311 replies to this topic

[20Safety_Hazards]

BIG TEN
2011: Gaining Nebraska
2014: Gaining Maryland, Rutgers


SEC
2012: Gaining Texas A&M, Missouri

ACC
2012: Gaining Pitt, Syracuse
2014: Losing Maryland, Gaining Louisville

BIG XII
2011: Losing Nebraska, Colorado
2012: Losing Missouri, Texas A&M, Gaining TCU, West Virginia

MOUNTAIN WEST
2011: Losing BYU, Gaining Boise State,
2012: Losing TCU, Utah, Gaining Fresno State, Hawaii and Nevada
2013: Losing San Diego St, Boise State; Gaining Utah State and San Jose State

PAC-10
2012: Gaining Colorado, Utah

Big East
2012: Gaining TCU, Gaining Temple, Losing Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia
2013: Gaining Boise State, SMU, Houston, UCF, San Diego St, Memphis
2014: Losing Rutgers and Louisville, Gaining ECU and Tulane
2015: Navy

WAC
2011: Losing Boise State
2012: Losing Fresno State and Nevada
2013: Losing Utah State and San Jose State

Conference USA
2013: Losing SMU, Houston, UCF, Memphis, Gaining Charlotte (not for football until 2015), Florida International, Louisiana Tech, North Texas and UT-San Antonio
2014: Losing Tulane and ECU, Gaining Old Dominion, Florida Atlantic and Middle Tennessee State

INDEPENDENTS
2011: Gaining BYU

=============================


EDIT: This thread has been changed from Hypothetical to Rumor Central given the events of the last 24 hours.
As of Now. Texas and Texas A&M are in discussions of whether to stay or leave. A&M has been talking to the SEC, the PAC 10 are rumored to have made offers to Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, OSU and Oklahoma to join Colorado in the PAC 16. Florida State, WVU and GT may or may not have offers from the SEC.

Things are getting Crazy. Below is the original post about ESPN's hypothetical power conferences.


Friday on College Football Live, the analysts threw out a hypothetical scenario based off the rumors of the Big 10 expanding to 16 teams. This is what they came up with.

Mega Conference Big 10
The Originals: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Adding: Notre Dame, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Nebraska

Mega Conference SEC
The Originals: Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Adding: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas AM

Mega Conference Pac-10
The Originals: Arizona, Arizona St, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State
Adding: Colorado, Utah, BYU, TCU, Kansas, Kansas State

Mega Conference ACC
The Originals: Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Miami, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Adding: Connecticut, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida

Clearly in this Hypothetical the Big Winner would be either the SEC (adding Texas and OU) or The Big Ten netting the biggest fish (ND). The Obvious loser of the four is the ACC.

Also, teams not picked up by the power conferences in this hypothetical: Cincinnati, Baylor, Boise State, Texas Tech, Louisville, Iowa State, Fresno State, Houston, Memphis, San Diego State and Wyoming.

My link

[Moral Al Iddy]

Yeah, not bad, though one could make a few or alot of changes here and there.   I think that is the way things are going, and I wish they would, as it would incorporate into the current system a possible plus one playoff system, which would maybe tone down the media and fan whining about a legitimate championship.  Teams could play the 7 teams in their conference division every season and have 5 more games to play around with .  Then for the 13th game they could have a conference championship.  Then with 4 conference champions, the people who want to put everything to a vote, could vote them as seeds 1,2,3,4.  Then a couple of weeks past the end of the regular season, 1 can play 4, and 2 can play 3 to  kick off the Bowl Season.  Then they can run the money-making Bowl season, and have the Semi-Finals winners meet in the BCS Championship Game at the Regular Time.

Alot of those teams listed as excluded were not really Major Conference teams any way, and they could put a few into a re-configured Mountain West , to go with the WAC, the MAC, and Conference USA.  I think that's all, but somebody else can look and see and figure how to re-configure those minor conferences, or maybe they can join the FCS for a really big FDS National Championship Playoff.     That might be better than theoretically having all current  BDS schools theoretically competing for the National Championship, even if they are Toledo, or Dayton, or like that.

[RUEagle]

College Football needs a massive overhaul.  The conferences/scheduling are a complete mess.  The BCS is a disaster.  And hell, it's still entertaining to watch.  I hope they change things up soon.

[Iggles_Phan]

Friday on College Football Live, the analysts threw out a hypothetical scenario based off the rumors of the Big 10 expanding to 16 teams. This is what they came up with.

