A lot of people expected Penn State to win the Big Ten almost every year when they entered the conference.

            Winning the Big Ten isn’t as easy as it looks. Of course, tOSU might disagree.

            Like

  49. Jack Swarbrick spoke with the Tribune Today.

    http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/06/a-week-of-movement-doesnt-move-notre-dame.html

    Swarbrick: “It very well may happen,” Swarbrick said. “But my best guess is, there may be a little bit of a break here as people analyze the situation and reflect on their own interest. We may have a bit of a pause before there’s more activity.”

    Like

    • Scott C says:

      Interesting. Delany did say they would fall back to their original 12-16 month timeline for studying expansion. I think Notre Dame is starting to worry about getting left out in all of this and may look to keep their options open.

      Like

      • very interesting.

        they cancel the game with Army in Yankee Stadium!!

        Lou Holts changed his long standing mind on ND Independence, and thinks they should join.

        Bob Davie has said similar stuff about being left out.

        you have to start wondering if ND is starting to pave the path to the conference.

        Still a long way off on the language, but they are definitely worrying about being left out.

        Like

  50. PSU69 says:

    I haven’t posted many times but I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading everything since January. Even though expansion will go on, I feel I can spend some quality time with my wife without missing too much. Thanks Frank for the stream of entertainment. I also want to welcome UNL and it’s fans. I spent my junior and senior years at Bellevue High School outside Omaha, NE and was a die-hard Husker fan. My dad retired (USAF) and I ended up at PSU and am now a die-hard Nittany Lion fan. I look forward to the UNL/PSU games.

    Like

  51. angryapple says:

    I think Delany should extend the Original Northwestern Message Board Rumor Offer to Texas and Notre Dame tonight.

    East: Penn State, tOSU, Mich, MSU, Indiana, Purdue, Notre Dame

    West: Illinois, NW, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Neb, Texas

    Texas and Notre Dame play everyone in their division and one cross-divisional game against each other, for a total of seven conference games.

    Everyone else plays everyone in their division and two inter-divisional games against the six non Texas/Notre Dame members, for a total of eight conference games.

    Texas and Notre Dame end conference play a week early so that they can play Texas A&M and USC on the last week of the season.

    Conference Championship Game matches up the two divisional winners (7-1 beats 6-1) and cycles between JerryWorld, Lucas Oil Stadium, and Soldier Field.

    Like

    • Ryan says:

      If UT and ND wanted to be in the Big 10, they would already be in the Big 10. You act as if those two are biting their nails waiting for a Big 10 invite.

      Like

    • am19psu says:

      Creating different rules for different members creates animosity. For the long term good of the conference, I’d rather stand pat at 12 than add UT/ND with concessions.

      Like

      • angryapple says:

        I agree with your principle, but which specific school would have problems with that structure?

        Everyone gets exactly one game vs Texas or Notre Dame (including Texas and Notre Dame, which seems fair), everyone gets an equal cut of the huge TV money influx, and everyone gets a chance to play each team in their division and guarantee a spot in the conference championship by winning all their games.

        Like

      • jj says:

        You have to have complete equality or the whole thing falls apart. See, e.g., Big 12.

        Team “power” is cyclical as well. Minnesota was a powerhouse once, so was MSU, even might UM and OSU have had down years. It happens to everyone.

        Like

    • MC says:

      As a B10 newbie, Delany made it clear today that he is looking for institutions that want to be part of the B10 amid assurances of equality and true partnerships and being a “good fit”. This has been a consistent message for him at other pressers addressing this same topic. I also think allowing special scheduling privileges to 2 new members is an incredibly, ill-conceived precedence to set, not only for new invitees but for existing members.

      As such, I don’t see that specific model presented on the Northwestern blog as having a whole lot of merit.

      Like

  52. duffman says:

    Frank,

    looked at your twitter..

    possible thought.. missouri and detroit start a new conference

    Lions & Tigers – Oh My!

    Like

  53. Wyzerman says:

    When asked later if he was necessarily done with expanding to Big 12 Conference schools, Delany shook his head no.

    “I wouldn’t want to talk about a particular school,” Delany said later the press conference to welcome Nebraska.

    http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/22509639

    Like

  54. Wyzerman says:

    Odd to release this at 5pm Friday and hold it Sunday unless you are trying to fly under the radar:

    The University of Missouri Board of Curators has announced that it will hold a special meeting at 8 p.m. Sunday night at University Hall in Columbia. In a statement released to the media at 5 p.m. Friday, the board did not specify what would be discussed at the meeting. A board spokesperson was not available for immediate comment. The board wrapped up two days of meetings in Columbia on Friday afternoon.

    Here is the complete release:

    The University of Missouri Board of Curators will hold a special meeting at 8 p.m. Sunday, June 13, 2010, originating in 321 University Hall, Columbia, Mo., and at remote locations via conference telephone. The board will meet in open session to consider a motion to close the meeting. Notice is hereby given that the board of curators, upon such a motion duly made and adopted, may hold a closed session and conduct closed votes pursuant to Sections 610.021 (1) and 610.021 (12) RSMo, relating to matters in those provisions, which include confidential or privileged communications with counsel and sealed bids and related documents, sealed proposals and related documents or documents related to a negotiated contract.

    http://ht.ly/1XsoX

    Like

    • Vincent says:

      A tip to the Tigers: Play nice with those Aggies, and maybe, just maybe, you can partner with them into the SEC.

      Like

      • Wyzerman says:

        Why not the Big Ten? Why wouldn’t A&M be a good choice if Texas if off the table? AAU member, big following in a populous market, good regional football brand.

        The Houston Chronicle tonight said the politics are that 1) TAMU is prepared to go its own way except 2) the athletic department administrators want to go to the Pac Ten (with Texas), and 3) the Regent faction led by Stallings wants the SEC. The paper reported that the the university administration does not want the SEC academic label. The Big Ten might be a good compromise, and why would the Big Ten say no? Texas was a key demographic in the planning.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          W,

          after looking at A&M boards the past few days..

          I get the feeling of OIL and WATER in a Big 10 + A&M situation.

          I get the feeling of WHITE on RICE in a SEC + A&M situation.

          Even on this board, we have been acting like A&M is the little sister. I have a feeling this attitude has not been similar in the SEC. with Arkansas and LSU, they have old friends and with BAMA they have some family ties. In the south I have a feeling this matters more than just a bottom line number.

          any A&M or SEC folks care to tell me if I am right or wrong here?

          Like

          • twk says:

            A&M to the Big 10 would be a little bit like A&M playing in the Northern Division of the Big XII–not entirely foreign, but slightly out of place. A&M to the Pac 10 would be like going to Mars.

            Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Interesting. Either they have an invite in hand and are planning to file that app., *or* it’s a “Who do we beg to get in now?” meeting.

      Unless Mizzou has other issues they’re trying to deal with a quietly as possible…

      Like

  55. PSU69 says:

    IMO, the addition of Nebraska makes the Big Ten stronger and is very much in keeping with the ideals of the conference that Frank laid out from the start. Since it appears that Texas and ND might not be in play any more, the “football fan” in us has risen to the surface. High academics, good athletics, tv set getter and, what I feel is high on the list, fit. The Big Ten has been strong for over 100 years because they have held these values in everything they do. There are no premadonnas and everyone shares. The Pac10 may get Texas, but so did the Big 8 and the Big XII. Where are those conferences today?

    Like

  56. angryapple says:

    This might sting the Big 12 left-behinds a little.

    ———————————

    Huskers football coach Bo Pelini dismissed the idea that he would miss Big 12 rivalries.

    “I’m not a real emotional guy,” Pelini said before breaking into laughter.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/columns/story?columnist=maisel_ivan&id=5277787

    Like

    • Wyzerman says:

      As a major part of their football tradition Nebraskans have always said they have no football rivalry. Each game was important, the team should keep and even keel week to week and not get geeked up. Even in the heyday of the Big 8 with Oklahoma, the match-up was one of mutual respect, not an emotional one full of animosity. And Texas was OU’s rival. As much as Colorado tried to claim Nebraska as a rival, Nebraskans always said it wasn’t a rivalry. Nebraska fans quote what the the late Bob Devaney said about rivalries: “We have no rival. We are Nebraska.” Pelini is keeping to that tradition as well as joking about himself.

      Sorry for that bit of Nebraska football tradition.

      Like

      • Big Ten Jeff says:

        What a great quote.

        Like

      • angryapple says:

        I love that attitude. Just pointing out that Oklahoma, Missouri, and Kansas might not enjoy the quote and the laughter.

        Like

        • eapg says:

          The joke and the laughter had nothing to do with disrespecting old opponents, it was about Pelini’s temperment. We sometimes wonder if he wasn’t created in a test tube using a mix of Woody Hayes and Bobby Knight DNA. He was making a joke about himself, just as Osborne made a self-effacing comment about being concerned about the Big Ten votes coming in, which was about his loss in a Republican primary race for governor.

          Like

        • Gopher86 says:

          I’m a Kansas fan. I wasn’t offended; you have to know Pelini.

          His interview after the presser was equally coach speak/pragmatic.

          Like

  57. NateDawg says:

    As a HUGE Nebraska fan, glad to be aboard! Have really enjoyed your info and the discussion here, even though I haven’t posted much. I’m thrilled to be a part of the Big Ten!

    Oh, and add 😉

    Like

    • Derek says:

      Question for a Nebraska fan…

      As a big ten fan I root for all big ten teams unless Penn state is playing them… Then I hope they get trounced. But I root for them knowing more wins by any big ten may well relate to more money for Penn state. Did big 12 fans have the same feeling even with the unequal revenue sharing?

      Like

      • Wyzerman says:

        Of course – always rooted for the Big 12 in non-conference games – even Texas 🙂

        Like

      • Mike says:

        @Derek – Most fans were unaware of the unequal revenue sharing until Missouri brought it up. Most fans from all schools contained a fair amount of conference pride. I will continue to root for our now ex-brothers as old habits die hard.

        Like

      • eapg says:

        To be honest, it was on a case by case basis. There are occasions when you can see a team is going to get exposed, and if they’ve been trying to rub our nose in a squeaker victory we’re not going to get all choked up when it happens. But yeah, having some bragging rights after a good bowl season is nice, and a good measuring stick for where your team is really at.

        Like

      • MC says:

        I echo the sentiments above, especially during bowl season… if the Big 12 teams did well, it seemed to validate to me how good the Huskers were.

        Within conference play, I was also more likely to cheer for a B12S opponent on our schedule that year against a South team we weren’t playing for the same reason.

        Like

      • OriginalRed says:

        As a die hard tOSU fan I never thought I would cheer for Michigan in anything unless they were on fire, or about to jump off of a bridge. (Which they kinda did by hiring Rich Rod) However, that was until they actually started losing all their games.

        The turning point for me was Carr’s last game. At that moment I realized that I knew as much about Michigan as most Michigan fans. I was profoundly sad that Michigan hired a non Michigan man. It now bothers me when they lose Big 10 cellar dwellers.

        I want tOSU to beat Michigan every time, go for 2 just like Woody did, but I want it to be against and undefeated Michigan team, coached by a Michigan man, with all the pageantry, tradition, pomp, and circumstance it deserves. This is what it means to be part of the Big 10.

        I think Texas would rather run over smoking craters of football teams than have to move a boulder. I am not happy with Michigan being the way they are, yet I think Texas fans as a whole would be happy beating a wounded UNL or OU every year.

        Like

    • Chelsea J. Rockwood says:

      Welcome Huskers. Here’s hoping you hang another 84-13 on the Gophers for old time’s sake.

      Schadenfreudenly yours,
      Wisconsin

      Like

      • eapg says:

        I gave a guy 50 points to take Minnesota. 😉

        Like

      • Hoffa says:

        The fullback for that Husker team used to be my personal trainer. He told me that in the second half the Huskers ran the same play over and over right up the middle in hopes that Minnesota would stop them, which they didn’t. The Huskers could have easily put over 100 on Minnesota in that game, probably even more.

        Like

      • Chelsea J. Rockwood says:

        Now UW and UNL can fight over who is the real “big red”. Of course after last year’s NCAA BB tournament we already know: Cornell.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          CJR,

          in basketball the only red that matters is IU!

          cornell, sheesh

          🙂

          Like

          • Chelsea J. Rockwood says:

            I was referencing the team from Ithaca’s total dismantling of Bucky last March. And note: While IU hoops once mattered, it no longer matters. Until they part ways with the coaching fraud that is Tan Man.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            CJR,

            shroom and I were debating Self for Crean, any thoughts?

            Like

          • Chelsea J. Rockwood says:

            Tom Crean should send 3/4 of his paycheck to Dwyane Wade, because without Wade willing MU to the Final Four, the Tan Man would be lucky to be coaching in the Summit League by now.

            Like

      • Gopher86 says:

        I believe Minnesota has a winning record on the Huskers.

        We’ll see how long that lasts.

        Like

      • Husker Al says:

        IIRC, Osborne had to put back in the starters late in that Minnesota game due to the 60 player travel limit. The subs played so much they were worn out and he was afraid of injury.

        Like

      • mnfanstc says:

        Hey… easy now… I remember that game… I remember how awful the Gophers were. Gophers now are maybe slightly better than that team—we need some new (real) leadership at the football helm…

        I can still hang my hat on this…
        Mythical Nat’l Champs: (maybe someday there’ll be a playoff) 😉
        Minnesota = 6
        Nebraska = 5
        Wisconsin = 0

        Someday, I’d like to see my Gophs’ compete for another one…

        Like

  58. Guido says:

    Just gonna throw this out, I think many hear, like me, are big expansion junkies, but I do follow the sport pretty closely when the season gets going too. Started doing my own rankings a few years ago and found a good site to input those and have some good debate. Gets going pretty good as the season gets near. Not my site, but thought I’d pass it along http://www.bcsfanpoll.com

    Like

  59. PensfaninLAexile says:

    I am not so sure everyone is really paying attention to the comments regarding Big Red — both on this site, in the news reports, columns (some of dubious merit), and from the B10. Nebraska is clearly inferior in population, geography, and income to Mizzou.

    But product won out. Nebraska jumped the line of preening candidates on product alone. Only Texas and ND are more coveted (two more great product schools). And, it is the right move. You can’t expect to put on unwatchable dreck and get a rating. It’s not the 1960s — people have a world of choices.

    Outside of UT and ND, the differentiation in product for possible candidates Rutgers, Cuse, Mizzou, Maryland, Virginia, Pitt, Kansas, GA Tech, Miami, et al. is much narrower. But product will still matter — and the prospect of product (i.e. durability of the program).

    Two of the favorites of the commenters are Maryland and Virginia. Is there a worse product out there? Maybe Cuse in football. Seriously, these two schools are worse than Duke. I am pretty dubious about Rutgers, but even they have it all over MD and UVA. After kickoff, nobody is rooting for cable systems and demographic projections.

    Like

    • Derek says:

      I understand expanding the btn footprint but i would really love to see pitt in the big ten. Such a shame it’s wedged inbetween psu and osu!!! no other school left sans Texas and ND bring a more complete package.

      Like

      • Sportsman24 says:

        @Derek,
        I agree 100%! I’ve been a big proponent of two universities for some time… UNL & Pitt. Pitt is a BT institution, academically, athletically & research-wise. It’ll be a shame if they’re left out b/c of TVs.

        After NU & Pitt, I’d like to see MD, ND & RU/SU/UVA join.
        I think that Intstitutional Fit (academics & research) is the most important characteristic. ND’s research #s not withstanding.