Mega Conference Big 10
The Originals: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Wisconsin
Adding: Notre Dame, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Nebraska

Mega Conference SEC
The Originals: Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt
Adding: Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas, Texas AM

Mega Conference Pac-10
The Originals: Arizona, Arizona St, California, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington State
Adding: Colorado, Utah, BYU, TCU, Kansas, Kansas State

Mega Conference ACC
The Originals: Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Miami, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Adding: Connecticut, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida

Clearly in this Hypothetical the Big Winner would be either the SEC (adding Texas and OU) or The Big Ten netting the biggest fish (ND). The Obvious loser of the four is the ACC.

Also, teams not picked up by the power conferences in this hypothetical: Cincinnati, Baylor, Boise State, Texas Tech, Louisville, Iowa State, Fresno State, Houston, Memphis, San Diego State and Wyoming.

Link

Fully realizing that this is not your scenario, I see it a little differently, considering that this is all based on the Big 10's expansion.


If I was the Big 10, I would be going for the biggest fish I could capture - ND and Texas.  Everybody else would just be to fill out the 16 team set-up.  Now, while adding the Big East's Pitt and Syracuse makes sense from a basketball perspective (and by weakening the Big East basketball, might force the hand of ND), the economics would be much better for the Big 10 to try to snare UT and Oklahoma in place of Pitt and Syracuse.  Adding Pitt doesn't increase the spread of the Big 10 network, but adding UT would add a HUGE market to the network, and adding Oklahoma as well would preserve that classic rivalry, as well open up that market too.  Getting Texas would be a bigger deal than the state of NY by adding Syracuse.  And Texas and Oklahoma have a much stronger football program than either Pitt or Syracuse (as well as big money followings), and Texas' basketball program rivals either Pitt or Syracuse.  




Maybe I'm a Big 10 homer, but I would prefer to see that setup than the one proposed.


I think this divisional breakdown would keep a pretty even balance of power - or at least much better than the Big 12's recent history!


Big "10" North - Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan St., Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Penn State, Indiana

Big "10" South - Texas, Oklahoma, Notre Dame, Iowa, Northwestern, Missouri, Nebraska, Purdue

[runDMCnabb]

Texas is a bigger fish than ND if you're talking $$$

[weaponx1]

Texas is a bigger fish than ND if you're talking $$$

I hate ND.  But that statement is ridiculous.

[Rodney_Zero]

Mega Conference ACC
The Originals: Boston College, Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, Miami, NC State, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest
Adding: Connecticut, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida

F' that, I would rather go to the SEC

[killdawabbit]

I hate ND.  But that statement is ridiculous.

Actually, it's not. While ND has arguably the largest national following in college football, it does literally nothing to add to the Big Ten Network footprint. Texas adds a huge media market and that = cash. Realize that the shares from the BTN per team in the conference already eclipse the money ND makes from it's own TV deal. Not to mention Texas being one of the most valuable athletic deparments in the country. Texas would, without a doubt, result in more total income for the Big Ten than Notre Dame.

[TN_EAGLE_FAN]

sec doesn't want south florida...sorry

[20Safety_Hazards]

sec doesn't want south florida...sorry

Who does

[Rodney_Zero]

sec doesn't want south florida...sorry

Who does

For a program that has been around less than 20 years, ranked #2 in polls, sending very good talent to the NFL, and is located in the best recruiting state in the nation There's no reason to not want them. We beat FSU last year , even though they where not 80's and 90's FSU style, we play UF this year so who knows,.

I just don't want to go into the ACC

[jrsu37]

For a program that has been around less than 20 years, ranked #2 in polls, sending very good talent to the NFL, and is located in the best recruiting state in the nation There's no reason to not want them. We beat FSU last year , even though they where not 80's and 90's FSU style, we play UF this year so who knows,.

I just don't want to go into the ACC

Mike Ford is going to be the business next year!!!

207yrds in the Bowl game?

I follow him because he originally signed at Bama but couldn't qualify and get in.

South Florida has a few players like this and it's one of the reasons for their success...I wonder if this is playing a role in them not being courted by conferences? Esp the SEC...They have enough questionable recruiting alums as it is.

Not saying they are dirty Rodney just something I've thought about.

[philly_phan74]

This is how I would do Postseason

So each Conference has their own Championship game.

Big Ten- North Conf
ACC- East Conf
SEC- South Conf
PAC- West COnf

4 winners are to recieve byes for First round.

That Leaves 4 playoff games( 8 spots) to find 4 oppents for the winners of Each Mega Conference.

Either award  the 8 spots to smaller conference winners, big east, big 12, conf usa, wac, mac and maybe mixture of at large or give 8 spots to highest ranked teams at that time that are not one of the big 4. Find National Champions  thru playoffs with losing teams accepting bowl bids.

This would tac on two weeks of games after Championship week.