        If there are fewer Power Conferences w/ more universities, then I believe their athletics will catch up. The Boise State’s, et al, of CFB will be fewer & further between, as student-athletes will want to be in one of the 4± Power Conferences. (I haven’t given up on UT/TAMU, I’m just not optimistic they’ll be joining.)

        Like

    • Vincent says:

      Are you nuts? Maryland and Virginia have played in bowls more often than not this decade. They have beaten the likes of Miami and Florida State, which are still pretty decent programs. Maryland beat Purdue in a bowl game a few years back. You make them sound like conference cellar-dwellers, which they clearly are not. And they would add to the Big Ten brand athletically and academically.

      Don’t get me wrong, football plays a part — a big part — but if the Big Ten used that at its sole scenario, Oklahoma would have received an invitation. Nebraska may not be deemed a Berkeley or Ann Arbor, but it’s a solid state university making a commitment to research. It will mesh well with other Big Ten schools in both the athletic arena and in the classroom.

      Product means more than football. If you disagree with that, become an SEC fan.

      Like

      • PensfaninLAexile says:

        Product is more than football — all the schools listed are AAU and major research institutions. Read the whole post before commenting.

        Pre-2004 ACC is pointless. Take a look at the Terps and UVA once the ACC got more competitive (adding VA Tech, BC, Miami).

        For MD, the good times abruptly ended — two straight losing seasons, three mediocre seasons and then meltdown. Now you want them in the B10? Once the ACC got better, they took a nosedive. Troy State looks great in the Sun Belt, but I don’t think they’re ready for the SEC.

        UVA? With the exception of 2007, it’s been one long slide since the conference beefed up.

        Taking all the relevant evidence into consideration (and not you selective cherry-picking), these two schools cannot compete in the B10. They’re cannon fodder.

        Like

    • angryapple says:

      Agreed on Syracuse and Virginia being lost causes in football.

      Disagree on Maryland. They have a national title and nine ACC championships, most recently in 2001. They beat California recently in a non-conference series and seem to upset a few ranked ACC teams every year.

      Their 54,000 seat stadium is a little worrisome, but I think they would bring a good enough football product (they also offer a much better basketball product than Virginia).

      Like

      • duffman says:

        apple,

        in the B 10 or SEC I think they could expand the stadium, or use a Pro one for the BIG games. I agree about the basketball, away from UNC and Duke the Terp men & women BB will shine.

        Like

      • PensfaninLAexile says:

        See above response — the relevant comparison needs to be in the expanded ACC where the league more approximates the competition in the B10 (but, is still lagging).

        As for upsets? That can be said about practically any mediocre BCS program — they all have a moment or two in the sun.

        Like

        • angryapple says:

          Okay, I see your point about comparing since expanding to 12 and adding better programs. That’s fair.

          Let’s start in 2005 since that’s when the league went to 12 and split into the weird divisions.

          2005: MD 5-6 (3-5), VA 7-5 (3-5)
          2006: MD 9-4 (5-3), VA 5-7 (4-4)
          2007: MD 6-7 (3-5), VA 9-4 (6-2)
          2008: MD 8-5 (4-4), VA 5-7 (3-5)
          2009: MD 2-10 (1-7), VA 3-9 (2-6)

          TOTAL: MD 30-32 (16-24), VA 29-32 (18-22)

          Neither one is spectacular, but I don’t think either one is awful either. Certainly more respectable than Syracuse or Duke in that time period.

          I’d take both if they’re available and we can offset them with a good program like Pitt or Notre Dame. If we only want one, I would go with Maryland since they bring basketball and a lot more research.

          Like

          • OriginalRed says:

            I think they would be great additions in order to keep the brand what it is. We don’t need UVA or UM to be great football programs we just need them to be mediocre most of the time with an occasional great season.

            They bring huge dollars, good recruiting, and even more important they allow the good teams to stay good. We want OSU, PSU, UM, UNL, ND, and TX to be great. Every conference needs role players.

            With the line up mentioned above you not only want but need to have some cream-puffs in conference. These cream-puffs add millions of tv dollars, great recruits, great demographics, billions in endowments, loads to the academic reputation, and they allow the brand to shine!

            Whats not to like?

            Like

    • Patrick says:

      I would agree that they are inferior in population. I think Geography is probably a slight edge to Missouri. I know the eastern side of the Big Ten thinks Nebraska is WAY OUT WEST, but many from Omaha are directly from Chicago (UP, Sprint) and it is a 6 hour drive. 80% of the population in Nebraska is in the eastern 75 miles. The other 400 miles west of Lincoln is just to create space between the Big Ten / Midwest beliefs and Colorado (like the DMZ).

      But Nebraska generates more income with athletics. In Missouri people get the Rams / Blues / Cardnils / Chiefs / Royals then Missouri sports. In Nebraska they have the HUSKERS. Baseball, football, wrestling, swimming, track, something called bas – ket – ball (?). It is only the Huskers, no sharing allowed.

      Athletic Revenue Missouri – $57,700,000

      Athletic Revenue Nebraska – $74,900,000

      Lack of competition in Nebraska makes them more valuable.

      Like

      • eapg says:

        “The other 400 miles west of Lincoln is just to create space between the Big Ten / Midwest beliefs and Colorado (like the DMZ).”

        Heh. The actual DMZ runs on a north/south line centered west of Greeley, Colorado. We never should have given that country to Colorado.

        Like

      • jokewood says:

        It’s kind of interesting if you map out every FBS program in the continental United States. You can see a 500-mile wide empty strip separating the country into distinct eastern and western schools. Texas Tech is the only school that resides in this dead zone.

        Like

        • Patrick says:

          There are only 3 things between Lincoln and Denver.

          Wheat, Cattle, and Tornadoes

          Like

          • eapg says:

            There’s a whole lotta corn, too.

            And the solid river of RVs on I-76 back and forth from the Front Range of Colorado to Lake McConaughy every warm weekend would beg to differ. If you’ve never seen it, it’s fairly amazing.

            Like

          • Husker Al says:

            @Patrick

            You aren’t joking about the tornadoes. My family lost two houses in the span of five years.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      There’s really no difference in drawing power between Mizzou & Maryland or Virginia in football. Sure, on-the-field results may be different, but the Big10 (any conference) cares more about drawing power. Northwestern isn’t suddenly a more valuable property than Michigan even though we’ve been better than them on the field in recent years. In basketball, Maryland & Virginia get the edge. In academics, big win for Maryland & Virginia. Demographics: Decisive edge to Maryland & Virginia.

      Oh, and I wouldn’t mind Miami either (I’d also probably take GTech, though unlike Miami, they can’t even guarantee to deliver their own city).

      Like

      • Ryan says:

        Average attendance last season:

        Mizzou 64k
        Maryland 44k
        Virginia 48k

        Mizzou has a far better football program and has substantially more drawing power than Maryland and Virgina.

        And are you sure you want to claim Virginia basketball is better than MIssouri? That’s quite a stretch. Missouri has two elite eight appearances in the last 8 years.

        Like

        • Gopher86 says:

          Mizzou doesn’t travel. That’s why they get passed up by bowls for 6-6 Iowa State teams.

          Like

          • Ryan says:

            But Maryland and Virginia football fans do travel to bowl games? The discussion was comparing Mizzou, Maryland, and Virginia. Mizzou has better fans and a far better program. Anyone who can’t see that is in denial.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            Ryan,

            if academics matter, then UVA and MD have an edge..

            if footprints matter, then UVA and MD have an edge..

            missouri is just in a tough spot..

            Like

          • PensfaninLAexile says:

            If playing decent football matters, DeMatha High School has the edge.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          It’s just not a big enough difference. They’re all in the “mediocre” category. The Big10 simply isn’t going to take school A over school B just because school A draws 15-20K more per game when the 2 deliver the same amount of eyeballs and school B is a league ahead of school A academically.

          Like

          • Bullet says:

            Missouri really doesn’t draw that much more normally than UVA. Its 61 to 54 for Virginia over the last 4 years when Missouri has been pretty good (That #1 ranking was only 2 seasons ago) and 55 to 53 since the B12 was formed. Most of those 14 years, UVA drew better. For Maryland, last year was the lowest in nearly 10 years. But they did have some really bad years in the 90s with attendance in the upper 20s..

            Like

    • Dcphx says:

      That’s why I expect GT to get a stronger push than many expect. GT is a better football school and probably has a much better shot at delivering the BTN to Atlanta (#8 DMA) with tons of B10 alumni and opening up southern recruiting. I think they’ll need an eastern/southern partner and Maryland will be it. I think those are the two most poachable ACC schools.

      Like

  60. mmc22 says:

    added

    Like

  61. Playoffs Now! says:

    Wildcard:

    Could we possibly see aTm stay and rebuild the B12 while TX goes to the B10+?

    First off, I’m increasingly skeptical about the NW forum ‘updates.’ They sound a bit contrived, almost like the latter stages of a Nigerian email scam. For TX to make these leaked announcements of basically the P16 is a done deal and string out the other B12 South schools making similar announcements would look like a massive backstabbing (though the leaks from other schools may have been strategic framing of perception rather than based on actual events.) So a last minute switch seems highly unlikely.

    OTOH, you could string together snippets of info from various sources to keep the dream alive. Most of the public statements start with, “Of course we’d prefer to keep the B12, but…” The NW board rumor includes, “TX doesn’t want to move until they find most of the B12 schools a safe home.”

    The aTm AD today again stated how their first preference is to save the B12. There’s a strong contingent of Aggies who want the SEC, many primarily to get out of TX’s shadow. Yet many also realize the meatgrinder the SEC would be and the recruiting advantage it would provide those schools. Staying in the B12 if TX leaves would allow aTm to compete without big brother blocking the way. They’d still have to beat OU, but perhaps not until the conf champ game.

    According to the NW board, TX is fighting for a 7-game conference schedule if they join the B10+. That would allow room for aTm, OU, and perhaps Tech and/or Baylor OOC.

    If just TX, CO, and NE left, they could be replaced with BYU and maybe Louisville and Cincy. Won’t replace the TV $ TX and NE brought, but those schools bring TV appeal and a bigger footprint. Or might be BYU, CSU, and another Texas school (probably TCU, perhaps UH) if the numbers worked better.

    The real key to retaining viability would be to partner with the P12 on TV contracts and a cable network. Losing TX and NE hurts, but doesn’t kill that. Assuming P11 adds Utah, you’d still have plenty of top 25 teams and 1-3 more states than the earlier proposed B12-P10 network that looked promising.

    A Neo-B12 and P12 partnership keeps the P11’s academics ‘cleaner’ as compared to adding TT, OU, and OK St to the P16. Also makes the Arizona schools happy.

    So basically you’d have a weaker B12 from the loss of TX and NE virtually merging with the P10 and adding Utah, BYU, and 2 other programs that are top 25 teams or have been in the past. Offset the loss of 2 heavyweights with 2 strong draws and 2 decent schools. Probably viable.

    Keeps the BCS AQ and the Fiesta Bowl.

    Best case scenario for aTm, if they are realistic. Much better chance of appearing in the conf champ game multiple times. Internally the school’s assessment was that they most likely would perform similar to AR in the SEC, which has never won a conf championship there in football. Going to the SEC won’t rebuild the program near as fast as winning will. Get the nat’l TV publicity of playing in and winning the conf title game.

    The big question is if OU would stay or go SEC. But I keep reading (and this is just a gut assessment of all the sources I’ve seen, nothing concrete) that the SEC isn’t really interested in OU without TX or aTm. Would the SEC even expand if they can’t get a Texas school, the B12 survives, and the P10 doesn’t go past 12? If they don’t immediately respond with expansion when TX announces, that might be a good enough window in which to get the B10+ deal done. And even if OU does leave, there still might be enough critical mass for the Neo-B12 and P12 partnership to work.

    Oh yeah, remember that Fox (network, not FSN) offer to be the network of the B12? That was contingent on TX and NE staying in. But would they still be open to making a smaller offer? If the P16 could get $20 mil per school, could the P12-B12 get $13 or 14? If so, that is still an improvement, one that most of the B12 schools could live with. Can the P11 schools get more in partnership than by themselves? And recall that the B12 contract can be immediately renegotiated if the conference starts a cable channel, so that could bring the $ relief aTm is looking for.

    So get a Neo-B12 on track, and TX could then leave for the B10+. That’s about the only way I could see the NW board rumor still being true. Not saying I buy it, but I won’t completely dismiss the NW rumor yet.

    Hopefully we’ll pretty much know by Tuesday.

    Like

    • angryapple says:

      Great post. Really well thought out.

      I don’t think the P12/B12 Fox contract would reach $14 million per school, but who knows.

      Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      Let’s say they P11 adds Utah and Neo-B12 adds BYU, TCU, and Cincy.

      USC, OU, Utah = usually legitimate nat’l title contenders
      OR, TCU, BYU = possible title contenders, good TV appeal
      UCLA, WA, aTm, CO = past title contenders who could cycle back
      ASU, AZ, OR St, Cal, OK St, TT = frequently top 25 teams
      Stan, Cincy, KS, MO, KSU = sometimes top 25 teams

      That’s 21 of 24 teams with potential TV appeal (top 25 at the time), 16 that usually have some appeal. You can get some pretty good cross-conference matchups from those.

      Like

      • Playoffs Now! says:

        Since star power/TV draw would be a big selling point for the Neo-B12, this might be a situation where Boise St made sense. Add BYU-Boise-TCU. ESPN absolutely LOVES Boise, have you seen how many of their games are already on the ESPN schedule? America likes triumphant underdogs, and Boise has been adopted in that regard.

        Like

        • Playoffs Now! says:

          What do you think the ratings for Boise-OU would be? Instant rivalry.

          Like

          • angryapple says:

            I’d rather see Oklahoma-Oregon. Those two fanbases HATE each other.

            Cinci is a better add for the B12 than Boise.

            I love where you’re going with this and I would love to see someone deliver the pitch to the B12 and P10 decision makers (it would probably have to be in separate rooms at this point).

            Like

  62. duffman says:

    from the dallas paper..

    http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/stories/061210dnospoaustinreport.92f8114a.html

    “Some connected with A&M are ready.

    “There was a time when I really felt like Texas and Texas A&M should be in the same conference … but at the same time I think Texas A&M is now big enough to stand on its own,” regent and Aggie football legend Gene Stallings told syndicated radio host Paul Finebaum. “We don’t necessarily need to be piggy-backed by anyone else.”

    But Texas A&M has to be certain about an SEC bid, which hasn’t been extended yet, according to a source. The SEC would have to add an additional team to balance A&M in its division setup and would require additional money from its TV partners. Maryland and North Carolina from the Atlantic Coast Conference could be possibilities.”

    First a Charlotte NC paper and now a Dallas TX paper both looking at an ACC school to go with A&M to the SEC (here Maryland and UNC).

    any A&M or SEC folks care to comment on such a move by your schools?

    Like

    • Phizzy says:

      UNC to the SEC?!

      Like

      • Vincent says:

        Don’t see it. If the SEC picks off a team from the ACC to complement A&M, it will be Virginia Tech.

        The only NC school the SEC might be able to get is State, if only so the Wolfpack can craft a new image and escape the blue shadows at the other ends of the Research Triangle. But politically, breaking ties with UNC might be difficult, even for the pot of SEC gold.

        Like

    • twk says:

      The longer this goes on, the more pressure builds on A&M officials to go to the SEC. I’m extremely sceptical about the supposed lack of an invite at this point–if that was really a concern, one would think that we would have pulled the trigger on the Pac 10, with the simple explanation to the fans being that was the only choice available. The overwhelming sentiment among A&M fans is to take the SEC deal, to such an extent that, if the school ends up going to the Pac 10, there may be an MSU style riot. If the TV revenue is similar (and the SEC money woudl be guaranteed, rahter than a speculative figure based upon a yet to be established cable network), it’s hard to see how we could pass up the prospect for much stronger ticket sales in the SEC as opposed to the Pac 10, which will probably prove a weaker draw at the Kyle Field box office than the old Big XII.