I was against Neb in the Big Ten but looking at the maps it really isn't that bad of travel. Syracuse and Neb would be the two farthest schools from each other.

[Iggles_Phan]

This is how I would do Postseason

So each Conference has their own Championship game.

Big Ten- North Conf
ACC- East Conf
SEC- South Conf
PAC- West COnf

4 winners are to recieve byes for First round.

That Leaves 4 playoff games( 8 spots) to find 4 oppents for the winners of Each Mega Conference.

Either award  the 8 spots to smaller conference winners, big east, big 12, conf usa, wac, mac and maybe mixture of at large or give 8 spots to highest ranked teams at that time that are not one of the big 4. Find National Champions  thru playoffs with losing teams accepting bowl bids.

This would tac on two weeks of games after Championship week.

I was against Neb in the Big Ten but looking at the maps it really isn't that bad of travel. Syracuse and Neb would be the two farthest schools from each other.

I like the idea of your playoff.  It would really take anything away from the bowl season.  Afterall, all the bowls except the NC game are "meaningless" anyway.  


Your comment about travel being a concern is ridiculous at this point.  Back when teams would travel by train it was a huge concern, but today the teams travel by plane a lot of the time, and flying an extra 30 to 90 minutes isn't really a big deal, especially if the dollars difference is big enough!  Trying to keep the conferences geographical are nice in theory, but denies the reality of college football today which is that it is a huge business and that the colleges align themselves in the way that benefits them the most financially and to a lesser degree academically.  The Big 10, I'm sure, is more concerned with how a school will impact their bottom line and their academic network much more than how long a commute it will be for various teams to travel once a year for a conference game.  Secondly, once the conference is set-up, they establish two divisions and then teams can be aligned more geographically to minimize travel, and teams from different conferences could meet on a rotating basis (they can't all play each other every year, with a 16 team conference) to minimize the frequency of long commutes in football.

[ShakeThatMonkey]

I like the idea of your playoff.  It would really take anything away from the bowl season.  Afterall, all the bowls except the NC game are "meaningless" anyway.  


Your comment about travel being a concern is ridiculous at this point.  Back when teams would travel by train it was a huge concern, but today the teams travel by plane a lot of the time, and flying an extra 30 to 90 minutes isn't really a big deal, especially if the dollars difference is big enough!  Trying to keep the conferences geographical are nice in theory, but denies the reality of college football today which is that it is a huge business and that the colleges align themselves in the way that benefits them the most financially and to a lesser degree academically.  The Big 10, I'm sure, is more concerned with how a school will impact their bottom line and their academic network much more than how long a commute it will be for various teams to travel once a year for a conference game.  Secondly, once the conference is set-up, they establish two divisions and then teams can be aligned more geographically to minimize travel, and teams from different conferences could meet on a rotating basis (they can't all play each other every year, with a 16 team conference) to minimize the frequency of long commutes in football.

nice post as usual Iggles_Phan

[Iggles_Phan]

Texas is a bigger fish than ND if you're talking $$$

I hate ND.  But that statement is ridiculous.

Actually, it's not. While ND has arguably the largest national following in college football, it does literally nothing to add to the Big Ten Network footprint. Texas adds a huge media market and that = cash. Realize that the shares from the BTN per team in the conference already eclipse the money ND makes from it's own TV deal. Not to mention Texas being one of the most valuable athletic deparments in the country. Texas would, without a doubt, result in more total income for the Big Ten than Notre Dame.

If you didn't read the article linked below, you should.  It explains the MONEY involved in this whole deal.  And that is the #1 motivator for this move.   The very end of the article is the most relevant....I will quote that section below.  Look at the money the Big Ten schools are raking in.  They aren't going to add teams that cut into their share.  They are going to add teams that are going to EXPAND their base so that each team makes MORE as a result.  Adding Texas is the only team that would have that drastic an effect.  Notre Dame doesn't increase the footprint of the Big Ten Network.  Texas increases the population base by 1/3!



Big 10 Expansion article.

C. The Only Real Choices

NOTRE DAME
Academics: 25
TV Value: 25
Football Brand Value: 30
Basketball Brand Value: 5
Historic Rivalries/Cultural Fit: 5
Mutual Interest: 1
Total: 91
Overview: It’s pretty simple as of today – if Notre Dame wants to join the Big Ten, then it’s in. The national fan base of its football program is unparalleled and, frankly, it would propel the conference into East Coast markets such as New York better than pretty much any school that’s actually located on the East Coast.