      Like

      • Stopping By says:

        Wait – aTm fans won’t go to aTm home games because they might have to play Washington?!?

        Somehow I think that the Aggie faitful will continue to support them.

        Like

      • Josh says:

        I don’t know if the issue is so much TAMU taking an SEC bid as it is getting offered one. The SEC isn’t going to 13 and isn’t taking Baylor and probably isn’t taking Mizzou. (Although maybe that’s what they’re meeting about Sunday. Doubt it though.)

        It’s clear to me that TAMU doesn’t want to go to the Pac 10 and doesn’t want to go to the Big Ten. They’d like to take UT or OU with them to the SEC, but neither are interested.

        If they don’t agree to go to the Pac 10 now, Kansas is taking their seat on the bus, KSU be damned. TAMU is playing a very dangerous game of chicken right now.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          josh,

          i think if the SEC getting A&M, the going to 13 thing is moot.. especially if their next move is UNC.

          I think if the SEC takes A&M without OU it shows they are getting serious about academics over football and a deep raid of the ACC looks more likely.

          Like

          • Gopher86 says:

            UNC will NEVER go to the SEC. Their academic reputation is worth much more than they can offer them. Also, were would NC State, Duke and Wake be?

            Like

          • Josh says:

            Gopher is right. The academic reputation of the SEC makes leaving the ACC a non-starter for UNC, and in fact for most ACC schools. VT and Clemson might not mind.

            On top of that, UNC cares a lot more about basketball than football. Sure, they’d get Kentucky in the SEC, but is that worth giving up the duels with Duke? The ACC is just better for basketball, so I can’t see them leave.

            Like

  63. Penn State Danny says:

    Congrats to UNL!

    Frank, after all these months , I have to ask : who is the baseball player in your avatar? Oscar Gamble?

    Like

  64. Lobills says:

    Why have a B10 conference championship? If the B10 can get UT/ND and stop at 14, why not simply push your scheduling back and have your last conference games coincide with the SEC/ACC/etc…conference championship games? Can you imagine this lineup to end the B10 season:

    Noon OSU v. Michigan
    3pm Penn St. v. Nebraska
    7pm UT v. ND

    The biggest problem with divisions is breaking up rivalries. Why not match up a weekend full of B10 rivalries versus all the other conference’s championship games? Who wouldn’t tune in to the the B10’s Big 6 triple header? Conference championships are quick hitter money grabs. With the $ amounts the B10 would surely be dealing with a year end rivalry weekend makes much more sense…both fiscally (long term) and from a conference cohesiveness standpoint.

    Like

    • Patrick says:

      I think this will eventually be the direction. Have the BIG RIVALRY game as the last game of the year, first or second Saturday in December. Like having 7 conference championship games (OK maybe 4 + the also-rans).

      Think like a conference exec…. everyone gets to play an extra game, 2 Big Ten teams could play for the NC, and we could make $10 million X 4 on advertising versus $20 million on a conference championship game that only involves two schools. Remember JoPa’s complaint that the Big Ten teams become invisible after Thanksgiving, this keeps them ALL around for another two weeks. Creatively mix in some Bye Weeks and you have added 3 Saturdays worth of revenue generating games to the Big Ten Network, end game.

      Like

  65. Bullet says:

    Entertaining and informative article by Dennis Dodds. Note that he estimated B12 might have had a $15 million/school contract, almost equal to SEC.

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13511924/the_age_of_the_superconference_is_here

    ESPN also comments on the Huskers and I fully agree.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/Big12post/_/id/13354/smart_choice_but_contradiction_for_huskers

    Like

    • eapg says:

      Counterpoints to what you fully agree with:

      “Perlman responded to the ultimatum by firing off a few questions of his own to his fellow Big 12 chancellors and presidents.

      After all, there were reports out that six other Big 12 schools were looking to go to the Pac-10.

      OK, Perlman asked, what if Nebraska stayed and potential Big Ten target Missouri left? Would those six schools stay in the Big 12? Yes, was the answer.

      OK, Perlman then asked, if Nebraska stayed and Colorado left for the Pac-10, would those six schools stay in the Big 12? Yes.

      OK, how about if both Colorado and Missouri left? The answer: The six schools could not make a commitment that they would stay in the Big 12.

      Strike one.

      “I then asked what would be the nature of the commitment that they would expect from an institution in order to stay in the Big 12,” Perlman said. “And what they talked about was a public statement; unequivocal commitment to the Big 12 by the president and chancellor of the university.”

      In response, Perlman said there’s only one way you can fully commit long term to a conference, and that is you assign the media rights to your athletic contests to the conference for the long term.

      Perlman asked if the Big 12 members were willing to do that.

      “The University of Texas made it clear they were not able to do that,” Perlman said.

      Strike two.

      Perlman said he then received a phone message on Wednesday from Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe in which it was articulated that a commitment was wanted from Nebraska through at least 2016.

      “Neither Tom nor I thought that was a very long-term commitment to the Big 12, and we felt that our obligation to the University of Nebraska was to protect it from the vulnerability of being without a conference altogether,” Perlman said.

      Strike three.”

      More:

      http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/06/11/football/doc4c127efa8ecb6120679491.txt

      Like

      • Bullet says:

        re: strike 3-His point was not that UNL made a bad decision-It was that they shouldn’t try to blame their decision on someone else. 6 years is an eternity to commit to a conference is this day and age.

        re: strike 2-give me some of your revenues and I stay? Give me something I don’t have right now? That’s flat out ridiculous. Nothing wrong with B10 model, but to blame someone for not bribing them to stay?

        re: strike 1-simply counter with I commit if either CU or Mizzou stay. Noone would argue that. CU & Mizzou have (had) most of the B12 population outside Texas. Point is that if UNL and Mizzou both committed that was a non-issue.

        UNL made a decision that was best financially for their university. Pearlman shouldn’t get defensive about it.

        Like

        • eapg says:

          Six years is an eternity to commit? Well then pardon us for committing to a conference whose future isn’t all bound up in what’s best for Texas from year to year.

          Yes, I understand Texas has all the media marbles and wants to keep them, they’ve made that abundantly clear. That doesn’t work for Nebraska, and quite possibly A&M. Negotiation is not the art of giving Texas everything they want.

          On the third response, he’s simply countering the notion that Texas is committed if Nebraska stays. There were obviously other scenarios that also started the ball rolling, and it was time to get while the getting was good, and Nebraska was not, as so many pro-Texas posters here so transparently and fervently wished, left out in the cold.

          Like

  66. hzzz says:

    As a Husker fan, I can tell you 99% of us are thrilled to be in the Big 10. While it is regretful to leave a lot of history and past rivalries behind, one can’t help but get excited to visit all the schools and stadiums in the Big 10. One thing I have always appreciated about the Big 10 is the class shown by all of its programs on and off the field. I look forward to many years of enjoyment as a fan and seeing the Big 10 conference reach even greater heights as they continue to expand. I think most Big 10 people will be shocked to learn how much better UNL has gotten academically in the past 10 years if they really study the research dollars and US News and World Report rankings. Nebraska has actually bypassed Missouri by a decent margin on both fronts. Missouri fans don’t realize this, but the people who really focus on the academic side do. But enough bragging on that end (and yes, I realize that Nebraska is still currently on the bottom end of the current Big 10 schools), glad to be here and glad to see most of you Big 10 guys are glad we joined your party.

    Like

  67. Bullet says:

    http://wisn.com/sports/2387754/detail.html

    Article talking about splitting conference, but interesting comment is something I haven’t seen anywhere else, that Delaney will pause for 12-18 months. That is consistent with the “no more B12 teamms” he told Beebe.

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      In the comments I heard, he didn’t say 12-18 month pause, he said BT going back to 12-18 month timetable–and that was with qualifications.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        shroom,

        off topic, but how would you feel if Self winds up at IU?

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          I’ve always had kind of an innate feeling that he’s sleezy…but maybe I’m wrong on that. Has he ever been accused of anything serious?

          I started out as a TC fan, but he’s had a BAD last 1 1/2 years. I’m afraid the recruits see him as a lightweight.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom,

            coming off Kelvin, I guess I am willing to give Crean an extra year or two to feel like he got a fair shake with the IU fanbase (see also Brooks at UK via their football program). I just do not want IU to get the revolving door policy that kept bama football in a funk for ages.

            If Izzo bolts (a sad day for B 10 basketball) a move by IU to get Self could put the light back on IU in the void left by Izzo. As a fan, I am conflicted.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            shroom,

            ps.. did you see Indiana beat Kentucky?

            the boys won 100 – 97

            the girls won 93 – 83

            a sweep for Indiana!

            Like

  68. Hank says:

    evening update from Northwestern guy:

    There is an unanticipated and fiery power struggle within the Texas academic and athletic leadership over conference affiliation. Notre Dame, likewise, is positioning itself. The Big East is no longer sustainable for Notre Dame.

    It comes down to the concessions the Big Ten is willing to make. Will the Big Ten schools allow the Big Ten to scale back to 7 games for certain schools, for all schools, or will the entire conference stay at 8 games? Thought is that if it involved BOTH Texas and ND, the conference will agree to it.

    Big Ten believes Texas will not settle for the Pac 10, and that there is a major split within the administration about what is best for Texas. Unclear, at this point, which side will prevail.

    Texas also must wait until the Big 12 completely dismantles, and wants to make sure as many former Big 12 members get homes. Pac 10 targeting non Big 12 members as well.

    Texas is up in the air – there is real anger that the Big 10 broke up the Big 12 with some Texas decision makers. Other Texas decision makers were complicit all along.

    followed by:

    Also, the sense is that Nebraska may have came too soon for the rest of the conference. Admins on the phone with the schools to hang with the plan.

    Nebraska complicating things with comments toward Texas, fueling the anti-Big Ten crowd in Austin. Emotional tension high in Austin meetings. Another phone call with conference presidents tonight.

    That’s all I have for now.

    Like

  69. Bullet says:

    On CU’s press conference:

    http://www.cubbuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?&DB_LANG=ES_ES&DB_OEM_ID=600&atclid=204958872

    B10 definitely got the better all around sports program. Rather amusing that CU goes on and on about skiing and cross-country.

    Like

  70. Bullet says:

    Frank-you really have been remarkably accurate and provided lots of good info considering how crazy this has all been. And certainly have been a lot more accurate than a lot of the professionals.

    Like

    • NDman says:

      I enjoy this blog, but remarkably accurate is a stretch. This blog has been nothing but ND & Texas for the past month. Now we have Nebraska in, Texas on its way to the PAC16 and ND firmly entrenched in its independence. This is not exactly how this blog has seem the outcome.

      The ONLY strategy to get ND all along was to destroy the Big East, but the Big 10 chose not to play that card. ND is where it wants to be – only a total destruction of its safe harbor will change that

      Like

      • Bullet says:

        He was accurate that UNL was in and Mizzou was out long before most others did. He was accurate that Texas was being approached before anything was public. It didn’t work quite the way Delany expected. Noone was especially accurate. Hasn’t come out yet how much ND was or wasn’t approached. And B10 isn’t necessarily done blowing up conferences.

        Like

      • es says:

        NDman –

        Remarkably accurate as to the BigTen’s intentions, yes.

        Are you arguing that the BigTen did not target ND, TX?

        Because that is what FtT reported. And, it appears that he was “remarkably accurate,” while others are still (despite the Gee emails) reporting that the BigTen and Texas have not spoken.

        Just because it didn’t (or hasn’t?) happened doesn’t mean that Frank was inaccurate about the ultimate goal.

        Are you saying that Frank said that ND and TX were BigTen locks? He never said that.

        Like

      • zeek says:

        Gimme a break.

        A lot of us were saying Nebraska would be #12 for months.

        Yes we threw out ND/Texas scenarios. But it’s not like we were betting the farm on it.

        Most of us thought Nebraska alone or Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers was the most likely outcome…

        Like

      • duffman says:

        ND Man,

        incorrect..

        I was early on TX to Pac
        I was early on ND to BE or G&C
        I was early on for Nebraska

        so far I am doing pretty good

        Like

      • NDx2 says:

        I think Nebraska to B10 is a good move, a classic win-win. That said, while FTT has always equivocated, prudently, on whether ND and/or Texas could be gotten, the angle he blew badly was Pac-10 getting Texas, et al. by agreeing to the TTU gambit. On that, he was 100% incorrect, and loudly proclaimed that the Pac-10 would NEVER agree to that because of the unanimous vote reqt.
        So to that extent, if it comes to pass, as it likely will, give credit where it is due to the Pac-10. They hauled in the prize pig by going further than the B10 was willing to, and also got OU, which is Nebraska’s equal, in the process.
        As an ND guy, at this point my only concern is the SEC and what it might end up doing to unravel the BE.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          NDx2,

          I said earlier, the BE is safer than the ACC!

          Big 12 – desired by P 16, B 16, and SEC 16

          ACC – desired by B 16 and SEC 16

          BE – desired by B 16 (and MAYBE 1 team only)

          I point out that UC, UL, WVU, USF, Uconn have NO worry from the Big 10 expansion.

          ND, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Pitt only have to worry that the Big 10 wants one of them.

          Again, from a simple angle, the Big 10 has 4 slots left and they get a bigger bang in an ACC raid than a BE raid.

          Like

  71. Hank says:

    off topic…

    there is a story out there, I believe Joe Schad has it, that 5 schools have contacted USC early entree freshman Dillon Baxter. This would be a violation. the schools are Alabama (shocker), Florida, Fresno State, Oregon and Washington. Have no idea how accurate it is. USC apparently has filed a complaint with the Pac 10 office. They are also saying that Baxter has lost his phone but I’ve watched to many CSIs to think that will work.

    Like

  72. zeek says:

    Anyways, I think Delany’s focus is on integrating Nebraska and figuring out what 3 teams best complement Notre Dame.

    At this point, the “strategy” or “path” of expansion doesn’t matter as much. Most likely Notre Dame will be school #15 or 16.

    Knowing that, what would #13-14 be? Probably something like Maryland/Va or Maryland/Rutgers.

    But what if he went outside the box and went for something that in and of itself would be an expansion success? Yes, I am talking about VaTech.

    UNC is like Texas; it’s not going to come without a huge part of its “kingdom” just as Texas went west.

    But UNC won’t pick up and leave the ACC; it’ll just rebuild.

    So, my guess for what would be an interesting scenario would be Maryland/Va/VaTech for 13-15. Note that academically VaTech is much like GaTech or any other strong school that doesn’t yet have AAU; it has the research chops to fit into the Big Ten easily…

    Then you go to ND and offer an ultimatum. ND or Rutgers for #16.

    Like

    • Hank says:

      if Texas is out of the equation, and I do agree it seems headed that way but the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, then I would like some 3 from Maryland, Virginia, Rutgers or Georgia Tech. I would love to say Pitt but we know the footprint issues.

      That is of course to try and get ND. ND is a great fit and I would love to have them but I don’t think it happens. For a significant portion of their vocal fan base they hate the Big Ten almost as much as they love independence. I think as much as the administration might want the Big Ten they will eventually opt for the ACC because it would be more acceptable to the fan base.

      Like

      • cjb56 says:

        Agree. I could see the Irish going to an ACC/Big East combo 16 school super-conference and be THE big dog. There, much like Texas is doing now, they will call the shots on how they want football scheduled…and the conference will bend over backwards to accomodate them. That won’t happen in the Big Ten.

        At one time, I thought the Big Ten would come out of this with a huge power grab, but now I’d bet they won’t get anything better than Nebraska when the dust clears and we have four mega-leagues.

        IF, and it’s still an if, that happens, Delany will look like a fool for tipping his hand and not being ready to move.

        I really hope I’m wrong and that it will work out that the Big Ten winds up with Texas, ND or VT. Not much else out there to score the “hr” with, after that. Love the Nebraska get, but if that’s the last “hr” addition, Delany will not be looked upon as the genius he’s been described.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I doubt it. ND would just remain independent if the Big Ten has passed it by.

          I’ve brought the ACC up as a better fit, but ND wouldn’t really care to win a ACC-Big East championship. It wouldn’t mean anything for them.

          I think ND either joins the Big Ten before it goes to 16 or remains an independent as the other remaining independents shall as well…

          Like

          • cjb56 says:

            I hope so. ND cements the NYC market in a way that Rutgers or Syracuse could never do. Not to mention the nationwide appeal of ND.

            I still do not get the Rutgers infatuation. They are not even a blip on the sports radar in the NYC metro and never will be more than that. They do not deliver that market. Big Ten regional games on ABC are almost always the game in the NYC market as it is.

            No program makes a dent in the NYC market other than ND.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            ND doesn’t care about a Big Ten championship either. 🙂

            I still think ND is a better institutional fit with most potential BE-ACC mergers.

            Like

      • zeek says:

        See, my point is, why do we rate Ga Tech as higher than Va Tech?

        Ga Tech is in Atlanta yes, but it doesn’t really move the dial in Georgia; Atlanta is an SEC city.

        Combine Virginia/Va Tech and you have the D.C./Va markets locked down for when the top Big Ten brands come in.

        I don’t see why we rate Ga Tech higher than Va Tech in this discussion.

        Academically Ga Tech is a bit better than Va Tech, but Va Tech would still fit into the Big Ten (even without AAU).

        Like

        • cjb56 says:

          I didn’t realize that VT was not AAU. In that case, if the Big Ten was to bend the AAU rules for VT…they might as well have bent them and let in Oklahoma. Then they would’ve locked up Texas and likely A&M to go with Nebraska. Okie State could head off to the SEC or Pac 10.

          Like

    • GreatLakeState says:

      I think some on here are WAY too confined by the Big Ten footprint. The idea was to make the BTN a national entity. Those teams like Virginia and Syracuse would be a waste of a valuable slot.
      With the Big Ten’s stability and riches they need to go for 4 Home Runs. Get creative. Look for vulnerable big name schools looking to gain academic respect, or who feel unappreciated in their current conference. Tennessee I think is a good example. I also like the idea of North Carolina (though that would be a longshot). I don’t want place holders. If the PAC16 works out, the
      TX, AM, NEB, ND, TEX-TECH combo that was sooooo unthinkable to many on here will look like a full-house.

      Like

      • Vincent says:

        “Home runs,” in this context, aren’t defined by football (a weird sentence, doncha think?). Academics, all-around athletics, market and research also play key roles.

        That’s where Maryland and Rutgers deliver results for the Big Ten. They, plus Penn State, make you relevant in the populous, affluent NY-to-DC corridor.

        Tennessee would have a lot going for it were it an AAU member, but it isn’t. I agree with North Carolina as a valuable property for academics, athletics and market size — but if you thought you had political problems in getting Texas into the Big Ten, UNC would present even more of a challenge. The only other NC school the conference would take would be Duke; you’d have to find a good home for NCSU (SEC?), and it might be difficult to orphan Wake.

        Like

    • Bullet says:

      Well Delany threw everyone off with his demographics speech. He was concerned about slow growing states, population and academics.

      So he adds Nebraska, in a low population, slow growing state with academics generally rated lower than the existing 11 schools.

      So maybe he adds Miami. Excellent undergraduate academics and a great tradition of coaches.

      With Miami in the B10, maybe there are new Woodys, Bos, etc. so the B10+1+1 gets better coaches. And considering that the other Miami draws 25k when they have a .500 season, the Oxford Miami might actually have better fan support!

      Like

  73. Bullet says:

    P10 4 looking more firm according to the Oregonian. Kansas is apparently going to be #5 if A&M can’t make a decision. http://blog.oregonlive.com/pac10/2010/06/reports_indicate_final_team_in.html

    Like

    • Playoffs Now! says:

      Good find.

      Excerpts:

      …Only the potential final team in a “Pac-16,” remained in flux as Texas A&M considered its options. The Aggies may not have much time, however. Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott was en route from Colorado to the states of Texas and Oklahoma with invitations in hand, a source familiar with the process confirmed.

      If the Aggies cannot commit, the Pac-10 is prepared to invite Kansas and its great basketball Tradition, sources say…

      …If the Aggies miscalculate they could be left high and dry like Missouri, which had hoped for a Big Ten bid.

      Hmmm, and word tonight out of College Station is that the BOR has an emergency meeting this weekend.

      But I guess the Oregonian is just another TU mouthpiece…

      Like

      • zeek says:

        No, that’s the smart thing to do.

        FWIW, I’m 100% on board A&M to the Pac-10.

        I don’t think it’s a good thing for either the Pac-10 or Big Ten for A&M to go to the SEC.

        Like

      • Patrick says:

        I wonder what Texas Tech’s invite says.

        We, the Pac 10 Conference, invite the University of Texas at Austin, and 4 friends to join our conference.

        Will you be joining?

        YES_____ NO _______

        # of Guests ________

        Like

      • Gopher86 says:

        I don’t understand why they have to hurry this thing up so much? Why isn’t it a good thing for all the Texas schools to listen to their options and have time to do due diligence on them? The Pac 10 will be there in July.

        I think trying to leverage someone into a move is going to create a lot of resentment. Especially if they’re making threats or forcing the government to step in.

        Like

        • Bullet says:

          Good question Gopher86.

          Maybe everyone is worried about it all falling apart, so they are trying to tie it down.

          UNL and B10 just did same rush.

          Like

          • Gopher86 says:

            Fall apart how? The Pac 10 can’t wait a few weeks? What are they going to do; add Utah and BYU to spite Texas?

            Like

    • djinndjinn says:

      I hope A&M goes SEC and Kansas can head west with the pack.

      Like

  74. Chas. says:

    The line of dialogue in this thread is severely lacking in appreciation. The Big Ten has achieved its immediate aims and we should applaud the wise decision Nebraska has made. Speculation on further expansion is not necessary.

    Frank, as a U of I alum you should know that our Memorial Stadium is second to none (in the actual war memorial department), no matter how many spectators show up on a Saturdays.

    I am perfectly satisfied with the single addition of the Huskers and realize that when they begin play in 2011 we will still have an eight game conference slate, with the strongly suggested potential for nine games in subsequent seasons.

    Jim Delany, plus as others have mentioned DiNardo on the expansion special, believes that competitive balance of divsions is more important than strict geometry. I suggest a North/South split.

    North: Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, Michigan St & Ohio St

    South: Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue & Penn St.

    This set-up is optimal for both football and basketball balance.

    It would be awesome for the Huskers to open each season with the Hawkeyes and close with Joe-Pa’s Nittany Lions as both Nebraska and Penn St will have the simplest uniforms in all of college football.

    Like

    • es says:

      Love it.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      As long as ND is out there, the Big Ten is going to 16. Maybe it won’t happen during this expansion round. But Delany will want it to happen before he goes back to ABC/ESPN.

      I think at least 14 is a possibility before then. As I said, maybe not this year, but still…

      Like

    • actually you don’t really need to split the conference for basketball. One Division for b-ball, and two for Football.

      Like

    • Josh says:

      I’m with you. It really doesn’t affect the B10 one way or another what the other conferences do, other than if they take schools that we have targeted for later expansion. But just because the Pac 10 goes to 16 schools doesn’t mean we have to.

      We should only expand further if it makes sense to us, not because that’s what all the other kids are doing.

      Like

  75. Hopkins Horn says:

    I think everyone on this site will hate what I’m about to predict, as it might require all of us to get lives, but, assuming that the Pac-10 gets the five left on the table, including A&M, but:

    I think we might be done.

    Oh, the scraps of the Big 12 will still have to find homes. (I’ll predict KU-KSU to the MWC; Mizzou and ISU to the Big East; and Baylor to C-USA; but ultimately this doesn’t matter too much.)

    The Big 10 grabbed the third best school but didn’t land Texas or Notre Dame, the two biggest fish. I’m not sure this is a big enough shift to cause the SEC to react. I’d stay at 12. (And I’m more bullish on the ultimate cohesiveness of the ACC than many on here.)

    And if I’m the Big 10 . . . well, I’d stop as well, and wait a couple of years to see how well the first major 16-team conference fares. Why rush? If the Pac-16 prospers, Rutgers and Maryland and Syracuse and all of the other potential targets will still be out there. And if the Pac-16 suffers Big 12-like issues of successful integration, the Big 10 can take a big sigh of relief, thankful for dodging the bullet of rushing beyond 12 too quickly.

    Like

    • Guido says:

      I think you are probably right. And I think it’s the smart move on the part of the Big 10. I wish, somewhat selfishly for Colorado, that the P10 would add 1 more and stop as well. But I think that ship has sailed and the 5 are coming, almost certainly to include A&M.

      Like

    • cjb56 says:

      Agree 100%. Unless ND suddenly has a change of heart, the Big Ten might as well stop now and let the Pac 10 model be the 16 team guinea pig.

      Like

      • R says:

        One problem; the Pac 10 model with 2 separate 8 team divisions for football, would not be the Big 10 model(IMO). As has been discussed ad nauseum, four pods with a far more integrated conference, and homogenous universities, would define the Big 10. I’m not sure what the Pac 10(16)can prove. You also can’t use the WAC 16 as an example because it lacked money.

        Like

    • Patrick says:

      @HH,

      I appreciate your thoughts but I disagree. I still think, despite the public posturing, that the Big Ten will continue to expand, and the SEC will also.

      I know that Bevo Chip Brown has been tweeting up definite answers about the Texas 4 and the Pac 10. I still think that Texas, Notre Dame, Rutgers, PLUS 1 (Missouri, Syracuse) are going to be added to the Big Ten. The major powers don’t want to shake up the landscape every summer for the next 3 years.

      I think aTm, PLUS 1 are going to the SEC, The Plus 1 may be OU or someone else.

      I am not sure about the PAC 10, but if I was them I’d take Utah, Colorado, and OSU to make 14.

      I know the Notre Dame crazies will answer this with something along the lines of Notre Dame is firmly independent and there is no reason to change that. But the administators are all for a cash grab and the revenue is too much to pass up, especially when you already play half Big Ten teams.

      A&M wants the SEC, and I think they (and possibly Oklahoma) want to grab this opportunity to break away from UT. UT will use that as political cover, which Notre Dame will use as political cover to make the move.

      Linchpin right now is A&M – if they go SEC, that allows UT to say ‘we had their backs in the PAC 10 but they left us, so we are going Big Ten’.

      ND and Texas want to be in the Big Ten but only together, Texas needs to shake it’s baggage first.

      Like

      • Patrick says:

        Utah / Kansas / OSU to the Pac 10, Colorado has already gone.

        Like

      • djinndjinn says:

        I hope you’re right about Texas. I’m dubious.

        Regardless, I kind of hope A&M goes SEC, just for their own sake.

        Like

      • c says:

        Re Texas wants to be in Big 10 (Patrick)

        Patrick you are a great poster, always interesting, but Texas is behaving in a very strange way for a school that wants to be in the Big 10 as you suggest.

        The train (airplane) likely leaves the station on Tuesday so we will see if your prediction is correct.

        Like

        • Patrick says:

          I think next week will be very interesting.

          Is Texas behaving is a specific way to push aTm along or create pressure for them. There were all sorts of ‘leaks’ about Nebraska not having an invite and trying to break up the conference and having some deadline, all of which were a benifit to somebody.

          I don’t know what will happen, politics and egos you know. I think Texas is trying to grease the Pac Ten for as many spots as it can for it’s buddies before they pull out. Maybe Texas needs a southern buddy to come Big Tenning with them (OU / aTm) so they aren’t the outcast…… or they just go west.

          Next week will be awesome!

          NDx2 below, if Texas goes west ND ain’t coming. But the posturing I would take with a grain of salt. It was only 48 hours ago we got any definite signals from Nebraska. When they have reached a deal in the background, the tone will change significantly.

          Like

      • NDx2 says:

        If Texas had opted for the B10, then I’d agree that ND would have been likely to go along. But Swarbrick’s comments to the Tribune today combined with the universal reports that UT, TTU, OU, and OSU are locks for the Pac-10 have convinced me that the decision has been made, and Texas is heading west while ND is standing pat.

        Like

        • K says:

          @NDx2

          Can you honestly see the ND being independent much longer? I know that is what you desire, but it seems like the writing is slowly being written on the wall. I say this as a fan of ND not going to the Big Ten.

          Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            I can.

            As long as ND remains a team that the whole country (at least outside of the old Confederacy) will watch, we’ll maintain a presence on broadcast TV. As long as that remains, we’ll have the backing of the media who’s paying for all of this. We’ll also be the public face for all the non-AQ teams that don’t have the fanbase to force a change.

            Well, that, I disagree with you all on the viability of these 16 team conferences.

            Only the Big Ten has a network to monetize the extra games. Every other conference is just splitting the same sized pie different ways. Even this proposed PAC-16. Of course, what the PAC-16 really is is a PAC-8/neo-SWC alliance for TV purposes. As such, it may survive.

            I don’t see the SEC and ACC schools taking pay-cuts so their conferences can have more schools to feed.

            Until we have a 4conference 64 team block, ND has nothing to fear.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            K,

            I have to agree with FLP as the SEC has little or no interest in the BE, the only predator for the BE is the Big 10, and the majority of the BE have no appeal to the Big 10. If the BE calls the Big 10 bluff, the Big 10 has no other threat (no Pac or sec threat) like the Big 12 had.

            Like

          • rich2 says:

            I can too. The blog has focused almost exclusively on the “offensive” moves that the Big Ten could take to enhance the value of the BTN. After adding Nebraska, I think it is time to play some defense. I think that it is clear that the SEC could take several easy steps that will dilute the potential value of the BTN —

            add Virginia Tech and Texas A&M. I am not saying that either will accept. But, since this board is essentially an exercise in scenario analysis — I ask what should be the Big Ten’s next step (assume ND is not joining)? Would you hold or take another school or two – and if so, who?

            Like

          • duffman says:

            rich2,

            Maryland..

            it is the best opening gambit for the last remaining 4 slots. You get the ACC foothold, and leave a “backdoor” gambit to ND without having to take multiple BE teams that you are not real excited about.

            Like

          • K says:

            Add Pitt/Rutgers
            Add Rutgers/Syracuse
            Add Maryland/Rutgers
            Add Missouri/Rutgers
            Pac 10 adds second BCS auto bid

            Lou Holtz is even saying it. lol

            It seems like it is inevitable.

            Again… I root against ND as much as I can and do not like the cultural fit at all in the Big Ten… but it seems like it is heading that way.

            Like

    • Stopping By says:

      Making the assumptions (and nothing is for sure) that the P16 is about to form with or without aTm (but including UT, TT, OU, and OSU) and that the B10 stops for now with Neb, and the SEC/ACC stand pat – I wonder how the new Pac will lobby for the BCS spots.

      It would be a fair assumption and not unrealistic to request/lobby for 2 automatics (not necessarily the winner of each division but two autos none the less) with a possible 3rd due to size of conference.