Of course, it’s easy to see what’s in it for the Big Ten. However, the issue has always been about what’s in it for Notre Dame. While I personally believe that Notre Dame will continue with its current stance in favor of independence, the college sports financial landscape has drastically changed since the Fighting Irish rejected a Big Ten invite in the late-1990s. What the average sports fan doesn’t realize is that Notre Dame’s NBC contract, which is what the uninformed pundits point to as the major reason why the Irish wouldn’t join the conference, pales in comparison to what every single Big Ten and SEC school makes from their respective conference TV contracts. Notre Dame reportedly makes around $9 million per year from NBC, which was a level that made it the top TV revenue school back in 1999. In contrast, ESPN’s Outside the Lines reported last week that the Big Ten is currently making $242 million per year in TV revenue which is split equally among the 11 schools, meaning that everyone from Michigan to Northwestern is taking in $22 million per year. Think about that for a second: the vaunted Notre Dame was the #1 TV revenue maker in the entire country up until just a few years ago, yet it’s now only #3 in its own home state behind Purdue and Indiana (and less than half as much of each, at that).

How did this happen? It’s the fact that the TV landscape has tipped completely in favor of cable over the past decade. Cable channels have a dual revenue stream, where they make a certain amount of money for each subscriber it has every month plus advertising on top of that. In contrast, over-the-air networks can only rely on advertising. For instance, about $3 of your monthly cable bill goes to ESPN whether or not you watch it. ESPN is in over 100 million households, which means that it’s making $300 million per month and $3.6 billion per year in subscriber fee revenue… and that’s before the network sells a single ad… and that’s not counting its revenue from ESPN2, ESPNEWS, ESPNU and ESPN Classic. As a result, ESPN is the single most profitable entity in the entire Disney empire, which is why the network can afford to pay much more for high profile sports events such as Monday Night Football (note that ESPN is paying almost twice as much for MNF as NBC is for a better flex option slate of Sunday Night Football) and the BCS bowls than the traditional TV networks. When Comcast bought NBC Universal last month, the main prize was the stable of profitable cable channels such as CNBC, MSNBC and Bravo. In contrast, NBC itself is bleeding over several hundred million dollars per year in losses and is the main reason why General Electric wanted to sell the entertainment unit in the first place.

While the Big Ten has ensured that its top tier games continue to be shown on ABC for football and CBS for basketball, it has taken advantage of the sports landscape by securing massive cable revenue for its second tier games on ESPN and its own Big Ten Network. The SEC has done the same via its own wide-ranging media rights deal with ESPN. Notre Dame’s issue is that it’s almost impossible for it to take advantage of these financial changes by being outside of a conference unless it moves all or most of its games to cable (i.e. Versus, which is now a sister company to NBC in the new Comcast conglomerate), which defeats the main advantage of having an independent TV contract in the first place (nationwide over-the-air NBC coverage whether you have cable or just rabbit ears). As a result, independence has turned from Notre Dame’s greatest financial asset into possibly its greatest long-term financial liability.

Therefore, the "Notre Dame makes way too much money as an independent with the NBC contract to ever join a conference� argument is simply not true anymore. For the first time in a century, it may very well be in the rational economic interest of Notre Dame to join the Big Ten. The academics and faculty in South Bend already strongly supported a move to the Big Ten in the 1990s because of the CIC research opportunities and now the financial people might be on board. Of course, this type of logic doesn’t necessarily apply to Notre Dame alums (no offense intended for the Irish fan readers of this blog – I sincerely mean it in a positive way that describes the special passion that alums have for the school) – it’s "independence or die� for them. As I’ve thought about this issue more, this longstanding mentality might actually be as much of a roadblock for the Big Ten as it is for Notre Dame. On one side of the ledger, you have school that has spent most of its history protecting itself and profiting from independence. On the other side, you have the nation’s oldest collegiate conference where most of its members have dealt with each other for over 100 years, share everything equally and have a legitimate "all for one and one for all� mentality. Ohio State truly understands that what’s best for the Big Ten overall is best for Ohio State individually. Could Notre Dame ever adopt that type of worldview? It might be impossible, which could lead to a lot of heartburn down the road.

As a result, it would behoove the Big Ten to look toward another powerhouse university where there appears to be much more mutual interest than the pundits are generally acknowledging. This is a school that the Big Ten could add as a 12th member and unequivocally never think about Notre Dame again…

TEXAS
Academics: 25
TV Value: 25
Football Brand Value: 30
Basketball Brand Value: 10
Historic Rivalries/Cultural Fit: 3
Mutual Interest: 3
Total: 96
Overview: You’re not seeing a misprint – the University of Texas-Austin is the single best possible addition for the Big Ten and the Longhorns are a whole lot more open to it than what the public seems to realize. The average sports fan that has been raised to view college conferences in a regional geographic context probably believes the notion of Texas going to the Big Ten is weird, crazy, upsetting and will never happen. However, as I stated under the Notre Dame overview, the college sports landscape has completely changed from a decade ago where national TV contracts and cable channel distribution now rule the day.