      Play in a P16 wouldn’t start till 2012 – which coincidentally is the 1st year that the MWC could receive an AQ – if granted. So its not like they could just take the B12’s spot so to speak (maybe?).

      How soon could Cotton be upgraded to a BCS game (I am not sure when the current contracts for the NC/BCS rotation is set to restart)?

      On one hand, assuming that the B10 and SEC can see themselves moving to 16 – they may be inclined to approve (they probably feel pretty confident that they will continue to be 2 bid conferences anyway at 12 vs ACC/BE stealing one). Or do they just say no until they get there as well?

      On a side note – even if things go quiet for a while as HH suggests – seeing how fast Neb/B10 and Boise St/MWC are moving from announcement to starting play….the SEC and B10 could wait an entire year and destroy the BE overnight to start play in 2012 with 16 teams as well.

      Like

      • Guido says:

        It is very likely the new conferences will begin play 2011. Although 2012 was originally the time-frame, I believe Nebraska and Big 10 announced they would begin 2011. I don’t see the Big 12 playing an extra year with only 11 teams. At the CU press conference today, Larry Scott said 2012 was the target but they were prepared to start 2011 if necessary.

        Like

        • Stopping By says:

          2011 would be a logistical nightmare for a P16. As I noted in a post above (or another thread – I am starting to lose track), the current Pac deal runs through 2011 season and can no way support 16 teams (much less the 10 it has now) and who know what happens to the current B12 contract money with the leftovers still there. Unless they can renegotiate something much quicker to start sooner or supplement the current deal from a nother network – I just don’t see how you can pay anyone for 2011.

          Like

          • Guido says:

            I have no idea how it would work, but I’m sure there would be a way to figure it out. Sounds like the Pac has been preparing for the scenario.

            Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            2011 would be complicated, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that hard. Corporate mergers involving tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of employees, can more or less be in place within 15 months. (Yeah, I know, much greater resources, but still…) This’ll get done by 2011.

            Like

    • djinndjinn says:

      I’m not sure it makes sense to sit by, let a new mega-conference develop a network, watch to see how it expands and performs. While, in the meantime, the SEC could do the same.

      It’s sort of like saying Coke should see how Pepsi develops its market, how sales go, then be second into the stores.

      The Big 10 has a headstart with the BTN. There is no sense losing that advantage waiting around to see what the other conferences do. Assuming the BT can find schools that “fit” and not rush poor choices, the BT should act, not react to what others might do. Develop your product and create your market now.

      Like

    • c says:

      Re all over or chapter one (Hopkins Horn)

      Good post.

      Big 10 made excellent add. Pac 10 greatly strengthened their conference.

      Be interesting to see whether A&M joins Texas to Pac 10: I believe they will but time will soon tell.

      However the Big 10 with its channel is more than a conference now: it is in the TV business and Nebraska does not fully address the inventory and demographic issues that motivated a Pac 16.

      Based on the comments on this blog the Big 10 may next approach ACC schools. Many believe the SEC will as well.

      The ACC may in spite of itself decide to see if it can explore a channel option as well and whether it might find a financial partner.

      Some have said that’s not likely but it may come to pass if its schools decide they want to be in the ACC rather than the SEC or Big 10. Not so long ago Miami and FSU were powerhouse top tier football teams. Time will tell.

      There has been some talk of the Big East schools reaching out to the Big 12 left behind schools. Not sure if that is realistic but that could impact the Big East in an interesting way as it relates to the BB schools.

      So this may be chapter one.

      Like

    • Josh says:

      Smart thinking. I think the issue of the orphaned B12 schools might be around for a while, but someone is going to take Kansas and her conjoined sister. (I shudder to think of Kansas playing Boise in men’s basketball though. BSU lost by 26 to a Wyoming team that went 3-13 in the MWC last year. Potentially playing KU every year in the MWC? The horror. The horror.) The others may take a while to sort out.

      But I agree on further expansion. What’s the rush? And unless the SEC could get a HR like Texas or OU, they’ve got no reason to expand either.

      Like

    • twk says:

      That is not a stable solution. The Big Ten Network needs inventory in order to maximize its potential, and merely adding one school simply does not address that concern. The scenario you outline would also leave the Pac 10 as a very precarious grouping of school. It would only be a matter of time before UT started playing footsie with another league, if the Big 10 and SEC both stayed with 12. The only way the Pac 10 is stable is if both those leagues go to 16.

      Like

    • Bullet says:

      I agree except that I don’t think the B10 is done. They haven’t done anything about their demographics issue, so I suspect Rutgers (average growth state, but enough additional people to offset demographic decline) is in and someone else. Delany is still working on ND.

      Actually expansion with ND gets difficult. They are committed well into the future, so it may take 4-6 years for football. What do you do with #14 in the interim? Bring in a rotating MAC school as #13 until ND is ready? 13 really doesn’t work well at all.

      I think it probably slows after B10 goes to 14. When B10 took PSU and SEC expanded it was several years until the SWC and B8 dissolved. The WAC dissolution aftershock was 3 years later and it was 6 more years until the ACC went to 12.

      What would really be a dramatically different turn of events would be if UT decides the B12 is salvageable. They’ve probably already made the decision that it isn’t, but some TV exec might change their mind.

      Like

    • Gopher86 says:

      We’ll have a better idea Tuesday.

      Like

  76. Guido says:

    Seems to me the only play for Big 10 other than staying at 12 is to destroy the Big East in hopes of forcing ND into a conference. That likely means inviting 3 Big east teams (Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse). 2 invites could crumble the Big East too, but less sure its a certainty. I think there is a good chance ‘Nova will go the Uconn route and upgrade it’s football program.

    Like

  77. michst8bball14 says:

    RE: PBC’s latest updates.

    See this makes perfect sense. And no matter what others say, I believe this is what is actually going on. I am 100% confident in that.

    I respect some others that disagree as they have been with this all along. I just do not see how you do not take this credible info big time.

    This guy has a good view of the whole thing, not just the b10 side, b12 side, or whatever side is being represented by different parts of UT.

    Like

    • cjb56 says:

      Just curious, but how and when did this Purple Cat guy become credible? I’m not asking out of any animosity. I just keep reading about this guy’s updates on the whole situation and I was wondering where he came from and how he earned his reputation on here? I actually hope he is correct and that somehow Texas winds up in the Big Ten, but a more likely ending is Texas goes to the Pac 10…as everyone else in the universe is reporting, and the Cat guy comes back with a final update saying that Texas was oh so close to joining the Big Ten, but just couldn’t pull the trigger at the last second.

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Weirdly enough, he earned his rep when another blog verified that Delaney got cheesed about a leak he alone posted. The one about Tex and ND getting only 7 Conference games and a guaranteed game against each other that he heard from one of his buddies who works @ BTHQ.

        I still am not buying any of it, but I do think he’s getting “Official Big Ten leaks” now.

        For whatever that’s worth.

        Like

  78. Richard says:

    You know, I’ve thought about it some more, and now I think that to get ND, the Big10 has to destroy a conference, but that conference is the ACC, not the Big East. ND’s never going to join the SEC, and while the Pac16 may be attractive in theory, in practice, that’s a helluva long way to fly all your Olympic sports athletes for no financial gain. However, so long as the ACC is still around as a (somewhat) “Big 4” conference, ND still has the ACC as an option to play off against the Big10. Conspire with the SEC to split up Maryland, Virginia, & VTech, though, and the ACC isn’t going to be a major conference any more. The BE already isn’t, so in that scenario, ND is looking at the world where 3 mega-conferences (Big10, SEC, & Pac16) dominate the BCS while ND, as an independent, has no political allies.

    If the Big10 can peel off Maryland & Virginia, ND will come.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      richard,

      this was my argument months ago.. it made the most sense then, it still makes the most sense.. the predator vs prey thing means you strike close first. The BE is no threat to the pac 16 or SEC 16 model.

      Like

  79. big10expander says:

    Rutgers and Maryland will be in the Big 10. Coming soon……….

    Like

    • cjb56 says:

      Unless it’s to get ND in the fold, what’s the point?

      There more I think about it, Delany looks like he got caught flat-footed by Larry Scott. When he floated the rumors about expanding, I’m sure he realized the SEC was not looking, or needing, to make any moves. I’m sure he realized the ACC and Big East had no juice to make any major moves at this time.

      The Big Ten’s farting around all Winter and Spring, and especially how quickly they had to speed up their timetable last week, makes it appear that they thought they were the only league that could land the big fish, so they could take their time.

      Larry Scott and the Pac 10 leaving a soft landing, and leverage, for Texas, clearly undercut Delany.

      Nobody can tell me that adding Nebraska and stopping now was the ultimate plan, even if they intended further expansion. They thought they had all the leverage with Texas, and maybe were planning to use that to entice ND, but Larry Scott bit them on the butt and has Delany and Co. befuddled.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        What evidence is there though that Texas wouldn’t have gone to the Pac-10 and SEC and asked for offers?

        And that the Pac-10 realizing that it only has Texas as the sole option to 16 wouldn’t make the same offer?

        I mean yes, Texas might be in the Big Ten if the Big Ten had expanded before Larry Scott became Commissioner of the Pac-10.

        But, you can’t really fault Delany in how it went down.

        Texas would never take a Big Ten offer without doing due diligence as to whether it was the best offer (i.e. versus Pac-10/SEC).

        Any school with the options of a Texas would have asked for offers before it put itself into play…

        Like

        • cjb56 says:

          Why the need for a 12-18 month time table AFTER you announce to the world you’re looking to expand? You can’t mean that they had no idea of the merits of the target schools, all the legal obstacles, all the money numbers crunched…back when they first made the public announcement?

          Just the hurried way they were forced to react, AFTER Larry Scott jumped, shows they were caught by surprise.

          Add in the emails from the Ohio State president warning that the leverage they had could be gone if they don’t act soon…and the Big Ten looks amateurish.

          Maybe the long process was not Delany’s fault or choice, but the conference looks like it was caught napping.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Wouldn’t have mattered. If the Big10 had acted sooner, the Pac10 would just have gotten their offer out to Texas faster. Power players like Texas just don’t leave options out on the table just because someone offers them first.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            point to ponder..

            the folks that have been with Frank for awhile know one thing. Nebraska, was not one of the 5 that got this whole ball rolling in the first place (at least not was out there for public consumption). I see 2 options from this….

            a) delany wants disinformation

            b) delany has been caught off guard

            comments?

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Disinformation. Nebraska was fairly obviously in the top 3 to anyone who looked even a bit at the economics (and I’d said so early on).

            Like

          • omnicarrier says:

            “Disinformation. Nebraska was fairly obviously in the top 3 to anyone who looked even a bit at the economics (and I’d said so early on).”

            Perhaps, but I don’t think so. I think Delany started with the idea that threatening to take Mizzou’s markets from the Big 12 is what would destabilize it. Instead at some point early in the process he must have realized threatening the loss of one of the 4 votes keeping unequal tv revenue sharing alive in the Big 12 was the best way to get UT into the league.

            Like

      • K says:

        I agree that the plan is not to stop and I do not see it happening, though I do not think that “The Big Ten’s farting around” could have changed anything. Bottom line is that academic limitations would never allow the Texas “baggage” to share in the wealth of the CIC. If they do not end up with UT, I do not think it was not because JD was sitting around. The Pac 10 threw their academic integrity to the curb for the football dollar. The Big Ten will not.

        I am a Big Ten fan first and a Texas fan second (and live in Phoenix). SO I am completely torn on the whole thing. I would love to have access in to UT in Tempe, but still love the Big Ten.

        Like

      • I am not impressed by Larry one bit yet. Even if he lands TX, Texas needs to bring her ugly step-sister along. Thus forming a TX block to control the conference, like they did to the Big 8/12.

        the Big Ten wants TX only, they may take aTm, to make a deal.

        I am proud that Jim Delany would not sell out to TX.

        Like

        • cjb56 says:

          Bringing along Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Colorado is not much of a compromise. I’ll concede that Tech and Okie State are reaches.

          Unless Texas anticipated a scenario where they could bring their buddies along for the ride, which I do not believe they could’ve known that the Pac 10 would do this, you would think it would’ve been a no-brainer to get Texas and Texas A&M into the Big Ten back in the Winter. There was plenty of time to work out the “Tech” problem back then.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            Unless they’re dim down there, they would have anticipated exactly that scenario. Look, when you have power like Texas, you try to get the best deal you can; you don’t sign on the dotted line just because a conference negotiates with you more or presses you.

            Like

      • Also, adding a bunch of Central Time Zone schools will NOT help the Pac 10 with their biggest problem. Getting TV time on the east coast.

        ABC/ESPN will air the “Pac 16 East” and the “Pac 16 Weast” well, they will get aired as often as they are now!

        Like

        • K says:

          I just do not see this being a good marriage.

          Like

        • Stopping By says:

          Pacific tz side of the house just needs to do what they need to do for exposure – which means Thurs night games. Have the stage to yourself during the week in Thurs Pac game of the week kind of deal. You break away from traditional Sat games (which would suck) but if you tell me my choices are to host/play in a Thurs night game 2 weeks a year that will give me nat’l exposure vs keeping it Sat and being buried behind 3 other games on the PTN….I’d play on Thurs.

          Like

          • why expand into an arranged marriage if playing on Thursday would solve it?

            PTN would make money, but it does nothing for national exposer that would influence Polls, Opinion, and national recruiting.

            Like

  80. Stopping By says:

    So UT and its gang are going to the P16 if you believe OrangeBloods or they are going with ND to the B10 if you believe PBC w/ aTm either bullied into UT’s gang or jumping to the SEC…..

    Quite a few comments I’ve seen questioning the long term viability of the Pac with a divided conference as is anticipated – and all fair to ask. I think the one thing that keeps getting overlooked when those comments are made is a PTN. IF this P16 deal goes through I truely belive that a PTN is on the horizon. IF they provide wach member university as an equal partner in the network then I believe that there will be a heavy incentive to keep the conference together and successful. The # of households that the states of CA and TX bring + Seattle, Portland, Phoenix, Denver, Ok Cty, and SLC/KC (if aTm bolts and deal stays in place) has to be fairly impressive/staggering. Income generated from that venture within a few years would have to more than worthwhile to keep together.

    A new nat’l TV contract haul should be impressive as well – considering A) the footprint of the conference and B) what the ACC just got. This figure will absolutely be distributed unevenly (its just the awy the Pac has always done it and the way TX likes it). This favors your power schools that are getting the nat’l play in increased $$ over lesser conference mates (not to be condecending but Wazzu just doesn’t measure up to most), the greater exposure, and perceived (or real) power within. Lesser mates won’t bitch too much (unless MO gets in) because they have the PTN revenue to fall back on in addition to whatever cut of the nat’l $$ they get – and that dollar amount will probably be head and shoulders above what they are currently receiving.

    Granted – UT can bolt for the B10 on Tuesday and make this moot….but still, just thought I’d throw out my 2 cents..

    Like

  81. Patrick says:

    Had an odd thought, say UT feels lonely coming to the Big Ten without it’s little brother that may be off to the SEC and seems very opposed to the Big Ten.

    They WANT to play with Notre Dame and join the CIC and share in the Big Ten Money Pile (BTMP), but there isn’t anyone to travel with or bridge the gap.

    Could the Big Ten “hold it’s nose” and accept Texas’s other major tag along, Oklahoma?

    Great sports, limited acedemics. Big revenue generator, OU athletics made about $400,000 more than Notre Dame last report. R & D budget is small, about 1/2 of Nebraska or Rutgers but stll double Notre Dame’s. Major state school.

    If they came as a package, both great athletic programs but Texas research carrying OU’s limited budget, would the Big Ten agree?

    Total wild thought, nothing I have heard or seen.

    But say the 5 additions are UNL, UT, ND, OU, and Rutgers / Missouri. That’d balance your eastern and western divisions!

    Like

    • Richard says:

      I think it’s the only viable compromise for the Big10 (and was hinted at before). TTech offers no positive attributes by itself. At least with OU, you can say to yourself that you are getting a football powerhouse & can build the best athletic conference in the country (and they’re a state flagship, so maybe they can become respectable academically some day).

      Like

      • cjb56 says:

        Exactly. Why not help OU mature as a research institution? Maybe even guide them into the AAU, but hold them off from full CIC membership until they meet certain criteria?

        Like

    • personally, I think hell would have to freeze over if the Big Ten let OU academic standards in.

      I am not complete sold on bringing in all the National Powers Houses. ND, UT, UNL, OU, and maybe aTm.

      There needs to be some dead weight added to the conference. Somebody has to lose.

      So either Dead Weight will be created or someone will leave. Long-term stability will be an issue

      Like

      • cjb56 says:

        There is plenty of football dead wood in the Big Ten now. No need to add more. Yes, you don’t want to make it unbearably tough…but adding two or three heavyweights (Nebraska is one of them) would really help the league’s football.

        Like

        • yes adding two or three would be great with Missouri/Rutgers/etc.

          I don’t want B10 like Iowa and Wisky become that Dead Wood.

          Not to mention, I like it when Northwestern, Purdue, and State are able to build a good team from time to time.

          Like

      • zeek says:

        Thank you Brutus Buckeye.

        I said this yesterday and I’m going to repeat it.

        The entire perception of the SEC right now is driven by the strength of Florida/Alabama/LSU and mostly their top 6 teams.

        If the Big Ten had Michigan going at full strength along with the rest and now Nebraska, it would be a match.

        Only having Ohio State and Penn State going as the national brands along with Iowa and Wisconsin which are the top brands after isn’t as strong as having most or all of the national brands firing on all cylinders.

        I still think the Big Ten needs to lock onto the most fertile recruiting grounds possible in the future.

        That means we need to focus like a laser on Maryland/Va as well as NJ. Planting flags in those states and having Nebraska/Ohio State/Penn State/Michigan playing in those states will pay off dividends in the future.

        Yes, California, Texas, and Florida are the three best states in terms of recruiting, but the Big Ten can probably match it with a move into the the Maryland/Va area buttressed by NJ.

        The only other national brand that the Big Ten has to wait for is Notre Dame of course…

        Like

        • Hopkins Horn says:

          If the Big Ten had Michigan going at full strength along with the rest and now Nebraska, it would be a match.

          Yes. The worst thing to do would be to make long-term decisions based on the college football world of 2010.

          We know everything is cyclical. Michigan will be back. The ACC will finally get its much-anticipated act together. (I don’t think it’s a coincidence that this current run of SEC dominance started right after a five-year period in which six current schools of the ACC made the championship game six times in five years.) USC could be toast for a while.

          Don’t make a decision based on matching the SEC in football in 2011.

          Like

    • jj says:

      Nope. No way.

      Like

  82. b10inexile says:

    The whole P10+Texas&Posse thing will be a disaster for everyone involved. Near term everyone will play nice until the TV contract is place next year. But after that?

    Texas couldn’t hold the B12 together; so now they try to conquer the West Coast to prove the B12 issues weren’t their fault. But if they couldn’t get NU (or poor Missouri) on board with whatever program they had for the B12, they aren’t going very far with USC and UCLA.

    As far a ND, it does sound like they are wearing out their welcome in the Big East. Given the changing college landscape, independence seems like a sure way to a mention in the college football history wiki on the same line as the Service Academies and Ivy League.

    Both UT and ND need to recognize that being an equal part in a union is better than being the shark in pool of guppies. The state of Texas was able to figure that out. But since neither seems ready for that, I really hope Delany’s chess moves don’t force a situation where either is cornered into the B10 and we have to deal with their embittered whining for decades.

    Like

  83. cjb56 says:

    I’ve been pretty harsh on Delany and the Big Ten. Maybe too harsh. I have no inside info, and I have no idea how this will all end, or what the Big Ten’s end goal is, so I’m only speculating (and venting).

    Two things bother me, however.

    Why go public so early with an announcement that you are looking to expand? What was to be gained by that? They just heightened expectations and almost made it necessary to make a huge splash. Yes, even bigger than adding NU. Once again, why the need to go public so early?

    Also, how could they possibly have allowed themselves to get caught so flat-footed that they publicly had to go into scramble mode this past week?

    No matter what they did intend, and may do, they really do look amateurish at this time.

    Like

    • K says:

      Public announcement or not, Pac 10 TV deal was up next spring… they were always the threat to go first.

      Better question is how Pac 10 analysis was done so quickly for these teams where the Big 10 took some time. Maybe it wasn’t that long???

      I think the Big Ten time line is there to get ND. It takes time to destabilize several conferences and get teams moving. lol

      Like

      • cjb56 says:

        If their goal is to destroy a few conferences just to one day add ND, that would be counter to the integrity for which the Big Ten has always prided itself.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          Welcome to the real world, kid. Once you realize that money & self-interest drive 99% of what goes on in the world, you’ll have a better understanding of how the world works.

          Like

          • cjb56 says:

            Thanks, Dad. If the Big Ten was that willing to sell out, they would simply swallow it and take OU and Tech to get Texas and A&M. So, though you are correct about the motivations of most of the world…the Big Ten must not be chasing every last dollar, or we would’ve been welcoming the Horns, Huskers and Sooners.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            richard,

            I am am no kid, cjb56 echoes what I have felt from the beginning. The B 10 for my life has been special, I for one am glad cjb56 makes the point. Well said!

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Nah, TTech would affect the academic brand a fair amount (which does eventually translate in to dollars), and offer no positive attributes by themselves. OU is just as negative academically, but at least provides a boost athletically. I guess you can call it integrity, but it’s integrity aligned with self-interest. Self-interests of all the parties involves is still what’s driving everything in this game.

            Like

    • Richard says:

      1. You get schools to start moving. Would Nebraska have joined the Big10 if the Big10 had just approached them and said “hey, like to join?”. That’s even more the case for the 2 big fish. Approach ND and say “wanna join?”, and you’d get rejected in 10 seconds flat. Same with Texas. Of course, there are risks, but you don’t get to the good apples buried beneath the bad apples without upsetting the applecart. (‘Course, someone could come and steal the good apples, but do nothing, and you have no shot at the good apples anyway).

      2. Everybody was in scamble mode this week.

      Like

    • Bullet says:

      #1 Incompetence. He thought somehow announcing an expansion plan would relieve public relations problems. There’s a reason business acquisitions are confidential. The longer others know about it (P10, SEC, TT, Baylor), the longer they have to mess it up (Mizzou’s plans didn’t go too well-UNL got their spot).

      #2 Publicity. He wanted the publicity. He was very successful at that.

      #3 ND. Not just getting them, but getting them to re-arrange their schedules. As of yet, he hasn’t been successful there.

      Like

  84. cjb56 says:

    Thanks for the late night discussion. It’s all good. The sun will come up tomorrow, even without Texas or ND in the Big Ten (haha). Welcome to the Huskers!

    Like

  85. duffman says:

    Morning folks! and welcome to the Huskers!

    After a night of sleep dreaming of Big Red and JoePa I am going back to chess and the following setup.

    with nebraska, the Big 10 and SEC are both now at 12.

    Then I ponder the following….

    a) Texas and others make the Pac 16 a reality

    b) A&M breaks away and finds a new home in the SEC

    Big 10 is now at 12, and the SEC is at 13 (A&M appears a wise choice for one of its remaining slots). ND is not worried (ie does not feel the need to join the Big 10) and Texas is now in the Pac 16.

    What is Delany’s next move in this scenario?

    Like

    • bigredforever says:

      I am still pondering why OU has been so absent in all of this. Aggies are trying to influence Texas, but they are all alone. Where is OU???

      Like

  86. 84Lion says:

    Ever since my wife (Husker alum) and I married in 2001 my greatest hope was that Nebraska would join the Big Ten. We went to the Nebraska-Penn State games in 2002 and 2003 and they were awesome. All that did was make me want to see Penn State and Nebraska play more often. I was really crushed when I found out that UNL cancelled their OOC games in 2014/2015 or thereabouts with Penn State.
    Yesterday was like Christmas morning and winning the lottery all rolled into one. My wife and I watched the “Expansion Special” on the BTN and I have to admit feeling tingly all over several times. This is just awesome and I am thoroughly thrilled. Jim Delany, Harvey Perlman, and Tom Osborne are my heroes of the day and they should all be very proud to have made the best decision possible.
    Now the only thing to hope for is that Mr. Spanier lobbies heavily for PSU and Nebraska to be designated yearly rivals. Certainly Nebraska’s biggest rival should be Iowa, and the Huskers have history with Michigan, Ohio State, and Wisconsin too. But as the east-west “bookends” of the Big Ten, Penn State – Nebraska is something special.
    Let the games begin!
    And of course, welcome to the Huskers, who have made the right move. My wife and I coulda told ya, Penn State and Nebraska being together is just the right thing – as Delany said, “a great fit.”
    “There is no school like Nebraska
    They’re coming to the Big Ten
    We’ll meet ‘em and greet ‘em
    And hopefully beat ‘em
    But we’ll all get rich in the end!”

    Like

    • Can't Get Enough says:

      It does seem like the most excited people here went to Penn State. Maybe it isn’t so necessary to have another eastern neighbor in conference.

      Like

  87. duffman says:

    Frank,

    today should be 1,000,000 +

    congrats in advance if I forget later!

    Like

  88. jj says:

    What does anyone make of ND / Army in NY being off?

    I think a viable play could be ND and BC together. The schools like each other, BC has a pretty good following and it would mean that ND is not an island. I prefer BC over Syr or Rut anyway.

    I get Rut is the right kind of school, but they are so horrible athletically, I think it is a non-starter. They make Indiana football and Nebraska basketball look stellar.

    Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Guessing/hoping it’s because that would be the second neutral site game on the east coast for ND in ’13 (along with UCONN @ Foxboro, I think). I think ND would prefer it as a home game.

      Also I don’t know how well the ND and BC brass get along in private. Remember how BC left the Big East hanging as well as the C.S.C.-S.J. rivalry.

      Like

  89. duffman says:

    My thinking on the ACC, and expansion

    The use of “expansion” is misleading as it suggests a growing universe. This is NOT the case as in the end it is a zero sum game. I think “realignment” is actually what we need to tattoo on our collective brains.

    If I am wrong, feel free to state your case, but if I am right this is how we will look at “realignment” going forward. It is either / or in what is more plausible.

    REALIGNMENT PLANK #1

    the ACC will raid the Big 10 / SEC

    OR

    the ACC will BE raided by the Big 10 / SEC

    REALIGNMENT PLANK #2

    the Big 12 will get back to 12

    OR

    the Pac 10 will become the first 16 in the BIG 3 (pac,b10,sec)

    REALIGNMENT PLANK #3

    The BTN will not be challenged

    OR

    The Pac 16 / sec 16 will happen to level the playing field (PTN,SN)

    feel free to add logical OR statements, I know we have many lawyers here but I can not be the only computer geek here.

    Like

  90. Big Ten Jeff says:

    Delany says he’s 2/3s of the way through the Big Ten’s preferred process of analysis by investment bankers. The irony is unavoidable that we are choosing to be slow and plodding instead of going after the quick strike (as the Pac-10 has). At this point, one has to think something big is in the offering. It is clear that ND is not going to be moved by anything other than ‘seismic events’, which at this case probably isn’t happening anytime soon unless a rabbit is pulled out of the hat on Tuesday.

    Guess it’s time to take Delany at his word about the process, focus on and enjoy the new affiliation with UNL, and watch the rest of this unfold. I refuse to believe this was meant to be a game in which we only hit one home run.

    Frank, thanks and congratulations for the ride and your success in this. Let’s recharge and get ready for what’s next.

    Like

    • Hank says:

      disagree.

      I think its pretty clear there are two levels to Big Ten analysis. The whole preferred process of investment bankers is for the second rank of candidates. Analyzing the economics of Rutgers vs Maryland and those sort of tradeoffs. The first rank of candidates are the no brainers. Did anyone need to do analysis to figure out that Texas, Notre Dame and Nebraska were prime candidates. The only thing to do was establish contact and try to strike when the opportunity arose. Which is exactly what they are doing. The investbent bankers are figuring out if Syracuse adds anything or Georgia Tech is viable.

      its far from over although it likely will come off the past week’s furious boil.

      Like

  91. duffman says:

    From the bleacher report….

    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/404977-will-college-football-expansion-inevitably-bring-down-the-ncaa#page/5

    NOTE: text at bottom reads..

    “Two former weak conferences make one big weak conference.”

    My original argument holds, as what schools would rather sit at the grown up table with the BIG 3 (Big 16, Pac 16, sec 16) than stay at the kids table (ACC 16)? Maryland, UNC, UVA, Va Tech et al could make the move – Duke, Wake, etc may not have that ability. The Pac 16 will have NO seats available, and the Big 16 and sec 16 ONLY have 4 seats left each.

    Like

  92. mikebuz says:

    We live in interesting times. A couple thoughts…
    First, I have an issue with the “Big Ten got rolled by the Pac 10” argument. To get rolled means you were outmaneuvered over something you both wanted and could get. It is increasingly clear that the Big Ten, while wanting Texas, was not willing to take the extra baggage, while the Pac 10 was. The idea that Texas would have jumped at a BT offer if it came first (how do we know it didn’t) is ridiculous. These people are not morons. They would have looked at all the scenarios, and one of those is that the Pac 10 is clearly the most desperate conference. They need to break out of the Pacific Time Zone ghetto and the only way to do that in any meaningful sense is by adding Texas. Hence, they are willing to pay the price academically by accepting Tech, OU, OSU, maybe even Baylor. They are also apparently willing to risk becoming the Big 12, Part Deux, a conference of convenience that eventually succumbs to its various unstable parts. Texas has already shown that it has difficulty playing nicely with others, and now you’re bringing them into your conference along with a ready-made voting bloc.
    Also, my sense is that while the BT would have loved to get TX on its terms (alone or at most with TAMU), seeing them going to the Pac 10 offers a couple of opportunities. First, it advances the “the superconferences are coming!” argument the BT needs to spook the Irish into conference affiliation, because you really can’t have a credible superconferences-are-taking-over-the-world scenario unless the Pac 10 is one of them, and for the Pac 10 to be a scary superconference, they need to have TX.
    Second, I go back to a post I made a few days ago. I think the BT may prefer a super Pac 16 with its own PTN that can be packaged with the BTN by co-partner Fox and sold coast to coast. That’s the only real way to get the BTN to the huge West Coast market, since you’re not going to add West Coast schools in any plausible expansion scenario. So the answer is an alliance with the conference you already have had a strong relationship with for decades. Between the BT and P16, you have a footprint from the Pacific to the Atlantic if the BT adds some East Coast schools and even Notre Dame.

    Like

    • gas1958 says:

      @mikebuz
      Bravo! Your first paragraph (to me) says it all. The B10 clearly is operating at a higher level (that is, in accordance with its academic principles) than some have credited. Obviously UT or UT/A&M would be great “gets” but not if the price tag (TTech, OU) is too high. That the Pac 10 is willing to pay that price, and I think time will demonstrate that it is a very high price indeed, doesn’t mean the B10 has been slow or outmaneuvered. The announcement of a
      12-18 month timetable reminds me of how universities handle capital campaigns. When a school “initiates” a $500 million campaign it means they have already raised 1/3-1/2 of it silently and in private. This is done so that the public can be reached. Maybe Delaney was operating under this principle also.