Putting aside any geographic concerns for the moment, Texas is a perfect fit in almost every possible way from the Big Ten’s perspective. The academics are top notch where Texas is one of the nation’s top 15 public universities in the latest U.S. News rankings and its graduate programs are right alongside Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin as among the elite for public flagships. The football program in Austin was just ranked as the most valuable in all of college football by Forbes magazine (#2 is… Notre Dame) and, unlike Nebraska, the Texas basketball program is playing at an elite level, as well. As I’m writing this blog post, both the Texas football and basketball teams are ranked #2 in the country. At the non-revenue sport level, Texas would completely put Big Ten baseball back on the map. Finally, the value of the Big Ten’s traditional TV deals and Big Ten Network revenue would skyrocket with the addition of the #5 (Dallas-Fort Worth) and #10 (Houston) TV markets in the nation plus the entire state of Texas (the country’s 2nd most populous after California). While it’s questionable whether Syracuse or Rutgers could really break the Big Ten into the New York area, there’s absolutely no doubt that Texas would deliver the Big Ten Network to every single cable household in the Lone Star State. The market impact is incredible – the Big Ten, which already has the largest population base of any conference, would further increase such base by over 1/3 with Texas to over 90 million people. When you start thinking about Texas as a possible Big Ten candidate, the thought of inviting Missouri, Syracuse or Rutgers feels like a inconsequential move.

It’s clear why the Big Ten would want Texas. So, why on Earth would Texas want to join the Big Ten? Well, the financial implications are massive. As I stated earlier, the Big Ten receives $242 million per year in TV revenue to split evenly among its 11 members, which comes out to $22 million per year for every single school. In contrast, the Big 12 receives $78 million per year in TV revenue that is split unevenly among its 12 members based on national TV appearances. That comes out to $6.5 million per year for the average Big 12 school. Even Texas, which is a beneficiary of the Big 12′s unequal revenue distribution model since it receives a large number of TV appearances, received only about $12 million in TV revenue last season according the interview with Missouri’s AD that I linked to earlier. In other words, every single Big Ten school makes $10 million per year more than Texas does on TV revenue whether such school is on ABC 12 times or the Big Ten Network 12 times. Remember that the $10 million difference is more than what Notre Dame receives from its vaunted NBC contract. If Texas were to simply bring enough to the Big Ten to maintain the status quo of per school revenue, that would be an 83% jump in TV revenue for the Longhorns immediately off the bat. Considering that the addition of Lone Star households to the Big Ten Network’s distribution would yield an even greater increase in revenue, Texas would easily see in excess of a two-fold increase and maybe even close to a three-fold increase in TV revenue whether it wins or loses.

The average sports fan will look at those numbers and retort, "It’s not all about the money. It’s about rivalries and the passion.� That’s a fair enough point. However, consider that Texas has only been in the Big 12 for 15 years, compared to the original Big 8 members like Nebraska and Oklahoma that have been together for nearly a century. Texas cares about playing Oklahoma (which was a non-conference rivalry for decades up until the formation of the Big 12 in 1994) and Texas A&M. After those two schools, the general consensus among Texas fans is that they could care less about Texas Tech, Baylor and virtually everyone from the Big 12 North (who are all old Big 8 members). Similar to how most of the schools in the East (particularly Big East schools) consider Penn State to be a rival yet the Nittany Lions don’t reciprocate that feeling, all of the Southwestern schools think of Texas as their main rival while the Longhorns simply don’t care about them. Also note that outside of the states of Texas and Colorado, the Big 12 is a decidedly Midwestern conference, only those Midwestern states pale in population size compared to the Big Ten’s Midwestern base. What this means is that the Texas ties to the Big 12 are fairly loose and not ironclad at all in terms of history while the geographic factor really isn’t that important considering how many Big 12 schools are in the Midwest. If Texas maintains its rivalries with Oklahoma and Texas A&M in the non-conference schedule, the Longhorns keep their two most important regional rivalries alive while opening themselves up to the entire nation during the conference schedule.

Speaking in terms that the average sports fan in Texas ought to understand, think of the Dallas Cowboys. When the NFL realigned its divisions in the 1990s, it strongly considered moving the Cowboys to the NFC West. It made geographic sense and, at the time, the Cowboys were in the middle of its run of great games against the San Francisco 49ers, so there was some emotional juice that could’ve been taken to a higher level with those teams in the same division. However, Jerry Jones completely insisted that the Cowboys stay in the geographically-challenged NFC East. Why? Because the Cowboys wouldn’t be able to continue being "America’s Team� by playing teams in the South and West Coast. In order to obtain a national fan base, you need to play in the major markets in the East. If Texas were to move to the Big Ten, it would break out from being a school with a strong regional fan base into one that could be the equivalent of the NFL Cowboys with a national fan base by playing in a disproportionate share of the largest markets in the country located East of the Mississippi River.

Academics are also an extremely important selling point for Texas. The issue with the academic standards in the Big 12 is that there are no academic standards in the Big 12. Texas is the highest ranked Big 12 school in the U.S. News rankings tied at #47 (the Big Ten schools ahead or tied are #12 Northwestern, #27 Michigan, #39 Illinois, #39 Wisconsin and #47 Penn State) while every single other school in the Big 12 except for #61 Texas A&M is ranked lower than every other Big Ten school (the lowest ranked are Indiana, Michigan State and Iowa tied at #71). No one else in the Big 12 comes even close to the academic research abilities of Texas. The potential entry of Texas into the Big Ten would include membership in the CIC, which opens up a whole new level of academic research opportunities for the school that simply doesn’t exist in the Big 12. The first general rule that I mentioned about discussing Big Ten expansion was that people need to think like a university president as opposed to a sports fan. If moving to another conference would (1) make more money for the athletic department AND (2) improve the academic standing of the university, you’ve made quite a powerful argument to the Texas university president.

Finally, there’s a CYA aspect to all of this for Texas. Please take a look at this discussion about expansion options on Barking Carnival, which is my favorite Texas blog. I was shocked to find very few "BIG TEN FOOTBALL SUX�-type comments and instead saw a whole lot of consternation about the long-term viability of the Big 12 overall. Here’s something that I didn’t think about before: if Missouri were to hypothetically leave the Big 12 for the Big Ten, then the Big 12 could end up imploding (i.e. Colorado would bolt for the Pac-10) or at least be severely weakened. The reason is the subpar Big 12 TV contract that I mentioned earlier. St. Louis and Kansas City are decent markets and Missouri is a decent state for a conference like the Big Ten, but none of them have much of an impact when the conference already has Chicago, Philadelphia, Minneapolis and the entire states of Ohio and Michigan. In contrast, St. Louis and Kansas City are respectively the 4th and 5th largest markets for the Big 12 (and more importantly, respectively the 2nd and 3rd largest markets outside of Texas) and Missouri is by far the largest state in the conference other than Texas. Therefore, the loss of Missouri would cause the currently bad Big 12 TV contract to get even worse since no possible replacement school from, say, the Mountain West (i.e. BYU, Utah, etc.) would come close to replacing those markets and households. In turn, all of the Big 12 schools might be sent scrambling for new homes. While that might be a doomsday scenario, Mizzou leaving for the Big Ten would severely damage the Big 12 at the very least.

So, if all of the Big 12 schools could be theoretically up for grabs, why the heck would the Big Ten go after a minnow (Missouri) when it could get a whale (Texas) instead? Why the heck would the Big Ten take Missouri or even Nebraska and let Texas possibly walk off to the much less financially powerful Pac-10? Why the heck would Texas just let a middle tier school like Missouri leaving for another conference put its future in limbo? Simply put, if a decent-but-not-great school like Missouri leaving could have that much of a potential impact on the Big 12, then that’s clearly evidence that the conference is unstable and maybe a powerhouse school like Texas will understand that it needs to start evaluating more stable options (if it hasn’t already). This presents a monster opportunity for the Big Ten to swoop in and solidify its place as the nation’s most powerful sports conference.

Sports-wise, the Big Ten has a reputation of being staid and conservative. In terms of overall conference management, however, the Big Ten is quite forward looking and thinks outside of the box. It’s easy to say that the Big Ten Network is an obvious cash cow for the conference as of today, but at the time of its formation, it was a massive risk considering that it could’ve easily taken a massive traditional rights deal from ESPN in the same manner as the SEC without the pain of a year of fighting for basic cable distribution in the Midwest and Pennsylvania. It now looks like the Big Ten is going to benefit from that risk. Similarly, I’m convinced that the Big Ten isn’t going to make a "meh� move simply to get to the 12 teams needed to stage a football conference championship game. The new school has to be strong enough where if Notre Dame all of the sudden decides that it wants to join a conference in 10 or 20 years, the Big Ten can comfortably say "No� and not have buyer’s remorse about the 12th member that it added. I don’t think that Missouri, Syracuse or Rutgers would come close to meeting that standard, but Texas hits the mark and even more. Therefore, there’s one task for the Big Ten over the next year or so:

Hook ‘em.

[philly_phan74]

I like the idea of your playoff.  It would really take anything away from the bowl season.  Afterall, all the bowls except the NC game are "meaningless" anyway.  


Your comment about travel being a concern is ridiculous at this point.  Back when teams would travel by train it was a huge concern, but today the teams travel by plane a lot of the time, and flying an extra 30 to 90 minutes isn't really a big deal, especially if the dollars difference is big enough!  Trying to keep the conferences geographical are nice in theory, but denies the reality of college football today which is that it is a huge business and that the colleges align themselves in the way that benefits them the most financially and to a lesser degree academically.  The Big 10, I'm sure, is more concerned with how a school will impact their bottom line and their academic network much more than how long a commute it will be for various teams to travel once a year for a conference game.  Secondly, once the conference is set-up, they establish two divisions and then teams can be aligned more geographically to minimize travel, and teams from different conferences could meet on a rotating basis (they can't all play each other every year, with a 16 team conference) to minimize the frequency of long commutes in football.

Travel wise I was more concerned about the common fan

[Iggles_Phan]

Travel wise I was more concerned about the common fan

While that is a concern for us, I doubt the schools will focus on that.  Look at the money involved....See the above article I linked.  I quoted some of the most relevant information.

[philly_phan74]

While that is a concern for us, I doubt the schools will focus on that.  Look at the money involved....See the above article I linked.  I quoted some of the most relevant information.

I get it just sucks that money is over riding the fans the students of each school.

[Iggles_Phan]

I get it just sucks that money is over riding the fans the students of each school.

Welcome to 2010!   Money rules everything in sports.  It's a sad reality, but the sooner you come to grips with it, the sooner you can learn to cope.

[killdawabbit]

If you didn't read the article linked below, you should.  It explains the MONEY involved in this whole deal.  And that is the #1 motivator for this move.   The very end of the article is the most relevant....I will quote that section below.  Look at the money the Big Ten schools are raking in.  They aren't going to add teams that cut into their share.  They are going to add teams that are going to EXPAND their base so that each team makes MORE as a result.  Adding Texas is the only team that would have that drastic an effect.  Notre Dame doesn't increase the footprint of the Big Ten Network.  Texas increases the population base by 1/3!



Big 10 Expansion article.

Read it? I was the guy who posted it here months ago.  

It is a good article though, and takes a lot of things into account that the average fan wouldn't even think of looking at.

[Iggles_Phan]

Read it? I was the guy who posted it here months ago.  

It is a good article though, and takes a lot of things into account that the average fan wouldn't even think of looking at.

That comment was directed at weaponx1 and others who may not have seen it, not you.  Sorry for the confusion.

[weaponx1]

That comment was directed at weaponx1 and others who may not have seen it, not you.  Sorry for the confusion.

That is a pretty interesting article.  I shouldn't have been so blunt without doing research.

What determines the amount of money available for the big 10 network to give back to the schools?  I might have missed that.

And if it is ratings based, I wonder what the ratings for notre dame games are vs. texas games?  I'm not debating UT would have a huge market, 90 million potential for one team is crazy.  But I wonder how it stacks up to Notre Dame and all their masses.

[Iggles_Phan]

That is a pretty interesting article.  I shouldn't have been so blunt without doing research.

What determines the amount of money available for the big 10 network to give back to the schools?  I might have missed that.

And if it is ratings based, I wonder what the ratings for notre dame games are vs. texas games?  I'm not debating UT would have a huge market, 90 million potential for one team is crazy.  But I wonder how it stacks up to Notre Dame and all their masses.

The article didn't get into that feature, unless I missed it as well.  I don't know how they figure out what money from the Big Ten Network is available for the schools.  But the way I see it, the schools own the Big Ten Network, so whatever profit comes in, that's what they share.

[runDMCnabb]

Big Ten Network gets their money from subscriber fees and advertising. I read that BTN is available to about 45 million now. (Granted only 10 are watching at any given time) More teams = more games will be on that network moving forward.

Their deal allows them to make about about 75 cents/month per subscriber in Big 10 States. They also make about 10 cents/month per subscriber in non-Big 10 states. This is why markets like NYC and KC are no-brainers to target. In addition, ND and Nebraska obviously have huge followings, so you gotta figure they are targets as well.

[dawkins4prez]

All of this makes good sense for minor league...i mean college football.

[KJ-Returns]

Actually, it's not. While ND has arguably the largest national following in college football, it does literally nothing to add to the Big Ten Network footprint. Texas adds a huge media market and that = cash. Realize that the shares from the BTN per team in the conference already eclipse the money ND makes from it's own TV deal. Not to mention Texas being one of the most valuable athletic deparments in the country. Texas would, without a doubt, result in more total income for the Big Ten than Notre Dame.

How can the largest national following not add to the footprint?  They are a NATIONAL draw, they could push the Big Ten from a regional network to a national one ... it doesn't get any bigger than that.

[killdawabbit]

How can the largest national following not add to the footprint?  They are a NATIONAL draw, they could push the Big Ten from a regional network to a national one ... it doesn't get any bigger than that.

Because the Big ten gets more money from subscribers in states they have schools in?

They get something like 10 cents per subscriber from out of state markets (who are also more likely to have the Big ten network as part of a package, which means less subscribers) and 75+ cents per subscriber from school markets (who are more likely to either have the network as part of the basic service or have more people buy a package with the network included).

The footprint includes all markets the conference has teams located in. The Big Ten already has a team in Indiana ergo, Notre Dame adds nothing to the footprint.

Would they add new subscribers in Indiana? Absolutely. Would they add subscribers nationally? Absolutely. However, Texas would likely flat out add the #5, #10, #37, and #48 TV markets. Not to mention having a rather sizeable national following of their own. The money from that would easily trump the money from Notre Dame's "national following". (Note that each school in the Big Ten already gets significantly more TV money than Notre dame does with it's TV contract)

Then you have to get into the whole research grant thing. Yes, Notre Dame has excellent research, but Texas' is bigger. Texas is also an AAU member, which Notre Dame is not.

When you consider that Texas is a large, research-based, land grant, university with AAU membership, a huge TV footprint, and consistant excellence in a variety of sports, they are the Holy Grail of additions to the Big Ten. They fit the member profile they are looking for perfectly. The only exception being geography.

[Iggles_Phan]

When you consider that Texas is a large, research-based, land grant, university with AAU membership, a huge TV footprint, and consistant excellence in a variety of sports, they are the Holy Grail of additions to the Big Ten. They fit the member profile they are looking for perfectly. The only exception being geography.

Agreed on all points, and geography is not the hurdle is used to be.  It's not like the teams will be traveling by locomotive for two days to get there like they used to do back when many of these historical conferences first formed.  Now, they take planes and the difference between flying from Penn St. to Iowa is modestly shorter than flying from Penn St. to Austin (maybe an extra hour or so of flight time.)  It would be a bigger burden for the fans, but the truth of the matter is that if it brings more money into the schools, and better competition to the conference, the fans actually win in the long run.  Wouldn't it be nice to have Texas come to Happy Valley every 4 years or something like that, even if fans couldn't all make the road trip to Austin every four years?  (Considering the 16 team conference would prohibit every team from playing all the other teams every year.  I figure two divisions, and teams would rotate who they play from the other division every two or three years, with possible rivalry games every year.)

[KJ-Returns]

Because the Big ten gets more money from subscribers in states they have schools in?

They get something like 10 cents per subscriber from out of state markets (who are also more likely to have the Big ten network as part of a package, which means less subscribers) and 75+ cents per subscriber from school markets (who are more likely to either have the network as part of the basic service or have more people buy a package with the network included).

The footprint includes all markets the conference has teams located in. The Big Ten already has a team in Indiana ergo, Notre Dame adds nothing to the footprint.

Would they add new subscribers in Indiana? Absolutely. Would they add subscribers nationally? Absolutely. However, Texas would likely flat out add the #5, #10, #37, and #48 TV markets. Not to mention having a rather sizeable national following of their own. The money from that would easily trump the money from Notre Dame's "national following". (Note that each school in the Big Ten already gets significantly more TV money than Notre dame does with it's TV contract)

Then you have to get into the whole research grant thing. Yes, Notre Dame has excellent research, but Texas' is bigger. Texas is also an AAU member, which Notre Dame is not.

When you consider that Texas is a large, research-based, land grant, university with AAU membership, a huge TV footprint, and consistant excellence in a variety of sports, they are the Holy Grail of additions to the Big Ten. They fit the member profile they are looking for perfectly. The only exception being geography.

I agree that Texas fits better in the Big Ten academically than ND does, I simply disagree with the notion that Texas would bring more subscribers / eyes than ND would (not the same as money).  Texas, more than just about any other school, is close to ND in overall viewers, but I still think ND brings more eyes nationally.  It's a bit of a pointless argument, as the addition of either school would make the Big 10 a national network, as opposed to regional.  Texas is likely the bigger fish here, because 88 cents for their entire regional market far outshines the 5 cents for all ND's added national audience, but money wasn't what I was responding to.  I was initially responding to the silly and incorrect notion that adding ND does nothing to add to the Big Ten footprint, something that's just flat wrong.  It may not add another big home region, but it expands their footprint throughout the entire US in a significant way.