      Like

    • Bullet says:

      P10 does not have a CIC. Therefore, TT/OSU are acceptable. P10 already has WSU and ASU. And TT and OSU do have some money behind them for improvements. Athletically they are fine. OK. St. may have more national championships (primarily golf and wrestling) than anyone in the B10, certainly more than most schools.

      And if the P10 offer wasn’t there, Texas may have been able to get rid of its Tech problem. Delany was supposedly very unhappy about having to rush his timetable. No question, Delany got trumped and his slow process resulted in his plans getting disrupted. He was very successful at disrupting the B12 if that was in his plans, but that also led to more unpreditability.

      Like

    • SuperD says:

      Plus allowing the PAC to get to 16 with quality teams keeps my dream alive of a coordinated cross-scheduling agreement between the P16/B16 either as a challenge format or an annual regular “rivalry” game. Though now that I think about it Nebraska would likely be paired with Oklahoma rather than Colorado.

      Like

  93. Can't Get Enough says:

    Is this a good solution to the problems associated with divisions and pods? I don’t know if this has been mentioned before, so here goes.

    It makes little sense to add a twelfth school only to permanently split the conference in half, so here’s an alternative.

    Rank performance over the past two years and make two balanced groups for two years so that each plays a home game. Then, schedule the inter-group play according to criteria such as priority of rivalry, geography, or amount of time since last meeting.

    I could write a very lengthy post on this, but instead I’ll keep this as short and simple as possible. Taking an example from 08/09, this is the overall two-year rankings based on conference play. Please excuse me if any of my numbers are wrong.

    1-Ohio State (14-2)
    2-Penn State (13-3)
    3-Iowa (11-5)
    4-Nebraska (B12) (11-5)
    5-Northwestern (10-6)
    6-Michigan State(10-6)
    7-Wisconsin (8-8)
    8-Purdue (6-10)
    9-Minnesota (6-10)
    10-Illinois (5-11)
    11-Michigan (3-13)
    12-Indiana (2-14)

    Now, start splitting. One group gets 1,4,5,8,9,12. The other gets 2,3,6,7,10,11. This would easily work with 14 or 16 as well.

    When the two years are done, everything is shuffled again according to whatever the model is for ranking. Obviously, the model itself can be adjusted if necessary. This eliminates any perceived long-term unfairness concerning strength of division, plus it should encourage a better overall conference cohesion.

    Using the 08/09 example again, here is how the hypothetical 2010/11 grouping would be established:
    1-Ohio State (14-2)
    4-Nebraska (11-5)
    5-Northwestern (10-6)
    8-Purdue (6-10)
    9-Minnesota (6-10)
    12-Indiana (2-14)

    2-Penn State (13-3)
    3-Iowa (11-5)
    6-Michigan State (10-6)
    7-Wisconsin (8-8)
    10-Illinois (5-11)
    11-Michigan (3-13)

    Rivalries, geography, time since last meeting, strength of non-group schedule, and other items can all be factored into the model.

    So, how do the groups get named? That’s easy. They get named by the two that most recently played in the Rose Bowl, provided that you keep them in different groups. Even the group names would change over time.

    All things considered, this seems like an equitable system. Your thoughts?

    Like

    • Bob in Houston says:

      Things change in two years, sometimes even one. Teams go up, teams go down. It’s really hard to engineer the results you think you expect. Just ask the ACC, which has hoping for a FSU-Miami championship game and hasn’t managed it yet.

      Like

      • Can't Get Enough says:

        This model does not attempt to engineer results or plan for the future. It takes a two-year survey and creates groups and schedules for only two years at a time. If a team goes into the crapper, this system reacts quickly enough to avoid a B12 situation.

        Like

    • zeek says:

      I think Delany will be smart enough to split up Michigan/OSU and then give them a guaranteed game versus one another.

      He doesn’t want a potential Big 12 North situation breaking out if Iowa or Wisconsin ever have down years.

      So I tend to agree with your post…

      Like

      • Bullet says:

        I don’t like the idea of Michigan/Ohio St. playing the last game of the season and then possibly playing again the next week. Michigan/Ohio St. need to be in the same division.

        Like

  94. duffman says:

    Here is a sporting news realignment for 2012

    http://www.sportingnews.com/college-football/article/2010-06-10/what-bcs-conferences-might-look-2012

    In this situation, football goes to the ACC to die. If football drives revenues some smart folks in the ACC must see the writing on the wall. I say make a bold first strike for Maryland while things are still fluid.

    Like

  95. Bamatab says:

    Since the Big 10 stuff appears to be slowing down now that UNL has joined, I figured I’d relay some of the rumors that I’ve seen on one of the Bama pay site forums. There has to be a 9 vote majority to accept a new member. According to the rumors, Slive’s initial plan was to offer aTm and FSU (which had apparently contacted Slive on their own when the expansion talk started) and then wait until the Big 10’s next set of moves before going to 16 since we probably wouldn’t be competing with them for very many of our remaining targets.

    That plan has hit unexpected resistance from 3 schools. UF was expected to put up some resistance, but UGA and Bama have both said that they would not vote for FSU because of recruiting reasons. Tenn and LSU are now backing Slive and trying to get the other schools to fall in line to get to 9 votes. Apparently they have 7 so far.

    The 3 schools that oppose FSU are trying to push Slive go after UNC, VT, and maybe Virg and Duke if they have to be paired with the other two. This vote may come down to South Carolina since they appear to have interest both for and against FSU coming.

    Now again, this is just a rumor that I picked up on a pay site forum, so take it with a grain of salt, but I figured I’d share it.

    Alan, I’m not sure if you’re a member of an LSU site, but if you are, are you hearing similar rumors or any other rumors coming from the LSU camp?

    Like

    • Hank says:

      interesting.

      fwiw I wonder if Va Tech wouldn’t be a good replacement for FSU to pair with TAMU. as to UNC and Duke I’ve seen those names mentioned for the Big Ten as possible targets and I just don’t see how either could be pried from the middle of the ACC solar system without the complete dissolution of the ACC around them. I would think they would be as core as Michigan and Ohio State in the Big Ten.

      has anyone clarified the reasons those three would vote against FSU? is it for just basic competitive recruiting advantage on the SEC stage or is FSU doing questionable things?

      Like

      • rich2 says:

        For me, Duke, UNC and/or Virginia joining the SEC would be almost as devastating a development as ND joining the Big Ten. Just my opinion.

        Like

    • duffman says:

      bama,

      thanks….

      if this is true we now know 2 things

      a) FSU could bolt

      b) UNC is a SEC target

      Like

      • Hank says:

        if the SEC gets UNC in play the Big Ten will definitely make a play

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          There is no way in hell that UNC would ever go to the SEC.

          Like

          • Hank says:

            yea but we’re just spinning hypotheticals

            Like

          • Bamatab says:

            There is one factor that maight play into the SEC’s favor. Supposedly UNC’s athletic department seems to be in a financial bind (although how that could be accurate with their basketball program, I don’t know). Now I don’t know if that will be the case once the new ACC tv contract kicks in. Plus the SEC offers stability that the ACC doesn’t right now. If the SEC picks off FSU, Clemson, and VT or GT, those are the best football schools in the ACC and would cause some unstability in that conference, especially if the Big 10 went after Maryland and Virginia.

            Like

          • Hank says:

            yes Bamatab losing those schools would destabilize the ACC. and if the SEC takes a big bite out of the ACC the Big Ten will be looking as well.

            but even so the ACC has survivable options. the core schools have always been basketball first. they could refocus in that direction and go after the Big East two sport schools like UConn, Syracuse and Pitt among others. they even have a shot at looking as far afield as Kansas.

            and the Big East is relatively defenseless. they have so many basketball only schools that they can never bring in enough football schools to allow that side of the conference to be proactive in this.

            Like

          • duffman says:

            hank,

            I think you make valid points but if the ACC gets stuck at the kids table what happens to the contract value. Football drives revenues, just ask Kansas. To survive in a conference without football value is different. Remember when Harvard / Yale was THE football game of the year! If not, does the ACC want to go back to being the “insignificant” sports conference it was before the ESPN contract came along in the late 70’s / early 80’s?

            Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      Bamatab – I’m a member of LSU’s Rivals site and there really isn’t anything other than just idle speculation. I have a couple friends on the LSU Bd of Supervisors and in the systems office. Everybody is on radio silence in Baton Rouge.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        Alan & Bama,

        how would the SEC feel if the adds were A&M / Va Tech?

        Like

        • Bamatab says:

          duffman,

          I think that adding aTm and VT would be a big win for the SEC. Opening up the Texas and DC markets would be a big win. Also, those two selections would give each a really good cross division rival since they both have the “cadet” programs. I think they only other school in the east that might be a more coveted school would be UNC, but I doubt that the SEC could get them unless it appeared that the ACC was in serious trouble.

          Like

  96. duffman says:

    Something to consider….

    UNC has a long history of success in the Directors Cup, aside from academics adding this little nugget to the SEC can not have escaped slive.

    Like

  97. jj says:

    All I know is that a TX NE rematch for B12 Championship this year will be awesome!

    Like

  98. duffman says:

    Hank,

    interesting theory, as the SEC goes with the same tact as it did in the last expansion (gain new markets and take lemons to make lemonade). If the SEC adds A&M + Va Tech (it gets into Texas and Virgina) and holds the last 2 spaces for Texas / UVA or UNC / NC state or UNC / Maryland type of play to get to 16. By taking in the “lesser” sisters to UT and UVA you have left a much greater play for your last 2 teams, without having to take OU or TT. It would make a bold statement for upping the academic ante.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      hank,

      sorry.. that was supposed to tie to your comment.

      Like

    • Hank says:

      yea. will make for a lot of interesting options.

      the battle for Texas may turn out to be just a case of a guy (Scott) with no other options being willing to pay sticker plus pay for fancy options. the battles for the mid Atlantic could turn into a real tussle between cagey operators.

      I do still find it hard to imagine the Core 4 in the ACC would go anywhere.

      Like

  99. TheBaron says:

    It is my understanding that Utah is in the PAC already; press conference TBA. It is my understanding that Chip’s source is full of it, floating trial balloons for scenarios that were never on the table. It is my understanding that well before this whole Chip Brown business broke, UU and CU were already gold and therefore Baylor and at least one more never had a chance in hell; it was all lies, posturing and Texas politics.

    When the Utah announcement is made next week, remember you read this and remember that Utah was always in, which proves Chip and/or his “unnamed sources” to be liars. We were all silly to believe the PAC was looking to take on multiple tier 3 universities in markets that would already be covered by other invitees just because of “politics”.

    This UT/Chip Brown business about bringing all of their friends to the party was just them trying to strong arm the PAC either because their sources were not in the loop that knew UU and CU were already in or because they were pissed about it and wanted to push at least UU out, if not CU too. The PAC didn’t bite. Wait and see. Utah will be in and Chip/his source will try to spin it to fit their little fantasy. Don’t buy it when they try to sell it.

    Like

    • gas1958 says:

      OK, if this is true–and I’m not disputing you–does this mean the P10 stops at 12, or waits until Texas (state and univ.) politics sorts itself out?

      Like

      • TheBaron says:

        I have no idea. I am not in any PAC loop. I only know that Chip and his source aren’t either, or else they are lying to everyone.

        Like

      • Hopkins Horn says:

        I’m disputing this.

        What are your sources? There are plenty of sources beyond Orangebloods reporting this on our end, including Oklahoma-based sources. Do you have any?

        For you to be correct requires (1) the Pac 10 to be jacking with Texas and three/four other schools just to get Utah; and/or (2) Texas to be jacking with several other schools just to make a last-second feint into the Big 10. And as much as some people here might be inclined to think ill of Texas, you have to admit that there’d be no need to stoop to this level of deceit to get what it wants.

        This doesn’t even begin to pass the smell test.

        Like

        • Paul says:

          Utah makes sense as a replacement for aTm, but would Texas even want to go to the Pac-16 without aTm? A big part of the allure of the Pac-16 was Texas keeping nearly all of its local rivals.

          I think the Pac-16 may be dead with aTm in the SEC. If that happens, then I think Texas will go to the SEC or Big Ten. Letting aTm have the SEC all to itself may be too much for Texas. Plus, the SEC would let Texas keep its local media rights.

          Like

          • TheBaron says:

            @Paul – I’m not saying Utah is a replacement for TAMU; I’m saying Utah was always in. Chip Brown has spun a mighty big ball of yarn since this all started. Forget everything you’ve read.

            Like

        • TheBaron says:

          Don’t shoot the messenger. Relax, wait and see. If I’ve been lied to, you will know next week. When Utah is announced, remember I told you this and accept that your sources were lying or lied to.

          I suspect pretty much the only “source” any of these Big 12 people have is Chip Brown and his “source”. It’s all emanating from there and people are running with it like he’s Larry Scott.

          Like

          • Hopkins Horn says:

            @TheBaron:

            I think you can rest assured at this stage of the game that the multiple newspapers throughout Texas and Oklahoma who are reporting this, in addition to national media like ESPN, are relying on more than merely taking a rivals.com reporter’s word for it.

            Like

          • Bullet says:

            I think you are totally off base about Utah, but you do have a point in your last paragraph. Chryst, former MAC commissioner, former SWC official, former ND player (lots of connections) said he would make 10 calls to see what was going on and the 10th would be the exact same info as the 1st. Info was circular, coming from just a few sources.

            Like

        • Hank says:

          just a question Hop but how many of those reports are just sourcing OrangeBlood who has been very active on the subject? we’ve all seen what passes for reporting at a lot of places. not taking a stance either way on this but so much of the media is just an echo chamber and when they start hearing the same thing repeated often enough by some accepted source they repeat it as well.

          Like

          • mnfanstc says:

            “…we’ve all seen what passes for reporting at a lot of places. not taking a stance either way on this but so much of the media is just an echo chamber and when they start hearing the same thing repeated often enough by some accepted source they repeat it as well.”

            Great insight, Hank. If a tale is spun long enough as truth, it will come to be believed as truth… See Global Warming…

            Like

        • eapg says:

          Well, sources are claimed by Orangebloods, like in Nebraska, which even you had to admit was a weak attempt at creating some deniability that this all isn’t coming from Texas, the logical place to be Chip’s one and only source. That Chip Brown tells some whoppers isn’t news to anyone at this point.

          What levels Texas would have to stoop to in order to actually be a free agent in this process is anyone’s guess.

          Like

          • eapg says:

            Above @ HH. I’m beginning to dislike wordpress.

            Like

          • eapg says:

            One other thing, is Chip Brown a respected former Dallas Morning News reporter with just tons of contacts, or is he just a rivals.com reporter? Consistency, please. There don’t have to be any sources other than DeLoss/Chip, and whether you want to believe it or not, Texas may have to extricate themselves from the fallout of an ill-considered gambit.

            Like

    • Vincent says:

      Utah in the Pac-10 would explain Boise State now going to the Mountain West. And I sense the Utes will partner with Colorado, Texas with Texas Tech and Oklahoma with Okie State.

      Next, A&M and Va. Tech go to the SEC. After that, who knows?

      Like

      • TheBaron says:

        When it comes to teams 13-16 and the likelihood of each, I am no more informed than anyone here. Maybe TT and OSU are on the table; maybe not. It’s all conjecture unless you’re Larry Scott. I do know that Chip’s sources are either liars or grossly misinformed. I have been informed Utah is in and always was; whether it’s a PAC-12 or a PAC-16.

        Like

  100. mushroomgod says:

    As a BT guy I’m starting to get a little concerned about the landscape here…..

    Assume the Pac 10 to 16 goes through, except A&M goes to SEC, being replaced by KU.

    Momentum is for ACC, BT, SEC to go to 16. That’s a total of 12 new teams. Where are they going to come from? Seems to me demand exceeds supply.

    As far as the Big 10 goes, under the above scenerio Mo. is the only “western” team still available to the Big 10.

    Seems to me Mo. might be a good partner to A&M, going to the SEC. If Bama, Ga, Fl. don’t want FSU because of recruiting concerns. Mo doesn’t threaten any SEC teams and its a new market. And it was a slave state so all is well.

    If Mo. and A&M do go to SEC, we’re down to 10 teams needed (ultimately) for the 3 big conferences. Big 10 possibilities might include RU, Pitt, Sya, U Conn, ND. Assuming MD can’t be pried from the ACC, which is very likely, the Big 10 will end up in a battle for those teams with the ACC. Meanwhile SEC has some nice possibilies for 15 and 16, including FSU, Clemson, and WV.

    I’m OK with making the futile run for MD, but it won’t happen. I hope we don’t go after GT or Vandy. So, ultimately, it seems like the Big 10 should end up with Mo, Pitt, and RU, and wait for ND. It seems to me that the BT can only lose out in the end by being slow on this………..

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Then wait. There’s no way the ACC can keep up with the Big Ten in the money race. With Nebraska alone, the Big Ten network should be able to comfortably outdistance the ACC per school in a few years.

      There’s no reason to just jump the shark and go to 16. That would be a mistake.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        zeek,

        now you are starting to see my predator vs prey argument.

        in the end, no matter what the ACC can do, it can not switch from predator to prey. I said once we hit 13 all bets are off, and the Pac 16 has crossed that line.

        Like

    • duffman says:

      shroom,

      now you see what has been bugging me all along, and my desire to strike for Maryland first! We have to think like the SEC and not like the Big 10 (in terms of what is the win for slive, and WVU and no longer what we want the SEC to get, because my gut says slive does not want WVU). If I am slive (SEC) I want WVU as much as the Big 10 wants Kansas. we have to put ourselves in slives shoes. “See the gopher, be the gopher”. WVU = Kansas (not on radar) and FSU = Missouri (somebody I can get whenever “I” feel like it). Think of Maryland / UNC / UVA the same way the Big 10 looks at Nebraska / Texas / ND. It seems real clear to me, but it seems like others are not looking at it this way for some reason.

      Like

      • Paul says:

        The SEC brand is exciting football. Maryland does not fit the SEC brand. Maryland seems more like a Big Ten team, with the emphasis on footprints and markets and academics.

        I think the SEC would rather have Miami, as an example, than Maryland. With the SEC, it’s all about ratings, and I can’t say that I disagree with the strategy.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          paul,

          think footprints and the last SEC expansion, UF already covers Florida. the last SEC adds were Arkansas and USC (new markets). New markets mean new rating, why do you think Texas is such a big deal? Texas has MANY “new” TV’s for the Pac 16 (and Big 10 / SEC).

          Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      1. There’s no momentum. We’ve all known the B10 endgame is 16 and they are at 12. The PAC-16 is a desperate move by a conference who finds itself backed in a corner with UW and UCLA still rebuilding and USC getting sanctioned while the PAC-10 is in a contract year. They’ll practically be two 8 team conferences with a scheduling and TV deal. Or at least that’s what I expect sold it to Stanford. No one else has any financial reason to go over 12. Heck, the Big East is going to have a hard time going over 9 without splitting from G-Town, ‘Nova, etc.

      2. Even if TAMU goes SEC, who’s to say the PAC’ll take KU over Utah? Sure, Texas will probably perfer KU, and it’s a better basketball team. But Utah’s much better for football. Plus, I’m sure if JD is as awesome as you Big Ten folks think, he’ll put a call in and get dibs on KU if he thinks its necessary.

      3. Have we yet seen anything indicating SEC interest in TAMU? We all assume it’s there, but there’s no more money coming in. Can the SEC get the votes for TAMU without UT? Will the SEC waive Vandy to the Big Ten for a spot for TAMU? Would the Big Ten take that deal?

      4. TAMU would definitely disrupt the balance of SEC power. Bama-Auburn are the easternmost SEC-W schools. The addition of another school in the West likely means moving one over. Another western school means moving both. I doubt that the UF-UGa-Tenn triumvirate is real excited about that possibility. I wonder if UA and AU are any more excited about it.

      5. Even with that, the Big Ten still has big guns in their arsenal: BTN, equal revenue sharing, and the CIC. If they are looking to get any school outside of ND that’s a hard combo to say no to.

      Like

      • duffman says:

        FLP,

        1) I agree the B 10 endgame is 16, which means the SEC and Pac will be at 16 as well.

        2) I agree but once the Pac has UT do they care?

        3) The A&M + Va Tech things has me thinking.

        4) In a chess match between delany and slive, and a A&M + Va Tech balances East and West.

        5) I agree, which is why I would like to see slive to strike for Maryland!

        Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          4. Good point. Can’t believe I missed that.

          There’s a lot of apparent deadweight in the current SEC. The Mississippi schools, Arkansas, Vandy, S.Car., and UK (football). I wonder if the SEC is as solid as we assume it is. Might it not be in the best interest of a majority of the schools to start kicking out squads to make room? Again, I don’t see more profit from 16 than 12. I doubt it’s feasible, but each member school has to look out for #1 first.

          5. It would be a great move if they could pull it off.

          Like

      • zeek says:

        I agree with FLP_NDRox on all points.

        Ignoring ND for the moment; none of the ACC schools value independence or anything like that.

        The Big Ten can wait as long as it needs to for schools like Maryland/Va to become available.

        The Big Ten’s money streams will continue to outpace the ACC and as the contract renegotiations come up, that distance will once again become $10M+ per school.

        How are those schools going to be able to turn that down eventually?

        I think our next expansion will look more like Arkansas/South Carolina where we add two teams for markets that fit.

        ND if it ever does come, would be #15 or 16 in that scenario. If they and everyone else know that 12 is just a stepping stone to 16, then why join now or at 13 or 14?

        So, I think the Big Ten is going to look hard at markets that make sense.

        And of course, the Big Ten can outwait the Big East and hope at the same time that Rutgers continues to try to improve its profile, increase size of stadium, etc.

        Like

        • ezdozen says:

          I think that the Big 10 has played round 1, and that it is up to the other conferences to play round 2.

          Missouri may still be a target of the Big 10, but it is not in the position to be dictating the timeline. Missouri and Kansas have no other options (MWC maybe, but how is that better than the Big 12, which was not good enough to prevent a Big 10 defection). If that is what the Big 10 ends up doing at the end just to reach 16 teams, so be it.

          It is at this point that everyone will jump in and say that the Big 10 is not going to expand to 16 just to get 16 teams. However, isn’t that the assumption with respect to all the other conferences??? If the P10 and B10 go to 16 teams, the assumption is that the SEC and ACC would necessarily follow. However, why wouldn’t it work in reverse? If anything, I would think that the Big 10 is in the best position to “expand for the sake of expansion” because their network allows for revenue flexibility, whereas contracts with ESPN would have to be renegotiated before an increase in revenue occurs. But I digress. Merely pointing out that Kansas and Missouri are end of game additions due to lack of other options.

          The ACC and Big East present the schools with options.

          If the SEC penetrates the ACC somehow, that frees up schools for the Big 10 that are preferable, I would think, to the Big East schools.

          If the SEC does not break up the ACC, then the Big 10 can try to do so or it can select the Big East schools in nice markets. Granted the Northeast is not growth area demographically, but I don’t see New York state leaving top 5 status in population. 19 million people is 19 million people. If Syracuse/Rutgers can add that market, and I think that they can if they are added together (separately, I am skeptical), then that’s a HUGE market (add in NJ too). If this is about money, NY/NYC/NJ is, and will be for a long time, a mega source of revenue.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            ez,

            while i see your argument, as soon as the Big 10 raids the BE, ND joins the ACC and the Big 10 has just wasted valuable picks (remember only 4) for schools they are not super excited about getting.

            Like

      • Bullet says:

        Auburn has a lot of ties to the east and wanted to be in the east at one point. Problem is Alabama then has 2 must play games in the east-Auburn, TN.

        Like

      • Geauxbucks says:

        Has anyone considered that Oklahoma is also considering SEC, especially if A&M goes. I also see SEC looking east to Clemson, VA Tech, Miami or FSU (any of those 2).

        Big Ten needs SEC to raid ACC. That way ACC raids Big Least and forces ND’s hand. It also puts more pressure on UT to come along for the ultimate conference with OSU, PSU , Mich, Neb, ND etc.

        Like

        • ezdozen says:

          Ummm…. 1,000 posts every 24 hours here.

          It’s come up before.

          Like

          • duffman says:

            geauxbucks,

            they both need to raid the ACC

            getting hit from both sides implodes the ACC (see also current Big 12 implosion). when thinking SEC expansion the smart move is to go for new markets, not double up where you already rule. UF, UGA, and USC penetrate their states for SEC control.

            Like

        • Richard says:

          OU will go where Texas goes. The battle will be on the other side, where the Big10 & SEC are going to make overtures to ACC schools.

          Like

  101. M says:

    Lol I missed the new thread in the overflow of emails. I thought it was weird this morning to have an empty inbox.

    Like

  102. Badgerholic says:

    PBC has apparently been blocked from posting any updates on his thread on Northwestern’s board. Apparently he’s going into a “silent phase” like the B10 did. I suggested he post his updates here instead (would WordPress’ servers explode) but doubt it’ll happen. Either way I’ll be checking in religiously.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      badger,

      I am looking at PBC and OB as follows….

      a) OB – texas spin

      b) PBC – Big 10 spin

      and will treat each accordingly!

      Like

      • Hank says:

        with the exception that in PBC you actually get an idea of who is talking. OB just denies certain things are even happening. for example early last week PBC insisted theat the Big Ten and Texas were talking and OB saif they weren’t. which is more likely. all spin aside it is clear there were talks and there are at least some in Texas who want to consider the Big Ten.

        also I posted earlier in the week that I had a contact at Colorado. I understand you can take my credibility fwiw but my contact absolutely has significant contact at Colorado. I know that for a fact. I absolutely believe he has contact to the person he said he was. that person absolutely confirmed that there were talks, nothing was decided and talks were very tense. and this person would know. he didn’t have any idea how it would resolve at that point so didn’t share PBC predictions. but its worth noting at that time he was already officially a Pac xx guy so he would have every reason to root for Texas to the pac xx.

        Like

    • Hank says:

      if you don’t mind my asking where you hearing this? I may have missed it on his board.

      Like

    • Hank says:

      Badgerholic,

      it appears he’s been blocked from new posts but can update old post so look at his original post. nothing new this morning however, just ragging on Iowa.

      Like

  103. rich2 says:

    A poster on another thread made an excellent point which I will paraphrase: “assume your “enemy” will take a step that you don’t want them to take rather than the step that makes your life easier.” In this context, the SEC expanding by taking Texas A&M is an excellent move — does A&M “carry” Texas — no, but A&M does provide a healthy slice of viewers. Would Virginia Tech “carry” Washington D.C. — but does MD carry D.C. easier? It expands the SEC into more excellent markets and deepens its recruiting base in excellent recruiting areas — Virginia and Texas.

    A&M, FSU and VT are strategically canny moves for the SEC if they decide to expand.

    Like

    • duffman says:

      rich2,

      now you see why I have been driving the Maryland bus, as it strikes back at just such an SEC move. If the SEC gets A&M and Va Tech, they can hold out for UVA / UNC type play, or take FSU / Ga Tech but it puts them in control NOT the Big 10 to make such a play.

      Like

      • gas1958 says:

        You guys have finally convinced me about MD being a logical candidate for the B10. Maybe zeek is correct that a combination of MD and Rutgers/Pitt is much more than a holding action until we see what ND does.

        Like

      • Richard says:

        If the SEC manages to convince VTech to defect, I can’t see the Big10 _not_ making a strong play for both Maryland & Virginia.

        This, of course, will set the table for the battles in the next round of expansion: The battle for NC, the battle for Florida, and the battle for Georgia (nobody cares about SC), all between the Big10 & SEC.

        Like

        • duffman says:

          I think the battle is going to be for states where the Big 10 and SEC can open new domination. The battleground will be MD, NC, and VA – the SEC already has FL, GA, and SC.

          Like

      • BuckeyeBeau says:

        Here are additional reasons why MD is a terrible choice and NOT getting an invite:

        1. B10 has no interest in destabilizing the ACC; doing so only makes it easier for SEC to expand; indeed, destabilizing the ACC may even push/necessitate that the SEC expand and that is not desired by the B10. Taking MD destabilizes the ACC. No invite.

        2. The evidence — actual evidence — of what the B10 Presidents want is this (based on who they actually have invited in the last 20 years): a football power with high academic credentials (not exceptional or top 25 but 90th percentile “high”); this suggests that football is a huge part of this decision. MD is a horrible football team/school. No invite.

        3. Delaney is a master at publicity and he is only publicizng the “real” candidates. So far, he “vetted” the choices long in advance of actually getting anywhere close to inviting. Rutgers and Mizzu and Pitt and ND and the TX pair have been the constant candidates in the B10 rumor mill. (and Delaney IS feeding the B10 rumor mill; he’s just better at it than BXII/Chip Brown).

        When we all first heard of Rutgers, we were all like: “Rutgers?!? WTF?!?” Now we are “informed, and therefore, reformed” and Rutgers “makes sense.” No such “ad campaign” for MD; ergo: no invite. Side note: the ND and NEBs and TXs do not need ad campaigns; however Rutgers, Mizzu and certainly MD do need ad campaigns. No ad campaign for MD = not a finalist.

        Now maybe this blog is the leading edge of that publicity campaign ….

        Like

        • duffman says:

          BB,

          yes, except Nebraska was never vetted in the original 5, I am looking for other schools that might fit – but were NOT in the original 5.

          Like

  104. Sufjan says:

    With all the talk of Virginia Tech, Maryland, Virginia, Syracuse, and Rutgers, I’m curious why Missouri has been cast aside. I understand that they were one of the first rumored schools, and at this point in the game their name has been tarnished from the whole process. The above schools have slight (Rutgers) to large (Virginia) edges on Mizzou in academics, but as we saw with the Nebraska choice, academics clearly aren’t everything. Mizzou and Nebraska are very similar in that regard.

    When it comes to athletics, NU obviously has a huge football brand and national following, so I totally understand the selection. However, compared to the other schools in discussion, MU’s athletics look excellent.

    Average of 10 wins a season over last 3 football seasons.

    Ranked #1 in the country in football as recently as a couple seasons ago.

    A large number of NFL draft picks, far more than any of the other schools discussed.

    4 NCAA tournament wins in last 2 seasons.

    2 Elite Eight appearances in last 8 seasons.

    Big 12 basketball tournament champions 2 seasons ago.

    Large football stadium, averaged 64k last year in somewhat of a disappointing season.

    What am I missing folks?

    Like

    • duffman says:

      the markets and academics in the east.

      Like

    • ezdozen says:

      As in my post above, I think the issue is that Missouri is no longer in a position to call the shots (if it ever was). The Big 10 can work on the Big East/ACC… and always come back to Missouri.

      If the SEC stands pat and the ACC stands pat without having defections, Missouri could end up back in the mix.

      Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I’m not sure why all the Mo hatred on this board; as to the BT presidents, I think academics are the big issue; if MO were added now Mo and Neb would be the two lowest ranked BT schools…………..

      Like

  105. M says: