Baylor joining the Pac-10 after putting down BYU for many years based on religious grounds? Colorado getting locked out of the Pac-10 completely and having to join the Mountain West? High noon ultimatums to Nebraska and Missouri? This could all go down within the next week (or even by tomorrow evening). Conventional wisdom up until the last few days was that the Big Ten Network would be leveraged to alter the college sports landscape. However, IMG’s revenue projections for the Longhorn Sports Network must apparently be around a hundred billion gazillion Benjamins per month for Texas, which means that a local network that doesn’t exist yet will likely determine whether the first superconference comes to fruition or the clusterfuck of the Big XII remains intact. I’m sure it’s going to work out REALLY well if all of those schools stay together somehow. With over 1200 comments in less than 48 hours, here’s a new thread for people to continue the discussion and post the latest news items.
(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111)
(Image from Examiner.com)
FRANK THE TANK'S SLANT 
Hawkeyes are always #1!!!
LikeLike
But they’re filled with #2…
😉
LikeLike
@greg. i love you man.. but your silly
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
add (again?)
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
LOL at the hysterical drama queens on the prior thread. You really thought politicians wouldn’t fight for their school that would be left behind?
15 legislators out of more than 200. TT, aTm, TX, and even UH each have more legislative allies than that. A few could throw some temporary monkey wrenches, but there is more than enough counter punch to squelch any threat.
It will likely go like this:
Tomorrow the P10 will weigh options, including the Baylor 6 plan. That will be rejected and an package invite will be extended to the original 6.
There will be rumblings behind the scenes, but it won’t kill this. The legislature doesn’t even meet until January, and the Aggie governor sure won’t call a special session. There are ways to cause problems out of session, but they’ll be dealt with. If this stretches into next year, the 2 candidates for governor are an Ag and a Horn.
Perhaps we’ll see an agreement that the Texas schools and the P16 will support the B12 being allowed to keep their BCS AQ if they can rebuild their conference within X months. Or maybe they’ll broker a move to the MWC along with UH (and maybe SMU or UTEP can horn in) and the P16 support their efforts to get a BCS AQ. If Baylor ends up in a BCS conference that should be a good enough compromise, even more so if UH, TCU, and SMU do also.
UH, TCU, SMU, and UTEP all have their interests, and they may view the P16 as opening doors for them to step up from their present situation.
OTOH, all that assumes that TX and/or aTm aren’t trying to kill the P16 option.
Look, some of you may need to cut back on your estrogen, this is going to be a bumpy ride, perhaps for a year or more.
LikeLike
How does the package invite work though?
They’re going to get a guarantee from Texas in exchange for an invite or tell them that all 6 accept at the same time or they’re all void? It’d be weird if like Colorado or Tech accepts but then A&M decides the SEC has made a better offer and jumps.
LikeLike
I’m assuming that the Pac-10 invite process works the same way as the Big 10. First, a school applies for admittance, and then the Pac-10 votes on whether to extend membership to them. So the package deal would mean that if all 6 “invited” schools don’t apply for membership, the existing Pac-10 schools would simply vote down membership invitations for the ones that did apply.
I could be wrong, though… does anyone here know how the Pac-10 membership expansion process works?
LikeLike
frank, you might go ahead and get the overflow overflow thread ready.
LikeLike
Yes, a daily edition may be wise, given how many twists and turns are probably ahead.
LikeLike
yeah. twistin’ the night away.
actually, i’m about twisted out. i think i may ignore those schmucks for the next millennium or so. they’ve fucked this thing us ummercifully and to the point that i don’t really give a damn anymore what they do.
LikeLike
‘us’ = ‘up’, though, yes, they have fucked all of us.
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Adding
LikeLike
more e-mail please
LikeLike
Added
LikeLike
This is my effort at a paradigm shift, a recalibration or just a long time blog stalker’s point of view (disclosure: degrees from Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue & Harvard – and I live in Texas), as it seems not enough consideration is being given to a purely or primarily academic/research argument, which may in fact be closer to where the Univ. Presidents are.
The Big Ten is first, foremost & forever more going to be a collection of universities with the goal of maintaining the preeminent position among American universities via research, academia & financial strength which enables the prior two considerations. Sports is only an important means to that end, primarily so because so many in the population don’t think like a Univ. President and use/need the rah-rah as a means of Homecoming and fellowship among peers/alumni.
As long as the Big Ten has unquestioned dominance in making its Universities unequalled as a collection of research and academic institutions, it will be quite content with the occasional College Football championship to add to its members’ CIC billions. How short sighted it is for so many here to believe the tail is in fact wagging the dog! No other conference is even playing the same game as the Big Ten – there is no CIC equivalent, even in the Ivy League, and no other conference has all AAU members. SEC dominance? Please.
If this paradigm is correct, this is why we are academic snobs. Have you ever heard the old NU joke that “It’s ok if you beat us on the field, you’ll be working for us one day?” And that was before we started winning Conference football championships and National Championships in other sports.
If correct, such considerations as maintaining a relationship with U of Chi and inviting Johns Hopkins to the CIC are very much appropriate.
If correct, we would never allow Tx to dictate anything, and would much rather pass Tx off to the Pac-10 (and away from the SEC) than accept Tech, Rice, Houston, OSU, OU or pretty much any non-AAU university – we simply don’t have to or need to do that. The notion of diluting the Big Ten philosophy and brand mandate such. We are dealing from the ultimate position of strength and don’t need Tx or ND on their terms. Can you imagine the results of allowing Tx or ND to introduce disharmony at the beginning of a relationship, when PSU, MI or OSU haven’t asked for any special considerations? All for all – that’s the Big Ten way. To this point, Tx’s shopping itself between 3 conferences is either political reality or a bad way to begin a relationship among a group of peer institutions (if indeed that’s what’s happening). ND has made it clear they value self/independence more than what the Big Ten represents. ND is a private, Catholic, undergraduate focused, non-AAU University that is not an ideal fit (e.g. ND doesn’t like some of the autonomy in the Big Ten’s research philosophy) but brings unquestioned value, but only if they change their culture to embrace the Big Ten’s shared goals.
I can’t predict which teams will join the Big Ten, but it holds true to its brand, I’d expect a series of the largest AAU-member universities dominating their states, while being reasonably proximal to the Big Ten footprint – or dynamic enough to stand out as part of a ‘National Conference’. After all, it’s the original ‘Big’ conference, meaning an affiliation with us means no apologies or explanations are necessary. Thus a Stanford, Florida, Maryland, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Nebraska, Missouri and/or Kansas all should (not would) think about what that means and at least consider invitations if offered and why no Big Ten team would leave for any other conference. We don’t need to accept three other University we wouldn’t otherwise have just to get one that we want (thus the ‘Tech problem’). Why are we constantly quibbling about tens of millions between sports conferences when there are Billions to be divided between academic/research institutions?
Athletic Directors are not making these decisions. Univ. Presidents are. There’s been a lot of talk on this blog about thinking outside the box, but when I hear “where will we be in 25 or 50 years”, I’m not thinking about football championships primarily. The BTN network isn’t about champtionship; it’s about households and subscriptions. If the Big Ten footprint encompasses enough households and the BTN grows appropriately, recruitment and sports dominance will follow. However, if the Big Ten Brand is ever diluted or compromised (read Tech, Oklahoma or ASU), we’re no better than…the SEC, and that’s how conferences of 16 members become unwieldly (a loss of common purpose). The lessons of the SWC, WAC and Big East actually are quite clear. Good luck with that Pac-16. I’m not that impressed. But I do trust the Big Ten to stay true to itself. Thanks Frank and everyone else for keeping me glued to the computer.
LikeLike
100% Truth. Bravo.
LikeLike
I agree with this vision of the Big Ten, though I am on the record for an conditional addition of Texas Tech.
This sentence is a little misleading: “accept Tech, Rice, Houston, OSU, OU or pretty much any non-AAU university”
Rice is in the AAU. Loki has taken enough grief on this board without you piling on. 😛
LikeLike
My apologies to Loki and the rest of the Rice crew…point unchanged… by the way: my wish list.
1) Stanford (don’t they resemble the B10 more than the new P16?)
2) Texas (without the baggage)
3) Rutgers (Jersey by itself is huge, plus our stars get to showcase the league in NYC)
4) Virginia (premiere public Univ, southern strategy)
5) UNC (research dominance, southern strategy).
I know. It’ll never happen!!
LikeLike
Personally, I think we should go for Nebraska or Nebraska/Rutgers/Pitt (or Mizz for Pitt, but I think Pitt is closer to Big Ten universities other than bringing a new market).
Then, we should wait for the SEC to start taking from the ACC.
Then go for Maryland/VA/UNC/GTech but most emphasis on the Maryland/VA angle. Try to get Johns Hopkins as a CIC-only member. I’ve made the argument before that they’re exactly like UChicago in terms of being in a small conference with undergrad institutions, whereas their graduate research programs are immense. If Maryland is in the footprint, I could see Johns Hopkins considering a CIC invite.
Then wait for Cal/Stanford to send feelers out to the Big Ten after seeing what the Big Ten has become…
LikeLike
To me adding nebraska and one of the eastern schools is a win. Maybe not a losided one but a win.like beating the best team in the conference and heading to a bowl. Adding either Texas or Notre Dame is huge win. Winning a big bowl. Adding them both is a national chapionship.
There are no loses in the the deals unless you have to take 3 Texas schools just because you have to. That would be like winnging the big bowl game then getting caught cheating and then getting the death NCAA penalty.
LikeLike
I like your list, and completely agree with you on Stanford. I made a reference to them and Cal joining the Big Ten on the last thread. For my top five, I’d stay true to yours with Stanford and Texas as my top two, but I’d move Rutgers down one and insert Maryland, and then probably have one of UNC, UVA, and Florida.
So it would look like:
1) Stanford
2) Texas
3) Maryland
4) Rutgers
5) UNC
5) UVA
5) Florida – I actually really dislike Florida because of my run-ins with their fans, but they would be a Texas-like fit in the Big Ten and bring so much to the table.
Just think what recruiting would look like with expansion like this with any combination of five of these teams!
LikeLike
The only thing about Stanford is I don’t think they’d come alone. It just might be too tough logistically. If they came, I think they’d try desperately to get Cal to come with them, so in a more likely scenario (I understand it’s still a shot in the dark), I’d like to see additions of Cal-Berkley, Stanford, Texas, Rutgers, Maryland, and one of Virginia and UNC. (There’s no way Florida would ever come, at least at this point and time).
LikeLike
outstanding. you get it.
LikeLike
Except for one thing: AAU membership is over-rated for some of these institutions (Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas), that got their membership a hundred years ago and probably wouldn’t get in now.
IMO, once you say you’re willing to add Nebraska but not Pitt, you’ve mad the whole “academics first” argument a bit iffy.
LikeLike
Simply brilliant!!!
LikeLike
@Big Ten Jeff – Great post! The Big Ten does have an “academic brand” alongside an “athletic brand” and I have faith that the university presidents aren’t going to dilute it at all.
LikeLike
Thanks. The main point I hope TPTB get (and I’m sure they do) is that there are many outstanding options that protect and advance our Brand. The ultimate win is not limited to TX or ND!!! Let’s hope we don’t lose sight of that and allow a few admittedly outstanding options to steer us off course, when we’ve done so well for a century.
LikeLike
Big Ten Jeff,
I am confused..
In the last blog I made the “academic” vs “athletic” point and said at this time I would be happy with Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, Maryland, and Virginia.
all are already AAU
all would expand footprints
all would add senators / congressmen
all would fit geographically
all would fit [close to current members]
to which Mike B replied..
Mike B says:
June 5, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Sorry duffman, this long-term Big Ten fan would vomit if we added three mediocre universities from smallish states.
I would much rather add one lousy university (TT) to secure two good ones.
to which I replied..
duffman says:
June 5, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Mike B..
then you have taken the Big 10 down a road they can not return (sorta like you can not get partially pregnant). I for one am fine with Nebraska, and Mizzou and Kansas are already AAU. If it is about academics over athletics how can anybody in the Big 10 “vomit”.
By making the statement you are saying research is important, but we really want the money from athletics. In this case it is one or the other, unless the research has been a smokescreen all along, and you feel the Big 10 is better going down the rabbit hole for the sake of college football?
Point blank.. which matters more..
a) academics
b) athletics
HINT: if you chose b) you have decided that the Big 10 academic argument is all a sham, and that we are no better than any other conference.
HERE IS MY QUESTION / POLL
If the Big 10 went to 16 by adding….
NEBRASKA, MISSOURI, KANSAS (Big 12)
MARYLAND, VIRGINIA (ACC)
would you as bloggers
a) be excited – as it shows the importance of research to the Big 10
b) be neutral – feel we did pretty good, but TX and ND got away (buyers remorse)
c) vomit – feel the Big 10 failed, and that we should have lowered some standard to get certain schools (football and $$ matter).
I would like to get a feel where the bloggers on this post actually stand.. thanks
LikeLike
I would be neutral on that expansion, with the possibility of warming to it over the years. I would be happy about the quality of the schools, academically. I would be excited about Kansas for basketball. I would be excited about Nebraska for football. But, as a fan, I would worry about diluting the schedule with a few too many teams that don’t get my juices flowing.
What about taking these fiveteams instead?
Nebraska (for football)
Rutgers (for PSU & NYC)
Georgia Tech (for sunbelt)
Vanderbilt (for sunbelt)
Notre Dame (for football and everything else).
Getting both Nebraska and Notre Dame would be a win for sports fans. The footprint would expand in good directions. And the academics would be solid. Also, no conferences would be destroyed.
My big question is whether Notre Dame would come in without Texas.
LikeLike
Duffmann, I agree wholeheartedly with you and thought your stream was inspired. I believe multiple subsets of 5 choices out of the universe of 15ish state dominating AAU-member universities would allow the Big Ten to further its goals and would be an unequivocal success in reaffirming its dominance in the future. Obviously some subsets are ‘sexier’ than others, and why wouldn’t we want the perfect storm or the best possible of these subsets – which is why either Texas (preferably alone) or Nebraska is such a high priority. I believe this is why Frank says Nebraska (since Texas alone isn’t a probably) is the single most likely addition, then Rutgers (which isn’t the perfect storm but scores incredibly high on so many metrics).
I take issue with the specific stance, though not the intent of Mike B’s argument. There are couplets that I would be pleased to see, such as taking Cal to get Stanford, taking Duke to get UNC, taking A&M to get Texas. However in no circumstance do I want to see any couplets that creates a hanger-on that dilutes the brand – top to bottom excellence, even if at varying degrees. I am even modestly uncomfortable with ND without AAU status, but I don’t want to be an ideologic purist (something about the perfect being the enemy of the good).
One final point: remember one of Frank’s opening salvo’s, which hasn’t got much play lately: 11+1=13 for either each individual unit or for the overall collection (and not just for money). Think about how we define ourselves and judge the end result based on how well we advance that notion.
LikeLike
I think there are several tiers of prospective Big Ten members, taking into account appeal, athletics, academics, research, market size and influence:
A+: Texas
A: Notre Dame
A-: Nebraska
B+: Rutgers, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia Tech
B: Missouri, Kansas
B-: Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Duke, Vanderbilt
With Texas off the table and Notre Dame too demanding, Rutgers and at least three ACC schools provide the best complement to Nebraska.
LikeLike
Concur with Paul. NE, MO, KS, MD and VA are very “meh” from a sports perspective. Frankly, I’m not a researcher/professor/etc.; so my perspective is sports.
I’d switch out MD and VA with Pitt and Rutgers. don’t have the numbers handy as to the rankings among Va, Md and Pitt, but Pitt would be a good academic addition and a good sports fit.
I have to think the Presidents will be about BOTH academics and sports. And where is Mizzu on the academic scale? I recall some/many thread comments suggesting Mizzu was a non-starter on the academic side.
The ACC schools don’t fit the geography. (Tho’ your point yesterday about adding US Senators is compelling (and has moved my thinking concerning KS)).
So, query: KS vs Syracuse?
LikeLike
neutral
fine, actually excited, with Nebraska, Maryland and Virginia. but Missouri and Kansas are too much the same market. I would much prefer Rutgers instead of both.
LikeLike
Duffman,
If the Big Ten adds Virginia, Maryland, and/or Nebraska, I am very happy with each, and would be thrilled if this was our 14 schools.
But Missouri and Kansas at this point feels very “meh”. Taking one of them as the last reasonable school to get to 16 is one thing. But not both.
There are too many other schools out there that I would much rather see, and much rather give it time to shake out. ND and UNC, for example. In the next level, I’d also probably prefer Miami, Colorado or Rutgers over Missouri or Kansas.
LikeLike
Frank,
You say you have faith that the presidents aren’t going to dilute the academic brand “at all,” but you also continue to say that Nebraska is the most likely addition.
How can you reconcile those two statements? By every set of academic/research rankings I’ve seen, as well as research dollars, Nebraska is well behind all of the current Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
@Howard – Nebraska is an AAU member, the graduate research levels are as high as anyone that we’ve talked about except for Texas, Texas A&M and Pitt, and its US News ranking is higher than Missouri. It’s not a slam dunk academic school like Texas, but in terms of meeting the Big Ten’s overall academic criteria, it meets them.
LikeLike
Frank,
I think you are vastly oversimplifying–and underplaying–the “overall academic criteria.” Look back at this quote from Teddy Greenstein’s Sunday(?) article:
————-
Simon insists the media have under-emphasized the importance of academics in the Big Ten’s deliberations. “I have facetiously said that at the start of this process, if we had given fifth-graders the criteria, the list of institutions would be essentially the list that has been bandied about … by you all,” she said. “With much more sophisticated analysis of the sense of ‘fit,’ but academics has not been much of the conversation. This is more than teams playing teams.”
So what is the Big Ten’s analysis based on – Association of American Universities membership? Academic Progress Rate numbers? US News & World Report rankings?
“Most of the people in the room were provosts before they were presidents,” Simon said, “so it’s a group that is perfectly capable of making very sophisticated judgments on academics. If anything, we obsess about that.”
————-
The lesson from that excerpt is that there are no “overall academic criteria,” but a lot of very specific criteria that are being considered by people who know a ton more about this than we do. They’re certainly not going to simply look at AAU membership and move on.
Also, you’re comparing Nebraska’s academic/research credentials to other candidates, but in determining whether Nebraska would dilute the academic brand, the comparison needs to be with the current members. If you look at ARWU, the U.S. News undergraduate rankings, the U.S. News world rankings (which, unlike the undergrad rankings, incorporate research into the equation), Nebraska is well behind all of the current members.
So the reality is that Nebraska would definitely dilute the academic brand. The question is just whether that dilution is acceptable to the presidents.
LikeLike
This is why the Nebraska + 4 of 5 ACC AAU (or Nebraska + Rutgers + 3 of 5 ACC AAU) is perhaps the favored scenario of at least some of the Big Ten presidents if Texas is off the table and Notre Dame still thinks it’s bigger than the game.
The ACC is probably next in academic/athletic prestige to the Big Ten — and if I’m Delany, I tell Slive his best bet, if he can’t get A&M or Texas, is to add Virginia Tech and N.C. State from the east (adding the DC/Va/NC markets to the SEC) and Missouri and Kansas from the west (adding StL/KC plus a superheated rivalry and a basketball “brand name” to complement Kentucky).
With the SEC taking those four, Delany can choose Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina as a minimum (with no rancor from Va or NC legislators, since Tech and State have new, profitable homes), possibly adding either Duke or Georgia Tech in place of Rutgers. OK, it’s not the Texas or ND home run, but five extra-base hits leads to a big inning.
LikeLike
vincent,
as a basketball fan IU/MSU vs UK/KU in a Big 10 vs SEC makes my heart skip a beat.. but then reality sets in..
The SEC is a FOOTBALL conference.. but it has made me think of one possible move.. UK and Vandy to the ACC in a trade for Clemson and FSU.. UK and Vandy have good basketball programs, and Clemson and FSU are football schools. UK and Vandy could move from cellar dwellers in the SEC to mid / upper status in football in the ACC.
LikeLike
This was the exact point I was trying to make on the last thread, only you said it so much better. The Big Ten should be viewed as an exclusive club, and anyone they invite should join. Compromising your identity, morals, and values is not just foolish, it’s morally wrong. While I understand that this whole thing is about money, it shouldn’t in any way go against what the Big Ten stands for and is all about.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s why Rutgers is such a lock for the Big Ten. Their long history of football excellence, Ability to draw 100k to games in their state-of-the-art stadium, the solid financial condition of the university and the scenic locale of Camden/New Brunswick (which is almost indistinguishable from fall in Madison or Ann Arbor) make them fit like a glove. Throw in class-acts like the Sopranos, Jersey Shore, Gov McGreevy etc, and I’m stunned they haven’t been invited before now.
To paraphrase an oft-quoted movie line – “let’s everyone not start licking each other’s Popsicles just yet”. Rutgers, you over-achieved just getting into the Big East and have showed nothing in that time to justify even being in the Big Ten conversation, let alone getting an invite gawd-forbid. The mere fact that this is not the case is proof that the Big Ten is not as “moral” and “altruistic” as some of you credit. The Big Ten would invite DeVry and ITT Tech if they could make $ from it – Rutgers’ inclusion in this debate proves it.
LikeLike
Just say no-
I don’t know where to begin with your idiocy.
-Now colleges are responsible for fictional characters or a bunch of people from NY that come to our state’s beaches in the summer?
-RU has no financial issues beyond having to deal with the same state funding issues that a lot of schools are dealing with in this economy.
-NJ has had some bad governors, but I don’t think a conference that has a school in Illinois can hold that against us.
-The fact RU has a satellite campus in Camden is a problem? Well, you better kick out the Nittany Lions now then. Have you ever seen the Penn State-Hazleton campus?
-RU Stadium IS state of the art, but currently holds only 54,000. If having a 100,000 seat stadium is a deal breaker, shouldn’t the Big Ten be called the Big 3?
Given how your post shows a lack of knowledge of New Jersey beyond what you could have gotten by watching a lot of cable TV shows, I have to assume you are a Pitt or Syracuse fan that is pissed that RU is being currently mentioned more than your school.
LikeLike
@Phil
Do not feeds the trolls.
LikeLike
…so I take it Rutgers didn’t accept your application?
LikeLike
Actually I’m already in the big 10 and don’t want to see the value of my degree decrease every much/wisc/psu game bc the camera shows James gandolfini, jersey shore idiots or the sophisticated Rutgers fans f-bombing Navy and the service academies on national ESPN telecasts. No offense to the many decent people and fans to NJ, but you are outnumbered (or at least not as vocal). And the “Rutgers would get NYC” argument is baseless. Rutgers fans don’t “get NYC” anymore than BC “gets Boston”.
Can’t wait for first espn gameday to see all the shore misfits, hey yoos guys suck chants and Springsteen still being treated like he’s relevant. Take Mizzou, UVA, MD, Pitt, SYR, Neb – ANYone but Rutgers. I don’t Want to have to start apologizing for my league in exchange for the (aptly described) fools’ gold that is “Rutgers gets NYC” that has no historical reason for anyone to think it will ever materialize.
LikeLike
Hey… don’t pick on Rutgers. They have parlayed five mediocre seasons into their best chance of ever getting into the Big 10 AND there are 9,000 Rutgers fans on this board for some reason.
LikeLike
There are more Rutgers fans on this board than attended all WVU games at Rutgers Stadium combined until last year. I think last year was the first time WVU played in front of a pro-Rutgers crowd (still won though). As ex-WVU Coach Don Nehlen says, “Rutgers is Rutgers.” Or as ex-WVU db Charles Pugh said, “What the hell is a Rutgers?”
LikeLike
Friendly advice from a Big Ten alum.
Your personality is the best way to add value to your degree. Trust me, Rutgers could never hurt you as much as your own own attitude.
LikeLike
@Big10 Jeff
Nicely put! Expresses my feelings exactly. I would have been extremely disappointed if the Big10 sacrificed the academic integrity of the conference for football. That, to me would go against everything the Big10 stands for. I would rather take a pass on a great institution like Texas if it means taking in schools that do not meet the minimum standards (AAU).
LikeLike
concur … and FWIW, I really believe the B10 Presidents won’t do it. B10Jeff and Duffman are right to bring us back to the importance of the academic/research side of the equation.
LikeLike
FWIW, the academic side of the equation has been core to this discussion since the very first blog post on expansion.
What’s extremely interesting here is that we are near or at the moment of truth when the conferences (Pac-10, Big-10, SEC) and certain schools and states will make clear their beliefs about the relative importance of money, football, and academics. This is where true character will show.
LikeLike
If Baylor gets the nod the Big Ten has to take a serious look at Colorado.
LikeLike
If nothing else, even if no expansion happens and everything stays the same, this expansion investigation announcement has done one thing.
This has been the largest free advertising campaign for Big Ten Universities one could imagine.
Everyone has been repeating how academically elite the Big Ten is, how academics will play a role in this process, etc. This has been a reminder to everyone in the footprint and a notice to everyone outside. Academics important to you? Come to a Big Ten U.
LikeLike
that’s true. There’s also been a boost of academic awareness for the likes of Pitt, Texas, and A&M. It certainly can’t hurt to be consistently mentioned as “Big Ten caliber institutions” in all of these articles and discussions. It’s the iowa state and west virginia variety of schools that are getting the bad press here.
LikeLike
There is no comparison between Iowa State and West Virginia. Iowa State’s problem is similar to Pitt’s but much greater. Iowa State is as much or more academically qualified to join the Big Ten than many candidates, including Nebraska, Missouri and Syracuse. Iowa State’s problem is they bring less revenue to the table than other candidates.
Pitt may (emphasis on may) slide in a 16-team expansion due to their very large research budget compared to virtually every other candidate. Iowa State will not be so lucky.
LikeLike
There is also no comparison b/w Iowa State and WVU athletics, either historically or recently. In the past decade, WVU has won 2 BCS bowls, finished in the top 10 3 years in a row in football, been to the Elite 8, Sweet 16 (twice) and Final Four and won the Big East Conference Tournament.
LikeLike
I think WVU lands on their no matter what happens to the BIg East. They would actually be pretty awesome to see in the SEC. Too bad RichRod messed up that good thing he had going there – he could be running that Pat White-style offense and putting up 50 and scoring at will against the likes of UGA like they did in that killer bowl game.
Slingshot – engaged !
LikeLike
just to add, great post Jeff. I think you hit every nail right on the head.
LikeLike
great post Jeff. big fan of the idea
LikeLike
Agreed.
LikeLike
Thankyou for a great post!
LikeLike
You are right on, Big Ten Jeff… Bravo… Also, based on latest from meeting of B10 chancellors/presidents (according to A. Rittenberg’s report on ESPN.com), your assessment aligns with the words stated by the chair of the Big 10’s council of president’s/chancellors (Lou Anna K. Simon–MSU). “There was no discussion of having a vote today,” though she noted that the group made good progress on expansion.
Simon outlined the four criteria the B10 is evaluating for any applicant to the league: academics, willingness to cooperate in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), athletic competitiveness, and fiscal responsibility to the conference. “The academics are on top of the list,” Simon said, “and purposely top on the list because it reflects the values of the presidents. … This is not an infinite set of institutions [that fit the Big10], and it’s not as difficult as one might think for presidents to understand some of the implications of various decisions.”
Commissioner Jim Delaney stressed the fact that “It’s not just a conference making a decision. It has always been and will continue to be about institutions making a choice.” “For us that would be an application process, an assessment process.”
According to the article, Big 10 bylaws require an application for membership and none have been submitted. Bylaws also state that action, such as offering a university to join the conference, can be done in person, electronically or by telephone–meaning university officials do not need to reconvene in Chicago to vote or make a decision.
Hopefully, the Big 10 leaders are true to their word and will go forward making decisions based on intelligent assessment of prospective candidates.
LikeLike
Thanks for all the kind feedback. See below for something else provocative! I’m staying out the box.
LikeLike
Forgive me if this has already been brought up (hard to keep up with so many commments!), but why doesn’t the Big 10 invite Colorado? They’re ann AAU school, and outside of Texas they offer the biggest market in the Big12. Forget Missouri, go after Nebraska and Colordao from the west, then look east or south for the next three members.
LikeLike
Scott, I think Colorado’s on the list but down the list. I believe it’s on the list because my uninformed impression is every AAU school is under consideration as part of a national growth strategy. I also believe the Big Ten wants to steer certain universities to its Rose Bowl partner, and Colorado certainly is a prime candidate there. I think an eastern strategy is more likely than CO, but wouldn’t it be interesting that if the P-10 took the Texas 5 that Colorado would be prominently sitting there in such a prominent market with nowhere else to go…
LikeLike
add This is awesome!
LikeLike
OK, so does this now mean that Texas is officially OFF the Big Ten’s board now?
Add
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox
I hope this means Texas is off the B10 board. Lets stop messing around with Texas and ND, neither institution truly wants to join. Get Nebraska as a HR, or a triple or maybe just a double. I’d prefer they stop at 12, but if Maryland or some other great school could be added, 14 would be fine. 16 is a mistake.
LikeLike
Pro-Baylor politicians trying to muck this up does NOT equal Texas not wanting to be in the Big 10.
LikeLike
You mean the Big 10 doesn’t want the the HR additions of Texas Tech and Baylor to go along with Texas? Come on roadies to Waco are great, lol.
LikeLike
Dr. Pepper for everyone!
LikeLike
Inbox overflowing
LikeLike
From the twitter of a journalist following Oregon Sports:
More Pac-16 smoke: Just got e-mail from Baylor sports info pushing interview with AD on possible inclusion instead of Colorado.
found via http://twitter.com/slmandel/
LikeLike
Btw, my iphone is now solely my “Frank The Tank email reading machine”. I finally plowed thru all the emails from the last thread just in time to post to this one.
LikeLike
Been there done that. It really needs a collecting mechanism like browser Gmail so that they all get put in size 61 piles.
LikeLike
@greg – My iPhone’s battery dies at about noon these days from the mass amount of messages.
LikeLike
I had to turn mine to silent so I would not disturb people at work! Thankfuly I always keep a charger handy! AT least everyone at work comes to me for the latest updates.
LikeLike
I wasn’t thinking and put two links in a comment and it’s awaiting moderation. 😦
Info from twitter:
From the twitter of a journalist following Oregon Sports:
More Pac-16 smoke: Just got e-mail from Baylor sports info pushing interview with AD on possible inclusion instead of Colorado.
LikeLike
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/060610dnspobig12lede.75765a22.html
Another “multiple sources” say Nebraska has until this week, or maybe next week. I still don’t understand the threat though. If Nebraska doesn’t commit, the 6 accept an offer from the Pac-10 that sounds like it is still in the discussion phase?
If the 10 other schools were really interested in keeping the conference together, they could approve greater exit penalties without Nebraska’s vote. This ultimatum looks more like a scapegoating than an offer of reconciliation.
LikeLike
The ultimatum to Nebraska is certainly for scapegoating. I don’t know how half the friggin conference is considering leaving, but somehow trying to make it look like Nebraska is the key to holding it together. WTF.
LikeLike
Nebraska is being given the role of Arkansas this time around.
Time for the Big Ten to play the role of the SEC and make an invite. Let the rest of the dominoes fall where they may.
LikeLike
@zeek – Great analogy. I think that’s exactly what’s going to happen.
LikeLike
I agree. I think Nebraska may end up getting an invite or a private confirmation of a future invite from Delany within the next couple of days.
I really don’t see the Big Ten presidents screwing around with a school that pretty much perfectly fits the profile in terms of athletics (top notch facilities/teams, etc.) and has taken great strides in terms of its academics (Innovation Campus, etc.).
I don’t see Delany/Big Ten presidents leaving Nebraska in an uncertain phase and facing a deadline from Texas. That’s not how the Big Ten would operate towards a school that clearly is at the top of the list for potential invites.
LikeLike
Not really agree*, just meant to expound on the idea a bit.
LikeLike
@zeek –
Couldn’t reply directly to his last post for some reason, but THANK YOU for someone finally mentioning the innovation campus. That is one thing that has really slipped through the cracks on this blog when discussing Nebraska’s academics. The entire campus is going to be dedicated to research and is going to be brand new and top of the line. Nebraska is already a strong research university, but the Innovation Campus is going to make the research money go way up, and bring it to a level more on par with a lot of the Big Ten schools.
LikeLike
For anyone looking for more info on the innovation campus, check it out here:
http://innovate.unl.edu/
LikeLike
@Cornography
The innovation campus has been mentioned numerous times around these parts. It is an impressive addition, but universities in general are in a facilities arms race.
LikeLike
Agree with all of the above. Nebraska is a tailor-made fit for the big 10 so hopefully the presidents will spare us the cloak-and-dagger and just invite them asap. All the other candidates have some knock against them (even neb with the small mkt) but I think they would be excellent ambassadors for the big 10. And their fans – anybody who has ever had them in your stadium will never find a more considerate, polite bunch. I almost wanted them to be jerks so I could dislike them – ha- but they win everyone over. And they TRAVEL like crazy ! A true win-win-win (as Michael Scott says) to get them. Ps plus with no pro teams to compete against locally and their national following they will bring super bowl type ad rates with their 28 Nielsen ratings for the big 10 network – ha
LikeLike
Texas has been given one more second on their decision clock than Nebraska.
LikeLike
Adding. The Texas (State of) Drama Queens always keep the board lively.
LikeLike
It’s like a Chinese water drill for Texas. I can’t believe these rumors are true about PAC-16 invites and now Baylor replacing CU. I can’t stop laughing.
LikeLike
Cremeschnitte. (they’re delish, try one)
LikeLike
[Pitt-centric musings]
If the big 12 south (-baylor, +colorado) decides to join the pac-10 as advertised, that would close off all of the western expansion options for the SEC. Not that the SEC would have to expand, but the impression/urge may be there. This limits them to looking east for expansion: ACC schools or possibly WVU. If/when the ACC is looking to replace members or expand, then Pitt has to be high on their list for market, academic, and athletic reasons. I would say Pitt is still on the Big Ten’s list, though somewhere around the margin because we don’t bring new tv territory.
If the ACC loses some southern members to the SEC, and the Big East loses, say Syracuse, Rutgers, and Notre Dame to the Big Ten, there might be some sort of merger between the ACC and Big East. I imagine the basketball-only Big East schools would be forced to split off into their own conference.
LikeLike
Pitt may even end up in the Big Ten.
I mean it’s not as if Pitt makes no sense. Pitt makes sense in every way (academics/athletics) except that it doesn’t bring a new market.
Yet every discussion of SEC expansion includes Clemson at the top of the list. What does Clemson really bring to the SEC that Pitt wouldn’t bring to the Big Ten? Nothing.
Especially if Texas is off the Big Ten’s radar; then we’re going to go East/Southeast.
Nebraska and Missouri are all that the Big Ten would add in the west, so we’d give a really hard look at Rutgers/Syracuse/Pitt/Maryland/Virginia.
Personally, I think Nebraska/Rutgers/Pitt is a better idea than Nebraska/Rutgers/Syracuse, although I think there are people who will want to put down a pole in the middle of New York.
You know what’s funny? JoePa’s original expansion scenario was 2 in the East, 1 in the West. The three schools he was most likely referring to was Nebraska/Pitt/Rutgers since he’s always seen Pitt as making sense and Rutgers for the NYC/NJ angle. Obviously Nebraska is the best Western addition.
LikeLike
I hope Pitt is included in the eventual Big Ten. I have a strong preference for “northern” football and despite the basketball pedigree, I’m not really keen on the southern/tobacco-road identity of the ACC.
I think Clemson is most often considered because because of its nickname “Auburn-with-a-lake.” I think it’s also important to remember that SEC expansion has no dedicated network like the Big Ten or the presumed Pac-16. They would want to gain high-profile games rather than any emphasis on new territory.
LikeLike
Yeah, but the Big Ten does want that too in some sense.
Pitt. actually creates more compelling matchups across the Big Ten footprint than Mizzou.
The Big Ten Network is only getting 2nd tier games so you want those to be as interesting as possible for advertising revenue, etc. That’s why we’re almost certain to take Nebraska.
Pitt. would create more interesting matchups in terms of ratings in the Big Ten footprint in my mind.
Also, when you go to research, Syracuse really doesn’t look like a Big Ten university; it looks more like Texas Tech even with AAU status.
Pitt would be near the top of the Big Ten in AAU.
I think Pitt’s been a bit of a dark horse because of the focus on Texas/ND.
But if you take away Texas/ND and the first two are Nebraska/Rutgers, then who is the third?
Missouri, Pitt, or Syracuse? I don’t think Syracuse is a good institutional fit although it creates some basketball and possibly football interest if they’re good. Missouri has TV sets, and a decent football brand, but Pitt has the best football brand of the three.
Pitt’s ratings were actually comparable to Nebraska’s last year.
I don’t know where the .gif is, but the one of the expansion candidates showed that Pitt. is actually more of a candidate than the just the additional TV market argument would seem…
LikeLike
As interested outsider, I’ve been rooting for Pitt for some time. Pitt is the one school most like the rest of the Big Ten, great academics and competitive athletics in multiple sports.
Take Rutgers as the punching bag with lots of TVs, and access for Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State & Nebraska to play in the new Giants/Jets Stadium or Yankee Stadium every few years.
Take Nebraska as its football royalty with national appeal.
Take Pitt because its the right thing to do.
LikeLike
Just curious: Why would you have an issue with the ACC’s “southern/tobacco-road identity?”
Having grown up in SC 45 minutes from Clemson, then living in NC for 5.5 years for college & a job afterwards, along with being a huge FSU fan, I’ve been exposed to the ACC from the perspective of many of its members. I’d say the ACC is southern, but compared to the SEC, it’s definitely southern-lite. Clemson and its fan culturally every bit as southern as Alabama or Ole Miss. FSU’s not that different. Other than those two, I’ve always felt like the other schools are simply quality schools which are inclusive of students/professors from all regions but, due to location, carry some typical southern quirks. (e.g., fraternity students at UVA wearing ties at their games).
As far as “tobacco road” goes, I wouldn’t let that bother you. If your concern is literally with tobacco, remember that smoking isn’t really that much heavier in NC than it is in Indiana. “Tobacco road” is more a tip of the cap to traditions of yesteryear with the farm-to-market roads between rural eastern NC and Durham & Winston-Salem, and everyone knows that it’s just history. In modern times, the tobacco road area is known much more for Duke, UNC, and NCSU themselves… and of course RTP, which employs 50 friggin thousand people!
Anyway, I hope so much that the Big Ten doesn’t break up the ACC.
LikeLike
Oh I know it’s nothing to do with actual tobacco. It seems to me (as an outsider) that there is a clear leadership divide between the tobacco road schools and the “new” schools. In contrast, I appreciate the equality and camaraderie the Big Ten schools share athletically and academically.
I come from a mixed Pitt and Penn State family with much stronger football interest than basketball. So my preferences are naturally with the big ten and old eastern independents.
LikeLike
My impression is that FSU, Miami, VT, and BC are all grateful for their affiliation with the tobacco road schools. I remember reading something on VT’s web page a few years ago where its president said that the ACC invite was what it had wanted for 50 years, and he also credited the overall athletic department’s improvement to the ACC. BC, Miami, and VT each are pleased with the academic association with the tobacco road schools.
GT isn’t really all that new of a member; it’s been in the league for 32 of the ACC’s 57 seasons. I can’t speak to whether that school has any resentment towards the NC schools.
Maryland has a good kind of resentment: they LOVE to HATE Duke.
South Carolina did resent the dominance of the NC schools so much that it withdrew, but that was back in the early 70’s. At that time, 4 of 8 members were in NC. Now it’s 4 of 12.
The ACC does have equality as one of its high values; it distributes revenue equally, even though Duke probably hasn’t appeared on ESPN or ABC since the 90’s while FSU & Miami are on many times/season. It’s also been more equitable as to where it stages the ACC b-ball tournament. It’s still in G’boro or Charlotte most years, which makes given the central location and proximity to not just one or two schools but four; however, it’s also been held in Washington, Atlanta, and Tampa in recent years.
I guess my point is that I think there’s not much of a reason to view ACC schools as problematic or trouble-making; certainly they’d be far less contentious than Notre Dame or Texas would. But having said that, I hope the Big Ten (and SEC) leaves the ACC the hell alone. It’s not a hodgepodge league like the Big East. It’s not a shotgun marriage like the Big 12. It’s a strong, reasonably unified league in its own right.
That’s why I’d prefer the Big Ten to take Nebraska, Rutgers, and Pitt, three schools which by all means qualify for the Big Ten and would be leaving mediocre situations for a pretty ideal one.
LikeLike
as an aside..
as an Indiana homer.. I will let you ponder the following two points….
a) Everett Case – would “tobacco road” even exist today in basketball?
b) John Wooden – would the Pac 10 have any basketball history?
how did the Big 10 ever let these guys leave Big 10 country?
LikeLike
The SEC would still have two western options from the Big 12 — Missouri (which, after all, borders Arkansas) and Kansas. As I stated above, you add some basketball luster, a heated rivalry, and get both St. Louis and Kansas City in the SEC footprint. Missouri would have more value to the SEC than it would to the Big Ten. (It would also give “Tigers” a 3-2 edge over “Bulldogs,” but I’m not sure the SEC wants Clemson to make it four.)
LikeLike
Vincent – the SEC doesn’t need markets. For expansion to work for the SEC, ESPN & CBS would have to agree to renegotiate the TV contracts. They would probably only do that if it meant higher ratings and higher ad rates. Kansas & Mizzou don’t do that.
LikeLike
You’re right. The SEC operates on a slightly different marketing model than the Big 10. Rather than trying to get markets and huge alumni bases like the Big 10, the SEC tries to convince everyone that the SEC game is the one to see, no matter where in the country you live. (With quite a bit of success, I might add.)
Alabama and LSU are from small, poor states that aren’t all that desirable to advertisers. But the SEC has made those games valuable because they can argue that a Tide/Tigers game is the game that everyone is going to be talking about the next week no matter where you live or went to school.
LikeLike
hmm…. with respect, I am not sure any of us can say what the “marketing strategies” of the various conferences are.
IMHO, we readers of this blog and the comments have become overly mesmerized by the tv markets and demographics component.
IIRC, the B10 Network has denied that any one has discussed expansion with them. So, is adding tv households really something being heavily considered by the 11 men/women who are going to vote?
LikeLike
Do you think Kansas would/could ditch K-state like that? In my mind they’ll try and salvage something with Iowa state and the Mountain West heavyweights. Add boise and maybe louisville or houston and they’ll have a respectable conference.
LikeLike
Do you think Kansas would/could ditch K-state like that?
It’s possible. It probably comes down to one question, are Kansas politicians going to make Kansas, and attractive candidate for a high level conference, walk the plank for Kansas State? If you can’t save both, you save one.
LikeLike
Pretty much.
They’re going to have to come to grips that Kansas has a chance to go the Iowa route and that Kansas State will be an afterthought like Kansas State.
One is better than none in a major conference…
LikeLike
vincent,
think of central points..
say..
Big 10 = Chicago
SEC = Atlanta
now look at a map and the SEC would be moving well away from atlanta.. as opposed to say Clemson, UNC, NC St, and Ga Tech. Kentucky is at the edge of the SEC but it is a straight shot down I – 75 to Atlanta. Going to Missouri and Kansas means going NORTH and WEST and adding big road travel for the tailgating masses.
call me old fashioned, but driving distance for the fans has to be in the equation somewhere for really good rivalries to develop. Rivals means better demand for product.
LikeLike
@Kyle: thanks for the Pitt musing.
two additional thoughts: defensive additions and JoePa.
If Pitt is not B10, then the the ACC has a potential entry into the PA tv market. So B10 takes Pitt defensively to prevent dilution of the PA market.
PennState (via JoePa) has a lot of influence in which eastern schools get an invite. I’d predict JoePa’s list is: Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and then way down the list MD and at the bottom VA.
Remember, there WILL be horsetrading. “We’ll vote for X if you vote for Y.”
LikeLike
You’d be wrong on both of those items. Penn State dominates PA. Pitt’s market share comparatively is very small. The ACC might make a grab for Pitt, but it’s not going to effect the Big Ten’s market share in PA. Pitt has no pull outside of a ring around Pittsburgh, and PSU is still a bigger draw in Pittsburgh.
On JoePa’s preferences, Pitt is way down the list. Joe wouldn’t care if PSU never played Pitt again. Rutgers and Syracuse would both be way above Pitt.
LikeLike
I find it kind of amazing how the talk of Missouri being a shoo-in has almost stopped completely.
LikeLike
Their fanbase apparently didn’t get the memo.
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/list.php?board=2
LikeLike
@Nostradamus – Sincere thanks to whoever has been posting my blog posts on Tiger Board. That person usually takes a whole lot of heat from that crowd since a lot of them think I’m an Illini homer on this subject. I swear to the Mizzou fans – there’s nothing personal. I’m just passing along what I’ve heard.
LikeLike
Oh God. Tigerboard is a cesspool. I wouldn’t worry about anything that comes off of that circa 1998 message board.
(nm)
LikeLike
@Husker Al – I know a good portion of the Mizzou message board crowd thinks that I have some vendetta against them as an Illinois alum (which is insane, as Missouri provides a great conference rival that we never really have had), but the buzz has definitely died down about the school over the past few weeks. I’ve getting a lot of conflicting reports about Mizzou for awhile. A handful think that Mizzou is a lock, while a whole lot of others think that they won’t get in. We’ll see how it turns out. At least Missouri is in a better position than Kansas, who has to be extremely worried.
LikeLike
@Frank,
At this point you almost have to think it comes down to how big is the Big 10 going to expand. If it is 16, I think there is a very good chance Missouri is in as team # 15 or 16. 14? A lot less likely than we initially thought. 12 no chance.
LikeLike
@Nostradamus – Yes, in a 16-team league, I believe that Missouri would be in at this point. Of course, I think that the Big Ten will only go up to 16 if Texas or Notre Dame is included, so that complicates things. It’s a bit more dicey at 14 for Mizzou.
The Arkansas comparison that zeek brought up earlier is really sticking with me. That might be a theme for a future post. Let’s say the Big Ten is resigned that it’s not going to get Texas. Maybe it also believes that Texas is sincere in wanting to keep the Big XII together. In that scenario, it makes sense that the Big Ten would only take 1 Big XII school in order to maximize the chances of the conference surviving as opposed to pushing a breakup.
I don’t think the Big Ten is stupid. You can see how much the Big XII cares about Nebraska leaving compared to Missouri and that’s reflected in how a whole lot more internal squabbling seemed to surface when the Huskers became a more prominent name in these expansion discussions. Depending on which side you’re on, Nebraska is either being forced into a quick decision or it really does hold a lot of the cards here. Arkansas, as opposed to Texas or Texas A&M, was the school that dealt the final death blow to the SWC. Nebraska could very well play the same role with respect to the Big XII.
LikeLike
@ Frank: btw, thanks for this Blog; been so fun to read over the last few months…
in response to this last comment, i’d throw out again some of my thoughts from the previous thread.
if you contemplate the chummy relationship between the “Rose Bowl Conferences,” and think 5-20 years down the road of preventing TX from going to the SEC, pushing TX into a Pac-16, might be a good idea now.
makes Pac10 an equal to the B10 and SEC.
it is in B10’s interest that P10 remain a powerful conference; without the BXII South, the P10 is in danger of falling behind in the tv-money-arms-race.
so B10 takes as many quality BXII schools as needed to push Tex into the arms of the P10.
LikeLike
@Frank the Tank
I’ve only started posting recently, but I’ve been lurking since this all started. I think you’ve been pretty straightforward in calling it like you see and hear it. You can swear allegiance to your alma mater and post objectively at the same time – not everyone can pull that off.
LikeLike
If Kansas is truly off the board for the Big Ten, and the Pac 10 balks at their new grab bag of teams, then Lew Perkins better be sending love letters west. Going in a Pac 10 pullback with Colorado, and visiting Pauley Pavilion (R.I.P., John Wooden) once a year would be a pretty soft landing from where they’re at now.
LikeLike
^^This^^ and you go straight to the state legislators and get them to sign off on separating from K-St.
Kick em extra $$ and keep the annual game OOC if you have to but get them to let you leave them….
LikeLike
This is why if I’m Kansas, I go hat in hand to the Missouri people and say, “Don’t risk being left out. Join forces with us and approach the SEC.” It’s like that old Smokey Robinson and the Miracles tune — the SEC may not be the one you want (we know that belongs to the Big Ten), but it may be the one you need (to avoid joining ISU and KSU in the Mountain West).
LikeLike
That could work also.
LikeLike
I would prefer KS and MO to the Pac in the group of 6 rumor over OK and OkSt. It won’t happen due to 1) a TX concession, 2) rumor KS is tied to KsSt, and 3) Pac has uneven dollar distribution that Mizz hates so much and that they prefer B10/get away from TX.
I really have a fear for the Pac in the B12 South rumor. For reasons you stated about power voting block issues – it would be ideal not to have so many coming from the same conference. In this case the divide between the B12 N and S seems so wide (at least the media leads us to believe it is) its almost like they are different divisions. That would lead me to prefer a P16 with TX, aTm, TT (if required – you take em), and then some sort CU + Utah/KS/MO combo.
If the B10 won’t take TT and TX truely needs them to take them with them, and the Pac is willing to do that then why also bend to the OU request? Assuming TX doesnt want the SEC (as many from TX claim), their choices would be the Pac or a dying Big 12. It would be dumb for them not to let go of the OU/OkSt demand because they can still reap the beneifits of regional travel in their division + membership in a PTN that include two of the largest US popluated states, and what is sure to be an extreme upgrade in their current nat’l TV contract $$.
The Pac then protects their current hierarchy of power from shifting to an extreme pro TX voting block (to an extent) and get a truckload more $$.
LikeLike
But the problem is that the Pac-10 won’t agree to that. If TT and whatever additional dross is part of the deal, the Pac-10 can sell it to Stanford and Cal only if there is the Quarantine division that has the new SW conference and fobs off the Arizona schools, which were no much wanted by some in the Pac-8. The goal is to remake the Pac-8 and make money. They can possibly sell that to Stanford and Cal by arguing in that situation the academic quality of the schools doesn’t matter. Frankly, I astounded Texas and TAMU would go along with it if they are really looking for an academic upgrade. It’s not. Earlier I posted that such a deal ensures there is no CIC in the Pac-10’s future. Too many academic have nots for the heavyweights to ever consider true cooperation.
LikeLike
Maybe I am the one that is off base but reforming an original Pac 8 is no where near even close to a priority – if even a thought in the back of somes mind. The priority is to earn money and close the financial gap between the B10 and SEC.
If rumors are true then they are willing to make some academic concessions (and I tending to believe a 6 team move may be on the table but not necessarily with those reported) but I see no way in hell that they make concessions on the secular side (see Baylor and BYU)
LikeLike
The Baylor talk reminds me of a joke:
A man walks into a bar. He goes up to a woman and says “Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?”. She responds “Yeah, probably.” He continues, “Ok, would you sleep with me for $10?”. She slaps him and says “What kind of woman do you think I am?”
The punchline is of course “Lady, we’ve already established what kind of woman you are. Now we are just negotiating on price.”
In the (still not official) scenario of inviting Oklahoma State, Oklahoma, and Texas Tech, the Pac-10 has revealed what kind of conference they are or are willing to become. Swapping Baylor for Colorado is just negotiation.
LikeLike
LOL! Well, maybe…but she ain’t sleeping with him for $10 bucks and the Pac 10 ain’t accepting Baylor…..
LikeLike
That is PERFECT.
LikeLike
very well put.
LikeLike
I think comparing OU to a whore when OU is better than several of the existing Pac 10 schools is a reach.
But don’t let me stop you from patting yourselves on the back for how much superior you are to everyone else.
douches.
LikeLike
Well, you’ve taught us all a valuable lesson.
Look, i honestly feel bad for the Big Eight. This is why I want no part of Texas for the Big 10. Ask TCU, Rice, etc. OU ought to look to the SEC and get away from these guys. I like Texas right where they are. Let them form a new league and have their championship of the Republic of Texas.
Maybe, I’m wrong, but I don’t ever see the B10 saying “thanks team X, it has been fun but Situation Y really needs WV”.
Call the SEC. OU is better off there anyway all around.
LikeLike
People keep mentioning Virginia as a candidate for inclusion. But didn’t they play hardball with the other members of the ACC to include Va Tech during their expansion and now just a few years later, they’re the ones who are going to leave?
LikeLike
They’d be the kind of school you’d go after if the SEC announces it’s going after ACC schools…
Hard to see ACC schools jumping to the Big Ten while everything is stable. Even Maryland which is a slight outlier being at the border and not really a “Tobacco road” kind of school…
LikeLike
Zeek, I take it you are referring to Tech, not UVa, in SEC talk.
If Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina could go in as a package, I think they would jump to the Big Ten in a heartbeat…maybe quicker were Duke included as well.
And right now, nothing’s stable. Not to be proactive is to risk being left holding the bag, diminishing the conference you’re in to the level of the Big East, or worse.
LikeLike
You really think so though?
Politics may show up if UNC ever tries to leave the ACC, and Virginia may have to deal with that too.
I see Maryland as the school that can be picked off since it comes off a lot more similar to the eastern Big Ten schools rather than the more Southern nature of the other schools.
I mean, don’t get me wrong. A UNC/UVA/Maryland expansion would be a grand slam from every perspective.
It would be the best possible expansion for the CIC due to the D.C. targeting where all the money comes from, etc.
I just don’t see how it works out now.
I think the Big Ten should aim for 14, say Nebraska/Rutgers + 1 (Pitt/Syracuse/Mizz or whoever). Try to get Maryland as hard as you can for that third spot.
But if not, we can just wait. I mean eventually the SEC is going to need to expand and the ACC will be their most likely option.
Then you can even work in tandem with the SEC to take the teams that we want and they want (which are likely to be different).
LikeLike
@ Vincent
You’ve been posting for awhile now about Md/UVa as great candidates for the Big Ten – our of curiosity, what makes you think that they would accept? The only public comment we have from them to my knowledge is Debbie Yow’s open mockery of the idea. Not saying it won’t happen, just that I don’t take it as a given that either would accept. I went to grad school at UVa, and I never perceived that UVa was, or thought of itself as, a Big Ten-type school with tons of graduate research and a powerhouse football program. I think it sees itself as a Tobacco Road-type basketball school (oddly, as UVa hasn’t been any good since Ralph Sampson left) that retains a bit more focus on undergrads. I know the money is obviously better in the Big Ten, and perhaps that’s enough.
LikeLike
“out” of curiosity
LikeLike
Brit Kirwin, Chancellor of the University System of Maryland was previously the President of Ohio State. There is the tie, does not mean it means anything but there is a link.
Myself, I believe Georgia Tech should be sought. Very good school in the heart of the SEC. How pissed would the SEC be, having Big Ten games played in the south.
LikeLike
Chris7165 – There was also a cryptic comment made (I think by Barry Alvalrez) that an unknown school had surprised the Big Ten by approaching them. It was apparently a school that The Big Ten didn’t expect this school to be interested, but made them step back and take a hard look. There was some thought that it could be Virgina or Miami.
At this point, if the Big XII collapses, I think the entire game changes, because now the ACC will be in a similar position as the Big XII, with everyone wondering what the other schools will do.
And at that point, Clemson, FSU, Miami are looking hard at the SEC, and not only Virginia and Maryland, but perhaps UNC and Duke would look at The Big Ten.
And who knows if their most recent TV contract is voided if a couple of schools leave?
LikeLike
What Debbie Yow thinks is irrelevant. UMD’s athletic department is kind of hurting for cash at the moment. They’re going to be getting a new president soon. Yow might be out of a job before too much longer.
LikeLike
If you want some insight on the politics of the ACC head over the NC State Scout board. There is currently a 31-page thread on Expansion-Mania started by the question of whether the Big10 would want BC. That idea was quickly shot down but the thread lives on.
It’s kind of funny because there is nary a peep about any expansion rumors on any other ACC board. (Exception being GTech’s board but that is more about their options)
Wolfpack fans seem to relish their role as the political pundits of ACC land. With presumed legislative protection they happily speculate on the goings-on behind the closed doors of all their neighbors.
Some of their consensus views:
1. Maryland is by far the most likely to accept a Big10 invitation. As an outlier with a natural border to Big10 land they are the clear top choice. Maryland is also unburdened by state politics if it is the right choice as an institution. As of now they don’t think Maryland would accept. However, the odds greatly improve if the landscape becomes unstable.
2. They still rehash how Virginia actually went against the tobacco road voting bloc for the first time ever when the legislature stepped in so the league brought in Va Tech instead of Syracuse. They feel the only way Virginia would consider the Big10 is if Va Tech was poached (SEC?) to clear the way politically, and the ACC was about to crumble.
3. Duke-UNC-NC State (and perhaps Wake) are an unbreakable bloc. The legislature will step in if needed to protect NC State.
4. If the SEC comes looking for expansion targets the pecking order is Clemson, Va Tech, Florida St. with Ga Tech a distant last. Lots of speculation whether the football will outweigh the academics if the SEC came calling. The arguments that academics will win out have strengthened with the new ACC tv contract.
5. If the ACC loses any members it would most likely look north to the Big East. Syracuse could be a bit of a problem because of that past snub. They fully recognize the value of Pitt and how they may be passed over by the Big10.
LikeLike
Faithful5K,
thanks.. can you link as the one i found was….
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=178&f=2515&t=5744126
and it dealt with BC to the Big 10, and discussed adding Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU!?!?
on your points….
1) no argument there.. I was first on the Maryland bandwagon..
2) early on I argued pairs (UVA/VaTech) and (UNC/NCst), which is why I have believed and continue to believe that the state schools in Virginia and North Carolina could wind up in the SEC because of this.
3) I strongly disagree.. I think the ONLY unbreakable block in the state of North Carolina is UNC & NCst. If you think the Big 10 wants UNC, are you willing to take NCst (so far I have gotten the impression this is NO (same with Va Tech). Both the Big 10 and SEC are LARGE FLAGSHIP STATE UNIVERSITIES (Northwestern & Vandy were grandfathered in). Duke and Wake are not….
4) I think your pecking order is incorrect (what is good for the goose is good for the gander). If the Big 10 wishes to expand footprint, would the SEC not want to as well? Clemson, FSU, and Ga Tech are already covered by USC, UF, and UGA. if the SEC expands they will want new markets and they would get that moving into North Carolina and Virginia. I feel the SEC choosing not to expand footprint is wishful thinking.
5) I think if the ACC implodes they will reform as a collective of private schools. Duke, Wake, Tulane, ND, Baylor, Rice, BC, Miami, Syracuse, etc… and some schools like Ga Tech, Army, Navy, etc…
I could be wrong here, but I see three issues….
a) the ACC state schools will make more $$ in the Big 10 or SEC than they will in the Big East or ACC.
b) the SEC will want to expand footprint (and not just teams like WVU with small markets) so if the footprint is too small for the Big 10, it is probably to small for the SEC. Just keep this in the back of your mind.
c) people in their 50’s, 60’s, and 70’s will be driving the bus – not bloggers in their 20’s, 30’s, and 40’s. I am not trying to be anti youth – I am trying to be more realistic in my thinking. I keep thinking in the back of my mind how someone in their 60’s would think about what gets proposed.
LikeLike
I think you have hit a lot of great counter-points. Maybe I should restate the case. The ACC is generally seen as one of the most unified conferences around. In fact there are some different forces tugging at the conference. Perhaps if you are looking for what the ACC will do in the future you should look at these small fissures.
The current power is inside tobacco road and the rest feel a bit excluded. There are two distinct camps for football and basketball as priorities. There are political forces at work at the state level (think mini-Texas). The last expansion created some new divisions. Private vs. public school is a very valid division. There is a high academic standard that in general will not be compromised, but it is on a sliding scale across the conference members.
LikeLike
You put it accurately.
Culturally, I think UNC has more ties to UVa and Duke than it does to NCSU. Keep in mind that for many years, North Carolina played Virginia in its traditional football finale, a role later usurped by Duke and more recently State.
Were NCSU to go to the SEC, it would have a chance to establish a new identity after having been in UNC and Duke’s shadow the past two decades. It could rebrand itself as a “football culture” school.
On responses to my earlier suggestion that the SEC take in Missouri, Kansas, Virginia Tech and N.C. State: Would any of them be a less attractive fit for the SEC than South Carolina, a traditionally dysfunctional athletic department, was? (It only got in because Florida State cast its lot with the ACC.) State could very well evolve into North Carolina’s equivalent of Virginia Tech, and Missouri and Kansas couldn’t contribute less to SEC football than Miss State or Vanderbilt do.
I’m simply saying that if NCSU and VT have new homes in the SEC, the political pressure regarding a Big Ten move is lessened for UNC and UVa.
If the eight Texas SWC schools can break up and the three Idaho Division I schools all end up in different conferences (at one time, all three were in the Big Sky), then nothing is off the table — including NC’s “big four.”
LikeLike
re 3): Auburn, Mississippi, and Michigan State make me believe that this is not as strong a point as some believe.
LikeLike
I actually think NCSU may not have as much of a problem as people may think. In research, they’re actually above Mizzou in both rankings and money. They’re pressing for AAU status, and I think they’ll likely get it in the next 10 years. Plus, their demographics are favorable. Really, the only thing Mizzou has over NCSU is their AAU status (conferred over a hundred years ago, when the academic landscape was much different).
LikeLike
Between the NCSU scout board, and GT board that “aps” linked to last night, it looks like the ACC is less solid than I thought.
GT looks like it would jump in a heartbeat if either the Big Ten or the SEC asks. That shocks me. Maybe Maryland can be got as well? I wouldn’t have thought so, but apparently NCStaters think so.
The question is if the Big Ten would want GT or if Maryland would want the B10. GT is a good school with good football in the heart of SEC country. But it’s also a small school that probably can’t carry it’s city (it’s like a public Vandy that way). I have no idea what Maryland wants, but it is worth looking into.
LikeLike
I would say the ¨dream scenario¨ at this point (taking into consideration academics, athletics, national fan base, location, conference balance and footprint) would be Texas, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Maryland, Georgia Tech.
That group gets you in Texas (UT), NYC (ND and UM), DC (Maryland) and Atlanta (GT). On top of that Nebraska would contribute to the handful of Big 10 teams with a truly national fan base.
So I think you start from that dream and work out. How do you rank those five in terms of priority and who requires contingencies?
LikeLike
To get New York, I honestly believe you have to get Rutgers. I just can’t see the major cable providers adding the BTN with no school in close proximity to make them care. The current Big Ten alum would follow them no closer than they do now, and the Big Ten wouldn’t be able to leverage that more than they can now. Replace Ga Tech with Rutgers and forget about Atlanta. Ga Tech is the kind of school that is more luxury than ideal. If the Big Ten wants more of a presence in the deep South, doesn’t Miami(FL) make more sense than Ga Tech, especially because there’s already such a huge alumni base in the entire state of Florida?
If expansion gets the BTN on in NYC, New Jersey, Maryland and DC without compromising academics, then that has to be viewed as at least two home runs (at least to me), even if it doesn’t include ND or Texas.
LikeLike
How about a small conspiracy theory:
The Baylor angle is a way to solve the ‘Tech Problem’ without bringing Tech to the B10+. Get a reject from the P10 to illustrate that the current Texas 4 just isn’t going to work in a P16 or B16. However, if only TX and aTm (and maybe NE) go to the B16 and CO to the P12, there are enough schools left over to keep the BCS AQ while adding other Texas schools to the rebuilding B12 like UH, TCU, and/or SMU. With KS and KSU reaffirming today that they are a package deal, the SEC might take OU and maybe NE, but at least 6 schools likely remain behind to rebuild the conference. So if the state can go from 4 to 6 or 7 schools in BCS conferences then that is a win-win. TX and aTm are then allowed to go to the B16 without big legislative repercussions.
Not saying I’m buying this theory, but it is possible. The thing is, aTm has been as much if not more anti-P16 than TX, they’re the ones squawking about travel (Baylor is much closer than CO) and hinting at the SEC. And any ‘Tech Problem’ affects them just as much as TX. Maybe they are insisting on Baylor, to kill the P16 idea and try for the SEC. Or maybe it is TX, and all about the TV channel. But aTm has already let it be known that if the LSN is allowed, they’ll try for the SEC and try to bring OU.
Hard to say right now.
LikeLike
One last thought: Many schools seem to be worried at not just losing the big revenues of their current conference, but being left out if there is a move to four 16-school conferences that could break away into their own division. But if TX and aTm go to the B10+, it is almost impossible for the P10 to reach 16. If they don’t reach 16, there is no 4×16 breakaway. Maybe a 5-conference break at some point, but the key is that TT, Baylor, and perhaps a few more Texas schools will be in that 5th conference and thus not left behind. Less revenue than with TX and aTm, but at least in a BCS conference with a decent TV contract. Hence TX and aTm could use this argument to go to the B10+ without any parasite schools.
LikeLike
MidTexHorn posted this on Orangebloods on March 11. Amazingly it all sems to be coming together as Powers stated.
“I spoke briefly with UT President Bill Powers last night (March 10) at a Texas Exes event in Midland. President Powers gave a dinner speech to our local group and touched on a number of different issues that he has been facing as UT president (10% rule, Cactus Cafe, Mack’s salary, etc.). One of the issues that he briefly named early in his speech was “the Big XII TV contract” but he didn’t go into any detail on that subject. Nevertheless, I was intrigued. I was hoping there would be a question and answer session, but there wasn’t.
After dinner, I waited for a window of opportunity and went over and shook his hand and thanked him for the speech. After some small talk about the law school (I was a student there when he was a law prof), I asked the question I was dying to ask: “So, Big 10 or Pac 10?”
He laughed and then the first thing he said was “Well, we are NOT going to the Big 10.” I was expecting a very lawyerly, equivocating answer, so I was pretty surprised at his very direct and succinct answer. He then went on to say he had no desire to be flying our softball team all over the upper reaches of the midwest. Then he dropped another bombshell “Whatever we do, we aren’t leaving Tech behind”. He then talked about how this issue is very much a hot button topic for him right now and it’s what he was referring to by referencing the “Big XII TV contract negotiations” in his speech. He then got rather vague and said that he could see some sort of large “Western” alliance of schools forming in the future, but this isn’t imminent and he’s not sure what will happen. That was it, we only spoke for a total of about 2 or 3 minutes.”
We have since had it explained that the ideal Western Alliance would combine the Best of the PAC 10 and the Big XII, with maybe 1 or 2 or the MWC.
Just thought it was interesting in light of recent developments.
LikeLike
If that’s the case, then the e-mail comments about Powers wanting some contact about his Tech problem have been completely misinterpreted, and Delany has known Texas isn’t coming for quite some time.
LikeLike
If Delany knew that Texas wasn’t coming, he’d have invited Nebraska already.
This kind of “Texas already said no to Big Ten” argument is kind of pointless.
If the Big Ten really felt that it had no chance at Texas (and ND since ND would probably not come unless Texas did, i.e. changing paradigm), then Nebraska would be getting an invite the next day.
Clearly, Nebraska hasn’t gotten an invite so the Big Ten hasn’t decided what it wants (aka Texas is still talking…).
LikeLike
I did start the post with “if”. 😉
LikeLike
My comment was more of a concurrence.
LikeLike
@Zeek,
It is quite possible Delany already did. There is a meeting in Chicago tomorrow after all.
LikeLike
Zeek – The reason there hasn’t been any announcement may be that the Big Ten has figured out the Nebraska is #12 and Rutgers is #13, but they haven’t reached a consensus on #14.
Pitt? Syracuse? UConn? Mizzou?
LikeLike
Mizzou, Syracuse, and Pitt all have clear pros and cons that can be weighed against each other. But no chance #14 is UConn. They’re just like Syracuse, but with NCAA misconduct investigations and no AAU status.
LikeLike
Bingo.
Delany mentioned in his e-mail with Gee about moving parts. This is the moving parts. Trying to get each school resolved while balancing the rest not knowing who might be next.
When Penn State was added, it was it. No others in play. Here we have more in play resulting in time needed to get it right.
LikeLike
I agree Alan.
Nebraska/Rutgers are the two that make perfect sense for all the reasons we’ve been talking about.
The question has always come back as to who is #14.
Obviously, Maryland would be perfect, but if it’s not on the board then we have a big decision to make and it’s going to be hard.
I would personally argue that Pitt. is the best choice, but I could see why there’s a tussle between Illinois and the Western schools for Mizz and Ohio St./Penn St. for Pitt. or Syracuse in the east.
Hence, there’s probably some gridlock in the Big Ten over who would be the 14th…
LikeLike
Which gets very easily resolved if you go to 16…
LikeLike
Kyle–U Conn isn’t just like Syracuse. It’s a state school, has a larger enrollment (19000 v. 24000), and has maybe 6 times the research $. It is in all repsects superior to SU, except for the AAU issue.
LikeLike
@ mushroom
I still think that Syracuse is part of the old guard of football identities and wields greater fanbase influence despite being private school.
I like UConn, but I think their too much of the “new kid on the block” for the big ten to seriously consider them.
LikeLike
unless Delany is waiting to invite Nebraska to the Big Ten until the Texas Six pack moves to the Pac 10 and takes the heat for breaking up the Big 12. Then the Big Ten picks up Nebraska without to much bad publicity for being a home wrecker.
LikeLike
A standoff which could last until next April, when Beebe has to negotiate a TV deal. So maybe Delany gets his timeframe, Texas columnist hopes that they can hold Nebraska’s feet to the fire aside.
LikeLike
Guys, UT isn’t going to the Big Ten, let it goooooo.
I think we’ll end up with this pac10/big12 merger, but the schools will be different from the original list. Conference will have a different name, with the divisions being Pac and Big (whatever).
I think Big Ten will go all-out East. Maybe one western school. Really doubt both Neb and Mizz. This ACC raid talk seems ridiculous to me. SOUTHERN schools in the Big Ten? AND private? Maybe Maryland, but that’s pushing it.
I don’t post here much, but things are shaping up pretty much how I predicted. Nice ego boost! This has, and always will be about ND. NOT Texas! This will be a “bleh” Big Ten expansion. But you know what? It doesn’t matter. The Big Ten just needs/wants TVs.
LikeLike
I don’t see how adding Nebraska to the Big Ten is a “bleh” Big Ten expansion. You’re talking about one of the Top 5 or 10 programs of all time from any definition.
Rutgers brings the NYC angle; I could see plenty of games in Yankee stadium or Meadowlands or whatever. That’s not to be underestimated.
And then bringing in Maryland would be another great job for the D.C. angle from a research perspective (one of the closest universities to the federal agencies/govt, etc.).
Could even replace Maryland with another solid choice in Pitt. if they’re not interested or someone else.
I fail to see how that’s a “bleh” expansion. We’d be adding another school in football terms of Ohio State/Michigan/Penn State and then 2 solid additions for markets/research, etc.
LikeLike
My definition of “bleh” (which is why I put the quotes) is in comparison to the wild ideas some people have on here.
LikeLike
In other words its realistic, manageable, maintainable, and sustainable.
I’ll take “bleh” over the next couple decades and watch the rest of the conferences implode from the ego’s just like the Big12 seems to be doing.
LikeLike
100% agree; if “bleh” is workable and sustainable, then “bleh” every time.
as I said yesterday, we’ve gone too far if we say GIANT FAIL for B10 expansion if it doesn’t include TX or ND. neither is needed and ND in particular doesn’t want to join.
LikeLike
Hey, I like bleh. I’m a Syracuse guy–they’d fall into that definition (according to people here).
I just don’t think there’s any way in hell the Big Ten is going to raid the ACC. And I think it’s silly to go after Vandy (piss off the SEC, and actually helping them at the same time).
Whoever here that said it’s good to take some schools with existing rivalries was dead on. Some of the proposals here include taking teams from all the following: Big East, Big12, ACC, *AND* SEC! That’s crazy talk. There’s no cohesion with an expansion like that.
I don’t like UT in the Big Ten. They will leave some day and give the B10 some serious egg on the face. ND fans will complain forever and ever. I think the B10 should just expand for footprint and feel. If the B10 really is a big family, like you guys claim, then helping UConn get AAU, or help SU bring up their research, shouldn’t be that much of a stretch.
LikeLike
This is why it’s not worth chasing Texas. To continue the BH analogy, you start off wanting Ellie May, and the old folks are trying to get you to take Jethrine Bodine. Texas is an appealing candidate, but it’s just not worth all the BS. We don’t need the headaches of Ellie May bringing along all her kin. There are a lot of very good candidate schools out there.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Barking Carnival thinks we’re Big Tent bound:
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/05/john-the-barnacle/
…horninexile has promised another story about the research dollars Texas must consider. This and a few little birds we’ve heard from, yes unnamed sources, still make me think this Pac 10 stuff is all a feint and we’re heading to Evanston for games in November. Of course these people really have names, ones you know, but not ones we’re going to tell you.
For those unfamiliar with BarkC, this is a good read:
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/02/15/being-bill-powers/
Note the date.
LikeLike
Dang, busted by the 2-link moderation trigger.
I’ll try again, in case Frank has gone to bed.
Barking Carnival thinks we’re Big Tent bound:
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/06/05/john-the-barnacle/
…horninexile has promised another story about the research dollars Texas must consider. This and a few little birds we’ve heard from, yes unnamed sources, still make me think this Pac 10 stuff is all a feint and we’re heading to Evanston for games in November. Of course these people really have names, ones you know, but not ones we’re going to tell you.
LikeLike
We being TX, for those unfamiliar with my voluminous blatherings.
For those unfamiliar with BarkC, this is a good read:
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/02/15/being-bill-powers/
Note the date.
LikeLike
I’ve never really followed them, but how close do you think they are to people in power in Texas?
Are they just another group of bloggers or what (I have no idea about Texas followings, hence the question)?
LikeLike
bloggers, yes, like bon, but those two friendly sites offer the best and most connected info on the net about texas and texas’ doings.
in the event i mention barfing carnivore, i mean them and i’m being totally jocular.
LikeLike
Add fail
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
Rumor, fact or white noise. The only certain thing that has changed is that the B10 is now facing the reality that someone might get the jump on them. My impression is that they felt in control of the process, thus were moving deliberately. The current shitstorm makes me think they want to try to establish some real control over the situation. It’s one thing to know intellectually that the PAC-10 or SEC might move first — it’s another thing to have it staring you in the face.
In all the comments and denials, only the Delany-Gee emails can be trusted. Those are real internal communications obtained via a FOIA request. There is no subterfuge there. This was not a real leak — OSU was under a legal obligation to release them. I did not see a date on the e-mails. Was one reported? Knowing when the ‘Tech’ problem was first mentioned would tell us a lot about where things stand. Do these e-mails predate the B10 meetings? If so, then it is likely that the ‘Tech’ problem was discussed — perhaps the presidents made a decision rejecting Tech and have communicated that to Texas (but still want Texas). Possibly they are evaluating Tech and told Texas to wait for some due diligence to happen. If the e-mail exchange was post-meeting, then the B10 presidents have a whole new reality to wrestle with — they may decide that the package deal isn’t worth it.
It’s difficult to believe that the B10 would jump without a thorough analysis.
One interesting note on the PAC-10 regarding the veto (still am having a hard time believing that there is a unanimous vote for the whole B12 South smorgasbord), if there is a new conference then there are new by-laws — or does the PAC-10 just absorb the new members? How can the veto possibly survive in a 16-team conference? Getting 10 votes is near impossible — 16 is impossible. Does Stanford allow a new conference to exist without a veto? That’s a lot of power to give up. Makes me think that if such an invite were made and accepted, there is a chance that constituting a new conference (by-laws, revenue sharing, compliance, etc.) could prove to be impossible — which might leave us right back to where we started.
LikeLike
April 19: Gordon Gee: I am “of the mind that we control our destiny at the moment, but the window will soon close on us. Agility and swiftness of foot is our friend.”
April 19: Jim Delany: “We are fast-tracking it but need to know the $ and observe contracts,” Delany wrote. “Also need to make sure we leverage this to increase chances of hr additions. Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we executy.”
April 20: Gordon Gee: “I did speak with Bill Powers at Texas, who would welcome a call to say they have a ‘Tech’ problem.”
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sports/stories/2010/06/03/e-mails-hint-big-ten-expansion-eyes-on-texas.html
LikeLike
Thanks.
That long ago? And nothing from the B10? Curious.
LikeLike
“n all the comments and denials, only the Delany-Gee emails can be trusted. Those are real internal communications obtained via a FOIA request. There is no subterfuge there. This was not a real leak — OSU was under a legal obligation to release them.”
Well, maybe. But maybe not. I bet Gordon Gee is up on the FOIA laws in Ohio and would know that his emails are public information. The fact that he had this conversation by email shows that he doesn’t ultimately care if its made public.
LikeLike
witless – I disagree. Gee is supposed to be the smartest college president in the world, and Delany is supposed to be the smartest conference commissioner in the world. If these guys wanted to communicate confidentially via e-mail, don’t use you bigten.com and osu.edu e-mail addresses! Get prezgee@yahoo.com and commishdelany@gmail.com, go buy a personal laptop at bestbuy, and use the wi-fi at Starbucks. I doubt a FOIA request would cover that type of communication.
LikeLike
Osborne on the deadline rumors:
http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/06/06/football/doc4c0b17ee774cf193106110.txt
—————————————————–
Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne told the Journal Star on Saturday night that he was unaware of the deadlines presented in the stories.
“I really don’t know what the final parameters are,” Osborne said. “I really can’t comment. The agreement when I left (the Big 12 meetings) Thursday was that (conference commissioner) Dan Beebe and (Texas president) William Powers would do the speaking.”
—————————————————–
LikeLike
That’s actually somewhat generous of him.
Powers didn’t utter a peep.
LikeLike
Assuming the worst (that neither Notre Dame nor Texas will join), I’ve noticed over the past few blog posts (going back to mid-April or so) that people seem to be forgetting that Delany is a basketball man at heart. Meaning, that no matter what happens, the Big10 will be strengthened in both football and basketball. But most of all, academics.
Which brings Pittsburgh back into play. They are the only given school (meaning given that the Big10 can take them at will) with all 3 qualities. No one else, not Maryland, not Virginia, not even Duke can offer the balance that Pitt can.
My point being, if Texas is finally out, don’t overlook Pitt. For the record, and for the sake of argument (not that anyone should care), I vote for Nebraska, Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, and Connecticut/Notre Dame/Colorado.
If Baylor wins and Colorado becomes homeless, the Big 10 better snag em.
LikeLike
Maryland and Pittsburgh are roughly the same in football (check their records the past 10 years) and basketball (heck, Maryland has won NCAA titles in men’s and women’s hoops the past decade; Pitt hasn’t made a Final Four in either). Pitt may have a bit of an edge in research, but Maryland is coming on strong — and it would give the Big Ten two new large markets (one of them featuring many Big Ten alums), two more new markets than Pitt.
LikeLike
I’ve never considered Colorado really in play for the Big 10, but a Neb, Mo, Colorado, Pitt, Rutgers addition would be very solid, imo…
LikeLike
We will have to agree to disagree on Rutgers, but in the event they couldn’t be swapped out for MD et al, I would have to grudgingly agree that those teams/institutions would make a really solid (albeit not flashy) expansion – much like the conference itself and would reflect very well on their stated priorities for expanding
LikeLike
More on the deadline:
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100605/SPORTS/706059785
—————————————————–
The Austin American-Statesman, citing two sources from Big 12 schools, reported Saturday night that NU and Missouri have been given until Friday at 5 p.m. to declare whether they are with the Big 12 or will pursue a move to the Big Ten.
Coincidentally, the Nebraska Board of Regents is scheduled to meet Friday and Saturday in Lincoln.
Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe confirmed on Friday that a so-called drop-dead date for schools considering leaving had been established, but gave no other details. Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman was mum upon leaving those meetings
—————————————————–
LikeLike
Conflicting reports on if it is Friday or a week from Friday (IOW 2 weeks.)
LikeLike
240 million for 16 teams vs 260 million for 11 teams! can that be right?
LikeLike
As far as these deadlines go, I keep wondering “Or what?” The South will go to the Pac 10 without us? I’m not convinced that’s going to happen. Getting the Pac 10 to approve OU/OSU/TT was going to be tricky enough–now they have to take Baylor? Texas just can’t go anywhere without their ugly cousins, and it doesn’t sound like their reasonably hot sister (TAMU) wants to go West anyway.
It sounds like a bluff to me.
All this freaking out in Texas about UNL has convinced me that they’re the right choice for B10 expansion. Texas and ND are just too high-maintenance and the Huskers bring everything you want except a major population center–but they have fans nationwide, just like ND.
LikeLike
Nebraska’s national brand name, while huge, still isn’t up there with the fighting Irish. But Nebraska has a lot of things going for it that ND doesn’t: it IS an AAU member; it is making strides in research; and it would join the Big Ten enthusiastically, not reluctantly.
So after Texas, Nebraska seems like it should be the #2 choice, even over the Fighting Irish.
LikeLike
I think the “or what” is basically the status quo (i.e. – Big 12 stays intact) but with Texas firmly in charge and a Longhorn Sports Network with (possibly) a Big 12 Network for everyone else. Frankly at this point I think that’s Texas’ preferred option.
Really I think this “bluff” is aimed more at the Big Ten – “Do you guys really want the Huskers or not?” If the Big Ten can’t make up their mind now, it puts the onus more on Nebraska later should the Big Ten ever come up with an offer. At that point Nebraska “breaks their pledge” (or stays with the Big 12 if the LSN/B12N is working out).
As I see it, this comes down to the Big Ten being the bad guy by offering to Nebraska, or Nebraska being the bad guy by breaking their pledge. I agree with Zeek and Frank above, for some reason Texas wants Nebraska (or some school other than TX) to play the role of Arkansas this time around as the scapegoat for breaking up the Big 12. Texas seems to want to avoid a perception problem of being the school breaking up the conference.
LikeLike
I see the Big Ten saying yes to Nebraska and a maybe to Missouri (it would like to explore other alternatives first). UNL and Mizzou aren’t joined at the hip, and the Big Ten doesn’t have to take both.
LikeLike
I think NU and Missouri should give the Big XII South the same ultimatum. At the moment, it sounds like a lot more going on down there than in the north.
LikeLike
If a Texas columnist (Bohls) who apparently throws a lot of stuff at the wall to see what sticks is actually right about this, and the Board of Regents is going to vote up or down on the Big Ten (it’s not on the official agenda), this could be the biggest pay-per-view event in Nebraska since last football season.
LikeLike
Agree with the skeptics. MO and NEB will just let the “deadlines” pass without comment.
LikeLike
I did not see a date on the e-mails.
Gee-TX were April 20th. Same day that Tom Osborne sent the NE chancellor a “Just talked to the theOSU coach, we need to talk” email. About the time Delany went public to refute several rumors and state that the process was not fast-tracked, they were sticking to their 12-18 month timeline.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
I’m curious why TX legislators could argue with a straight face that Baylor deserves to come along. TCU seems like it fits the bill better than Baylor.
LikeLike
In the words of Will Munny, (Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven), “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”
LikeLike
Ok, as a Baylor grad I will take the bait. For all that TCU has achieved they still cant draw more than 30K at home for football and that is with being located in Fort Worth. Now then look at all the other sports
Basketball: Men and Women advantage BU by a mile
Baseball: Probably a push.
In terms of academics TCU is not on the same level as Baylor. Oh and you might do some research on the representation in the legislature and you might just find that the vast majority get their undergrad and grad degrees from a combination of UT, A&M, Tech, and BU. The alum from those four schools produce the power players in Texas
LikeLike
I actually think Rice University is a better choice than either Baylor or TCU. However, The State of Texas has restructured it’s funding system to boost Tech to a Tier 1 and possible AAU (both of which Rice are).
LikeLike
While the Texas talk goes on, let’s talk a little more about the southern strategy overall.
Begining with a background on population, the Texas market is 2nd to California with 24.7 people. New York is 19.5 but no singular state school there. Florida is 18.5 million–so again, the Big Ten has to make at least a pass at U of F, even if the odds are remote. (As a point of comparison, Illinois has 13 million; Pennsylvania has 12.6, Ohio has 11.5 and Michigan has 10 million.)
North Carolina isn’t discussed much as an expansion option, and maybe they’re a tough “get”. But North Carolina has 9.4 million people, which is 10th in the nation or nearly 40% of Texas’ population just by itself. So a great market. It’s sports are outstanding, basketball especially (even if football isn’t top shelf). But most importantly, the academics are excellent. I hope the Big Ten at least discusses the option with UNC. They should really be at the top of the BT’s list.
In comparison with Rutgers, New Jersey has a smaller population than NC, with 8.7 million. (Though to be fair, Rutgers may pull audience in Philly and NY, too.)
I don’t know how much Georgia Tech would draw in Georgia or even Atlanta, but Georgia’s population is 10 million and metro Atlanta is 5.3 million of that. (So if Georgia Tech could get the BTN on basic in metro Atlanta, it would have the same population as Minnesota.)
As for other markets, Missouri has 6 million, some of which is already served within the BT footprint. Colorado has 5 million but growing fast.
The DC area is interesting. The whole Baltimore-DC metro area is 8.2 million. The entire state of Virginia is 7.8 million and the state of Maryland is 5.7 million. Another 600,000 in DC proper.
Maryland and Virginia are both very good schools, have nice population bases, good demographics. Even though football is not outstanding, one can see their appeal.
While Texas and A&M are still appealing, if they come with too much baggage to be practical candidates, I think I’d try in order, Florida (too appealing in nearly every way not to try), UNC, Rutgers (a solid fit that would be a great Big Ten citizen), Maryland (same), Colorado (if it falls through with the Pac10), Virginia and Nebraska for football. Duke (even if it were for academics alone). Georgia Tech and Pitt are very solid back ups. Vanderbilt is great for academics, though sports are not Big Ten class.
I like BTJeff’s idea of asking Stanford, but I’ll assume they’re happy where they are.
FWIW, I also like the earlier idea of inviting Johns Hopkins to the CIC. (They’re number one in overall research.) And you may as well ask MIT and Cal Tech while you’re at it. Each is sort of in the mold of the U of C in that they’re all academic heavyweights that don’t participate in major collegiate sports, so aren’t a part of a major athletic conference.
LikeLike
Thanks for the info.
It makes you take pause when you realize the population base of Texas is not as appealing if you need 3-4 expansion slots to get in those households. Rutgers, as an example, jumps ahead on the basis of state population alone without any regard to NYC. Whatever you gain from Texas’s tv ratings are also diluted with multiple teams in the same market.
LikeLike
FWIW, I also like the earlier idea of inviting Johns Hopkins to the CIC.
I saw the JHU-related post that I was getting excited about . . . until I got to the end and saw the Baylor stinkbomb.
(Switching hats)We’re too good for you. Why would we want to participate with a bunch of schools with such inferior ability to land appropriate levels of research dollars? Go play with schools like Texas Tech instead. They’re more your speed.
Honestly, I haven’t the faintest clue whether JHU would be interested in something like this. Instinctively, I think not — I think JHU might like to think of itself as having a lot more in common with the Ivies rather than the large public institutions of the midwest.
LikeLike
Oh, forgot to put the tag in there for the second paragraph. That don’t read too good without tagging that appropriately. 🙂
LikeLike
I think the point is to take Maryland and then have Northwestern and UChicago talk to JHU about how they would fit into the CIC.
Even if JHU thinks it’s more of an Ivy institution (as UChicago and NU often do), JHU has no affiliation like that.
It’s affiliations look a lot more like UChicago’s in terms of sports, so it may be an interesting thread to pursue if JHU ends up in the footprint.
MIT/CalTech whoever are non-starters. They’re not in the footprint. Let’s not get too far out there…
LikeLike
“MIT/CalTech whoever are non-starters. They’re not in the footprint. Let’s not get too far out there.”
You don’t need to be in a footprint to cooperate in research, share resources and buying power and facilitate movement of students and professors.
LikeLike
http://bridge.caspio.net/dp.asp?AppKey=3b4e000093abce60e05e44f7acd0
I am not sure if this has been posted before.
The Gazette (Iowa) collected 2008 tax returns for various athletic departments and developed this data table for football, basketball and total revenues/expenses for each school.
Of course these figures are largely influenced by the current tv contracts in each conference, but they may provide an approximate measure of the current financial health and brand value of each school’s athletics.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
one thing to not forget in all this is the pac-10 stance on byu. to my knowledge, this stance is purely informal, but exists. the pac-10 is a grouping of secular schools, in essence, and apparently does not wish to admit byu because of the religious issues it might introduce.
now, with the recent word on baylor, the question is is this straight up or is baylor’s inclusion in the discussion a poison pill?
the pac boys might truly not care about the east division with respect to reputation in any ordinary sense, but might balk at admitting a voting member from a staunch religious group. southern baptists are pretty tightly wound, not like northern baptists, and are almost sure to be viewed in an unfavorable light out west.
pack that into your pipe before you light it.
LikeLike
just noticed an excellent piece by playoffs now! posted at 11:27 last eve. required reading.
one thing about all this pleases me personally. in my various assignments in far-flung places, i occasionally find myself discussing the situation of texas, the school. always, when i bring up the problems of dealing with texas politics someone tunes out, believing i am making things up. one great beauty for me with what is happening now is that i don’t expect to find that sort of disbelief in the future.
i shouldn’t speak too much of baylor because i spend so much time out of state that lots happens of which i have no awareness. that said, i was privy at a distance some years ago to a huge fight between baylor and the southern baptist convention.
apparently, a good many at baylor wanted to create a little separation from the church for educational reasons, but in a big blood-letting the church re-took control and replaced a great deal of the administrative framework. i don’t have any idea what the philosophy of the place is today, but, assuming, the church still has a choke hold on the school, there is no way on this green earth that the pac schools would admit baylor unless the status in not really membership in their conference.
i happily cede my little corner of the floor to anyone who understands that situation in today’s climate and head out to visit some family for the day. don’t settle this thing in my absence, please, and let’s save back the north korea and oil spill issues, too. i want in on those, as well.
LikeLike
oh, and please throw a late edition on the floor i want to keep up with china
LikeLike
Baylor was once controlled by the Baptist General Convention of Texas, the state Baptist group, generally regarded as more moderate than the national Souther Baptist Convention of which it was a member. In order to insulate the school from the politics that was permeating the Baptist fellowship, Baylor changed its governing documents so that the Board of Regents bascially became a self-perpetuating body. It is still a Baptist school, but Baylor politics and Baptist politics are no longer one and the same.
While they just hired Kenneth Starr, they fired a president a few years ago who was regarded as too much of a preacher, and replaced him on an interim basis with their general counsel, a law professor who I personally know to be extremely liberal. Frankly, politics and religion aren’t the main concerns at Baylor right now–it’s money. The preacher they fired spent a lot of money building the campus, and the school has become quite expensive. They’ve gone from being an “affordable” private school that pulled from all over the state (due to the Baptist connection) to just another expensive private school serving most suburban kids. They are also struggling with whether to try to become a research school, or stick with their historic undergraduate mission.
LikeLike
In that vein, Baylor is similar to Wake Forest, which in recent decades has been able to extricate itself from North Carolina Baptist control to become a pretty solid academic institution. (And for many years, dances were verboten at both schools.)
LikeLike
Baylor JUST allowed dancing…. Like 20 years after footloose. Just sayin.
LikeLike
I wonder if the Big 10 has any interest in Colorado?
A Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri expansion would basically expand the western reach of the conference into the markets of St. Louis, Kansas City and Denver. All are AAU schools.
Then, to placate the eastern schools, the Big 10 could take Rutgers and Pitt or Syracuse.
LikeLike
At this point, I fully assume Nebraska to be as near to a lock as possible, and for Rutgers to be not far behind.
I really don’t think the Big Ten presidents can ignore the pull of NYC and the vast possibilities that would open up because of how many Big Ten alumni live in NYC. The numbers are probably similar to the numbers in Chicago. That creates for huge potential for staging games in NYC (Yankee/Meadowlands) and could help drive interest in that area for Big Ten football.
Colorado’s interesting, but I think that Colorado’s spent so much time focused on the Pac-10 that the Big Ten may not have really believed it’d be on the table for expansion. That and the Big Ten seems to have focused on a Texas expansion (with ND) or a Southeast expansion to Virginia/NC.
Those two are the heart of the Sun Belt in terms of population shift. The ACC will soon become the fastest growing region of them all due in large part to VA/NC (and of course FL)…
LikeLike
Maryland, without any other state schools to gum up the works, is probably more available to the Big Ten than Virginia or North Carolina are. And it does a better job in securing the Washington area (which is where most of the Virginia growth is deriving from) than either UVa or UNC…though, from a fan base perspective, it might prefer to have those two come along.
LikeLike
vincent..
agreed.. that is why I put maryland first. it has no second state school to bring along.
LikeLike
Maryland is not coming to the Big 10. Get over it.
LikeLike
I think Colorado has its heart set on the Pac 10. A lot of their graduates move to the West Coast and not so many move to the Great Lakes region.
Could Colorado be considered if things changed? Yes. They fit all the academic categories and they bring in a good TV market.
The one problem would be I don’t think Colorado works without the Big 10 going to 16. I’ve always believed that one school has to be an Eastern school for Penn State. So if UNL and Rutgers (or Maryland) are in, I don’t know that the Big 10 takes CU over Mizzou or a different Eastern School if they stop at 14.
LikeLike
Righto…I like the sound of Colorado, but everyone agrees they should go to the PAC 10…if they get pimped by the PAC 10, and end up in the Big 10, what happens 20 years from now when Baylor or TT leaves the Pac 10…
LikeLike
added
LikeLike
o.O
I guess I’ll have some steak with my eggs…
LikeLike
add add add
LikeLike
I was asked at the end of the last friend why I thought Kent Hance might be Texas’ new best friend in some sort of bizarro universe sort of way.
Here’s what I meant: if Kent Hance is a savvy enough politician to get Tech into the deal in the first place — and it appears plausible that the original six would just barely be palatable to the Pac 10 — then surely he’s a good enough politician to help diffuse the Baylor issue, since anyone can look at this and see that the forced inclusion of Baylor would be a poison pill, as someone mentioned in the last thread. If Baylor is added, Tech is stuck in the Big XII as well.
(Unless being “stuck” in the Big XII is what the Techs of the world prefer. That’s a long-term very foolish attitude in my mind.)
LikeLike
The goal (of Tech) could be to get them all stuck in the Big 12.
Even if the Big Ten takes Nebraska, Texas may end up staying in a shrunken Big 12 if it can’t get its +Tech strategies pulled off with the Big Ten or Pac-10.
Right now we’re watching Texas and Nebraska in a standoff.
Texas wants a localized conference and it seems as if it doesn’t want to leave behind Tech. The problem is the Big Ten isn’t willing to bite, and the Pac-10 may be hesitant to add that many teams that aren’t going to fit the culture or academic standing they seek.
Here’s the analogy: back a couple months ago when everyone was talking about NCAA to 96 games (Pac-16), not a single person was talking about 68 games (Pac-12 with Colorado/Utah).
Perhaps the Pac-10 still goes for the big splash, but we don’t really know yet whether Stanford/Cal/UCLA/UW are all on board for this. Perhaps they are in which case this will all be more smooth than we think, but if it’s not, then the Pac-10 may revisit their Colorado/Utah expansion and find as the NCAA did that a minor expansion (that absolutely no one in the media was looking at) may be the way to go.
LikeLike
Er, I meant to say that getting them all stuck is definitely Baylor’s goal, whereas Tech wants to improve its situation.
Tech just knows that as long as it stays with Texas it will always get some of the primetime spotlight as well as the biggest $ and a chance at better academics.
LikeLike
Er, I meant to say that getting them all stuck is definitely Baylor’s goal, whereas Tech wants to improve its situation.
I was about to reply that such a move on Tech’s part would be incredibly short-sighted, given the life raft they’ve seemingly been given, but your clarification takes away the need for that.
Dwelling on this overnight, I tend to think that the odds of the pro-BU faction in the Legislature scuttling this are slim at best.
LikeLike
Texas wants everyone “stuck” in the B12. UT is the driver in creating the Baylor poison pill.
LikeLike
After lurking and reading 1000s of posts, I’m not sure what to think except that we may be coming full circle to some of Frank’s early posts. Sorry if this is too long, but it is only my second post. I should advertise any potential bias: I am a Texan who has lived/worked in Ohio for 23 years; I have degrees from Baylor and Michigan (I also lived in Austin for a time).
(1) I don’t think it’s correct to say PSU was the only school involved when they joined the B10. I pretty clearly remember a USA Today article/graphic in the early, 90s when the first round of musical chairs started, that NE was part of a B10 discussion. Perhaps I”m remembering wrong, but I agree w/Frank and others, for all the reasons cited: the B10 could add ONLY Nebraska and declare victory. Adding two of Rutgers/Pitt/S’cuse would also make sense. There is no reason for the B10 to become a 16-team league.
(2) I used to think ND was the only logical addition to the B10, but many posts have changed my view: ND is almost totally dissimilar from all the other schools in the conference. No way they go in unless Texas does, which seems increasingly less likely.
(3) The talk of the P10 adding the B12 South (I find the idea of Baylor joining the P10 beyond laughable) reeks of desperation. So much for their standards and collective sense of identity.
(4) Even if the B12 blows up, there is no need for the ACC or SEC to get involved, especially if the B10 takes only NE.
Just my 2¢.
LikeLike
I don’t think of it as the pac-16 really. This is more like two 8-team conferences with a play-in game to determine who goes to the rose bowl. Think of it like the Pac-8 and the New SouthWest-8 merely having an inter-sectional series.
LikeLike
nothing better to do?
LikeLike
I guess not, sorry ….
LikeLike
@gas1958: not sure Carl was responding to your good reasonable post. me-thinks Carl was just “adding”
LikeLike
Thanks Beau. I’m a newbie here, so I need help reading the tea leaves! I should add that, consonant with a few posts subsequent to mine, the scenarios involving ACC teams to the B10 strike me as totally far-fetched. Even if some of those schools are strong, such as UVA and Maryland, I just can’t get my mind around that–I admit it is solely a matter of “feel”. It’s true the campus (student) culture of A&M is far removed from Madison, Ann Arbor, etc., but UT and A&M as universities seem more like the B10 than those ACC schools. What am I missing?
LikeLike
yep, i have added a few similar comments that “feel” is very important.
although I now think ND should not be invited (because they don’t want in), for me, ND was a good “fit” because it felt right not just because of brand name and tv eyeballs. ND is midwest and just fits.
Not true for the ACC and SEC and Texas schools… just “feels” wrong and I can’t see the midwestern presidents adding them (other than the home run that TX (alone) or TX+TA&M would be).
LikeLike
Oops, sorry, gas1958. My “question” was in reference to me – as BuckeyeBeau surmised, I was just “adding”. Your post was totally reasonable.
LikeLike
Thanks. This is my fault for not knowing. This has been one hell of a ride reading all this. Almost anything that actually happens will seem anticlimactic now.
LikeLike
LOL… so very true … and how things have changed in perception. B10 not getting TX is now “failure.” i’m rolling my eyes.
and like a lot of other posters/readers, when I read something in the mainstream media or on some other blog, almost always I’m disappointed because they are either days/weeks behind this blog/posters or are clueless about the dozens of factors in play.
what a fun ride
thanks again to Frank for providing so much CONTENT and SMART content!!
LikeLike
I know a lot of people have been bringing up UNC and UVA, but UNC could be just as much of a political morass as TTech.
There are currently 4 NC schools in the ACC: UNC, NC St., Duke, Wake Forest.
Hard to see UNC ever leaving behind NC St. and Duke. While they might not care that much for Wake Forest, right now UNC is the biggest fish in a pond where 1/3 of the schools are from its state.
Another thing, UVA and VTech. While UVA might be able to leave on its own as long as VTech stays in the ACC or gets an SEC invite, but I don’t see them wanting to leave VTech either as they expended quite a bit of capital to bring them in…
Finally, Maryland may or may not be discontent with the expansion of the ACC that didn’t really bring them a Northern “neighbor” (might have preferred Syracuse or even Pitt. which was closer and better for a rivalry), so who knows. Maybe there’s potential there, but maybe there’s none at all. It’s worth a shot since Maryland may be willing to leave if they think the conference has become too much Southeast and not really coastal, but there’s plenty of reason to doubt that Maryland has any reason to be interested.
A lot harder to see UVA and UNC leave a group of 6 VA/NC schools (+ 1 SC), where they rule the roost.
LikeLike
“Another thing, UVA and VTech. While UVA might be able to leave on its own as long as VTech stays in the ACC or gets an SEC invite, but I don’t see them wanting to leave VTech either as they expended quite a bit of capital to bring them in…”
You have it backwards. Political capital was expended to get UVA to bring in VT. Virginia (the university) was perfectly happy to bring in Syracuse. From what I’ve seen on grounds (aka campus), most people view VT as the hick cousin you’re afraid to be seen with. UVA’s connections to the ACC are much more so to the North Carolina schools and Maryland than to VT. Whether the Virginia politicians will take time off from their cutting of funding to UVA and declaring Confederate Month to wield some pull is less clear.
LikeLike
Oops, I was referring to UVA expending capital to bring in Tech. Guess my pronouns were a bit jumbled.
LikeLike
Why doesn’t the B10 invite Nebraska and Rutgers right now (for a month or 2) and stop at 13? This achieves a myriad of things. Such as:
1. Destabilizes but doesn’t destroy the B12. It causes the remaining big players of that conference (Ok/UT/A&M) to really consider the viability of the B12 and what’s best for them. Primary target (UT) comes to the conclusion the B12 isn’t going to be viable. Of course they probably already have come to that conclusion. This just solidifies it that schools are leaving.
2. Destabilizes but doesn’t destroy the BigEast. It gets your primary target (ND) to understand the landscape is starting to change.
3. PAC10 has to expand from a tv contract standpoint to remain somewhat relevant. Only options are the much discussed B12 South merger or the backup plan of Colorado/Utah. Adding Nebraska pops the cork and gets everything in motion.
4. SEC isn’t just going to sit around while everyone is starting to make moves to solidify their futures so they move on the myriad of B12/ACC options that have been discussed ad nauseum. Which then results in a destabilized ACC and likely the complete destruction of the B12 if the PAC10 merger doesn’t happen. A&M/Okla/Okie St. being the most likely to go the SEC’s way.
By stopping at 13 (in the very short term…month or two tops) everyone knows the B10 is going to add 1 or 3 more teams. So, this sets off the chain reaction. Through back channels it’s quite obvious the B10 has made it clear to UT and ND that they are the top priorities. This gets the ball rolling toward that end.
It also serves a dual purpose of unearthing ACC candidates that would only be available imo AFTER the SEC pilfered a couple of schools. I just don’t see Maryland/Virginia leaving until the FSU’s/Miamis move. That’s the only way the B10 is getting the Terps/Cavs…in a 2nd phase if you will of expansion.
Finally, by adding 2 schools (that are highly likely to get invites anyway) from separate conferences the B10 won’t be accused of destroying a conference. A great PR card to play after the initial announcement. B10 knows it wants multiple B12 schools (UT+Neb.) anyway and I think this is how they get the ball rolling towards that.
That’s how I’d start the reshuffling of the deck chairs if I were Delany and Co.
Thoughts?
LikeLike
Added benefit: Big Ten has to figure out how to redesign their logo to show a “13”.
LikeLike
Oh come now, that’s easy: “13IG TEN”
LikeLike
Lobills,
short term, I say it is much simpler.. just invite Nebraska and sit back and wait..
a) you are now at 12 (a magic number).
b) you can leave all options open in the future (still on the fence with Rutgers) as the NYC/NJ market has to many pro teams to compete with.
The more I look at college football and pro football, it seems you do best when you stay a monopoly (Cincinnati has the Bengals, Columbus has tOSU). Nebraska is a monopoly, NJ/NYC is not..
just my thoughts here….
LikeLike
Duffman,
I’d have no problem adding just Nebraska and sitting back like you suggest. I think more pieces on the chess board are moved if the B10 adds 2 teams because everyone would then be assured more dominoes are going to fall.
If you just add Nebraska it might not shakeup other conferences into acting. This is all under the assumption that the B10 wants to add more than just 1 school.
LikeLike
Lobills,
It is the best strategic act..
a) it cripples the Big 12
b) it forces the Pac 10 to add AT LEAST 2 teams (further eroding confidence, without the Big 10 taking the blame)
c) keeps your powder dry for 4 teams instead of three (maximize options)
d) between Rutgers and Maryland for team 13, I think Maryland offers the best strategic long term options.
LikeLike
Maryland will not come to the Big 10….Nothing to see here…..move on….
LikeLike
I guess if you keep saying it then it must be true. 🙄
LikeLike
The thing is the Big10 is in a very strong position right now with the apparent success of the BTN and what that success means to the marketability of previously “non-marquee” brands.
In short, no one else has its own network and thus no one else can turn its second tier programming into top tier profits. Wait a couple years and the rest of college athletics WILL have its own network (see Pac talk) and the Big10 loses some of its stronger selling points.
What’s more, they are going to have a tv contract negotiation in a couple years. If the SEC got what it did, and the ACC even did as well as it did in such bad times, adding even one big name brand to the Big10 will guarantee average per school payouts closer to what the SEC got, rather than the ACC.
If the BTN didn’t exist, I’d say add Neb in time for the tv contracts and be done with it. Because of that “ace up the sleeves” though, you can have Neb AND make a play for high population markets…and if done smartly, will only help improve the overall brand of the Big10.
Basically, go big now or content yourself to being where you are…and Delany’s comments about shifting demographics shows me he doesn’t feel being where we are is in the long term best interests of the conference.
LikeLike
I’m a huge fan of the going to 13 movement since Nebraska and Rutgers are the two slam dunks (in terms of fit/academics/athletics/brand/location) that are on the table.
Also, leaving the Big Ten at 13 has the exact same effect as the fact that it’s been at 11 and a threat to expand at any time.
Plus, just as with Notre Dame before, if they ever come around, you have a seat waiting instead of figuring out a partner.
Count me in the 13 camp.
LikeLike
I like the idea! I think it’s intriguing, doable, and, most importantly, gives you flexibility and power from potential.
What is the saying? The strongest bomb is the one you have but never use? You get the idea.
LikeLike
You can’t go to 13 schools, split into divisions, have every team play every team in their division and have every team play an equal number of conference games. The math just doesn’t work. The MAC solves this by having Eastern teams skip a divisional opponent every year, but I don’t see the Big 10 wanting to do this.
LikeLike
Lobills,
If the Big Ten is 100% sure that they are inviting Nebraska and Rutgers, regardless of any other schools, then I might be ok with it.
My first concern, though, is that these schools may not be Plan A. Plan A might still be Notre Dame and stop at 12. Also, (even though mushroomgod certainly disagrees with any chance of this) I personally prefer an ACC combination that includes Virginia, Maryland, and UNC over Rutgers.
Another concern is the entry negotiation. If The Big Ten does give something to Texas, ND, or the ACC schools, for instance, it might not sit right with somebody if Nebraska and Rutgers have one agreement, and the others have a second agreement.
LikeLike
The Big Ten and Texas currently have a chicken and egg problem. Texas wants to bolt but can’t do anything until someone else leaves the Big 12 first, otherwise they will have to take A&M, Tech and maybe Baylor with them. The Big 10 wants Texas (not sure if Texas wants the Big 10) but none of the siblings with maybe the exception of A&M.
So if I were Delaney, here is what I would do: invite Nebraska and ONLY Nebraska. Communicate that this is wave 1 of the expansion and more waves are to follow. This is when all hell breaks loose. The Big 12 breaks up because Nebraska leaves. Missouri gets really nervous because it didn’t get an invite in wave 1. Next, the Pac 10 makes their 16 team move. I personally doubt that the Pac 10 will truly accept Tech. If they do, then the Pac 10 goes to 16 teams (either with A&M or Utah if A&M goes to the SEC). However, if Stanford votes down taking Tech, that’s when it gets really interesting. If they don’t take Tech, Texas now has the political cover to get the best deal for them without worrying about the siblings and that would be the Big 10. Texas goes to the Big 10 (maybe with A&M) and the B10 also adds a few east schools to round out the conference. Oklahoma & OK ST bolt for the SEC (maybe with A&M) and Colorado goes to the Pac10. Mizzou has essentially screwed itself and now takes what is left of the Big 12 and merges with the Mountain West.
The one risk of this strategy is by just taking Nebraska in the first wave does that keep the Big 12 intact? I don’t think so because Colorado would definitely bolt for the Pac10 but the risk exists.
LikeLike
Interesting, too. Texas wants the best of both worlds: results and perception. This way, they can at least say they tried when the politicians come crying.
LikeLike
Your read couldn’t be more wrong. Texas wants to retain the B12 and keep everyone from leaving. They most decidely not “taking” A&M along. Texas A&M would gladly exit stage left right now but UT is holding on tightly using its political strenght.
LikeLike
Chip Brown is Twittering that Larry Scott will be recommending the 6-team expansion proposal to the Pac-10 leadership. Unclear as to whether Baylor or Colorado is part of that.
LikeLike
I guess the question is. Does Scott have a deal with these teams. Either way, somehting could happen fast.
LikeLike
Chelsea Clinton went to Stanford, daddy is a donor.
Then again, so is mom…
LikeLike
Has this been thoroughly vetted by the Pac-10 leadership (presidents/chancellors)?
Or is he just going to suggest it and have them pore over it for a few months?
They hired the CAA just like a couple weeks ago to start vetting; hard to believe they’ve completely thought through these scenarios although maybe they just want to lock in Texas and leave the rest for another day while the Big Ten is still coming up with scenarios.
And of course, what of Stanford, etc. who care about the academic perception of the Pac-10? I don’t think they’ll easily buy into the notion of a restored Pac-8 under a Pac-16 roof, but maybe there’s a chance that USC forces them along…
LikeLike
Well I am glad to have learned from this website that a university’s sole worth is determined by the amount of research dollars it garners. I appreciate the education that producing quality undergrads really isn’t worth anything. My goodness I could maybe understand some of the comments from the UT folks about Baylor but for the rest of you who with a straight face talk about academic pedigree and in the same breath say no way BU over CU or even Tech just floor me. I might suggest you spend a few brain cells looking at the academic pedigrees of those schools.
LikeLike
We’re talking about academic value in terms of expansion as opposed to overall academic pedigree in general terms.
There’s not really any synergy in undergraduate education among conference schools because undergraduate education is much more of an island.
Graduate-level research though allows for much more collaboration of the sort contemplated on a conference-wide scale.
Oh and for the record no one was comparing Baylor and Tech. Tech should be a non-starter with the Big Ten for academic reasons, whereas Baylor might actually look a lot more like Notre Dame or Syracuse in terms of its more undergraduate focus.
The issue is institutional fit with the Pac-10; I think Baylor is a non-starter for the same reason BYU isn’t.
Baylor’s exclusion isn’t about academics (whether from the Big Ten or Pac-10). The Tech problem is entirely academic in nature.
Generally the Big Ten is looking for large public research institutions although Notre Dame is Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Nobody has said that. Many universities and colleges do a fine job of teaching undergraduates. A number of universities are also in the business of doing research and amongst those there is a group that is research intensive. The Big-10 schools are all research intensive schools with a capital I. When people talk about fit, this is an important criteria. It is not diminishing the value of universities that make undergraduate teaching their primary focus.
LikeLike
Baylor fans get a little touchy about their lack of academic reputation. Even in the state of Texas they are barely top 10. I can hardly imagine what the rest of the country thinks about the bible-thumpers.
LikeLike
Bingo.
LikeLike
Is bingo allowed in bible-thumping land?
LikeLike
My undergraduate work was at a highly-regarded college that plays D-III. We’re not getting invited to the Big 10 or Pac 10 and our egos will not be bruised nor will or academic excellence be diminished.
This is about money. Graduate level research brings it in. Educating undergrads, for the most part, does not.
Beyond that, my undergraduate school has allowed dancing on campus for more than the past 15 years.
LikeLike
Rod, you are correct. More than 75% of the Big Ten are caught in a non-sustainable “business model”: to keep state appropriations flowing — they must maintain very large undergraduate programs; in addition, undergraduate programs are the primary source of “profit” at a university (not revenue, but profit); yet, graduate research criteria — citation indices in the science, research grants received, and size and scope of doctoral education is the primary area where Big Ten schools can point to some success over the last decade. Thus, the trick is to convince undergraduates to continue to enroll (they don’t even have to graduate) in extraordinarily large numbers and to stop the hemorrhaging of state appropriations while being unable to compete with the undergraduate-oriented schools for undergraduates. Thus the bread and circuses arguments. Now over the past ten years, the quality metrics at the Big Ten have declined for their undergraduate programs in comparison to their competitors: academic preparation at admission (ave ACT or SAT) and job placement(ave $ and % hired at graduation). This is why I would bet that 90% of the posters on this board think that the “academic” reputation of the Big Ten is enhanced if they selected Neb and Missouri and more generally would prefer to add NU, MO and RU over Vanderbilt, Rice and Baylor any day of the week. Yet, the undergraduates and alums who hold an undergraduate degree from the Big Ten would benefit far more from the addition of Baylor, Vanderbilt and Rice to the Big Ten than NU, MO and RU– and undergrad alums outnumber grad alums probably 3-1.
LikeLike
“undergraduate programs are the primary source of “profit” at a university”
Not true.
“the quality metrics at the Big Ten have declined for their undergraduate programs in comparison to their competitors”
You can’t just say something like this here with no evidence.
“undergrad alums outnumber grad alums probably 3-1”
Rice and Vanderbilt are both 1-to-1. Thus by your measure, they are even more unsustainable than the Big Ten public schools because they don’t have the wealthy undergraduate cash flow. The fact is that all of the top notch private schools are about 1-to-1. Most top public schools (and Notre Dame) are about 3-to-1.
Educating undergrads is only “profitable” at community colleges.
Now if you want to talk about unsustainable models, how about a school dependent on a non-alumni fanbase that roots for them because they never went to college in a world where more and more people are seeking higher education?
LikeLike
Which business model is more sustainable:
a. Revenues from undergraduate tuition, state appropriations, and research dollars (private and federal)
b. Revenues from undergraduate tuition
I would rather have a diversified revenue stream rather than one source. But that is just me.
LikeLike
We can always count on Rich fojr the same weekly arguments about how the BT universities are all on the decline because they don’t follow the same model as Notre Dame. Now their students need to be “tricked” into enrolling. Great to see an illustration of all that respect for Big Ten universities you were talking about in the last thread.
LikeLike
Since Texas as a state seems to think they drive everything from a position if ultimate power, why would they not simply start their own all-Texas conference and TV network? If they are correct about their value and popularity, wouldn’t it then stand to reason that the ND’s, USC’s and Ohio St’s of the world would then be begging for inclusion. How about they put their money where their mouth is and start their own “business” instead of trying a hostile takover of someone else’s?
Seriously, aren’t even the Texas folks disgusted by what seems to be happening with the Texas schools in all this?
LikeLike
A&M said no to this already.
A&M would rather be in a conference network than with UT in a LSN…
LikeLike
The SWC did break up in part over the rampant cheating that was occurring, but the ultimate cause was something along the lines of what is happening now, in that Texas believed it was carrying schools that didn’t bring in sufficient money to support the league. (That was you, SMU, Rice, TCU and UH. Baylor was going through its best revenue generation period in its history, because of what Grant Teaff had done to raise the level of football, otherwise BU would be on the list as well.)
Texas also saw that the state of Texas was not sufficient to provide the revenue stream that would keep all eight schools together. So the SWC model wouldn’t work today, and it would not work if Arkansas had never left.
I still think that Texas could leave on its own, but it’s Bill Powers who has neck out in that case, and not me. Thus, the “Tech” problem, and the predictable “Baylor” response. At some point, the mature kids are going to have take over this discussion, but we obviously haven’t reached that point.
LikeLike
I’m a born and raised Texan, and this whole political mess is extremely frustrating. Thank God for UT and A&M, because I don’t think the rest of America would bother with Texas (state of) otherwise.
LikeLike
Big 10 should go to 13 now with Nebraska and Rutgers. The triple threat at 13 still is there. Does the Big 10 lose Texas to the Pac 10 by making this move first or do they lose Texas by doing nothing yet? Adding Nebraska only and being at 12 looks like Big 10 could be done thus giving Texas a reason to bolt to the Pac 10. Also taking Rutgers gives ND an excuse to it’s crazy fans to come next.
LikeLike
Notre Dame does not care about Rutgers. The Big East barely cares about Rutgers. They sucked on the teat of Miami, Va Tech, Syracuse, BC, and WVU for 15 years before figuring out how to keep some talent in state???? And then has the audacity to complain about bowl selections? The Big East HOPES that Rutgers does. It can add Memphis… not lose anything in the NYC area… barely lose anything in football and gain in basketball.
Frankly, I doubt that Notre Dame is concerned with the Big East being destroyed. Basketball? They’ll always have someone to play them as an Independent and they can keep all the NCAA tournament money. Olympic sports? I am sure the MAC would allow Notre Dame’s teams to compete with them, to the extent anyone even cares about those sports.
LikeLike
You are making the hardly certain assumption that the clumsy 16-team hybrid known as the Big East manages to survive. I could still see the wealthier ACC picking off several members even if it wasn’t raided by the Big Ten or SEC.
LikeLike
I have a question that maybe someone (Hopkins Horn?) could explain to me. If you buy that Texas wants to hold the Big 12 together to start its own network, yet it sounds like no other Big 12 schools want this network to happen (A&M is apparently threatening to go to the SEC to get Texas to scrap its network), why don’t the other Big 12 schools just vote to start a conference network and tell Texas to screw off?
The Big 12 requires nine votes to change a rule, correct? So this tells me that’s there’s at least three other schools that are also interested in exploring their own networks, no?
LikeLike
Because then Texas would bolt on its own.
Texas is hostage to no one in reality.
LikeLike
But if we’re to believe that Texas and Tech need to go where Texas goes, then they can’t really bolt on their own, can they?
Or are we basically saying that A&M and Tech need to tag along because that’s really what Texas wants and they’re using political cover to make that happen?
In other words, if Texas loses the rights to its network and then decides it wants out, the Tech problem goes away and A&M gets to go to the SEC if that’s what it really wants?
LikeLike
Sorry, that should read A&M and Tech in the first sentence.
LikeLike
Because, then Texas would move first and get out on it’s own.
There’s no way there will be a Big 12 network without Texas approval, which won’t be granted.
They all know Texas has options on its own (if it moves first it would just leave Tech to A&M).
LikeLike
What I mean is that A&M has options on its own so no one is worried about protecting it like they were in the early 90s (it is AAU now, etc.).
The Tech problem would become A&M’s or they would try to force Tech on the conference that took UT but would be rebuffed (especially if it was the Big Ten)…
LikeLike
“Or are we basically saying that A&M and Tech need to tag along because that’s really what Texas wants and they’re using political cover to make that happen?”
I think you’re getting closer to the truth of the situation. One big reason, along with the other reasons stated, that the Pac 10 option is attractive to Texas is that they get to bring along a large bloc of votes they have every expectation of controlling. So while zeek is correct that Texas probably has enough power to see to it that they can go wherever they want singly, being one vote in a conference is seen as being extremely disadvantageous compared to being with a group of like-minded schools with voting rights, beholden to you for saving them from perdition.
LikeLike
Oh yea, I agree with that completely.
I’m just commenting that Texas holds all of the cards for the Big 12 South for the most part because they all know it can go anywhere, so they’re not going to do anything Texas won’t want to do…
LikeLike
So it sounds like Texas is basically in a no-lose situation.
They either force the Big 12 to stay together and trot out their own network, which apparently will make them an inordinate amount of money (probably the preference).
Or they force Nebraska to make the first move and come across as the bad guy, while Texas takes its voting block to to the Pac 16 and still probably makes a ton of money in what is perceived nationally as a better conference.
LikeLike
@ Robert
Nebraska probably has no problem being seen as the bad guy. If they do, they can just let these rumored deadlines pass without comment either way.
LikeLike
I think Occam’s Razor applies here. Texas probably lobbied for as many of the B12S as it could muster because that solves problems that the Pac-10 presents if it goes by itself or only with A&M, assuming A&M gets in on merit.
Bringing the B12S and hooking up with the Arizonas solves the travel issue to a great extent, and also greatly lessens potential problems with late starts for football and basketball. The Pac-10 also offers an appropriate home for Texas baseball, which the Big Ten does not.
If it were all about academics and money, the Big Ten wins easily, but it’s not.
The key, to me, is how much Arizona and Arizona State like this arrangement, because they’re the ones getting cut off from the league they joined 35 years ago.
And, while I understand the implications of the CIC and the fact that presidents vote, it’s also foolish to discount that fans pretty much could not care less. While Texas can by and large call its shot in this deal, remember that its original position is that it wants the Big 12 to succeed. I have seen nothing, in the way of talk or action, that points in another direction.
LikeLike
“While Texas can by and large call its shot in this deal, remember that its original position is that it wants the Big 12 to succeed.”
On their terms. Barring that, they’re just as available to offers as anyone else.
LikeLike
THE SWC CONVERSATION….
I posted about this long ago, but I will bring it up again..
I was around when the SWC imploded but I think it is important to review 2 points in terms of the current discussion….
a) The SWC imploded because SMU got the death penalty (one reason I have been watching the USC issue – when the NCAA said they would combine the football and basketball infractions it “appears” it was done to show favored status to USC by taking the death penalty OFF the table). Not to be a tin foil wearing conspiracy nut, but think how these discussions would be going if USC got SMU’s fate.
b) The SWC was a collection of TEXAS schools + Arkansas. People keep losing sight that Oklahoma and Nebraska have their roots in the old Big 8. As the outsider Arkansas to the SEC was not a really big deal, and did not burn bridges because they were not tied to the Big 8 at the time. In addition, as a non texas school, they were the red headed stepchild. In current realignment, the moves are not being made by the red headed stepchildren.
The people in charge are older.. to them they will remember things we as bloggers may not.. They may still see the Big 12 as the old SWC and Big 8. To some guy in his 60’s Miami and FSU are the “johnny come lately’s” or flashes in the pan. They are old enough to remember the Pac 10 without AZ and ASU. They may think of the ACC as being a minor conference before they hooked up with a startup named ESPN. Just making the point that what we see in the past 2 decades is not the same picture someone much older has for their world view.
LikeLike
Hey everyone,
First time, long time. Is there any way the B10 could admit Tx Tech on a conditional basis, i.e., accepted into the conference but not the CIC until pre-determined academic guidelines are met? That’s about the only way I could see them admitted. I also don’t see how Rutgers could be admitted and not Tx Tech. Essentially we’d be using both of them if they’d join:
Rutgers – (Possible) foothold in the NYC market
Tx Tech – (Possible) hurdle to get Texas
Yes Rutgers has an academic profile that fits the B10 but their athletics suck in the sports that matter whereas Tx Tech is better athletically but lacks academically. IMO it’d be easier to increase a school’s academic profile as opposed to their athletic profile.
If Tx Tech is admitted, I wouldn’t be surprised if Pitt would get an invite as a way to appease the univ. presidents who don’t want Tech. While I don’t know any of the B10 presidents, I haven’t seen an article suggesting any dislike Pitt and their non-admittance has been primarily because of bad timing as opposed to anything else.
LikeLike
“IMO it’d be easier to increase a school’s academic profile as opposed to their athletic profile.”
I disagree to the nth degree. Much much easier to improve athletics. The proof is that good athletic programs fall down from time to time (Michigan being a perfect current example). Academics is fundamentally more complex and involves many more or less independent components. It is built up over longer periods of time and does not deteriorate rapidly. I’d take the bet that Rutgers has a national football championship before Texas Tech is a top 40 research school.
LikeLike
The Big 10 doesn’t work that way. They don’t like some members being less equal than others. One reason the B10 is so strong is that every school thinks every other school has their back. To bring in TTU on those terms would be to invite the same kind of fratricide that’s going on the B12 right now.
LikeLike
“IMO it’d be easier to increase a school’s academic profile as opposed to their athletic profile.”
You could improve a sports team overnight with a top coach. Look at Indiana basketball with and without Bobby Knight, Wisconsin football before Alvarez, Notre Dame since Holtz, etc.
Academics are much harder to improve. The number of hires required over many departments, improving facilities, changing one’s reputation over time to get better students, etc. Depending upon funding, that can take decades.
LikeLike
I think Shatel is spot-on (as usual) with his observation. I think Texas needs more time to figure out options. Talk (more) to the Pac-10, investigate the LSN in greater depth, see where next Big 12 contract negotiations come in. I really doubt Texas wants to make a snap decision on its long term future. There’s no need to rush this from the Texas perspective. They hold a lot of cards. The best play they can make is to keep the Big 12 together and then continue to explore options behind the scenes … thus the Dodds comment about “ending it…”.
The Big 12 obviously wants to keep things together as well. Perhaps Powers and the Big 12 float the story though Chip Brown to put pressure on Neb. to commit to league. It’s a win for Texas as they get more time to investigate options. It’s a win for the Big 12 as they live to fight another day and negotiate a new contact with Nebraska on board.
As for the story itself, I’m sure there is some truth to it. 10 + 6 is a Pac 10 option, and perhaps their best option … who knows. Maybe the Pac-10 floated the story to say “Big 12 members, don’t do anything until you consider this option”, even though the Pac-10 isn’t ready to make its decision without more contemplation.
I would take the leak more serious except for the curious comment at the end about how he’s hearing that Nebraska doesn’t have much of a shot at a Big 10 offer. That’s a strange comment to tack on to the end of the story.
As for Nebraska, why wouldn’t they respond to this deadline by saying “We’re committed to the Big 12” … and also continue negotiations behind the scenes? It buys them more time as well.
Anyway, just some random thoughts.
LikeLike
I find it interesting that most of the P16 leaks are coming out of Texas and Colorado. Looking at P10 sources like the LA Times, they’re just reporting that it’s a “possible option.” That would fit into your theory.
LikeLike
Frank–
Let me offer my sincere thanks to you for maintaining this website which provides the best coverage and commentary regarding conference expansions of any site I am aware of.
Thanks.
otis.
LikeLike
Despite the rumors cooling on Missouri, I still believe that the Big Ten will add Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers for now. They are the three most logical additions:
1. All would add revenue for the BTN. Rutgers with its New Jersey presence (I agree that Rutgers is unlikely to bring NYC or Philadelphia but New Jersey and Philadelphia is a huge market), Nebraska with its national reputation and ratings (i.e. advertising $$$). Missouri brings a solid mixture of recent football and basketball success and a decent population.
2. All are large, state, flagship universities.
3. All are AAU members with large research budgets (Rutgers $280M, Nebraska $215M, Missouri $215M). I assume that, like Penn State, all would need to increase this but, unlike other “candidates” such as Notre Dame ($78M), UConn ($106M) and Syracuse ($36M), these three schools have research as part of their core mission.
4. All are geographically contiguous.
5. All want to join the Big Ten. This will make them much easier to integrate culturally.
6. The Big Ten would neatly divided into two seven team divisions; East-West divisions split by time zone that maintain core rivalries.
The other candidates are not natural fits:
1. Notre Dame’s mission and identity are tied up with being independent. Given the alumni uproar over losing that independence, I can not see Notre Dame wanting to sacrifice that for the core research mission and building the brand of the Big Ten.
2. Texas and Texas A&M would be a home run. However, the “Tech probelm” and the geographic issues are likely to be too hard to overcome for this round of expansion.
3. Syracuse, UConn are not research-oriented universities.
4. ACC schools such as Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina would be ideal fits, but it is a long shot that they will leave the ACC at this time.
5. Pitt is a wild card in that they fit the Big Ten academic profile almost perfectly (state school with $530M research budget). However, their geography does not add any subscriber increase to the BTN. I could see Pitt joining only if the Big Ten expands to 16.
Ultimately, I predict that the Big Ten will expand to 14 during this round and keep the option of adding two others (e.g. Notre Dame, Notre Carolina, Maryland, Virginia, Pitt) at some point in the future.
LikeLike
If I were Delaney, I get the president’s approval for this last offer to Texas.
We will take three Texas schools but TTU and Baylor are non-starters. Texas, Texas A&M and Rice. Rice has a credible baseball program, and while its a bottom feeder in football, success on the football field isn’t the key factor here with UT and TAMU part of the equation.
But, if Vandy is under consideration, then Rice works. Rice rivals Northwestern academically. It is secular. They must have some grads on the TX legislature.
This is a reasonable compromise for Texas to take back to the constituents. You go to the Big 10 with your TX rival in A&M and one of the most prestigious schools in the country in Rice.
My guess is it wouldn’t be enough, but I think that is the best offer the Big 10 can make to UT.
Now…if the Big 12 South goes to the PAC 10, I think this is what ultimately happens.
Step 1 – Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers to the Big 10. We are going to 16, but we’ll take a step back to see if the SEC makes a move that impacts the ACC.
Step 2 – If the SEC adds FSU and another ACC school, preferably Virginia Tech, then the Big 10 makes its play for Maryland and another ACC travel partner (UVA or GT). If the SEC holds firm, or doesn’t hit the ACC, then the Big 10 can take 2 Big East schools or 1 Big East school and Colorado. I expect the last 2 invites to happen later this year.
LikeLike
Rice just doesn’t work. The faculty — at least the noisy ones — would just as soon drop sports or go D-III.
If you’re thinking sports first, the frantic grab is to TCU, which has the baseball program plus the quality of football the B10 would want (but, like Rice, not the fans).
But the B10 doesn’t need to add TCU to work the deal with Texas. It (apparently) needs Tech. As the marketing slogan goes, there are no substitutes.
LikeLike
Missouri gets an invite now only if the Big Ten is 100% sure it can’t get North Carolina to partner with Maryland and Virginia. Mizzou may well enter a 16-team Big Ten, but it would be the last one in.
LikeLike
@ Vincent. I agree that Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina would be better “gets” for the Big Ten than Missouri. I just don’t see it happening this expansion round. The only thing that gives me pause is the fact that neither ESPN nor the ACC announced their new television deal even though Sports Business Journal reported it was all but a done deal with very specific terms almost two weeks ago.
LikeLike
I like it, except maybe Georgia Tech instead of Missouri.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Soooooo…
If I went to the University of Cincinnati, am I totally fucked?
The Sugar Bowl was really fun, FYI.
LikeLike
bobestes,
yes.. i am a bearcat alumni, tOSU sealed our fate when we went public in the 70’s.. we are hosed!
sad, because had they gone the other way and supported UC it would make a great candidate for expansion today….
LikeLike
our odds:
40% – zombie big east
30% – ACC expansion
30% – conference USA
LikeLike
bobestes,
actually I floated a different option early on.. I called it my God & Country EAST conference..
8 catholic basketball schools +
8 football schools..
ND + BC + UC + UL + Army + Navy + Syracuse + Uconn..
UC & UL are in urban cities with high catholic populations and excellent catholic HS to feed such a consortium, Syracuse and Uconn would give you the East Coast and access to catholic markets there.. with basketball schools like Gtown and others it would be a plausible alternative for ND which could stay “independent” and still maintain their own TV contracts.. or tie them into a “catholic” network.
This would be supplemented by a western version that could include Air Force, BYU, Baylor, SMU, etc.. and add 8 basketball schools like Gonzaga.. etc..
just a thought..
LikeLike
Here’s something I was thinking about…
The Big Ten started this process, and it has seemed that they would only expand if it was something big and something worthwhile.
We also know that the Big Ten and Pac-10 are probably the closest of any two conferences and have some aligned interests.
What if Delaney’s ultimate plan was to get other conference to poach schools in order to get what he really wants? If the Pac-10 takes the southern half of the Big XII, two things could happen. First, it is easier for the Big X to get the northern schools without giving them immediate, full revenue shares.
Second, and here is what I think is important, it might encourage the SEC to poach the ACC. If that occurs, maybe some people, including Frank, were right at times to throw out big ACC schools like Miami as possibilities. Maybe the Big Ten is just waiting for the currently stable conference to break apart as a result of the Big Ten encouraging other conferences to poach the Big 12/ACC/Big East. Perhaps, then, the Big Ten actually is interested in schools like Miami, UNC, Georgia Tech, etc.
If the Big Ten leadership is so far-thinking that they have planned something like that out, then my hat is off to them. This could obviously be completely wrong, but so far the Big Ten leaking things has worked to encourage destabilization and has made some conferences like the Pac-10 and SEC start looking at expansion when they weren’t before.
LikeLike
i agree that the only actual “thing” that has happened is that the BXII and BEast have been destabilized.
some have said that this means Delaney is losing control of the situation.
you and others (including myself) see the destabilization as somewhat planned (if maybe not in exactly the manner it has happened).
Think particle accelerators: throw something hard and fast at a brick wall and see what falls out. (okay, so that’s a mixed methaphor… lol)
Anyway, bottom line: Delaney has EVERY SCHOOL in the country thinking options!!
What has “fallen out?”
All sorts of stuff about the BXII.
personally I had NO IDEA about Neb’s feelings about the BXII; never considered how Neb might be nursing a grudge against OK for picking TX as “their main rival” (think how jilted tOSU would be if TSUN abandoned “the game” and started scheduling PSU at year’s end and add all the B10 votes start becoming 10-1 … grrrr).
other stuff: Mizzu grudges; legitimate FEARS of schools like Iowa State and Baylor about being relegated to mid-major status;
the irrelevance of OK (think about that one!! — as a national football power, you’d think OK would be a PLAYER; it’s definitely not);
who’s “wedded” to whom by state politics. What must an OK fan think about being “stuck” with OKST forever? I laugh thinking whether such a situation would exist between MI and MSU. Little bro tagging along until the end of time!!
interesting to speculate what an Iowa fan must be thinking about their Little Bro. do Iowa fans care that Iowa State might be SOL? is there any sentiment from Iowa that Iowa State needs to be “saved” from the coming BXII implosion? Does that ever become a factor in B10 expansion. Iowa won’t vote for this or that unless ….
Gawd, how fun all this is.
And that’s just the BXII.
Lots has “fallen out” about the BEast and we’re only beginning to see what’s there in the ACC and the SEC. I mean Vandy might leave the SEC!? Really? you would have been neg-banged or laughed off any message board in the country if you had suggested Vandy to the B10 four months ago?
What a ride.
LikeLike
BB,
I am not on the Vandy bandwagon yet.. they are the founder of the SIAA in 1894!! (the SIAA became the SEC and ACC among other children). They have never left the company of some schools in over 100 YEARS!!
NOTE: the SIAA was Alabama, Auburn, Georgia, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, the University of the South (Sewanee), Clemson, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Tulane, Texas, and VANDY! It also included schools like.. Florida, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, Mississippi, NC State, USC, Texas A & M, Virginia, and Virginia Tech…. The ACC and SEC have a shared history, and the SIAA was the “original” mega conference!
SEC = all current members except Arkansas
ACC = over half of current members (less Duke, Wake, Maryland, FSU, and BC)
just something to think about when going below Maryland / Virginia / Kentucky as border states….
LikeLike
As an Iowa alumni, I can assure you we don’t care if ISU falls down to mid-major status, FCS status or drops football altogether.
The fact that no one in the Iowa legislature or Board of Regents is on a “Save ISU football” crusade (Like TTU and Baylor are) should indicate that no rescue is coming. The “suicide note” written by the ISU president and AD last Friday is a strong indication they know it’s B12 or bust for them. Iowa couldn’t get them a B10 invite even if they wanted to, which they don’t.
LikeLike
Per ESPN Bottomline, B10 has offered NE and Mizzou. I’m seeing it now ESPNews now.
LikeLike
Nothing on the ESPN website.
LikeLike
I’m not seing anything other than the following tweet from Adam Rittenberg:
Nothing is official RT @Greg__Watts: @espn_bigten Is the report that Missouri and Nebraska have been offered into the Big 10 official yet?
LikeLike
Is it just me..
I swear the more I read and write it seems like multiple versions of the eternal love triangle.. which I should note usually never turns out well in real life..
say..
Missouri/Kansas is chasing the Big 10 who is chasing ND/Texas
the more each chases, the farther the want to be apart..
now think of the dating scene in the “Beautiful Mind” movie and think if the best strategy is to stop chasing and be happy with the one close by and loyal..
The more I read this the more I see it from the outside, which is to say that the Big 10 does not get ND or Texas. If you wind up with Missouri and Kansas and you have been shooting them down all through the “dating” phase is this good strategic long term policy?
It feels like Kansas/Missouri fit much better culturally (midwest) than moving east and “hoping” Rutgers is a good fit. If research is the goal, then politics will be very important and being on the same side of the aisle would long term be much easier that trying to negotiate on the other side of the aisle.
They say “opposites attract” and we “always want what we can not have” but in the long term, the more common elements – the stronger the bond. The more I look at this the more Kansas and Missouri look like rocks, and the NYC/NJ looks like sand. Maybe I have just looked at this too long (thanks Frank) but maybe the best long term solution is not the sexy one..
LikeLike
Maybe, but when the primary and necessary goal of expansion is to attract eyeballs, a super model cannot be replaced by a nice girl no one wants to look at. I still think my five choices: ND, TX, aTm, NEB, Maryland are a possibility because I think the PAC16 idea is going to fall apart. I like Missouri fine, but I don’t think the Big Ten is going to go for it.
LikeLike
i disagree. IMHO, tv eyeballs are NOT the only goal here
but assuming arguendo that eyeballs are the overriding factor, there is more than one way to add eyeballs.
example: a few months back, Frank started us on this wonderful ride by talking tv markets. all of us were then off on researching and reporting tv market size, cable revenue, etc. etc., and promoting various additions based on that. Pitt remains “locked out” for must of us (not me) because Pitt is already in the footprint.
then a couple of months later, someone (I apologize for not knowing exactly who) brought everyone’s attention to the revenue generated by advertising which caused us all to begin thinking about brand names and ratings.
This is how we all now consider NEB a home run despite the relatively small tv market. That is, NEB brings eyeballs because it’s NEB. (This has helped Pitt come back into the picture a bit because Pitt has some brand cache.)
I promise that Delaney and his research company are thinking about every way to add eyeballs, not just adding markets.
the big one already out there that no one is discussing is cable alliances. P10 and BXII explored it. The B10 and P10 will explore it.
what about this: eventually (give it 7 years) abandon the ESPN/ABC platforms and all content is B10 Network based? Don’t know; just throwing ideas out. Seems to me you add a lot of eyeballs.
anyway, bottom line: adding markets is not the only way to add eyeballs.
LikeLike
I’m confused. You start your post claiming it’s not about adding eyeballs, then agree that Delany’s primary objective is adding eyeballs. I never claimed markets=eyeballs, which I why I include Nebraska (for the same reasons you stated).
LikeLike
Totally agree. People seem to be forgetting – this is the BIG TEN. Miami ? Yeah, JoePa will fit right in clubbing in S Beach. c’mon people, be realistic. the talk about all these far-flung additions is NOT going to happen. hell, even something semi-realistic like MD or UVA has a snowball’s chance. In the end, the Big Ten will remember it is the Big Ten. It will take Neb, Mizzou, Pitt etc and not GA Tech, not Miami, etc. Why ? Geography and sense of place STILL matter, even in the age of the internet.
btw i think you are the first person EVER in the history of this blog to intimate Rutgers is sexy …
LikeLike
Zombie,
I am still not sold on Miami..
It is PRIVATE, Not a Flagship school, competes for eyeballs with MANY pro sports, and does not feel “southern” – for SEC or “midwestern” – for Big 10!
LikeLike
The Spartans can take out any of these clowns.
LikeLike
Texas is the hot ass supermodel you fall head-over-heels in love with at first sight. Later you find out that she is a controlling, egotistical, powermonging bitch with three different children by three different men. Sure, you would still like to bang her, but there is no long term relationship potential. Thanks but no thanks!
LikeLike
Hoffa,
Texas and ND (maybe ND is more the tease) you have said much my friend.. much indeed!!
“controlling, egotistical, powermonging bi#ch” – awesome!
😉
LikeLike
Problem is, Mizzou and Kansas are the ugly back-up chicks that nobody wants to bang unless they’re really drunk, and then when you do hook up, it turns out their just as controlling, egostical, powermongering bi#ches as the hot supermodel.
Better to go home alone.
LikeLike
Oh, and Nebraska is the chick who looks spends lots of money on clothes and make-up and looks hot from a distance in dim light, but when you wake up and see what you’ve really done, you want to chew your arm off.
LikeLike
Extraordinarily insightful insight there.
LikeLike
if Texas is still a hot ass supermodel after having three kids by different guys she may be worth it. I’d still take Salma hayek despite having a kid and adding a few lbs.
LikeLike
Yes, most people would take Salma Hayek or Heidi Klum or (insert hot ass chick you whack off to). The Big Ten isn’t most people, the Big Ten would be the Billionaire. Why would a Billionaire want to deal with that much baggage regardless what she can do with her mouth or legs?
LikeLike
regardless what she can do with her mouth or legs
So you’re not merely dense, but classless as well. Got it.
LikeLike
Get off your high horse there Hopkins.
LikeLike
Hoffa, you’ve got to realize that calling people monkeys at typewriters is a much more elegant and classy way to insult them. 🙂
LikeLike
But what if she is filthy rich with a huge income and doesn’t want a prenup?
LikeLike
Then the analogy obviously falls apart. 😉
LikeLike
The analogy still works as in conference realignment we are looking at successful marriage not a profitable divorce. what husband wants to be a cuckhold?
LikeLike
This is how I figure things will go down:
1. Today at his press conference, Larry Scott announces that he has recommended the Pac 10 add the six Big 12 teams (whether it includes Colorado or Baylor), and says the league will vote on expansion at some date (within the next two weeks).
2. The Big 12 deadline comes and Nebraska/Missouri take their stance one way or another.
3. If Nebraska/Mizzou refuse to commit to the Big 12, the Pac 10 votes to approve the expansion and the six Big 12 teams head west.
4. If Nebraska/Mizzou decide to stay in the Big 12, the Pac 10 votes not to expand and keeps the Pac 10 from having egg on its face by not extending offers that would have been rejected.
LikeLike
FWIW, the Nebraska and Missouri position on any deadline:
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/06/1996533/mu-nebraska-wont-confirm-big-12.html
They don’t have to take a stance one way or another, because no deadline, other than April for TV negotiations (by Beebe) has been officially announced. Some process has been hinted at and Texas writers have speculated beyond that.
LikeLike
I’ll correct myself, Texas writers have cited two highly placed sources beyond that. Speculation or (dis?)information planted to apply pressure.
LikeLike
I’m happy with anything that ratchets up pressure on Delany/Big Ten to act.
I really don’t see why we have to sit around and talk about Texas/ND, which seems to become a more and more unrealistic proposition every day.
The Big Ten is not going to make a similar offer to the Pac-10 offer, so we should be talking to Maryland/UVA/UNC and judging their interest if any.
If not, then let’s make our move onto Nebraska and possibly Rutgers and worry about the rest later.
Who knows, maybe we could open a channel to Stanford and see if they’re happy to be rid of Arizona/ASU and rebuild a Pac-8 in the Pac-16 West or whether they dislike the idea of OU/OSU/Tech being in the same conference entirely…
LikeLike
“I’m happy with anything that ratchets up pressure on Delany/Big Ten to act.”
Yeah, but this doesn’t fit the bill. Assuming Nebraska, maybe Missouri and Delany are on the same page, you just sit tight, let this “deadline” pass, and see if Texas and the Pac 10 can really pull all this together. Texas has really given Delany no choice on that, unless they think they can get the Big Ten to accept a big old hairball of teams they don’t want. Barring some miraculous reversal of field in what Texas can and can’t do in regards to teams that have to come with them, of course.
LikeLike
And to add to the thought, once the deadline passes, there’s enough deniability to say, “Deadline? What deadline?”. None of this deadline stuff is official, just “sources”.
LikeLike
I really think this is just the Pac 10’s way of going all-in. The Pac 10 knows that if the Big 12 stays intact, they really have no other natural expansion options other than Utah (assuming Colorado has committed to the Big 12).
So the Pac 10 is putting its cards on the table and seeing how everything falls. If they get the Big 12 schools, its a coup for them and they’re happy.
If not, they probably stand pat at 10 teams and hope for the best they can in their next TV deal, which probably leads to the original Pac 10-Big 12 TV alliance that brought all this about in the beginning.
But what does the Pac 10 really have to lose at this point? They just want to force everyone else to play their hand now before they begin TV contract negotiations and hope for the best.
LikeLike
Steve Chapman, editorial board member of the Chicago Tribune, weighs in on BT expansion. He makes some points that I’ve brought up several times here—that many posters, thoughtful and savvy as they are, are taking the dollars and cents (whether academic or athletic) factor too far in the calculation. The culture, people, region, and geography are ties that shouldn’t be discounted in college conference life. That’s one reason that I’ve said no way will TX be in the B10, as fine as their institution and fans are.
Excerpts:
“The battle to keep the Big Ten at 10 is lost, but a few rules should guide any expansion. If your students can harvest oysters without leaving the state, you are not a Big Ten school. If they can leave class and be standing in a cornfield within 20 minutes, you are.
Does summer smell like salt water? Out. Is it fragrant with cow manure? In. Mountains and beaches? Let’s think about this. Flat vistas that go on longer than the Academy Awards telecast? Now we’re talking.
The University of Missouri is located in a state that had slavery, which is not a Midwestern thing, but it stayed in the Union, which is. Lots of people in Iowa and Illinois already feel an affinity because they root for the St. Louis Cardinals and share the Mississippi River.
Nebraska? Their athletes wouldn’t need cultural orientation classes to prepare for trips to West Lafayette. Notre Dame, as everyone else knows, is a Big Ten school that just refuses to accept its obvious destiny.
In the end, there is something inseparable between the conference and the region where it grew up, and we tinker with it at our peril. So my advice to university presidents: If your students are happy to be called Midwesterners, you belong in the Big Ten. If they would take it as an affront, look elsewhere.”
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/ct-oped-0606-chapman-20100606,0,2708741.column
LikeLike
I disagree somewhat.
I think the essence of the Big Ten is more of a Northern/Union style grouping, which I guess he hit, but I think he hit more of a Midwestern kind of bent. He acknowledged that as the roots, but the Big Ten has sprawled a bit since then into a much more national grouping.
And the Big Ten universities are all different. Would anyone at Northwestern think about being in a cornfield in 20 minutes? Hell no. Northwestern kids are mostly suburbanites or city kids.
The same is true of Michigan, etc.
I think there are plenty of schools that would be ideal matches for the Big Ten including Nebraska/Missouri/ND/Pitt/Rutgers/Syracuse/Maryland and possibly UVA/UNC/GTech.
Academic/athletic excellence is intertwined with the culture that a school gets from its student body.
I don’t think culture is a stumbling block with respect to “Southern” universities such as UVA/UNC or southwest universities such as Texas/A&M. After all, the churn of people across the US is almost constant and these universities all attempt to land superstar researchers regardless of location. The schools make themselves destinations, which is why the Big Ten’s brand is strong.
There are no schools in the Big Ten that are weak academically and that’s what makes the Big Ten brand strong.
I don’t think the brand is as much about the Midwest as it used to be, it’s much more about excellence now, which is why the Big Ten is discussing expansion outside of the footprint…
LikeLike
Biggest load of bs I think I’ve ever read.
So the Big10 is forever chained to only ever looking at schools in rural areas? That same rural location is TRULY the reason why the schools are great?
I guess I should ignore the fact that those “rural” areas have had the largest population centers, greatest industrial base, and overall “least” rural areas in their state footprint for the past 100 years.
I guess the next thing this guy is going to tell me is commitment to academics (with a focus on “practical” sciences), heavy emphasis on research, and a strong sense of athletics are just “superficial” aspects of being a Big10 school.
Good news is MD should be right up on this guys list for additions…I’ve smelled the cows on their campus.
LikeLike
The shucking oysters criteria blows Maryland right out of the water.
LikeLike
PSU,
“midwest” and “rural” or only synonymous to eastern and west coast people.
In a way, this disconnect in world view is the author’s point.
LikeLike
The author, who is writing from Chicago, seems to think mid-west = rural since he made the “20 minutes to corn fields” comment.
LikeLike
How terribly provincial. What utter garbage. Penn State is my cousin’s ex-husband 20 years post-divorce, greeted politely and then forgotten? As a Penn State alum, my view is certainly not without bias, but given that PSU won the Big Ten in 2005 and 2008 (oh, yes, don’t forget those were the unique to Big Ten “shared” titles with OSU despite the fact PSU beat OSU both years), seems like PSU might just be a little harder to forget than that. Maybe it’s just that Northwestern and Illinois fans would prefer to forget a team that has winning records against both?
People like Chapman shouldn’t be let near a word processor let alone an editorial board.
LikeLike
100% agree (and I even enjoyed the hyperbole (and actually started to calculate how close corn fields are to Northwestern — for sure 20 minutes for every other school)).
from my posts, you all know i think “culture” and “fit” are just as important as the money and academic standings, etc. So TEX to the P16.
now the midwest based B16 and Tex/pacific coast based P16 combine to make a single cable network … woohooo… gobs of money for everyone
LikeLike
That Chapman article was one of the most ill-informed and ignorant pieces of opinion journalism I have ever read.
I thought I was reading the Onion.
LikeLike
Fine, I’ll be the one who says it.
If you think ND is a “Big Ten” school, you don’t know ND, you don’t know the Big Ten, or you don’t know either.
Also, the people of Terre Haute vote just about as democrat as they do in Madison. This is why city folk shouldn’t shoot their mouths off about places they can’t find on a map.
This is easily one of the dumbest things I have ever read from someone paid by what was considered a good paper.
LikeLike
As best I can tell, the battle to keep the Big Ten at 10 was lost about 20 years ago…
LikeLike
read that column earlier and with all due respect its a pretty clueless rant. what you didn’t excerpt is him saying that Penn State was a mistake and is still an outsider. Does anyone really believe that? This ‘you have to stay true to your Mid West roots’ schtick is narrow visioned provincial hogwash. Penn State has integrated very well. Nebraska is my first choice, after Texas, but Rutgers would eventually integrate just as well as Penn State. Chapman should join this century.
LikeLike
It’s a political pundit venturing into sports as social commentary, so it’s a little behind the curve from the get-go.
LikeLike
aw, didn’t actually read the whole thing.
to extent Chapman diss’ed PennState, he’s a moron for that. PennState fits very well (and I am fairly certain cows and corn can be found within 20 minutes of happy valley).
but the insistence on “fit” and “culture” is important and, in that, Chapman is correct.
LikeLike
Cows graze on the same open fields we use for tailgating!
LikeLike
Great job Frank. I love this blog.
Someone above put it really well about the B10’s goal number one should be to maintain its general and academic credibility.
Here’s my 2 cents:
1. It’s been said before, but no one should really want TX, it is just too much trouble to deal with both them and the rest of their “family”.
2. Take Nebraska. It has everything you want. Stop and wait.
3. Don’t want to stop? The add 1 or 2 more. Which ones? I think Maryland is the next best option. And I know this gets shot down a lot, but I would go for Toronto for all of the following reasons:
– Academic powerhouse that blows nearly everyone else being discussed out of the water.
– Likely adds just as many tvs as TX; this functionally gets you at least 75% of Canada.
– They can build a football team; they wouldn’t even need to play at first with Nebraska on board.
– Gets you a hockey team and paves the way for Big Ten hockey, which would be awesome.
– Culturally a great fit and, some might disagree but I think they are generally better behaved than the TX or NY/NJ crowds.
– Seriously, I’m in Detroit and went to MSU undergrad and UM graduate. We interact with Ontario all the time. Toronto would fit like a glove.
LikeLike
I’m sure Delaney is pitching the virtues of adding Toronto instead of Texas as we speak.
LikeLike
I’m sure he’s not, but its a mistake. There are big bucks up there that none of the TX / West Coast crowds are fighting over. Sometimes its better to take a big piece and enjoy it while everyone else fights over the biggest piece. Notice all of these other conferences are dying to keep up with B10, just let them fight over the B12 (sans Nebraska, which in itself is a homerun gain for the Big 10) and use this opportunity of panic/musical chairs to pull in one of the best universities in North America with about 30 million people/tvs.
LikeLike
we’ve discussed Toronto before on the site I usually post on (a Michigan board). great school and all that has a lot in its favor but the fact that it doesn’t play American football is a real problem if one of the goals is to leverage the BTN. they would be a long way from providing significant BTN content.
and hockey is just not going to be a conference sport. only about half the conference already plays hockey and with Title IX its unlikey any will be adding such a large men’s sport soon.
LikeLike
they don’t need to play football right now if you add Nebraska; give them a little time to get up top speed. think long term.
look at it this way – do you want middling AAU schools (or worse) in non top-20 markets or do you want an academic juggernaut in one of the biggest markets in the world?
just saying. its not sexy, but it makes sense and piles of cash.
LikeLike
look I’m sympathetic. I think Toronto would be a very creative add. but its indicated that they want 11+1 =13. they want additive and not dilutive. Toronto would be a great bet on the long term but it would be short term dilutive. But maybe that can be finnessed. would be fun to see.
LikeLike
i hear you, regardless of what B10 does, they need to look at this b/c:
1. you’re right, its a great long-term investment. apple didn’t make it to where it is by building an ipod and then saying, that’s it we’re heading home! they invested in the future.
2. the CIC would pee its pants to get UT.
3. for all the reason’s i’ve stated, 1 school gets you more eyeballs and academic prestige than Syr, Rut, Pitt combined,and it leaves leaves space, which is a valuable commodity
4. Missou, Pitt, Sys, Rut, Kansas, Etc. are basically interchangable, they add nothing new. We have 4-6 schools just like them now. Nebraska is a national brand. They’re different – these other guys, not so much.
5. This is a good road to get ND. the only other conference that would consider adding UT is the Big East, which is desperate and it and might do this first if the Big 10 doesn’t. B10 and BE are a giant chunk of the hockey schools. ND and its fans care a great deal about hockey – more then they care about BB, i can tell you that. If ND thought the CCHA was going under and the WCHA being injured, it would be seriously moved. this won’t make sense to some, but it’s true.
LikeLike
I think TORONTO is an absolutely brilliant idea! Won’t happen but…
Sorry Maryland, but you get knocked out of my top five.
ND, NEB, TEX, aTm, Toronto.
LikeLike
If the Big10 is truly looking far into the future, 50-100 years out. approaching Toronto could be a truly visionary move. Professional sports have certainly expanded their earnings and exposure with their forays outside of the U.S.
As a start Toronto could very well pull their weight if they were to start as a CIC-only member. As a research partner they are an excellent fit (top half of the Big10 by ARWU rankings).
I have no clue how Canadian television markets work but if the BTN can find any exposure in Toronto alone (2.5 million) it is a plus, even on secondary cable tiers. Perhaps BTN content can be localized with specialized content for Toronto club sports as they build to scholarship programs. A portion of the value added for the BTN could even serve as a revenue source to build those programs.
Is there any downside at all?
LikeLike
none at all, the only downside is fooling around waiting on this.
look, i love college football. NB is a homerun for that alone. why add a bunch more “eh” teams? would a UT game be any worse than the crap-tastic one double a teams everyone plays now? the B10 should expand the ACC challenge to football, that’s something people want to watch.
i bet UM bets no on nebraska anyway. try selling them on Texas Tech (no way even 3 B10 teams would go for this) or even TAM. they’d all jump on UT though.
LikeLike
jj,
I am with you on toronto….
AAU
played Michigan in football in 1861
has hockey
great people (part of my family lives in canada, the people are nice)
i brought it up months ago, and got nothing.. but I would get on that bus!
McGill could join the Big East!
woo hoo!!
LikeLike
thanks duffman!
look at how the TX crowds behave themselves and all the demands and crap they want to add on; plus they’d leave when the next pretty girl comes along anyway.
B10 ten could call up UT and say, hey, we’re adding NB. how would you like to join and have a football team in 5 years? UT says sure! Instant 30 million tvs with basically no competition and a great school that ups everyone’s academic profile and adds tons of grant money. They’d be more akin to U of Chicago for awhile, but who cares?
Now that i really think about this. I think this is the better team 13 move than Maryland. Then, sit there and see who wants to be 14 after the B12 falls to pieces (ND – looking at you).
in hockey terms, the B10 seems to be looking to make the same mistakes the NHL made over the past 10 years or so if it goes out and grabs a bunch of half-ass things they don’t really want or need just to get bigger.
LikeLike
When I am with my dad I am often highly amused as he just walks up to total strangers and strikes up conversations. In his senior years he can say and do what he wants, whenever he wants.
Joe Paterno reminds me of my dad. While nobody at the Big10 offices says much, JoePa goes on radio shows, to booster functions, and perhaps to strangers on the street and talks about expansion. And he can get away with it because he ends by saying…
…but what do I know?… nobody tells me what’s going on.
I probably couldn’t find a link if I tried, but as this expansion buzz started, JoePa tossed out a random statement like…
…but of course, the Pac10 will have to make the first move.
Everybody went huh? Pac10? They haven’t even discussed expansion.
We now see it makes sense. Geographically, the Pac10 has the fewest options. They have now revealed some of their choices in this game of multi-player chess. They can go all in for Texas at a greatly reduced value (Texas plus 5 includes a lot of dilution). They can make the safe play (Colorado plus 1), and see what shakes out for the next step. Or they can pass and see if someone else makes a move (Big10 adding Nebraska and/or Rutgers are also safe plays at this time).
In the “double chess” game play scenario there are still a lot of locked pieces on the board. Texas and their neighbors may go off the board in one big move. If Nebraska and Colorado go out of play, that may shake up Texas to free some political baggage. If a move is made for Rutgers, Big East panic ensues and perhaps some ACC options are unlocked. The SEC will stand pat until they feel threatened.
The talk above of the Big10 going to the 13 is quite plausible in this context. Two safe plays may unlock several options on the chessboard.
LikeLike
humm..
” The SEC will stand pat until they feel threatened.”
which means if ANYBODY goes to 13 BAMA will be at DEFCON 1!
😉
LikeLike
Haha. I can just imagine.
Do you think that means they will propose the SEC expand to 16? to 20? They can always drop a few later. 🙂
http://oversigning.com/testing/
LikeLike
Do you think that means they will propose the SEC expand to 16? to 20? They can always drop a few later.
http://oversigning.com/testing/
Post of the day!
LikeLike
well done, sir, well done.
LikeLike
Love it. 🙂
LikeLike
love the metaphors to double chess and locked/unlocked pieces… beautiful analogy
LikeLike
oh, and also: the JoePa comments strengthen the idea/speculation that the “Rose Bowl Conferences” are acting in concert.
LikeLike
Probably nothing, but this statement could mean something:
“Finally double chess # of moving parts including not harming brand as we executy.”
“#” is shorthand for checkmate in chess notation. I like the sound of that, but I don’t know what context it was removed from, so that affects things, and it’s obviously not a very articulately written sentence, but FWIW
checkmate?
LikeLike
okay, time to get some work done … and “add”
LikeLike
@ Hopkins Horn
I think most of us are resolved to the notion that if Tech is required, Texas isn’t worth chasing at this point in time because the votes probably aren’t there. We’re not going to make anywhere near the same offer as the Pac-10 is willing to make.
From Texas’ perspective, yes it is an upgrade to be associated with Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC in the same conference.
But from Stanford/Cal’s perspective, they’re dropping off the baggage from their last expansion (ASU) onto a new SWC with OU/OSU/TTech, and forming the old Pac-8 with Stanford/Cal/UCLA/USC/UW and only slight laggards in Oregon/Oregon St./WSU. This also seems to entirely take off the table Stanford/Cal participating in a research consortium for the benefit of other Pac-10 schools if they weren’t already hesitant about that due to the Arizona expansion.
So which is it? Is Texas’ perspective right? Or is Stanford/Cal’s perspective right? Or some mix of both?
If Texas’ perspective is right, then Stanford/Cal aren’t on the same page or this thing might not happen were it not for the $ greasing the wheels.
If Stanford/Cal’s perspective is right, then Texas/A&M are being associated with Arizona/Colorado which are AAU along with OU/OSU/TTech/ASU.
So there’s an open question of whether the California schools are going to be as open for academic collaboration if they look over to the new SWC-8 and see Texas/A&M standing around with other members they don’t view as being in their academic “league”.
As for the general public, sure, the Pac-16 will be viewed as having stronger universities academically, but what Stanford/Cal think does matter if Texas wants to get anything out of this relationship in effect and not just in perception.
LikeLike
@Zeek:
Before I start, who is the “we” for you? For some reason, I’ve never picked up your particular school allegiance.
Let me try and craft as thorough a response as I can with a 10-month-old crawling along in my midst. 🙂
I still support a move to the Big 10, primarily because of the CIC, and I believe that I am more confident than the rest of you that the Big 10 will “suck it up” and take Tech as the price of getting Texas and Notre Dame. (And I still firmly believe that Texas and ND are trying to work this out behind the scenes.) Time will tell who’s correct, and I’m sure there’s some third which will emerge that will prove us all incorrect.
That being said, if I had known that there were going to be a “Tech Problem” when this whole realignment mess started months ago, I seriously doubt that I would have been sucked into this game as thoroughly as I have because I would have assumed, from a Texas perspective, that there would have been no game to play. I would have been disheartened to know that Texas would have to go down on the deck of the SS SWC II without having any life raft. (There’s another transportation analogy for whoever was keeping track.)
So perhaps I’m guilty of looking at this through rose-colored glasses, but I am ecstatic to learn that there will still be an escape route to at least one of the two athletically-compatible conference which offer academic upgrades, despite the Tech Problem.
Now you, and others, seem to be arguing that we’re merely going to be shoved aside into a segregated portion of the conference and won’t get to play with the big boys academically. Instinctively, I don’t think that’s the case.
First, if we didn’t think we’d be getting any academic upgrade out of this (and I’m certain this has been researched in-depth behind the scenes already), I think we’d already be headed for the SEC for the reasons I’ve laid out previously. The SEC would make a lot more sense if there weren’t something to be gained beyond the mere playing field.
Second, people matter, and as has been written about prior, there are a lot of UC people with Texas ties, and vice versa, so I think the door might be open a bit more than many might suspect to higher-level collaboration between Texas and UC.
(Stanford might be its own story, but I’m more concerned about getting in bed with UC, much as I would be much more concerned about getting in the same academic bed with Michigan rather than NW in the Big 10. [And, yes, yes, CIC and the same bed for all, but you know what I’m saying.]).
Third, to me, this is more about increasing research dollars in terms of the academic upgrade. Who cares if we’d still be in the same conference with some academic outliers like Okie State and Tech. We would no longer be the top academic dog in our conference. I think this is a Good Thing, long-term, academically for the school. We dislike not being #1 in anything (as I’m sure many have discerned), and moving into a conference in which we’d have to improve to be on the same academic level as UC would be a great thing for the school.
Does this make sense?
LikeLike
At some level I think it makes sense. Yet it might be pointed out that nothing you have said about moving really changes things. I have to believe that UT as an institution has never measured itself against OU, etc. The administration sees Michigan, Cal, Wisconsin, etc. as its peers and benchmarks against that.
At the level of personal contacts and academic contacts, again nothing changes in reality. The direct cooperation between researchers and so on happens and will continue to happen.. Being in the same athletic conference is immaterial. That is why the CIC is so powerful — it institutionalizes cooperation at the university level and has evidently been successful in catalyzing research cooperation that otherwise may not have taken place.
So I think there is some visible prestige upgrade at emerges in being in the same athletic conference with Cal, Stanford, etc. but the reality is that without some effort on the part of the conference schools (or the big time research subset) I don’t any any grounds to say there is likely to be a difference.
Let me put it another way. Do you really think the state legislature will now say they need to send more funding to UT to catch up to Cal?
If this comes to pass and UT goes to a Pac-16 in this way, it is not the worst outcome but it is a missed opportunity to accelerate the growth of research and improve academics.
LikeLike
I see where you’re coming from, and I do think that Texas is likely to be able to work out some form of collaboration with the UC’s above and beyond the fact that the conference is less likely to have an academic consortium due to this Pac-16 expansion.
As for my personal views on the subject; I’m a Big Ten/SEC/Pac-10 graduate (ug Big Ten so slightly more interested in how the Big Ten does than the SEC or Pac-10 but in varying degrees I care about certain schools in all of them).
I actually think that this offer from the Pac-10 works well from Texas from almost any angle.
I’m one of the Big Ten fans who’s more like “anywhere but SEC for the Texas” rather than that it has to go to the Big Ten for me to be content with the situation.
I actually prefer raids of the ACC by the SEC and Big Ten (since I have no allegiance to any ACC schools) because I think that Maryland/Virginia/UNC is the best fit for the Big Ten for the CIC to get a foothold on D.C. (where all the $ comes from due to relationships those universities have with the federal agencies, etc.) and in terms of a competitive sports standpoint.
Obviously, Texas/ND is still what Delany/Big Ten want, but I think Texas is right to want a conference that geographically makes sense as the Pac-16 would, while still opening the possibility for closer working research relationships between the UCs/UW and Texas/A&M. The Big Ten can’t offer that because every Big Ten school has to be a member of the CIC, whereas you’re right to point out that the Pac-16 doesn’t have its hands tied in such a way.
I don’t think the Big Ten (or SEC) loses if Texas goes west, so I think Big Ten fans shouldn’t be jealous or making comments about Texas (save those for the Rose Bowl ;p). Texas is actually coming across as more of a responsible actor in terms of taking care of Tech and hoping to be able to build up Tech so that Texas has 3 prominent research groups of universities working for the good of all (as California has achieved, etc.).
I think the Big Ten and Pac-10 both lose if Texas goes to the SEC. I also don’t think Texas would get much academically out of the SEC, although maybe it could create a working relationship with Vandy/UF/UGA, but that’s not the same as having the UC-system schools/UW/Stanford offering research collaboration.
Either way, I don’t really think it’s that much of a missed opportunity other than from the perspective of making $ on TV because the Big Ten has attractive alternatives, and Texas/Pac-10 can work.
From a research perspective for the Big Ten, the best targets are Maryland (maybe to get JHU in the footprint, who knows that might be a pipe dream but I don’t think it’s impossible if UChicago/Northwestern go and talk to them) and down the East Coast in order to better build relationships where the $ come from…
LikeLike
Texas . . . JHU . . . CIC . . .Texas . . . JHU . . .
People, we’re staring in the face of the most powerful inducement Texas could be offered. Why has no one made this connection yet?!?
LikeLike
Zeek – fantastic post, probably the best and most even-handed overall summary of the situation that I’ve seen anywhere. Well done.
LikeLike
@ Zeek. I honestly believe this whole “separate but equal” theory going on between the og P8 and the revised SWAC is getting totally blown out of proportion. Pac schools in general are pretty smart guys – why would they create a conference that would have such a divide in a collaboration? This isn’t MLB where one division can create a DH type rule not used in the other. IF they move forward with a new conference of 16 – then everyone will do their best to make it work (and yes, that includes Stanford).
All my take, and I have been wrong before (amazing, huh), but you are grouping Cal w/ Stanford and Cal’s pov is much different in the UC system. I mentioned before, but the dynamic of the Pac 10 deceision making isn’t one entity but a group of the CA schools + UW with the most powerful voices coming from the SoCal schools (IMO). They all kind of “agree to agree” on decsions – if one decides they don’t (Stanford), the other 4 will just lean on them till they “go along to get along.”
TT, IMO, can be sold to the Pac schools if it is required to get TX/aTm. I can see no way at all that ANY Pac school (much less the 5 decision making schools) ok with Baylor. Any Baylor to the Pac info I see is just noise that I store with the Boise St to Pac vault. I would be shocked, SHOCKED, if BU made it in due to the religious affiliation.
Stanford looks down on EVERYONE’s academics – thats the way they are – they have no equal in their minds which is why there will never be any CIC type consortium in the Pac. The rest of the schools, I can only imagine with work in collaboration with new member schools attempting to achieve the same objectives.
Beside if they tried to recreate the P8 – it would be doomed to geographic exposure failure anyway. There is just NO upside at all to the whole idea.
LikeLike
hmm… seems no work will get done today. Just FYI, supposedly a press conference scheduled at 4 pm from the B10 President’s meeting in Park Ridge, IL. Would assume that’s 4 pm CST.
LikeLike
3pm central, if on time.
LikeLike
thanks
LikeLike
hmm… tried to say “thanks” for updating on the time, but didn’t seem to go through.
i’ll resend.
and, btw, thanks for you posts on here; have enjoyed reading your thoughts/comments (even if you ARE on the wrong side of the Playoffs argument… (i would add a smiling emoticon if I knew how).
LikeLike
Just do it the old fashioned way, with a colon and parenthesis. It converts on its own. I think. 🙂
LikeLike
aw, okay… love learning new things.. let’s see
🙂
LikeLike
wow, very cool… (yes, i do get excited over little things)…
so what are my other options? I saw a winking smile and some others up earlier in the postings. maybe that is semi-colon and parenthesis.
let’s try:
😉
LikeLike
oh fun! there must be a list somewhere
smile with tongue out?
:)~
LikeLike
lol… well, that one didn’t work.
LikeLike
Capital P and parenthesis? P)
LikeLike
Nope. Add colon, drop parenthesis? 😛
LikeLike
You’re welcome and thanks back at you, this is fun and intriguing.
LikeLike
no problem and now that i know how: you’re on the wrong side of the playoff argument 🙂
LikeLike
P10 has no interest in Baylor:
@Smooth_Operatah Yes, the same Big 12 school official told me the Pac 10 has no interest in Baylor. about 2 hours ago via web in reply to Smooth_Operatah
Similar statements coming from the P10 side, that Larry Scott will recommend the initial 6 school expansion that includes Colorado.
Just like I told the cackling hens last night, they were getting worked up over nothing.
LikeLike
Rittenberg (ESPN) says press conference is at 4 pm ET
LikeLike
At the risk of sounding like a midwest hipster wannabe, I found these two tweets by ESPN bloggers interesting.
@ESPN_BigTen Big 12 has zero leverage. They’re all looking elsewhere. Pac Ten only offers hopes and dreams. Big Ten still has highest cards.
To which the other ESPN guy tweeted:
@ESPN_BigTen ….And the most money! -you could be right.
LikeLike
@ESPN_BigTen They finally let us in. Delany will talk in about 15 minutes
http://twitter.com/ESPN_BigTen
Presser starts in 15 min.
LikeLike
thanks for link and i read there (on the link) that it is raining in park ridge; i’m in NW Indiana and looks like a big Tstorm coming; confirmed by twitter…
LikeLike
The waiting is killing me. If NU doesn’t get an invite there will be a very disappointed fan base.
LikeLike
I’m not expecting anything. I don’t want to bring myself up just to be let down, but if nothing comes from this press conference, that doesn’t necessarily mean Nebraska’s not getting an invite.
LikeLike
Agreed on all points.
LikeLike
It has to play out. Delany isn’t going to give up on Texas because some politicians are making some noise. Maybe it means something, maybe it doesn’t.
LikeLike
Another reporter at press conference:
LikeLike
Alma:
“Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little, cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more”
Alma and Ethel:
“Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little,
talk a little, cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more”
All the ladies:
“Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little,
talk a little, cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more”
Maud:
“Professor, her kind of school doesn’t belong in any Big Ten. Of course, I shouldn’t tell you this, but she advocates churchy schools.”
Harold:
“Churchy schools?!”
Alma:
“TCU”
Ethel:
“SMU”
Eulalie:
“Baylor!”
Maud:
“And the worst thing,
Of course, I shouldn’t tell you this but-”
Alma:
“I’ll tell.”
Ethel:
“The school was in my conference, let me tell.”
Eulalie:
“Stop! I’ll tell.
She made brazen overtures to a school who never
had a friend in this town till she came here.”
Alma:
“Oh, yes,
That Texas made brazen overtures
With a gilt-edged guarantee
She had a golden glint in her eye
And a silver voice with a counterfeit ring
Just melt her down and you’ll reveal
A lump of lead as cold as steel
Here, where a woman’s heart should be!”
Eulalie, Ethel, Maud, Alma, Mrs Squires:
“They all agreed on a contract
But they let Texas keep what she earned!”
Alma:
“TCU”
Ethel:
“SMU”
Eulalie:
“Baylor!”
Ladies:
“Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more
Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
cheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more
Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
Cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep cheep
Pick a little, talk a little, cheep!”
LikeLike
Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado: “Goodnight Big XII, goodnight Big XII, goodnight Big XII, we’re going to leave you NOW.”
LikeLike
http://twitter.com/ESPN_BigTen
These 3 are 3 of the 9 reporters who appear to be at the meeting for those interested in following along.
LikeLike
ESPN reporting from P10 meeting:
Commissioner got permission to ‘advance the process’ on pursuing 6-team expansion. (CO option)
2 school expansion still on table.
Due diligence phase.
LikeLike
Begin negotiations with individual schools.
LikeLike
Well, this pretty much confirms the reports. Now we just need to wait for the Big Ten response.
LikeLike
Is it just me.. or is this crazy..
I am on BTN right now and I am getting tOSU vs PSU soccer..
you would think they would break in for a Delaney presser!!
LikeLike
I’m gonna take that as a sign that nothing earth-shattering will be revealed.
LikeLike
I have never once heard anyone on the Big Ten Network even mention expansion. They certainly may have, but I’ve never heard it discussed.
LikeLike
anybody have a live link to the presser??
LikeLike
I’ve been following it on Twitter. Adam Rittenberg usually is pretty good about updating in the middle of press conferences. A live video or audio feed would be nice, though.
LikeLike
@ESPN_BigTen MSU president Simon says no action taken on expansion
http://twitter.com/ESPN_BigTen
*sigh*
LikeLike
At least they discussed it probably.
To be fairly blunt, I do think it’s wise for the Big Ten to see if the Pac-10 can pull of this expansion move. I don’t think the Big Ten has a counteroffer that would work, since the Tech problem seems to be insurmountable from the Big Ten’s viewpoint (i.e. some sort of probation on Tech in the CIC is a total non-starter as it would be patently unfair to Tech and the Big Ten as a whole, and they don’t want to invite Tech as a way of getting Texas but then feel like they never wanted Tech in the first place; anyone who joins will be completely welcomed in. We’re not going to see the Penn State scenario play out again with backtracking and a lot of nonsense…).
LikeLike
Yep. Staring contest.
LikeLike
And if the Pac-16 doesn’t materialize, then the Big Ten can make a most favorable offer to Texas, and then roll it in and look only Southeast if that doesn’t happen.
I really don’t see the impetus to moving the process up as a way to jump the Pac-10’s scenario.
Obviously, we should send signals to Nebraska that they’ll be included, and then continue talking to Missouri/ND/Rutgers/Pitt/Maryland/VA about where to go from here.
LikeLike
It may be a staring contest, but it does change the dynamic.
If the B12S teams (-BU +CU) are really looking for NU/MU to leave before abandoning the conference, *someone* is going to have to make the first move. NU/MU supposedly have a near-term deadline with undisclosed consequences if it is broken.
While I didn’t expect anything to happen today, I definitely believe it has to happen soon.
LikeLike
But again, the deadline talk is from Texas reporters quoting “sources”. Who would you suspect the “sources” are? I’ll bet they wear burnt orange. It doesn’t mean there is a deadline other than the natural one next April of the Big 12, if it still exists, of negotiating TV contracts.
It would be nice if things moved to a conclusion soon, but by no means does that have to be the case.
LikeLike
The Big Ten did exactly what they had to do at this time, nothing.
Now the ball is in Texas & the Pac 10’s court. Their turn to hold the hot potato, now will they blink.
As many have stated, the Big Ten does not want to be the ones responsible for this train wreck. They will let the Pac 10, Colorado or Texas to start it. They (the Big Ten) will be the ones to pick up the pieces they want.
LikeLike
@ESPN_BigTen She says the timeline could change, but process could change
LikeLike
SIAP, but here is a Ken Starr press release from Baylor
http://www.baylor.edu/pr/news.php?action=story&story=75146
Not too much content but
“Be assured that we are committed to doing everything in our power to promote and defend the best interests of Baylor University as these discussions continue in the days ahead.”
Not exactly the white flag we saw from ISU.
LikeLike
OB: Pac-10 commish Larry Scott says he’s been given authority to “advance” expansion process (hand out invites) at today’s Pac-10 meetings.
LikeLike
Scott spoke following the conclusion of the conference meetings in San Francisco on Sunday. Earlier in the day, he addressed the chancellors and presidents about possible expansion and was given authority to move ahead without having to go back to the board for approval.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hnzIhFaatwkq64GmeoMWPwy9xbcwD9G604SG2
LikeLike
If he has the letter head and the rubber stamp, one must think this deal is pretty much wrapped-up.
LikeLike
Does this mean they all voted on anything or that they told him to hand out invites and that they’d vote later?
The Pac-10 doesn’t require votes before invitations to apply like the Big Ten does it?
LikeLike
Sounds to me like Scott has been handed a blank sheet to fill in names, which would mean Stanford is already on board? Interesting times.
LikeLike
That is how I read it, plus with Chip Brown’s latest statement basically saying pick colorado or baylor, I see this as the pac8 (which is run by the pac-5) is saying build an SWC-8, and Texas can fill it however they want.
How about this: the two are basically independent, no assurance of playing the other side (those would be determined like OOC games) they would be governed separately, they would split the money in half, and then each side would divide it as it sees fit. That is how you get Stanford to sign off, and that is how you get this type of ‘blank check’
LikeLike
BEST QUOTE:
“Pouring rain here and they’re still not letting us inside the office. Maybe I should say I’m from Nebraska.”
from the BIG 10 twitter person..
LikeLike
I’ve been thinking about this whole “Tech” problem the past couple of days, and here are some of my thoughts:
As hard as it may be striving to become a Tier 1 university, Texas Tech is currently a Tier 3 school and as I have said before, likely decades away from being worthy of AAU status. I have already felt that Michigan and Indiana would likely vote against such an addition, (based on the way the two seem to vote together on conference issues,) and I have a hard time believing that another two schools wouldn’t share similar reservations about essentially selling their souls for Texas.
Don’t get me wrong, the University of Texas would be a tremendous addition to the B10 and there is no other addition that can even come close. However, if the price of adding Texas is adding Texas Tech, then I’m afraid that the price is too high, and I think the B10 realizes this.
So it appears that the Pac 10 may have won the Texas sweepstakes, (I still think Stanford is going to be very loathe to sign off on Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.) However I think there is a nice move that the B10 can make that addresses some of the demographic shifts that Delaney alluded to while maintaining its stringent academic standards and at the same time making sure that the additions compete athletically at a high level. (This means no Vanderbilt and no Rice.)
I’m surprised that on this blog, no one has really mentioned Georgia Tech as a likely candidate. (If they have, sorry, there are an absurd number of posts that I just gloss over based on sheer numbers.)
Georgia Tech just became AAU, only the second addition in the past 10 years. (This should throw up a red flag when it comes to Texas Tech and its aspirations of obtaining AAU status. It’s a little harder than I think people realize.)
While the school does play second fiddle to the University of Georgia in Georgia, Tech does have a strong fan base and the football team does have a strong tradition and history.
I am personally of the opinion that any of the old guard ACC members are unmovable. This means Maryland and Virginia are non-starters. However, Georgia Tech only came into the ACC in the late 70’s if I recall. I wandered over to a few Georgia Tech message boards just to gauge if there was any interest and surprisingly the overwhelming majority not only want in to the B10, but also believe that discussions are ongoing. Now of course, basing a university’s interest in changing leagues on what a message board says is foolish, but you have to acknowledge that there is some interest there, and the B10 would be foolish not to look into it.
Why would the B10 want Georgia Tech? After all, the school does play second fiddle to Georgia, something the B10 does not currently experience with any of its members. So while getting the BTN onto the entire state of Georgia may not be a slam dunk, metro Atlanta would certainly be feasible. You factor in that Atlanta is a city of transplants and one that is growing rapidly, and the payoff for the B10 could be huge. While the state doesn’t produce talent like Texas does, it is the SEC’s second best talent producer behind Florida. Surely, Georgia will still send most of its top talent to SEC schools, but over time you will be begin to see more B10 schools with recruits from Georgia.
Would Georgia Tech be an outlier as Texas would be? Yes, which is why you take on two more ACC teams, specifically Miami and Virgina Tech. Now, both schools are not AAU, but if Texas Tech is even being debated, certainly Miami and Va Tech are worthy of discussion. Miami comes in slightly ahead of Ohio State based on US News’ rankings, and Va Tech is tied with Iowa, Michigan St., and Indiana. (I know US News isn’t the greatest measure but I’m lazy and am just throwing this idea out.) Miami is a major market full of B10 alums, and the talent level in South Florida is unrivaled. And while Va Tech may not carry the hammer of the University of Virginia in the state of Virgina, in the past 20 years it has the better football and basketball programs. You put Va Tech in the B10 and they will only further distance themselves athletically from Virginia. (Football and basketball.)
The key with Va Tech and Miami, is that they are not old school ACC members and thus in my opinion would be more open to moving, especially when the potential payoff would be through the roof.
At this point, you add Nebraska to the west. Now you see if Notre Dame is interested. Would playing in a pod with Miami, Va Tech, and Georgia Tech be enough to entice the Irish? Maybe, maybe not. If so you will have gained two of the sport’s blue blooded programs, and two of the sport’s more successful programs in the modern era. If not, you can add Rutgers and hope that one day the NYC market is tapped, and in the meantime take the New Jersey market.
The more and more I think about it, the more and more I like this plan. It’s no Texas two step, but I think its surprisingly very feasible.
LikeLike
I like G-tech for all the reasons you listed. How about the trio of G-tech, Miami, and FSU (instead of VT)? I don’t know much about FSU’s interest in Big10. But there was a rumor on the net about the contact between Big10 and Miami. All three of these have improved their academic credentials quite a bit for the past decade. Add Neb. and Rutgers to this SE trio. I think this has better long-term potential than an expansion including multiple Texas universities.
LikeLike
I thought about FSU as well, but as a non-AAU school, it comes in a a little low academically, (102 according to US News.) Then again, if Texas Tech is even being discussed then surely FSU would be an option.
LikeLike
At the fan base and leak level there has been absolutely no mention of FSU to the Big 10. I wish we where a candidate but just can’t see it. We are at best 10 years more like 15 to 20 years from AAU membership as are medical school is brand new and not based on research and are engineering department needs an administrative overhaul other wise academics are solid with the need for some more research before being a real candidate. I personally would love this as it will fix much of the lost decade (this was not just in football) as well as having UF going ballistic. I am sure UF would find some way to block this move though if this was anything more than internet musing.
LikeLike
@ESPN_BigTen
“Big Ten presidents can vote on expansion electronically. Don’t need to be in same place.”
5 minutes ago via txt
LikeLike
So, this expansion could be completed any day and we could have no hints of it until it’s been done. Not good news for those of us addicted to this topic.
LikeLike
“Big Ten presidents can vote on expansion electronically. Don’t need to be in same place.”
I was hoping for a torch lit cave and ominous chanting.
LikeLike
HA. Hilarious
LikeLike
Not sure how they’ll get that goat sacrifice done electronically though.
LikeLike
Dam thehm all to hellLLLL! they didd it, they did it, they really went and did it!
LikeLike
So then, does THIS start the dominos falling? Nebraska, Notre Dame, Missouri and two easterners. I can’t believe the Pac ten is going down this sixteen team road but so be it.
LikeLike
Guys here’s probably the most interesting tweet:
UPDATE 4:31 p.m. ET: Here’s a tweet from Pete Thamel of the New York Times, one that will make Buff Nation very pissed off. And fans of Oklahoma State and Texas Tech somewhat concerned.
Source: Baylor appears to have bumped Colo in Pac-10 expansion. Also, Pac-10 pres have concern over TT and OSU academics.
# Any chance for the SEC sweeping in to nab Texas and Texas A&M appears dim bc of “Tech problem” and Mack Brown not keen on LSU/Bama/AUB etc.. 41 minutes ago via TweetDeck
# Source: Baylor appears to have bumped Colo in Pac-10 expansion. Also, Pac-10 pres have concern over TT and OSU academics. 42 minutes ago via TweetDeck
Those rumblings of TT and OSU academics are probably the thing to watch. If they become anything more than rumblings, the deal may be broken.
Also, SEC can’t solve the “Tech problem”? I thought they had an open offer to do so…
LikeLike
Chip Brown seems to be confirming on Colorado…
B12 athletic director tells Orangebloods.com Pac-10 is indicating #Texas politicians could decide if 6th B12 team is #Baylor or #Colorado. 9 minutes ago via TweetDeck
LikeLike
And Stanford could then decide if they’ll let Baylor in. And if they don’t they substitute CO and vote. Assuming TX hasn’t gone to the B10+ by then.
Long way to go on these roads.
Look at it this way, if Baylor joins the P16 there is absolutely zero chance of 4 16-school super conferences breaking away from the NCAA. Politically impossible to exclude Utah, BYU, and swing state Colorado.
At a minimum there will be 5 BCS conferences when this all shakes out.
LikeLike
This is why the 2-school expansion option is still on the table for the P10. They’ll continue to negotiate with CO. And you can bet Texas schools with influential legislatures will be pushing their interests, which may include fighting Baylor’s inclusion.
LikeLike
I agree with everything you’re saying, but I also don’t think we can assume that TTech and OSU are going to get passes from all the Pac-10 presidents on academics (if that tweet has any validity, but it makes sense intuitively).
And yes, I agree that negotiating with Colorado/Utah is the backup if the presidents either can’t get a unanimous agreement, etc.
One question I have, do they have to vote though? Seems as if some of these articles are saying the Pac-10 commissioner can do whatever he wants… is that right?
LikeLike
This just reinforces that the Pac-10 doesn’t care what type of schools it allows into the “Quarantine Division”. Time to bring in UHouston and UT-San Antonio.
LikeLike
Arrogant/ignorant nonsense.
US News rankings:
71 – IA
80 – Baylor
96 – KS
96 – NE
102 – AZ
102 – MO
102 – OU
106 – WSU
115 – OR
121 – ASU
126 – Utah
That would place Baylor 9th in a P16 if they replace CO, ahead of 4 of the current ten P10 schools.
More accurate to say the P10 isn’t as concerned about research spending and AAU if the school is still academically impressive. Baylor is a good school, they just aren’t a research-heavy institution.
TT is weaker, but have a strong financial commitment from the state to upgrade their program to Tier One.
OK St is the weakest link, but they too have a huge sugar daddy. They were included to keep OU inside. I’m still not certain that CO won’t replace them or Baylor.
I also think TX to the B10+ is still a very real possibility.
LikeLike
Oops, sorry for all the bold, I forgot to close it after Baylor. No preview option.
LikeLike
thoughts about the “religious problem” for Baylor? lots of comments on here and elsewhere over the last few months about the Standford/Cal problems with the religiousness of Utah and BYU. I realize that, for the Mormons, there is also the “sunday scheduling problem.”
maybe S. Baptist isn’t as much a problem?
thoughts everyone?
also, everyone’s thoughts on P16 changing the unanimity requirement for future votes? (put another way, is Baylor the future veto-er that really screws-the-pooch for the P16?)
LikeLike
@ BuckeyeBeau
Everything indicates that the Pac-10 views nabbing Texas quickly (i.e. before Texas/ND/Big Ten make a deal) as being worth whatever mix of schools ends up coming because it’s their only shot at ever being a Pac-16.
Other than that, I don’t really see them expanding beyond that. There’s nowhere to go…
LikeLike
Yeah.. They decided to invite OU, OSU, and Texas Tech. to lure Texas. Then why not Baylor?
The state of Oklahoma has two in Pac10 and then the state of Texas should ask for more than four, I guess.
LikeLike
@Beau
I’ve always assumed the unanimous vote clause was for admitting new members. It would be unwieldy for more mundane issues, there’s no way you can always get 10 to agree on everything. If I’m wrong, I’ll stand corrected.
LikeLike
I went to Baylor (I’m not Baptist, nor did I go for faith-related reasons) in the late 70s and I was well-prepared–for the most part–for grad school at Michigan. But the school is much more conservative now, and the earlier post about rampant growth by a former univ. president driving (way) up the cost of tuition is entirely correct. I confess I have no idea why UT would insist upon Baylor’s inclusion; could Ken Starr be that powerful? I doubt it.
At one time Baylor tried to position itself as the “Baptist Notre Dame”: an intense focus on undergraduates with high standards, a perception that same former president pretty much destroyed.
I’m not ready to say Delaney has mishandled this yet; the smoke hasn’t cleared by a long shot. Baylor going into the P16 is about as big a culture as any hypothetical I’ve seen on these boards.
LikeLike
culture CLASH I meant to say ….
LikeLike
And Colorado’s number is 77…and is actually ranked by ARWU while only Baylor’s medical college is ranked.
It will be just one more concession being made to appease Texas, no matter how rose its colored.
If TT would be out and Baylor in then I’d buy the “academics not so bad” argument.
LikeLike
@1958
Maybe. If there’s a designated rival envisioned, you give Baylor and Washington State to each other and limit the culture clash to far-off Pullman. Other than that, it’s a two-division conference who only see each other in a championship game, more than likely.
LikeLike
Baylor College of Medicine is unaffiliated with Baylor University and has not been for 40 years.
LikeLike
About Baylor College of Medicine. Although they are officially separated from Baylor University, BU still has a strong influence on BCM. Late last year and into this year, Rice was negotiating to merge with/acquire BCM. All went well until BU started pulling some strings and squashed the process. The rumors were that BU was going to try to get closer to BCM to enhance BU’s image as a serious school.
LikeLike
Thanksto those for the clarification on Baylor v Baylor COllege of Medicine.
My point stands…Baylor aint Colorado.
LikeLike
Maybe the SEC can’t solve the Mack Brown problem.
LikeLike
Delany finally adds something:
Jim Delany: “The timeline could be affected.” In other words, it will be affected. less than 10 seconds ago via UberTwitter
LikeLike
Zeek, yes but it wont be the Big Ten who started it.
LikeLike
Texas holdem anyone???
LikeLike
As far as the SEC’s Tech problem, the SEC leaders seem to be realizing that Texas is not seriously considering the conference. Blaming it on Tech is the easy out.
LikeLike
More from Chip Brown; interesting conversation.
@ChipBrownOB How would Texas politicians have the power to persuade Pac-10 to invite a private school in Baylor? 22 minutes ago via web
@ollieduck So that nothing derails getting Texas and the other B12 South schools into the fold as quickly as possible. 11 minutes ago via TweetDeck in reply to ollieduck
With Pac-10 commish Larry Scott now free to hand out expansion invitations, this is the Cuban Missile Crisis of realignment for the Big 12. 4 minutes ago via TweetDeck
So he’s got this thing on a really fast track timeline now…
LikeLike
“into the fold as quickly as possible.”
Yeah, I can see that. Texas may view all this as merely a strategic move, while the Pac 10 can rightfully expect a commitment, having given Texas everything they’ve asked for.
LikeLike
I really don’t understand why this quintessentially California based conference would want to put so much Texas in it. This is just from a politics standpoint. Then add the academics and it would almost seem like a no go. The PAC 10 is looking quite desperate if this is in fact the deal. I know all that Texas would not fly in the BT. even if they did take 3 teams from the B12.
LikeLike
What choice do they have? To continue the marriage metaphors, Husband #3 just has to take the leap of faith that he’s the one who can make this thing work.
LikeLike
It will be the deal if the Pac-10 presidents get over their concerns about TTech and OSU academics.
We’re talking about big $ for their athletic departments, which can’t be understated.
Also, as pointed out by some of the Texas boosters, the Pac-10 has no research consortium, so it’s not as if admitting TTech/OSU is really a problem other than just image-wise…
LikeLike
It could very well be 2 distinct conferences – the original pac 8 and Texas and it’s merry men. It is actually quite elegant. And someone like Larry Scott who said the last football game he went to was harvard and yale when he took the job (which I took as dude isn’t much of a big time college football fan) simply figured out how to maximize the dollars and develop something different – if the pac8 keeps their autonomy then who do they care is on the other end, if Texas acts out of line (which we all know they eventually will) they can take their bunch somewhere else.
LikeLike
Like I said yesterday, 16-team conferences are not long-term commitments. The Pac-10 seems okay with that. I suspect the B10 gets that as well and will act accordingly.
LikeLike
Now you know why Nebraska wants out of the Big 12.
LikeLike
Pac 16 happens either baylor or colorado as 6th
Big15: adds Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt and Rutgers, applies world-size pressure on Notre Dame’s atlas shoulders
Big East and Big 12 go kaboom
LikeLike
i like your four; and would agree it adds pressure to ND.
at that point, simply ask ND, if they say “no” then on to the next school. Personally, at this point, I’d prefer ND to say “no.”
Then I’d go KS or Syr. I’m not a fan of the MD option. and … puuulllleeeze on ideas like GaTech. Nice school and all, but not a B10/16 school.
LikeLike
This BaylorGate issue is going to sink the deal. If, against all odds, it does goes through I would immediately target Stanford and Cal for the Big Ten.
At that point the Texas Longhorns will equal mad-cow disease in their eyes.
LikeLike
Agree. Baylor-Gate, and the similar issues regarding TTech also discussed on this board should tell ANY prospective conference that if these schools carry on with this type of whining and parochial TX state politics now, imagine what it would be like when they are full members. Can’t imagine that schools that have paved the way for established, respected big10 and pac10 brands will stand for even the appearance of such petty interference. Sounds like the big12 all over again. Note to Pac10 and Big10: run away!!! These schools have to be deal breakers. Why does UT put up with this? No wonder they floated the idea of going independent; probably to be free of such baggage.
LikeLike
So if we get 4 superconferences. which is looking like a real possiblity.
I was thinking each league should have a semi-final and final. then play out a final four.
would be like a 16 team playoff.
This could be really good for College Football fans.
LikeLike
I think you are looking a 3 super conferences and 2 lesser children that play each other for the fourth slot…. or something like it..
my guess is if you assess the top 20 football teams of all time in the post war era of college football.. 80 – 90 % will be in one of the BIG 3.. I have not done the research, but it is a gut feeling.. anybody know for sure??
LikeLike
Here you go, Duff.
1950-2009 (last 60 years)
Sorted by # of wins
1 Oklahoma 519 (Big XII)
2 Nebraska 507 (Big XII)
3 Penn State 498 (Big Ten)
4 Ohio State 497 (Big Ten)
5 Texas 495 (Big XII)
6 Southern Cal 477 (Pac-10)
7 Tennessee 473 (SEC)
8 Alabama 469 (SEC)
9 Michigan 467 (Big |Ten)
10 Florida 459 (SEC)
11 Notre Dame 447 (Ind.)
12 Auburn 446 222 (SEC)
13 Georgia 444 226 (SEC)
14 Miami-Florida 441 (ACC)
15 Florida State 438 (ACC)
16 Arizona State 437 (Pac-10)
17 Louisiana State 430 (SEC)
18 Arkansas 422 (SEC)
19 Brigham Young 416 (MWC)
20 UCLA 407 (Pac-10)
Current Conference %:
SEC: 35%
Big Ten: 15%
Big XII: 15%
Pac-10: 15%
ACC: 10%
Ind.: 5%
MWC: 5%
65% in Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Current Speculation:
Oklahoma – Big XII >> Pac-10
Nebraska – Big XII >> Big Ten
Texas – Big XII >> Pac-10
New Conference %
SEC: 35%
Pac-10: 25%
Big Ten: 20%
ACC: 10%
Ind.: 5%
MWC: 5%
Big XII: 0%
80% in Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Further Speculation (less likely, but talked about);
Notre Dame – Ind. >> Big Ten
Miami-Florida – ACC >> SEC
Florida State – ACC >> SEC
New Conference %
SEC: 45%
Big Ten: 25%
Pac-10: 25%
MWC: 5%
ACC: 0%
Big XII: 0%
Ind.: 0%
95% in Big Ten, Pac-10, SEC
LikeLike
Scott C..
thanks for the effort.. it seems to bear out what I have been feeling all along (especially with FSU and Miami being new to the ACC). The Big 3 could reform college football to their whims and have some scrap conferences to feed a 4th team every year. What has been on my mind for quite some time is media influence.
*puts on tin foil cap*
If you are a media company, and want to sell long term programming advertisers are going to want some form of predictability to offset upset risk. I am not knocking Boise State from an athletic sense, but if I am an advertiser I want some sort of clash from the BIG 4 [CA,TX,NY, and FL] to get the biggest audience to see my ads during games.
Enter the BIG 3 and the scraps.. so long term you are assuring the most viewers.. which translates to happy advertisers.. and pumps up the bottom line.. It also means your second tier bowl games can draw bigger audiences which again translates to more revenue.
How many people on this blog watched D II or D III football last year (excluding teams you have family ties to). I have said all along that I am a huge basketball fan (and an outlier as I really do like to watch all the games in their entirety – except the early round cannon fodder). I would say that a majority of the populace just watches bits and pieces of game till you get to say the sweet 16 or final 4.
I would guess that the ratings (and revenue) are mostly tied up in the last few games as opposed to the first few rounds. A final 4 with Gtown, UCLA, tOSU, and Florida probably draws much better than 4 teams in the George Mason mold. The BIG 3 does about the same for college football. We may like cinderella early on, but we want the steady eddies in the championship games. I feel sure there is some human psychological component at work here, but I feel fairly sure that this makes advertisers happiest of all.
People want to associate with a winner, and one hit wonders are too unsettling. Scott C’s list verifies that we can pick the same top 10 – 20 EVERY season and feel fairly comfortable that it will come to fruition and reinforce our sense of well being that we could pick the winner.
*takes off tin foil hat*
just something to think about….
LikeLike
Oops. I Forget the P10 requires all members on board. That eliminates my Stanford fantasy.
LikeLike
The Cal fantasy also. As I recall, they had some complaints about a jet lag game @Maryland a couple years ago, which started at 9 a.m. Pacific.
LikeLike
No, you don’t understand. They would play their games using brain wave simulation. No travel necessary. It’s very hush-hush.
LikeLike
Posted to wrong place — grr
If Baylor gets the nod (whocouldhavenode?) the the Big Ten has to take a serious look at Colorado even if the athletics are not so great and there doesn’t seem to be much desire to make them better. Denver market, big time academics is still enticing.
LikeLike
That’s the part that doesn’t make sense to me… no CU, no Colorado footprint for the network.
Unless there isn’t going to be a Pac-16 network.
LikeLike
Part of me wonders if TX didn’t expect the P10 to meet all of its demands, but they mostly did. So Baylor became the next stumbling block, but the conference again called their bluff. All that is left now is for them to allow the LSN option. If TX doesn’t want this, that’ll be the killer. I still think TX’s first choice is the B10+.
OTOH, maybe Dodds has been honest all along. They wanted the B12 and LSN, then when NE threatened that they started getting serious about negotiations. That would fit the timeline. When the BCS meetings in AZ started the rumors were NE, MO, ND, Rut, and Syr, with the process fast-tracked. When it ended that was shot down and Delany had changed his tune back to 12-18 months. My guess is TX that week let the B10+ know they were serious about negotiating. That was the week of the leaked emails between Gee and Delany about TX, and Osborne’s “We need to talk” message to his chancellor.
Maybe TX really is heading to the P16. Time will tell.
LikeLike
I think the stakes are way too high for Texas to be betting anything on the Pac-10 pulling back at the last second on concerns over TTech/OSU or Baylor.
I think Texas seems have been rather transparent to both the Pac-10 and Big Ten that Tech was a requirement, etc. and found that only the Pac-10 was willing to play dice.
If that doesn’t work out, then Texas will look at the Big Ten’s offer.
But right now, the Pac-10 has no alternative, so it seems as if it is allowing Texas to mostly dictate the terms (other than LSN).
LikeLike
I still maintain the Pac has the original plan of adding CO and Utah. It gets them a championship game, adds some footprint, and with the new PTN should help address some of the revenue disparity.
If Texas is that tied to the hip the Big10 won’t touch them and will just skim Neb & Mizzou from the Big12 and push east. Then the rest of the Big12 (9) could add BYU and a few others from the MWC (why stay for a “possible” BCS birth when the B12 would still keep it) to get back to 12.
Texas gets to keep its own network and will fight Oklahoma every year for the BCS bid (I’ll still root for the MWC transfers though) and in the end will get to limp onward just like they did when they joined the Big8.
Eventually the Texas state legislature will get the point that they are in fact hurting the schools they’re protecting, but probably not for another couple of decades.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be so sure LSN is out of the question. You’re going to give Texas the Big 12 South and scotch the deal over the LSN? Whether A&M and OU are down with that is another question, but at this point, for the Pac 10, if Texas insists, why not? It’s not like things unimaginable a few hours ago haven’t taken some crazy turns.
LikeLike
I don’t think Delaney is handling this very well. He ought to strike on Nebraska while the iron is hot. There’s absolutely no reason to hold off, and some reason to act now. If he doesn’t, he runs the risk of Nebraska either being able to sweeten its deal from the Big XII, stay, and keep the Big XII intact. Or, perhaps the Pac-10 decides to shake things up and steal Nebraska as part of a 6 team expansion. Then where does the Big 10 go?
If he’s trying to be coy, not only is he running the risk of alienating Nebraska, but he’s also not gaining anything vis a vis Texas. At the end of the day, the Pac-10 will beat any offer the B10 will make vis a vis Texas teams, so Delaney may as well accept that and move on. Invite Nebraska, make your best and final to Texas, and give them a deadline.
He’s being too cute by half.
LikeLike
I think the Nebraska -> Big Ten deal is pretty much a done deal; they’re just not announcing it.
I don’t see any reason for the Big Ten to really set off fireworks when Nebraska doesn’t seem to be on any Pac-10 scenario (or the tweets would have gone crazy).
Perhaps ND is still talking and may be concerned about where the Pac-16 deal is and what the Big Ten and SEC might do in response…
Everything points to Nebraska receiving signals that it has a place in the Big Ten when the Big Ten is ready.
My guess is that the Big Ten is preparing to line up all the ducks in a row and then do the invites.
Obviously, I prefer the Arkansas solution of just knocking off the first domino but it might not be the wisest thing to do while the Pac-10 is working on the Texas deal (TTech/OSU issues and the Baylor/Colorado question)…
LikeLike
Well I’ll give you one potential downside. If Nebraska to the B10 is a “go” no matter what, and I were Delaney, I think I’d want to know where Texas is going sooner rather than later. More specifically, I’d rather see them in the Pac-10 than as an independent; but if the “coy” posture actually works, and Nebraska at the 11th hour sneaks off to the Big Ten after having led the Big XII to believe they were staying, then you could well see Texas say “screw it” and go independent. In turn, that would embolden ND, and then Delaney would have lost the chance to probably ever get ND as well.
IOW, make Texas show its cards sooner rather than later. By holding out on Nebraska, he’s allowing Texas to keep its cards face-down.
LikeLike
I honestly don’t get how you see this…there is absolutely no reason what-so-ever why the Big10 should announce anything right now.
Texas wants Nebraska to say “we’re staying” because it knows the Big12 needs Neb and its current plans revolve around the Big12 as it stands today.
Problem is Texas knows Nebraska has been getting angrier and angrier (rightly or not) with the way the current conference is going and recognizes its options are SEVERELY limited due to preference (they really don’t want to go to the SEC) and politics.
Texas, IMO, knows it can’t go to the Big10 (too much baggage), nor does it want to go to the Pac (with said baggage). It wants to remain at the top of the Big12 & push its network. The problem is if Neb leaves it needs one or the other and only one option is viable.
From Nebraska’s view they know that even if there aren’t any unofficial assurances, the likelihood of the Big10 letting a “free” Nebraska out of their round of expansion is very low. Neither Neb nor the Big10 have to do anything at this time.
If Pac is willing to drag all the “others” to get Texas, then they get the press for it and Texas is the one that kills the Big12. If Texas can come alone (or with TAMU) then the Big10 can maintain to its current timeline and play the bad guy after the Pac takes those they do (most likely CO at least).
Again, there is no reason for the Big10 to make anything known now unless Texas (& possibly TAMU) have the ability to come alone to the Big10.
LikeLike
The Big 12 doesn’t NEED Nebraska. Texas is just using that as excuse to make Nebraska the bad guy for not sticking around.
LikeLike
That presumes he hasn’t already reached agreement with Nebraska, perhaps Missouri, and his bosses in the Big Ten. We now know from FOIA e-mails that what’s been put out for public consumption and reality don’t necessarily match up. There’s nothing in the recent behavior of the representatives of Nebraska or Missouri that would lead one to believe that they’re particularly nervous.
LikeLike
By COB Monday, a blizzard of FOIA requests will have been received by every public university in the BCS.
Starting Monday morning, all communications from said public universities will be via phone call and smoke signal.
LikeLike
There’s no way that if the B10 wants NE that JD has not been in constant contact with NE officials. IMO, both sides know exactly how the NE invite from the B10 is going to go down. It wouldn’t surprise me if the B10 presidents haven’t already approved NE ( and maybe Rutgers).
LikeLike
WIth the electronic voting, there’s going to be no announcement of joining, it’ll be an announcement that they’ve joined. This would put emphasis on the Nebraska Board of Regents Friday. They may very well be voting on approving all of this for Nebraska.
LikeLike
I really doubt that Board of Regents will vote until there’s an invite in hand. Public meeting and all that. I suppose they could do it in a closed session, don’t really know the ins and outs of that. If they can, it doesn’t advance knowing what’s going on at all, just add to speculation.
LikeLike
But then why not announce it? That makes little/no sense that I can surmise. Plus it’s putting Nebraska in something of a bind by making them “lie” to the Big XII about their intentions, unless of course they ‘fess up at the “deadline” or make a non-committal, which everyone will take as a silent B10 invite.
LikeLike
Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Nebraska isn’t forced to lie to the Big 12. They can simply say they can’t make such a commitment at this point. The Big 12 isn’t going to suddenly then convene and vote gigantic financial penalties for leaving which would also apply to most of the conference. Again, if there is even such a deadline in place, there’s no official confirmation of that “sourced” rumor.
LikeLike
There is no deadline.
There is no ultimatum.
Even if there is, Nebraska can shrug its shoulders and say “Who, me?”
Right now, Pac is pushing the issues because it DOES have a deadline. It needs its schools added immediately to have them in place by the start of its renegotiation. That’s why Texas et al want a commitment from Neb. It doesn’t want to be left in a depleted Big12, but it doesn’t want to explode the conference either.
LikeLike
hmm… if I may, I think the best you can say is that you do not like what Delaney is doing PUBLICLY. We only have a dim idea of what’s going on behind the scenes.
Personally, I agree with previous posters that the B10 CAN and should wait right now. If P16 is “a go,” then B10 can act. If P16 falls apart, then B10 needs to go after TX again (although I still think TX to B10 is not good from a fit/culture/long-term viability perspective).
The “BALL” on which all eyes must be kept: TX can’t go to the SEC.
taking Neb now almost certainly dooms the BXII and the B10+ starts to fill up. There may not be enough room in the B10 for TX et. al. if the P16 proposal falls apart. If B10 is full and BXII has already imploded and then the P16 proposal falls apart, Texas has three choices: SEC, independence or reconstitute the BXII. SEC probably ends up as best option if there is no northern heavy-weight to replace Neb. and who is that northern heavy-weight?
LikeLike
BB,
The more I think about it.. Texas to the SEC might be the best thing….
a) we all agree texas has an ego
b) at this point in history the SEC “appears” to be the toughest conference in football
c) texas is loyal only to texas
d)Texas, A&M, Texas Tech, and OU go to the SEC west
If we agree on these 3 points, Texas is the perfect trojan horse to destroy the SEC in 5 – 15 years..
In the west they will have OU, LSU, A&M, TT, Arkansas, Miss, and Miss ST gunning for them EVERY year. Then they will have to go east and deal with FL, UGA, UT, USC with enough regularity that it will not have the success and easy schedule it would in the current Big 12 or Pac 16.
Now you are Texas, and have and ego to compete for the NC all the time. This will not happen in the SEC, and will cause infighting and turmoil until Texas walks out. In the meantime think of the damage they will inflict on the conference. Maybe I am way off base , but Texas in the SEC could be the best long term plan for the Big 10!
MU HA HA!!
LikeLike
I was totally against you until you pulled out the trojan horse. Now, I am totally for Texas to the SEC…it’d even be worth the ESPN slobbering.
LikeLike
and I forgot to add BAMA and Auburn which could mean 3 losses EVERY year for Texas.. there goes any NC hopes.
Frank and I discussed this early on about how a conference should stack up for optimal viewing value….
25% top teams
50% average teams
25% cellar dwellers
a) too many top teams and nobody wins overall
b) too many bottom teams and nobody watches
In an early blog I proposed to Frank that proper pods spread the power..
pod A) tOSU + 3
pod B) Michigan +3
pod C) PSU + 3
pod D) Nebraska + 3
Texas + OU + A&M + TT + current SEC = too many chiefs, and not enough indians.. upsets the current SEC mix, and causes decline as nobody can emerge unscathed..
LikeLike
word is that he is holding off on Nebraska while he finalizes the deal with Notre Dame
LikeLike
oh yeah. B10 needs to wait for the additional reason that ND is still out there.
LikeLike
As in ND = 12th team and Nebraska doesn’t get an invitation? Of all the possibilities out there, that seems the least likely of any to me.
I want to see ND remain indy, but if we were to join the B10, I’d much rather it be a B10 that included, inter alia, Nebraska and Texas, than simply the current 11. By far.
LikeLike
Probably wouldn’t include Texas since the Tech problem seems to be unfixable.
But ND might want to join with Nebraska/Syracuse and then Rutgers/Missouri…
LikeLike
no, I wasn’t thinking that ND replaces NEB. more that I think the B10 will invite en mass like the P10 is rumored to be doing/will do. Maybe NEB and Rutgers are 12 and 13.
As discussed by many posters, it’s always the last school that poses the biggest problem.
If you are inviting all at once, you have to know what ND is going to do. And, if there is a possibility that the P16 proposal does NOT go through, then you also need to know what TX is doing before you decide schools 15 and 16.
LikeLike
Yah, if ND joined (a big if as far as I’m concerned) they’d most like Neb, +3 northeastern schools.
Get them to play (at least) one of those schools (or PSU) a year + one of OSU/UoM/Neb to cover their “midwest + northeast” portion of the schedule and that allows them to schedule USC, Navy and few other geographical areas OoC and it’d pretty much resemble their current schedule.
LikeLike
Another athletic director tells Orangebloods.com Big Ten trying to work things out with Notre Dame before addressing Nebraska or Missouri.
16 minutes ago via TweetDeck
LikeLike
Finally, the Big Ten is starting to show its hand.
We’re going for the expansion scenario that was outlined a couple months ago.
Nebraska/Mizz/ND/Rutgers + 1 (maybe Texas, maybe someone else big that isn’t on anyone’s radar).
LikeLike
From ESPN, the Worldwide Follower:
@schadjoe RT @GeorgeSchroeder: Larry Scott: “I’ve got the authority to pursue various options and to analyze what’s in our best interest” 28 minutes ago
LikeLike
I think it is clear that the P10 is very worried about TX reaching a deal with the B10+. If TX stays in the B12, no big deal, the P10 doesn’t get ‘left behind’ and always has the option of pursuing them later. There are only 2 reasons for the P10 to offer TX and its buddies basically an equal partnership:
1) Fear of TX to the B10+ and the rise of super conferences, with the P10 unable to ever compete on the same financial level.
2) Fear that the P10 economic climate, and that of the country as a whole, is going to be much, much worse than many realize.
Or perhaps both.
LikeLike
I agree on both points. The Pac-10 is basically giving Texas anything it demands in terms of schools (i.e. new SWC in Pac-16) and its own voting block in the Pac-16.
If the Big Ten can strike a deal with ND, then the Big Ten would probably be able to strike a deal with Texas.
And that’s where the Pac-10 has to come in and give Texas an invitation that would go into effect before the Big Ten gets ND to sign on…
LikeLike
@zeek and PN. You may be right about the Pac desperation (its need is obviously more apparent then the B10 and SEC) to get TX with the blank check. I still don’t like the power you are handing over to TX and their “gang” though.
I maintain my preference towards an expansion with TX, aTm, TT, CU, and some KS/UT/MO (in that order) combo and my stance that no way Baylor gets in.
LikeLike
Also, now Texas has to deal with the legislature and the fact that the Pac-16 would have all 4 Texas schools whereas the Big Ten would only have Texas/A&M.
I don’t see how Texas/A&M can escape the combined pull of Tech/Baylor to a Pac-16, even if ND is on the table.
Baylor strengthens the Pac-16’s hand in terms of getting Texas.
LikeLike
Getting Notre Dame would be a push for having Texas get away to the Pac 10. Win, win for two conferences with a long history of cooperation.
LikeLike
agreed. its not the worst thing in the world for us if the Pac 10 gets Texas. we still have options. and its probably worth having a strong Pac 10 er 16
LikeLike
Though I do think it might be in the Pac’s best interests, if there are so many Texas schools, to not have THE Texas school leading the show.
Texas to the Big10 but the rest to the Pac may not be the best scenario for the Pac, but ironically it may actually work better.
LikeLike
What if this whole thing is a farce?
What if Notre Dame signs a deal with the Big Ten in the next couple months… then Texas and Nebraska re-commit to the Big 12 and life goes on?
I think we’d all feel rolled by the process…
LikeLike
Notre Dame would also feel rolled by the process, no?
LikeLike
okay, i’m going to predict it: the Rose Bowl Conferences expand as follows:
B10 adds: Neb, MO, ND, Rutgers and Pitt.
woohoo… home run.
P16 adds: TX, tA&M, OK, OKST, Colorado and TexTech.
woohoo… home run.
LikeLike
If ND is really in play now. I have to wonder if Rutgers has a chance. The Irish were always considered to be the best way to penetrate the NYC market. Perhaps this opens “Sun Belt” options instead.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Irish alone would be enough. Notre Dame AND Rutgers would have a much better shot.
LikeLike
Yes, Rutgers gives ND a NYC game every year. That’s $$$
LikeLike
New Jersey alone is ~ 9MM people and RU is in the upper half of the Big 10 for research academics. If Texas is off the table then the best academic options are Vandy, UMD, UVA — UNC, Duke if they are gettable — and Pitt. Rutgers is a reasonable choice against any of these schools even if it were not next to/in the NYC and Philly DMAs.
Truth is RU is in if the Pac-16 deal goes through. The only real risk for RU was if the Big 10 was forced to burn extra slots to get Texas on board.
The other scenario I could see that would impact RU is if the ACC core somehow became available and the Big 10 was faced with a package deal involving UNC-Duke-UMd-UVa-NCSU.
If ND is on board, then the loser is Syracuse and Pitt’s position has probably improved unless UMd is in play.
But again, if Baylor and not Colorado is part of the Pac-16 deal then I think the Big 10 has to take a look at that.
LikeLike
You all convinced me. Rutgers just reinforces the whole move. Local media attention alone will be greatly enhanced every time the Big10 comes to town.
LikeLike
“Local media attention alone will be greatly enhanced every time the Big10 comes to town.”
That local media is comprised of Northwestern, Mizz, and *Syracuse* grads (journalism schools).
The thing with NYC is while schools like ND may dominate, you need a “host” school to carry the B10 brand. Personally, I think that requires more than just NJ. Nobody cares about NJ (I grew up there, and live in NYC now–trust). At least with the Giants and Jets, they have “New York” in front of their names, even if they play in NJ.
Ideally I think the B10 needs Rutgers + SU + UConn. For those unaware, the NYC television market is shared between those 3 states, hence “tri-state area.”
LikeLike
Syracuse is not located in the NYC television market, is farther away from NYC than the University of Maryland is, and is closer to Montreal than NYC.
I agree that if the Big Ten wanted not only to capture the NYC market but all of the densely populated areas in the tristate area surrounding it, they would invite RU, Syr and UConn. However, I don’t see UConn having a chance with their basketball troubles now added to their non-AAU member status.
LikeLike
Would like to see Syracuse over Rutgers, because I think Syracuse and ND can carry the New York Market just as easy as Rutgers and ND.
Maybe that is my heart over mind talking, But Rutgers does nothing for me.
LikeLike
born and raised in New York. Syracuse has no real profile in the city. It will not be a difference maker. Rutgers doesn’t either but it does have a lot of growth potential just in New Jersey alone. and if the Big Ten schools start playing in New Jersey that could have a lot of potential to draw Big Ten alums in the city. Syracuse is to far away for that. Rutgers as it currently sits is not that exciting but it has the highest potential to grow within the Big Ten framework.
LikeLike
Plus, Rutgers can always move games to the Meadowlands which isn’t far away (what 20 miles or so?) or to Yankee Stadium.
That’s really not to be underestimated when you have Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State/Nebraska or Notre Dame coming to town. Those games would pack Meadowlands because of how big those alumni bases are in NYC.
LikeLike
Can’t ND do the same thing?
LikeLike
exactly.
I dismissed Rutgers early in the process (I wanted UConn since I live in CT now) but Rutgers offers so many more chances to grow a NYC presence. They don’t have it now but the potential is real.
LikeLike
Just seems great for Rutgers but “oh well” for Big Ten.
LikeLike
That (Ru-Big Ten games in the Meadowlands) has already been discussed and has been accepted by RU.
LikeLike
Well Syracuse is in the middle of NY as opposed to Rutgers which is just outside NYC and on the “right” side of the NJ border so as to get the Big Ten action in NJ recruiting, etc.
Rutgers has the best location of any school not named Texas in the expansion scenarios.
Huge Big Ten alumni bases all over that area, combined with easy access to Yankee/Meadowlands Stadiums.
Rutgers is how the Big Ten finally gets the NYC/NJ market, by having big teams play right in the biggest stage (conveniently built by the Jets/Giants).
I’m sure they’ll be all for it as well considering that they put down $1.6bn and it’d be to host teams with huge fanbases in the area.
Yeah ND could do that on its own, but Rutgers can do it 2+ times a year for big games. That’s really not to be underestimated…
LikeLike
maybe so about getting the NYC market.
to be honest, don’t know enough to really know which is better between Rut and Syr.
LikeLike
IMO, Syracuse tends to be the school of upstate NY and draws a decent basketball following across the state.
Rutgers doesn’t pull NYC at all, but is very close.
If the Big10 really wanted to have everything, it needs both schools. Syracuse to get the BTN on basic cable in New York, but Rutgers to get the games in the NYC DMA with PSU, UoM, etc for the tv contracts time.
LikeLike
Syracuse is not a good fit for the Big Ten. Over the past ten years, the school has stagnated both athletically and academically.
LikeLike
Sorry, but the “waiting for ND” before moving on Nebraska posture makes absolutely no sense. I don’t think it’s any kind of stretch to say that a B10 that includes Nebraska is far more preferable to ND than one that doesn’t.
Plus, there’s absolutely no reason to believe that anything has occurred since Swarbrick (and Kelly for that matter) reaffirmed and expounded upon the desire to stay indy. Absolutely nothing has occurred w/r/t the Big East, for example.
This just doesn’t add up at all.
LikeLike
Delany wants to leverage a hr to get another and another.
The only way to do it is ND -> Nebraska/Texas/A&M.
Getting Nebraska right now means Big 12 implodes and Texas/A&M will feel enormous pressure to accept the Pac-16 with Tech/Baylor, and Notre Dame may walk away from negotiations if Texas isn’t on the table. The Texas/ND both want to be in the Big Ten thing may mean more than anyone thought (especially with the NW rivals rumors that were scrubbed and had Delany upset).
(Note that Texas may be entirely off the Big Ten’s radar if the Tech problem is unsolvable regardless of what I’m saying).
Maybe this is all smoke and mirrors, but it makes sense to lock Notre Dame down before taking Nebraska and setting off the rest of the dominoes.
Notre Dame is a domino that may not fall if Nebraska is pulled, in which case it is much easier for Texas to fall to the Pac-10.
LikeLike
the preferred metaphor is chess. taking Nebraska would uncover the Pac 10 check on Texas and could force us to sacrifice Notre Dame.
LikeLike
well put
LikeLike
as noted above, i think the B10/11 wants to issue the invite in one batch. So it’s about who is school #15 and 16.
also, I think ND needs to wait to see what happens with the P16 proposal. So, since ND is waiting, that leads to the B10 waiting.
LikeLike
Sorry, but the “waiting for ND” before moving on Nebraska posture makes absolutely no sense. I don’t think it’s any kind of stretch to say that a B10 that includes Nebraska is far more preferable to ND than one that doesn’t.
I dunno, I could see ND wanting 4 schools in places they prefer to play out, or a compromise between that and the academic superstars the presidents would want some of. For example, ND-GT-Mia-Rut-Vandy, ND-GT-Mia-Rut-MD, ND-GT-Vandy-MD-Rut, ND-GT-Vandy-TX-Rut, ND-aTm-GT-Vandy-Rut, etc.
LikeLike
Or ND-Vandy-GT-Rut-CO….
LikeLike
you said:
“I don’t think it’s any kind of stretch to say that a B10 that includes Nebraska is far more preferable to ND than one that doesn’t.”
why? can you unpack that? I “hear”: the current B10 is not good enough for ND, but an “enhanced” B10 would be good enough.
what does NEB bring? what other “enhancements” are needed?
LikeLike
Texas to make it a more national conference probably.
I could see Notre Dame wanting something like Neb/Texas/GTech/Rutgers or something outside the box and for Neb/Texas/GTech/ND to be in a pod and Notre Dame to play Rutgers every year (and have the ND-Rutgers games moved to Yankee/Meadowlands)…
(Obviously, that’s really far fetched but who knows), it would nationalize ND’s in conference schedule a bit…
LikeLike
Precisely. Look at it this way:
You say to ND – get on board now and either way you’re covered. We will bring NEB on board next and use you to leverage UT and TAMU and one Big East team of your choice (Pitt?). But dont worry, bc if we cant get UT and TAMU, we will take THREE of your Big East BFF’s OR take Mizzou and only two Big East. So either scenario ND is happy and willing to sign on first. Quite ingenious actually. Unless ND gets a god complex (pun intended people) and decides to go it alone (which would be dumb bc demographically speaking in 10 yrs you will have a significant % of the population that doesnt even remember ND ever winning anything football-related and where is their leverage then ??)
LikeLike
I’m sure this has been addressed somewhere in the thousands of posts on this site, so can someone tell me if the Frank the Tank Think Tank has concluded that any Big 10 expansion that doesn’t involve Texas or ND will actually decrease the Big 10’s per team TV money? I find it hard to believe that Nebraska would add $22 million to the Big 10’s TV $, or that Neb/Mizzou/Rutgers together would add $66 million.
LikeLike
Christian,
The additional households for BTN is part of it. The other part is the added inventory for the BTN.
The conference football games – by far – get the biggest ratings for the BTN, and therefore make the network the most money.
The ABC/ESPN contract takes roughly the first 3 games each week (9 weeks), for roughly 27 games.
11 schools currently play 44 conference games, leaving the BTN to show ~17 games.
At 16 schools playing 64 conference games, it gives the BTN ~37 conference games. (Even more if the Big Ten goes to a 9 game conference schedule.)
Adding 5 schools therefore more than doubles the current inventory of conference games provided by the existing 11 schools, and is why there is such a “multiplying effect” for each additional school.
Even if the Big Ten expansion doesn’t include a “home run” football power like UT, ND, or NE, as long as there are some people watching, it appears that the new teams can’t help but make some money. This is why the outlook is stronger for adding 5 teams instead of just 1. But if the Big Ten does hit a home run by adding multiple key markets (Texas, NYC, Florida, DC/MD/VA), then the sky is the limit.
Additionally, mens basketball games make a little bit of money. Also, if BTN can add additional name brand teams in different sports (such as UT baseball, UVa / MD / UNC LaCrosse, UCONN women’s basketball) there is potential for new markets opened up.
Finally, if you do get enough value added, it may just make the channel value increase nationally, and increase the current cost of the channel in non-Big Ten regions.
LikeLike
Sigh…I really can’t believe Colorado…the most obvious fit to switch in any of these expansion scenarios may end up dropped for Baylor or all schools, and people wonder why the North schools want to get away from Texas. Dan Hawkins has been a disaster in every conceivable way for our school.
Every time it seems like a story comes out saying we’re safe some tweet or story comes out saying the opposite. Not sure how much of it is real and how much of it is Baylor’s media campaign. Texas guys please tell me Baylor does not actually have that much juice, how is taking them over Colorado in any way in the best interest of the other PUBLIC schools in the deal?
LikeLike
I probably can’t “feel your pain” precisely, but can still sympathize. My guess is that if TX is going to the P16, even TX can realize the value of the Denver tv market on long-term revenue and TX will squelch Baylor.
LikeLike
Well, Baylor is just another way to add more gravity to the Pac-16 push. The Pac-16 is probably moving fast so as to end any possible Big Ten chance for Texas, so adding gravity to the pull of the Pac-16 (by adding Baylor’s legislative forces, however small, to the sizeable Tech forces) increases the probability of the Pac-16 pulling it out.
Every school in the list is there to increase the probability of Texas coming along. Baylor does that more than Colorado.
LikeLike
good point Zeek.
man it sounds a little desperate, doesn’t it?
Pac 10 is moving a million miles an hour right now. Not sure how organized they are at this point.
LikeLike
It is totally desperate.
But if you were a conference with no other option than Texas to get to 16, aka the Pac-10, what would you do?
LikeLike
I wish I could assure you, but I can’t. Would give the rough odds of CO being excluded as 25%. But this morning I would have said 1%.
LikeLike
@NDx2 (and any other ND-ers)
okay, so somewhat hostile question open to all for thoughts/comments.
what does it take for ND to join the B10/16 happily?
At this point, I’ve heard so much bad-mouthing of the B10 by ND-ers, I’m seriously worried that if ND joins, it will be a nightmare marriage.
LikeLike
lol Beau I was just thinking of asking the same question. and I’m a Wolverine so we should both be worried.
LikeLike
LOL… and again, the question is how to smooth over all of those worries and get beyond all the bad talking.
but then again, maybe the PSU history is encouraging. PSU came in and there was the immediate “backstab” (or so say the PSU fans)…
we all survived that (although PSU fans are nursing that grudge still), so….
LikeLike
yea I’m thinking the same. there would be a lot histrionics at first but it would eventually settle down. Penn State is a good comparison. I remember the rhetoric. but its pretty seamless now. with the exception of that god awful Land Grant Trophy.
LikeLike
LOL… gawd is that thing ugly. We need to find out who designed it and … I don’t know, use his name to define something ugly; make sure he or she goes down in history as responsible for that monstrosity.
LikeLike
although there is one way that the PSU analogy may not match: PSU was then on a high; there first few seasons in the B10 were pretty good IIRC. So there was no grousing and whining about losing to members of the league.
By contrast, ND is down now. If they go 6-6 their first year, does this “self-regionalization” get blamed? Cuz that would just p*** me off. No whining about losing; get better and start winning.
I suppose, put that another way. PSU is considered one of the “big three/four” in the league since joining and now (barring the “dark years” in the early 2000s). PSU “fits” if they have that top-tier status.
If ND never regains that top-tier status and remains at a MSU/Purdue level, what happens then? That’s my real fear.
LikeLike
ugh, can’t type. in line four: “there” should be “their”
LikeLike
Answered below. But in sum, I have great respect for the B10. I agree that, Ivy League aside, it is the premier academic conference. But it’s a regional conference, and if ND self-regionalizes itself, we’ll be doomed. We made it to where we did, early on against our own wishes, by nationalizing ourselves. That is our greatest strength, and we need (IMO) to preserve that status at all costs.
It’s really not about the B10 at all, but rather maintaining our own identity . . . or losing it.
LikeLike
seriously the Big Ten is little more regionalized than Notre Dame. most of the top Big Ten universities draw from as wide a pool of undergraduates as Notre Dame. Notre Dame has its image and prestige and that will not be diluted by associating with schools many of whom have as wide a national reach and reputation.
LikeLike
LOL… the ole’ “it’s-not-you-it’s-me” line.
I appreciate your efforts to save our feelings (I actually do — that’s very polite), but c’mon. “if ND self-regionalizes, we’ll be doomed.”
what I “hear”: the B10 are are bunch of bumpkins and we don’t want to get their mud on our nice shoes.
sorry to say, I see “marriage-made-in-hell.”
LikeLike
I keep hearing the “regionalized” argument, but I still don’t buy it. I don’t think that ND would be any more regionalized than the other private schools in conferences (Northwestern, Duke, Stanford etc).
LikeLike
Glad you don’t. ND doesn’t have that luxury.
BTW, if you don’t think NU is midwestern, Duke is southern, and Stanford is as “left coast” as you can get, you and I are disagree.
LikeLike
BB,
I think ND is bad news long term.. and they do not fit the Big 10 well so why ask for long term headaches..
I go back to
Public vs Private
Research vs Education
Collective vs Independent
among other issues..
LikeLike
yep, sadly so. It will not work as well as PSU did and as well as Neb and/or Mizzu will.
LikeLike
IMO there is nothing that will make that happen.
Their fans will always hate the fact they aren’t independent and their presidents will not like the idea of being the sole religious undergraduate focused school in a secular research oriented conference.
The good news is ND would join (even if unhappily) if the Big10 is considered “national” and “the best” football conference.
If Texas and Neb joined up…ND might think that to be the case.
LikeLike
Because you have Buckeye in your name we already know you are hostile.
Never ask a question that you don’t really want answered. It should be more than sufficient to know how dissimilar ND is to the “Model” Big Ten university (size, student body demographics, public/parochial, undergrad pre-professional/research emphasis, ad infinitum)an accept that it is a valid reason for ND not to want to be in.
There’s no need for us to get into the specifics. No need to discuss our complete lack of trust that you want what we want. No reason to go into historical issues. No point in discussing giving us a veto or other what you would call “special considerations” to maintain our internal sovereignty and let us become the University we want to be.
Understand this: the vast majority Domers would never join what the Big Ten is now happily. But, in your defense, we would save most of our anger for the leadership that forced us to this unhappy fate.
LikeLike
Hey hey hey… what’s this “because you have Buckeye in your name we already know you are hostile” business? I think the majority of OSU fans on this site have been relatively cordial to you so far FLP. 😉
LikeLike
True enough, Mani, true enough.
But it’s still atypical of my experience with tOSU generally =)
LikeLike
Never mind. This corroborates Chip Brown’s tweet and adds to the speculation that ND is still very much in play as a 12th and final B10 member.
See the part about it’s evenly divided governing body.
http://www.kbtx.com/sports/headlines/95727624.html
To clarify my post above, I have great respect for the B10, but would rather see my alma mater stay independent. Among other reasons, it is a “regional” conference (as all are). What would, however, make it less regional is to add Nebraska and especially Texas. While still not my preference, I do think that sort of set up would be preferable to joining the existing B10, and that’s been my position all along.
I originally thought it might be Texas, aTM, and ND, but increasingly I’m thinking Texas will end up going its own way, whether that’s independence or joining the B10 as the only Texas school. IOW, I suspect they are looking for a way to be unjoined at the hip with their Texas brethren assuming the Big XII indeed blows up.
LikeLike
Very nice find. We’ll have to see where this goes. The Pac-16 thread may be enough to get Notre Dame to sign onto the Big Ten, but if the governing board is divided right down the middle (do they have to vote unanimously?), then I don’t think it’s much more likely than it was before (which is to say not likely at all).
LikeLike
hmm… honestly Zeek, i was shocked that half the ND governing board was pro-joining. from all the ND “noise” and comments, I would have guessed the vote would have been 90-10 against. So, in my “world” ND joining just became … well, I’m awful at math, but it went from 90-10 to 50-50.
LikeLike
It was supposed to be close in 1999. According to reports after the fact (in the NYT and ChiTrib, IIRC) it ended up being unanimous against.
LikeLike
Just keep in mind that this is the Orangebloods (Texas) slant.
LikeLike
the money quote:
“Notre Dame’s governing board is apparently split down the middle on the decision.”
okay, i reiterate my question: if ND joins, is it a happy marriage (like with PSU) or a marriage made in hell?
LikeLike
I have to say it would be happy, but I don’t think it’s going to happen.
If ND is split down the middle right now, what happens when it gets closer to making a decision and the alumni/boosters all start to pounce negatively? That’s going to solidify the no’s and make the yes’s much less likely.
Also, I tend to agree. ND is a great school with a top football tradition, but it’s nothing like Nebraska, which is much more like OSU/Michigan/Penn State.
ND is also much more focused, relatively, on undergraduate education, whereas the rest of the Big Ten tends to split their focus on intensive graduate research and their undergraduate programs.
And then there’s size. ND is smaller than NW. Obviously, they can pack an 80k stadium and have the fanbase to prove they’re national even with a small alumni base, but it’s hard to see them fitting in as well as Penn State did or Nebraska will…
LikeLike
I might have sounded off there, didn’t really mean to sound as if denigrating ND’s focus (their graduate research is after all among the fastest growing in the country), but it’s just more focused in a different direction…
LikeLike
No, you were good, zeek.
I think ND would put the “but it’s nothing like Nebraska” quote on the brochure =)
LikeLike
I’d have something snarky to say about that, but we’ve had a false start or two in our rebuilding process also, so, not going there. 😉
LikeLike
And how long does the Big Ten allow Notre Dame to hold up the process? Is ND worth a day? A week? Forever? At the risk of alienating schools that are sweating it out with their own conferences?
I still believe that the Big Ten needs to first consider schools that really want to join. Is a 50-50 split down the middle equivalent to a “really want to join” for Our Lady?
LikeLike
Look below. Nebraska isn’t sweating at all.
LikeLike
I wonder if it will be a “Green Eggs and Ham” senario:
I don’t like them, I don’t like them, I don’t like them – …
Hey, this isn’t so bad.
I think it could play out that way, but it would take a little while to realize some of these regional matchups are okay – and even can be both pretty fierce and attractive from the outside.
LikeLike
@ssipplesports If Tom Osborne is sweating this realignment high-stakes poker game, he didn’t sound like it in our interview Saturday night. Calm. Composed.
http://twitter.com/ssipplesports
LikeLike
Sounds to me as if Nebraska has an understanding with Delany that Nebraska will get an invite as soon as they figure out if ND is willing to sign a deal…
LikeLike
I’m beginning to think you’re right, zeek.
LikeLike
I’ve seen mention of ND wanting only a 12 team BT if they join. What’s the source of that information?
LikeLike
In the current environment, it may be outdated conventional wisdom.
LikeLike
An Iowa message board rumor.
LikeLike
I would want some ironclad on any “understanding” given the issues with Penn State joining the Big Ten. I suppose Nebraska could simply blow off the Big 12 “loyalty pledge” but there would probably be ramifications if Delany had to renege on any “understanding.”
Frankly ND has had decades to figure this out. If they don’t know what they’re going to do by now, they never will.
LikeLike
I think everyone; especially Delany and the presidents (well the ones who are still there, if any) learned that the Penn State invitation method is not the proper way to handle this. This will not be a fiasco.
The i’s and t’s will be crossed and then the universities will apply as a formality and be accepted. The drama will be entirely over once they’re announced and “invited to apply”.
Delany knows that and if Nebraska is confident that they’re at that point in the process, then there’s no reason to believe that the process is working smoothly…
LikeLike
Teddy’s article on the expansion time-table:
http://bit.ly/9Fq9Mp
Excerpt:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“My understanding of Big Ten bylaws,” she said, “is that action can be done electronically, telephonically or in person.”
Then she turned to commissioner Jim Delany, seated to her left, and added: “My lawyer has concurred.”
It would surprise no one if Big Ten expansion is resolved in a matter of weeks, though Delany and Simon declined to discuss the specifics of the timing and which schools could be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LikeLike
That last sentence is probably the biggest news all day for the Big Ten although I’m not certain how accurate that is.
But if they can vote online or by phone or whatever, it means that Delany is trying to get deals done ASAP, which means we may have all these schools in place by 2011-2012.
LikeLike
I can’t remember whose scuttlebutt it was, but recall that the word is that Nebraska wants out ASAP and to begin Big Ten play in 2011.
LikeLike
I keep calling things the biggest news of the day and then another shoe drops (aka Swarbrick at the Big Ten presidents meeting).
What a day.
LikeLike
@eapg I believe it was in Frank’s last article, at least the mention that they would start in 2011.
LikeLike
Yeah, duh on me. Hard to keep it all straight.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Wait, is this right?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texas/7039591.html
“PARK RIDGE, Ill. — The Big Ten did not take formal action during a meeting Sunday about conference expansion, although officials say their timeline may change after the Pac-10 revealed plans for their own expansion.
The 11 school presidents and chancellors along with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick met for about 4½ hours, and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney said the majority of time was spent on expansion dialogue.
Michigan State President Lou Anna K. Simon emphasized that academics would play a large role in determining what schools would be a good fit to join the Big Ten — not just athletics.
The Big Ten has been examining possible conference expansion since December.”
4.5 hours with Jack Swarbrick there to talk expansion? How is that not the biggest news of the day?
LikeLike
What I mean is, why did no one else report on his presence there…
LikeLike
seriously, if he was there and ESPN and the rest didn’t pick up on it thats amazing
LikeLike
You would hope the Associated Press would get it right, but you’d think the tweeters might have picked up on Swarbrick being there as well.
LikeLike
Someone needs to tweet Chip Brown about this and get him to find a source on this because it’s not just every day that Swarbrick is talking expansion with the Big Ten presidents…
LikeLike
And what a strange way to report that. Four and a half hours with Jack Swarbrick was kind of thrown in as a matter of fact. Of course, ol´ Jack would be there with the guys
LikeLike
That’s a bit unexpected. Did no other journalist realize he was there. It’s a kind of a big thing just to mention without any follow-up explanation like they did.
LikeLike
Dammit!
If you guys read it, too, then I’m not just tripping out on Cold Medicine.
This is bad…very, very bad.
LikeLike
The sun will rise tomorrow morning, I promise. Of course, if you’re hitting the NyQuil a little too hard, you might have to take my word for it. 🙂
LikeLike
Maybe the AP person was the only one who thought to cover the back door. 😉
LikeLike
100% agree. If Swarbrick was there, it’s the biggest unreported news of the day!
LikeLike
That can’t be true, can it?
LikeLike
I don’t know what to believe at this point. If it was done on the QT, sure, it’s possible.
LikeLike
It’s been an hour and I can’t find a single article anywhere other than AP saying that Swarbrick was there. Even ESPN or the other reporters there aren’t saying this.
Could be a fluke, but would the AP make this up?
Swarbrick being there is the puffs of white smoke that the ESPN Big Ten blogger was saying he didn’t see…
LikeLike
I am also rather feverishly looking for a second source on this one, but have found nothing.
LikeLike
the same AP report is now on Yahoo Sports.
LikeLike
It is the AP as eapg pointed out.
There’s no way they’d accidentally just add Swarbrick or something random. Someone must have a source or something on this, but the AP is never under an obligation to say and the bloggers/reporters all seemed to entirely miss this.
LikeLike
It doesn’t have a byline on it so it means that someone (an AP member paper) submitted the story to the wire. I find it hard to believe that A) we can’t find the original source and that B) No one saw him there.
LikeLike
Can some of the compatibility issues with Notre Dame be addressed if they politely declined admission to the CIC? All parties can then agree to disagree and put differences in academic philosophy to the side.
Academic profile is certainly NOT compromised at all.
I might be a bit shaken though. Just look at this list…
All-time winningest college football programs:
1. Michigan
2. Notre Dame
3. Texas
4. Nebraska
5. Ohio St.
LikeLike
I had a misconception about this earlier too.
Apparently Notre Dame is pro-CIC. Note also that the CIC doesn’t bind anyone to collaboration on any project.
According to the CIC’s by-laws (as I recall) any university can choose whether to collaborate or not on a specific project regardless of how many other CIC universities are in the project.
Thus, ND should have no concerns about being in the CIC and the CIC would actually be of benefit to ND which has been among the fastest growing graduate research schools in the country over the past couple years.
Institutional fit is the problem; namely 10 large 30k-50k public universities as compared to ND which is 1/4th that size and mostly focused on undergrads etc.
LikeLike
In fairness…you can have 1000% increase in a year if you don’t spend much in the first place and that’s exactly what ND has done.
Not to disparage them, but I believe their numbers went from 10 to 80 million or something. Percentages, huge increase, total numbers, not so much.
LikeLike
Yeah but this is different from Syracuse (which has let it’s AAU designation mean almost nothing due to the way it’s research has languished) and Texas Tech (which has mostly proposed to become a research university with it’s targets).
ND is actually putting it into reality.
Personally, I think ND is a way better fit now than it was in the early/late 90s for the CIC.
For the Big Ten, dunno, the institutional fit issues are still there obviously… those will never go away.
LikeLike
Thanks for the clarification. I was just wondering if there might issues associating with research in the Big10 that may challenge some sensibilities in South Bend.
LikeLike
oh, there ARE those. as an example, if some group within the CIC is doing stem-cell research, ND wants to avoid participating in that.
but if the CIC is sort of “take what you want, leave the rest” then joining the CIC maybe is not the giant issue it was once presented as.
LikeLike
During the last public courting, at ND the CIC was considered by the pro-B10 side to be the #1 reason to join. The pro-independence side considered it to be the sole reason to join, fwiw.
LikeLike
hmm… interesting.
LikeLike
giant evil grin: a few more 3-9 seasons and MI and ND are going to be overtaken on that list!
LikeLike
steady
LikeLike
LOL… i said “giant evil grin.”
and in all seriousness, rivalries are most fun when both are at the same level. ’06 was the best; you were going to ruin our season or the other way around (and then USC and Florida did us both in). But THAT was a season.
I admit to enjoying the Horror to start ’07 but thanks for smacking smarmy UM at the end to send off Coach Carr.
I also admit to enjoying your 3-9 season, but enough is enough. Let’s get back to the way it should be: tOSU giving you your only loss per season. LOL
LikeLike
“UM” = Urban Meyer. upon re-reading, that needed clarification.
LikeLike
I think Michigan’s struggles in its regular season and Ohio State’s struggles on the biggest stages have had an effect of uniting the Big Ten fanbases like never before.
I’ve never seen the Big Ten unanimously cheering for every team to win its own bowl games like I did the past year.
It was quite refreshing. Obviously, we’re not going to start yelling “BIG TEN” at games, but I was actually surprised at how much me and my friends were cheering for Penn State to beat LSU, and obviously Ohio State and Iowa to win their BCS games.
I think the struggles had an effect that would be helpful in the future because of how strong the SEC has gotten in NC games.
I know everyone I know is going to be rooting for Penn State against Alabama. That’s like the main game everyone has marked on their schedule… for OOC…
LikeLike
agree 100% w/ ya Zeek.
i’m never gonna be chanting “BIG TEN BIG TEN.” But I too wanted the B10 teams to “represent” and I hope PSU kicks ‘Bama’s teeth in. We’ll see. I think given the attrition to the NFL, ‘Bama may be overrated; nearly a brand new defensive line and half the OL; the skill players are back, but games are won on the lines.
sadly, not sure PSU can take advantage; new QB, their own attrition; and PSU wasn’t so good against the top teams they played last season.
In the end, the defenses are probably about even, but Alabama’s offense is more seasoned.
should be a good game and I’ll be hoping for a PSU victory.
LikeLike
@ Zeek, I could not agree more, I live in the heart of central Illinois, where going to an Illini game is a short hop away, and I can say this past bowl season we rooted for every Big Ten team in the bowls because we are also tired of the media saying we are over rated, to slow and have no chance!
LikeLike
I monitored the BigTen bowl games this year, and I cheered for PSU against LSU, Northwestern-Auburn, etc. I think BigTen teams finally realized, after three years of getting eviscerated in the media, that overall conference perception does affect individual teams. SEC fans have known that for years.
On the whole, I cheer for the BigTen now in all OOC matches. I have to, because it affects my team as well.
LikeLike
The Big 12 North may have just completed the greatest Coup in sports history. They’ve been wanting to get away from the South Schools ever since the Big12 was formed. Now they just packaged them and handed them off to the Pac-10.
New Big 12 = Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas State
BYU, Utah, Boise St, TCU, Memphis, Louisville.
Or something like that, sub last 2 for Houston, SD St, UNLV, or if they are now pissed, AZ and AZ St. Or add them all and go bigger.
Not likely, but I’ve got to have some hope that CO is not part of the Big 12 South to Pac-10 scenario, while also has a nice conference to live in.
LikeLike
Assuming that the Pac-16 scenario does happen and the Big 12 North is intact… anybody who they could realistically add would make them equivalent to the WAC and inferior to the Mountain West. Also, the only scenario in which the Big 12 South leaves but the Big 12 North stays intact is one where the Big Ten decides to only expand to twelve teams and take Notre Dame over Nebraska, which isn’t what appears to be happening. Nebraska and Missouri would be as good as gone to the Big Ten, leaving Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State trying to stumble into the MWC or WAC.
On a side note, this is about the seventh time during this expansion talk I’ve thrown up my hands and refused to care anymore, only to get sucked back in. This speculation is addictive, yo.
LikeLike
Uhhhhh… losing Texas, Oklahoma and aTm isn’t good for the Big 12 North.
LikeLike
The notion that Notre Dame is not up to Big Ten standards or doesn’t meet some cultural litmus test is laughable. Who would have guessed South Bend INDIANA isn’t Midwest enough for some of you- or that the most famous college in the world, with the most wide reaching, loyal and financially supportive fan base isn’t good enough. The same people who are talking up third stringers like Virginia, Missouri and RUTGERS are dismissive of adding Notre Dame? That’s funny.
LikeLike
No one is dismissive of adding Notre Dame in terms of the quality of Notre Dame.
The problem is institutional fit.
Notre Dame is a much smaller, much more focused institution on undergraduate education. That’s a choice that Notre Dame has made (although their graduate research is the fastest growing in the nation +200% or something crazy over the past couple of years).
The Big Ten are mostly public flagship/land grant institutions of 30000-50000 students.
Surely, the Big Ten and Notre Dame should both be concerned that Notre Dame may not fit in well in a group of much much larger public institutions with a different focus than Notre Dame.
Also, an issue of secular v. religious universities.
Notre Dame isn’t Nebraska. Nebraska is a lot like adding a Penn State on the Western side. Notre Dame is Notre Dame. It has a totally unique identity as compared with the Big Ten universities.
Sure Northwestern is only a bit bigger, but Northwestern and Notre Dame are nothing alike even if both are private. There’s a lot more to think about in terms of institutional fit.
Obviously, in just football terms, Notre Dame is the biggest catch out there (other than Texas), but there’s a lot more to what the Big Ten universities are and what Notre Dame is…
LikeLike
my perspective is from the vantage of “they don’t want to join.”
obviously, ND “fits” culturally; please, all of us in the B10 have grown up with ND; they get reported in the newspapers (well, now online); our kids go there; at least 3 B10 schools play ND every year, etc. etc. etc.
some have pointed out the gap between graduate education focus, but no one is suggesting ND isn’t a very good and quality university.
obviously as well ND has a great and loyal fan base.
but that fan base has to date … well, how to be polite … the fan base has, to date, been dismissive.
so, on that basis, I see marriage-made-in-hell.
how does that get fixed?
LikeLike
There’s little midwestern about ND, trust me, I was there. Significant portions of the student body come from the coasts. It has one of the most intense town/gown separations of any “college town” I’ve been to even though ND is SB’s largest employer.
Our alumni are generous, but they are not numerous. We still graduate approx. 2,500 undergrads annually. We have less that 125K living alums. The Big Ten graduates that, what, annually?
Zeek’s absolutely correct.
LikeLike
Yeah, the Big Ten has something like 4.5M alumni I think (I read that somewhere, might have been off, but I recall the number making sense).
With expansion it could have 6M; that’s just another thing to think about for Notre Dame.
I doubt Notre Dame or the Big Ten want to see Notre Dame’s identity get swallowed whole.
What’s important to remember for both Big Ten alums and ND alums is that the Big Ten isn’t the SEC. We don’t want all of our identities to merge into the Big Ten and for that to be the brand. The individual schools brands are far more important to the Big Ten, so that’s yet another thing to be weighed…
LikeLike
interesting perspective FLP; as someone who grew up in Ohio, I would not have expected a sense of not-being-midwest from within ND.
I think that’s not the sense from those living here. where I live now in NWI it’s either purdue or ND on the tvs when i am out getting more beer on saturday afternoons.
and, sorry, but in the end, east or west coast, you just can’t escape from the South Bend corn fields! you get converted to being midwest. 🙂
LikeLike
As a Hoosier who’s resided his entire life (with the exception of those glorious years under the Dome and a summer in Louisville) within two counties of Illinois, I like to think I have a pretty good handle on “Midwestern” or at the very least, “Hoosier”. I think it’s telling that little at ND reminded me of home.
FYI: As Hoosier, I can tell you that the rest of the state would LOVE to dump NWI on Chicago.
LikeLike
When I lived in Indiana, I always thought of ND as an eastern school. There were no ND fans in central Indiana. Now that was not long after IU’s most recent trip to the Rose Bowl, so things could have changed, but probably not that drastically. Indiana is, after all, a basketball state and Notre Dame is a football school.
LikeLike
anybody that went to and IU football game and the boys HS tourney tells you all you need to know about sports in the state (hoosiers not domers).
woo hoo washington!!!!
LikeLike
I guess the only people who disagree with your logic are the members of the Big Ten themselves who have been South-Bending over backwards to admit them for thirty years.
The fact of the matter is, if and when Notre Dame decides they want to be part of the Big Ten, they will be.
As for the argument that, because ND students don’t hail from Indiana it doesn’t have a Midwest identity, that argument can be made for most of the Big Ten schools. Take a trip up to Ann Arbor and stroll across campus. You’ll hear twenty languages before you get to the other side. That’s a fact with any good school.
LikeLike
Well, they did earn that right when we rejected them 100 years ago (although you and I both know that that isn’t the reason they’re rejecting it recently).
Would have been a lot easier if we had admitted Nebraska/Notre Dame the first time they asked.
Then again, both schools went in their own directions and become historic football powers, so perhaps it was for the best.
A lot less in conference losses shared between Michigan/Ohio State and Penn State/Nebraska/Notre Dame…
That means they’re all more powerful brands since the other three had to look elsewhere, etc.
But that’s all history…
LikeLike
“That means they’re all more powerful brands since the other three had to look elsewhere, etc.”
That’s a very good point.
LikeLike
I always figured that the Big Ten just wanted the ND ratings and money.
No, not just Indiana (although that’s something like one in six last I checked), it’s the significant %age of students from outside the Midwest.
I am under the impression that even with all the foreign students, all the Big Ten publics are still majority in-state. Correct me if I’m wrong.
LikeLike
“all the Big Ten publics are still majority in-state.”
This is a false choice. No one is suggesting that ND become a Big Ten public. I would be willing to bet that ND currently gets a greater percentage of students from the Chicago/New York/Boston corridor than Northwestern.
LikeLike
What choice? The Public schools should get a majority of their students in-state. That’s what we taxpayers are chipping in for, y’know.
Everyone knows NU is an outlier.
LikeLike
“I always figured that the Big Ten just wanted the ND ratings and money.”
I think it’s part that of that FLP, but I think you’re looking as it in its basest ideas.
The BigTen wants ND because ND historically plays good football, and would bring more good football to a conference that also plays good football. The television draw, prestige, etc. that ND brings is because they play good football. The way you put it, the BigTen is a football golddigger, which I think isn’t (entirely) the case.
I mean, there are other reasons to add ND of course (academics for one), but if ND was The Baylor of Indiana they wouldn’t be discussed. It’s about more than just ratings.
LikeLike
“There’s little midwestern about ND, trust me, I was there. Significant portions of the student body come from the coasts.”
You keep saying things like this, and above you tried to claim ND was so much more regionally diverse compared to NW, Duke or Stanford. I hate to break it to you, but you’re wrong. ND is as much a midwestern school as NW is.
Notre Dame undergrad population:
42% Midwest
21% Northeast
12% West
11% Southeast
10% Southwest
4% International
Northwestern:
41% Midwest
17% Mid-Atlantic
15% West
9% Southwest
7% International
6% New England
Duke:
14% North Carolina
24% Southeast
19% Mid-Atlantic
14% Northeast
10% Midwest
11% West
8% International
Stanford (info not as good):
43% California
50% Rest of U.S.
7% International
LikeLike
“You keep saying things like this, and above you tried to claim ND was so much more regionally diverse compared to NW, Duke or Stanford. I hate to break it to you, but you’re wrong. ND is as much a midwestern school as NW is.
Notre Dame undergrad population:
42% Midwest
21% Northeast
12% West
11% Southeast
10% Southwest
4% International
Northwestern:
41% Midwest
17% Mid-Atlantic
15% West
9% Southwest
7% International
6% New England
Duke:
14% North Carolina
24% Southeast
19% Mid-Atlantic
14% Northeast
10% Midwest
11% West
8% International
Stanford (info not as good):
43% California
50% Rest of U.S.
7% International”
Nice find. Where did you get this data?
Also, the Northwestern numbers don’t add up (literally). Is there a 5% Southeast cut off there?
LikeLike
The info came from each schools website. I must have left off the southeast number for NW, but I wrote them down at work.
LikeLike
do you realize that Notre Dame is a RELIGIOUS school? That is the deal breaker, they can’t have professors conducting research that contradicts the dean’s religious convictions.
LikeLike
No one is going to require ND to research anything they don’t want to research.
All CIC collaboration is voluntary. Any school can choose not to participate in any research project proposed by anyone else…
LikeLike
but the point is that Notre Dame would never contribute to any other Big10 school’s research. They would be a drain, not an asset.
LikeLike
That’s not how it works.
Collaboration means working together on general projects (i.e. library sharing, allowing phd students to go to other schools for periods of time, big computer networks, etc.) and specific projects.
No one actually shares research money; they share efficiencies of scale in most senses. ND would be able to give and take just as any other university in that respect.
No one’s saying you need a Wisconsin sized research budget to be helpful to the CIC…
LikeLike
Why? Is all Big Ten research objectionable on religious grounds?
LikeLike
Ahhh, some things never change.
Its that an echo from 1908 I hear in here.
LikeLike
Really? Every single research project that CIC-member schools do is against the Catholic Church? I must’ve forgot the section in Leviticus about corn-based ethanol being an abomination.
LikeLike
how could Notre Dame collaborate on a project that their deans do not allow them to pursue? Notre Dame’s faculty wanted to join the Big10 the last 2 times they were offered, it was the administration that nixed the deal. This is the same administration that is going to dictate what their professors can and cannot research. Anything involving genetics absolutely is in contradiction with Catholic beliefs, and outside of military projects, that is what the bulk of govt funding currently offers. And assuming that Notre Dame’s Catholics believe in what they preach, they are (by the bible) objected to military projects as well.
LikeLike
Pepe.
The CIC does not work as you state.
CIC members can choose to propose research collaborations and other CIC members choose to work on those research colloborations.
Certain CIC projects are membership-wide, but they are all non-controversial (i.e. shared libraries, phd student exchanges, etc.).
ND will never be forced to research genetics or whatever else you can imagine that ND would hate to do.
Stop trolling.
ND has arguments for why it shouldn’t join without you trying to make a big deal of the least controversial part of the Big Ten package, the CIC.
LikeLike
I’m not trying to be a troll, just the devil’s advocate. And what I’ve been arguing is what I think to be the reasons why Notre Dame didn’t join the Big10 ten years ago. Because we all agree that it’s stupid that they won’t join. If the Big10 can offer games from Minneapolis to Chicago to New York, how is that not a national schedule? Only the same mindset that denied Galileo can reject such a mutually benefical relationship.
LikeLike
How does ND get collaboration on that whole virgin birth science?
LikeLike
Zeek, I’m calling you out. Do you have any science or engineering degrees from a Big10 university? I have 3. If you have none, then you have no idea how the CIC works, in which case you must (obviously) stop talking as if you are any kind of authority. Should you be able to verify your credentials, if apologize.
Notre Dame has issues, from both sides, whether you care to acknowledge them or not.
LikeLike
Don’t feed the trolls, zeek.
LikeLike
Agreed. They’re an awesome fit and anyone who thinks differently has no idea what they are talking about. If they land ND and NB, it’s a grand slam. Just take whomever ND wants for 14 – Navy? That would be sweet.
LikeLike
And, yes I’m serious. ND feels obligated to help Navy and Navy has a large national following and gets the gang a little more umph into the east coast – they’re not MD or VA or anything, but with ND and NB and the B10 they could pull cable deals in the east coast. frankly, they are a more interesting add, if paired with some big power, than most of the usual suspects.
LikeLike
Navy’s fine being an independent.
The Big Ten would never do anything to affect ND’s yearly game with Navy. Everyone understands how important and historic that tradition is…
LikeLike
I don’t think Notre Dame feels “obligated to help Navy” as much as they feel honored to play Navy. And rightly so.
LikeLike
It’s a big money game for Navy and it helps them recruit. It goes way back to when Yost Fielding and the rest of the dickheads kept shafting ND. Navy helped them, ND never has turned their back on them and never will.
LikeLike
May I issue an APB for Notre Dame fans reading this blog? What’s your take on the current mindset of the Notre Dame fanbase? Obviously sites like ND Nation represent the vehemently anti-Big Ten position, but is that becoming more of the norm? It seems like the Notre Dame perspective has been ignored by us Big Ten fans for a couple of months now because of the assumption that your school’s administrators wouldn’t play ball.
LikeLike
The alumni have been HEAVILY pro-Independence since WWII or so. From the little I’ve heard the Students are still heavily pro-independence as well.
NDNation may be the home of the fanatics, but most of my friends from school don’t disagree with them on the big picture stuff. NDN takes it to the extreme and can get rather paranoid sometimes. *shrug* Every fandom needs its place for the hardcore.
The major reason the ND-PTB won’t “play ball” is because a large number of alumni who cut the checks don’t want them to.
LikeLike
I’m a recent Notre Dame alum who would love to see ND remain an independent as long as possible. However, independence may not last forever, and I believe Notre Dame needs to put itself in the best position possible.
I want the Big Ten because of the academic benefits and stability. The ACC is also interesting, but I wonder how long it will remain intact and viable before it’s raided by other conferences.
And I avoid NDNation. Blue Gray Sky was my favorite ND blog because it had, in my opinion, plenty of information with less extreme views.
LikeLike
Add
LikeLike
So maybe we should revise the Beverly Hillbilly skit:
Jed – TX
Jethro – aTm
Ellie May – TT
Granny – Baylor
LikeLike
Pingback: Top Posts — WordPress.com
If The Pac 10 goes to 16, destroying the Big 12. ACC and SEC start doing there thing.
Doesn’t ND have to join? they risk being left out of everything that matters in college football since those leagues will shut everyone else out. Once they start their own playoff or what have you.
If the Pac 10 goes to 16. ND must join. the writing is on the wall. right?
LikeLike
Maybe if they end up getting to a 4 megaconference stage. Then again, even then I don’t know that the Big 16 would be preferred over a ACC/BE 16 that has multiple private schools and is out of the Midwest.
LikeLike
Big East would be gone.
ACC, SEC, BIG 16 and PAC 16, would be running the show. BCS would be a thing of the past.
ND would have to join IMO.
agreed it would be big 10-6
LikeLike
Swarbrick was at the Big Ten meeting (allegedly) to find that out in all likelihood.
He needs to know whether the Big Ten plans to go to 16 if the Pac-10 goes to 16 and then he and ND’s governors will make the decision on what they will do.
He was probably fact finding/negotiating with the Big Ten presidents today on the very subject of where the Big Ten plans to go.
I don’t think Notre Dame would join any other conference simply because they know that the Big Ten has the tradition they’d be looking to join up with in football.
Thus, ND has to weigh where the Big Ten is going and whether it looks as if it will go to 16, and where it’s place in the national scene is.
One thing to remember is that the BCS isn’t permanent, and if there is a Big 16 and a Pac-16 and a SEC-16, then the BCS in a few years will look radically different than the one now.
ND has to weigh that as well. ND is happy with the current BCS which is favorable to it, but a much more powerful Big 16/Pac-16/SEC-16 would change the next BCS with each reserving 2 for itself with the possibility of a 3rd. That’s dangerous for ND. (All this is speculation, but they have to consider it…).
LikeLike
More and more listening to all the chatter on this board it seems that ND fits better in the ACC. FWIW
LikeLike
Wow. That Orangebloods guy ‘tweets’ that the Big Ten is prepared to shut down expansion if they can convince ND to join. – And that Notre Dame has hinted it would join if Twelve remained the magic number. Could all be BS, but interesting…and sad since I also want Nebraska and Texas.
LikeLike
Not buying it. A Big 10 + ND is the exact same thing that was denied in 1999 and 2003. I think ND would still prefer playing multiple games with non-midwestern teams.
LikeLike
I agree with FLP_NDRox on this.
I could easily see ND wanting a Big Ten with a pod system where ND’s pod is actually geographically diverse (i.e. Nebraska/GTech/Rutgers) and then it has protected rivalries, etc.
Why would ND join the Big Ten and then shut down expansion at 12? That sounds like a deal they didn’t want before and don’t want now…
I still don’t think ND is likely to join, but that it would really want Texas.
ND/Texas/GTech/Rutgers would be a pod they might learn to like and then they’d have a protected rivalry with Michigan and 4 other Big Ten games that would be in the heart of the footprint based on the pods…
ND’s problem is the regionality of the Big Ten (or any conference), I don’t see how Big Ten stopping at 12 cures that one…
LikeLike
Not buying it.
I am, at least the possibility. Would start to make sense with TX’s actions, the B12 ultimatum, and NE considering pulling back.
12 allows for an easy 8 game conf season. If the NCAA goes to 13 games that gives ND 5 OOC games. Can even start with 7 conf games until the season goes to 13. 3 protected annual, 4 of the other 8 per year if not in divisions.
Since they’re considering foregoing a conf champ game, they might even go to a 14 game season, with 6 OOC.
12 schools means less revenue dilution.
Perhaps ND, and other conference schools, are allowed to set up their own affiliated channels, with the BTN getting first dibs on content. For example, run 16 hours of BTN content and 8 hours of local interspersed throughout each day.
Instead of expanding the BTN via a larger footprint, partner with the ACC, or perhaps the P12 and B12.
How to sell it to the donors and alumni? Tough one. Perhaps the substantial revenue increase, the financial stability, and the dark economic times ahead for both the country and universities in particular.
Perhaps also a general statement that he foresees major changes to the BCS format that could virtually exclude any independent school. (7 conferences of 12 breaking away is a real and likely politically doable breakaway. Buildout P10, MWC and BEast and pull up the drawbridge.)
The usual packet of educational benefits.
ND making the 12th and stopping may not be the most likely outcome, but I believe it is a real possibility.
LikeLike
If a seismic shift is what it would take to force ND into a conference, how the hell could Swarbrick sell membership in a 12-team Big 10 when his predecessors couldn’t sell exactly the same deal seven and 11 years ago?
This makes no sense. I’m with FLP on this.
LikeLike
What is his newest tweet?
RT @OBWire: More scoop. That’s what we do at Orangebloods.com. Big-time visitor at UT’s camp today. BIG TIME. http://tinyurl.com/24lg58c
Who is this visitor?
LikeLike
betty white
LikeLike
Hans Moleman
LikeLike
So why would ND demand that the magic number has to be 12? Why do they care if it is 12, 14, or 16? Maybe they figure that if it stays at 12, they can schedule more out of conference games or something along those lines, I guess.
With that said though, would the Big 10 give in to ND’s demand? I thought the whole reason for expansion was to add revenue and content for the Big 10 network. Would the Big 10 sacrifice that just to get ND? Sound like giving up a lot for one team. Would they be worth it.
LikeLike
Of course it would.
The Big Ten would prefer to go up to 12 with ND, and then allow the Big 12 to survive.
Then we’d make a move on Texas in 5 years before the 2016 contract comes up…
(I’m just kidding but I could totally see Delany doing that since adding ND/Neb/Texas seems to be way too much right now).
LikeLike
What happens if the Pac10 raids the Big12 anyway?
LikeLike
Texas will say no and that will be that.
LikeLike
I agree. Though keeping it at 12 does mean less mouths to feed it doesn’t help with recruiting etc.
My feeling is that, if this ND rumor is true, the Big Ten has decided it’s not in their best interest to blow up the college landscape. which would occur even by taking Nebraska.
This allows the Big 12 to remain intact, the Pac 10 to remain poor and the Big Ten to solidify and expand the Big Ten Network in a whole lot of ND loving parts of the country. The rich get richer.
LikeLike
I think a PAC-8/SWC alliance already blew the status quo to hell. The more I think about it, the more I think this is a Texas play to make ND look like the bad guy since Nebraska and the Big Ten aren’t playing ball.
LikeLike
Not sure I follow. Is Texas positioning ND as the bad guy if the Big12 implodes because they didn’t join, or because the Big12 stays together and they lose the shot at the Pac-10 academic benefits?
LikeLike
Frighteningly enough it works for both.
Texas has been looking for the best deals. It looks like they’ve gotten their best offers from the Big Ten and Pac-10 that are coming. What I don’t know is what they want.
What’s weird is that all of this info is coming from the same source, a Texas fansite. No one, except for an unknown AP wire guy, saw Swarbrick there. Texas appears to be the Chatty Cathy in all this. I can’t say as to why.
But here’s the thing: There’s no upside that I can see to the Big Ten stopping at 12, *or* ND being the only school to join at this time. Who else but Texas benefits from this leak?
LikeLike
@FLP_NDRox
I think you can breathe now. Corrected versions are popping up.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten later decides that more than 12 is the magic number, does Notre Dame leave? Which is to say, I have trouble with these notions, coming almost exclusively from the Texas camp, that certain teams can dictate terms to the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Texas wants the Big 12. I agree with you that they’re manipulating information to get that.
FLP_NDRox is 100% correct though. Why the hell would ND take a very controversial deal that they rejected twice before?
ND has stated they’d only reconsider if “total realignment was upon us aka paradigm shift” (my words obviously but same effect).
What would then be the point of joining the Big Ten now and then stopping? No big realignment, BCS stays, etc.
Sounds like too much Texas slant on that one. ND would join if the Big Ten was going to 14-16 and they felt they needed to be on now before the ground shifted beneath them.
Otherwise, they won’t join the Big Ten. It’s really that simple. They’re worried that the Big Ten is about to invite Nebraska (aka Arkansas), and that the Pac-10 is about to merge with the new SWC.
LikeLike
Dennis Dodd at CBS is also reporting that the Big Ten would stop at 12 if they got Notre Dame:
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/13488650/nebraska-decision-a-key-as-expansion-big-dog-texas-mulls-options
which would seem to suggest that now Notre Dame holds the cards. If I were Nebraska I would be apprehensive.
LikeLike
From the Big10 view I don’t buy that at all…
Nebraska is left out there and the Big10 says “no thanks”.
I mean, its not my favorite addition in the world, but it certainly works.
LikeLike
yea. I find it hard to believe the conference would put Nebraska in a position to be left in limbo when our announcement and speculation re them started this. we would at least give them plenty of time to reaffirm their Big 12 commitment
LikeLike
I get the feeling this is just misinformation “leaked” trying to frighten Nebraska into reaffirming its commitment to the Big12.
LikeLike
Interesting…a reporter with ties to Texas leaks that the Pac is going to take the Big12 South and that Nebraska may not have an in with the Big10.
Then it turns out CO is not going to join the party because “Baylor” is going to take their place.
Next he starts posting ND is going to join the Big10 and they stop at 12.
That would leave the 3 schools most talked about to leave the Big12 (CO, Neb, Mizzou) stuck in a depleted Big12 while everyone else goes on to bigger and better.
Anyone else feel paranoid that its just Texas trying to push the likely expansion schools to declare “they won’t leave the Big12” and force the Pac/Big to look elsewhere?
LikeLike
In fairness, everything except that Nebraska and the Big Ten are talking has been accurate.
No one believes that Nebraska isn’t a lock at this point; they have everything the Big Ten wants.
The Big Ten just wants to see if it can lock Notre Dame before Nebraska.
LikeLike
“I think Michigan’s struggles in its regular season and Ohio State’s struggles on the biggest stages have had an effect of uniting the Big Ten fanbases like never before. I’ve never seen the Big Ten unanimously cheering for every team to win its own bowl games like I did the past year.”
This is another very good point by Zeek. I have never been so Big Ten-centric in my life. I used to root for ANYONE against Ohio State and yet I cringed along with everyone else when they got smoked in the Title game.
Big Ten fans definitely have a bit of a complex of late which the BTNetwork and expansion should remedy.
LikeLike
Rittenberg:
http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12974/expansion-hot-topic-as-bt-presidents-meet
No mention of Swarbrick, tons more actual quotes. Noting now (along with Orangebloods tweet) that Swarbrick report originated with the Houston Chronicle. Just saying.
LikeLike
Yeah almost every…single…leak seems to be coming from Texas, and all of them seem designed to scare the other Big 12 teams silly.
LikeLike
Yeah, but isn’t it scary that almost all of them have been true to this point?
LikeLike
It might be, if Nebraska was giving any indication of being concerned. We’ll find out soon enough, there’s a deadline out there you know. Orangebloods got an accurate leak, almost assuredly from Texas who wants to rachet up pressure, about the Pac 10 offer, that’s for sure. Remains to be seen how accurate the rest of it is.
LikeLike
And to scare them into staying in the Big12.
LikeLike
Someone needs to find out where that guy is. ESPN or someone needs to get on this.
LikeLike
No it didn’t unless the Houston Chronicle is falsely reporting an AP wire story. It originated with an AP wire filed by a member paper somewhere. The fact that Teddy said there were only 9 reporters there, we know three of them from twitter, and all three have filed stories now… None of the 3 mentioned seeing Swarbrick. They mentioned being together outside, etc. I just don’t see how it happened…
LikeLike
Well looking at the building, it is possible that Swarbrick left early.
(I recall it being a 4.5 hour meeting, but that the reporters arrived 1-2 hours before the start of the press conference).
Couldn’t Swarbrick have been there for the first 2 hours and then left, and then they called the media with the press conference timing?
I can easily see Swarbrick leaving an hour before the reporters got there.
LikeLike
Only half the meeting was dedicated for expansion talk, I can´t imagine Swarbrick participated in the other half. I would also imagine – unless this is a done deal with ND – that he participated throughout the entire two hours of expansion talk.
That means, if he was there, he was only there for somewhere under two hours.
LikeLike
That last post should read that I imagine he did *not participate for the entire two hours of expansion talk.
LikeLike
If it is true that he was there, I believe it is clearly a ‘trial balloon’ to see how the Notre Dame faithful act to the news. OR that its a done deal.
If not what possible reason could there be for his attendance. He could have been informed a dozen different ways without attending. Conference call, Video conference etc. The fact he was there (if he was) I believe is very significant.
LikeLike
@zeek,
Who saw him though? All of the reporters were together the entire time. None of the 3 that live tweeted the press conference saw him…
LikeLike
yes, this is an AP report. exact same is now on YahooSports (and probably other main sports sites).
LikeLike
If Swarbrick was there and he left two or three hours before the press conference, it´s likely that no one saw him.
The reference in the article could have been leak. Who knows?
LikeLike
Noting now (along with Orangebloods tweet) that Swarbrick report originated with the Houston Chronicle. Just saying.
If you bother to read the story you can note that it is an Associated Press story. Nobody in Texas wrote in.
Sorry to interrupt your witch hunt.
LikeLike
If you bothered to read the posts, you’d find that I was the first to mention it was an AP story. And it appears to be in the process of correction.
LikeLike
I went back and looked: the YahooSports AP report has changed. It is no longer an exact copy of the Houston Chronicle AP report. The HC report remains the same as linked way above.
Fox now how the AP report, but the new one. Neither Yahoo or Fox now report anything about Swarbrick’s presence.
fwiw.
LikeLike
that should be: “Fox now has the AP report…”
LikeLike
Yup, that’s interesting. The AP report on Yahoo did include the “Swarbrick” reference but now no longer does. Curiouser and curiouser. Does seem to lend credence to someone trying to stir the pot.
LikeLike
I just read it 30 seconds ago and it stil mentions Swarbrick being there. I refreshed the page to make sure.
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-bitten-expansion
“PARK RIDGE, Ill. (AP)—The Big Ten did not take formal action during a meeting Sunday about conference expansion, although officials say their timeline may change after the Pac-10 revealed plans for their own expansion.
The 11 school presidents and chancellors along with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick met for about 4 1/2 hours, and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney said the majority of time was spent on expansion dialogue.
Michigan State President Lou Anna K. Simon emphasized that academics would play a large role in determining what schools would be a good fit to join the Big Ten—not just athletics.
The Big Ten has been examining possible conference expansion since December.”
LikeLike
Also, the following NBC Sports article is identical to above, with mention of Swarbrick.
http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37542764/ns/sports/
LikeLike
thats still the old AP story
LikeLike
Yes, I know. But BuckeyeBeau says that the Yahoo Sports article now makes no mention of Swarbrick. I found that it does (see above).
LikeLike
But the url is different than what you are directed to on Yahoo now.
LikeLike
No mention:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bigten-expansion
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-bigten-expansion
Your link has “bitten” instead of “bigten”. Curiouser and curiouser.
LikeLike
Whoops, two links, awaiting moderation. Try again. No mention:
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-bigten-expansion
LikeLike
And no mention:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-bigten-expansion
The link above has “bitten” instead of “bigten” in the address. ?
LikeLike
Both AP reports have the same headline: “Big Ten Officials mum on Expansion.”
The original started this way:
“PARK RIDGE, Ill. — The Big Ten did not take formal action during a meeting Sunday about conference expansion, although officials say their timeline may change after the Pac-10 revealed plans for their own expansion.
The 11 school presidents and chancellors along with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick met for about 4½ hours, and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney said the majority of time was spent on expansion dialogue.”
The revised version is:
“The Big Ten did not take formal action during a meeting Sunday about conference expansion, although officials say their timeline may change after the Pac-10 revealed plans for their own expansion.
The 11 school presidents and chancellors met for about 4 1/2 hours, and Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney said the majority of time was spent on expansion dialogue.”
LikeLike
Shenanigans.
LikeLike
and SI.com is also running the new AP report. oh, and Blackhawks up 3-0 over the Fliers… woohooo!
LikeLike
sorry, can’t type. Flyers
LikeLike
Go HAWKS!
LikeLike
Amen! Looking good so far!
LikeLike
as a wings man, it pains me to say it, but go hawks. pronger is dickhead. glad the hawks are relevant again.
LikeLike
Chaos, indeed!
LikeLike
What happens if Baylor does get tied to UT?
Play out the scenario with P10 taking CU anyway and B10 taking Nebraska, the (not 100%) consensus around here.
What’s left for XII? Who jumps on those two spots in the XII in the middle of an earthquake? Who north of Texas in XII is not exploring their options?
Texas legislature may be the ones who ultimately take care of the ‘Tech’ problem. Sweet irony.
LikeLike
More updated tidbits from Greenstein´s article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/ct-spt-0607-big-ten-meeting–20100606,0,1908510.story
This quote got my attention:
¨Delany gladly acknowledged that he reads a packet of daily clips from newspapers and blogs obsessed with Big Ten expansion. “It’s a story du jour with obviously lots of twists and turns,” he said.¨
As well as these:
¨- Delany mentioned the seemingly oddball possibility that the league “could act and act again.” Meaning that if one school is ready to commit now but another needs more time, the Big Ten could expand in phases.
• On the heels of the Columbus Dispatch’s publishing e-mail correspondences between Delany and Ohio State President Gordon Gee, Delany was asked whether he’s cognizant of the contents of his electronic correspondences. “I am now,” he replied. So look for Delany to gather votes by telephone.
• The $22 million figure bandied about to quantify the Big Ten’s annual revenue distribution to each school is too high, according to league officials. A more accurate one is $20 million. The Southeastern Conference on Friday announced revenue distribution of $17.3 million per school, but that does not include local media packages. ( Florida reportedly makes an extra $10 million from its local deal with Sun Sports.)
So what is the Big Ten’s analysis based on — AAU (Association of American Universities) membership? APR numbers? US News & World Report rankings?
“Most of the people in the room were provosts before they were presidents,” Simon said, “so it’s a group that is perfectly capable of making very sophisticated judgments on academics. If anything, we obsess about that.”¨
LikeLike
¨Delany gladly acknowledged that he reads a packet of daily clips from newspapers and blogs obsessed with Big Ten expansion.”
He’ll love the last few days here. 😉
LikeLike
“Delany gladly acknowledged that he reads a packet of daily clips from newspapers and blogs obsessed with Big Ten expansion.”
Delany better be prepared for receiving something bigger than a “packet”.
LikeLike
¨Delany gladly acknowledged that he reads a packet of daily clips from newspapers and blogs obsessed with Big Ten expansion. “It’s a story du jour with obviously lots of twists and turns,” he said.¨
If he reads a packet, he is definitely on this blog. Everyone say hi to Jimmy D.
LikeLike
I wonder if this is where he first read the Northwestern/drunk friend rumor. The Spartan blog said he was VERY upset about that leak. Later on, the posts were all deleted.
LikeLike
Gopher,
they were censored on this blog?
I hope not, as free exchange of ideas is the cornerstone of enlightenment.
Frank.. would you delete posts? policy?
LikeLike
Calm down, nothing was censored here. Hell, we have one guy who has posted 118 of the 950 posts on just this current thread.
The original post of the ND-TX-NE rumor from a supposed Big Ten employee was on another site, and was pulled after a week or so. Pulled after the second story on a third site came out about Delany being furious about leaks and would fire anyone caught leaking.
Again, nothing pulled here, AFAIK.
LikeLike
Playoffs..
hope it was not me.. at 118 that would be like 10%. I know this is addictive, but at that point I might have to have an intervention..
🙂
LikeLike
“Most of the people in the room were provosts before they were presidents,” Simon said, “so it’s a group that is perfectly capable of making very sophisticated judgments on academics. If anything, we obsess about that.”¨
THIS IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING! They don’t need rankings or even numbers. They’ll have a gut feeling about whether a school fits or does not fit. And that is that.
LikeLike
“They don’t need rankings or even numbers. They’ll have a gut feeling about whether a school fits or does not fit. And that is that.”
I think everyone here realizes that the presidents aren’t going to be poring over AWRU or USNWR rankings. The issue is that we don’t have their knowledge or opinions. Instead, we use the rankings as (hopefully) approximations of their views. It’s not perfect, but short of serial kidnappings (what exactly is the level of security around a chancellor?) it is the best we can do.
LikeLike
totally agree, these guys know each other like only old friends and enemies can.
LikeLike
I am of the mindset that today was the turning the corner moment.
By having ND present, they could see that what were the intentions of Big Ten expansion. Who and where the Big Ten plans to expand to. ND wants to stay independent first and foremost. Without see their worst nightmare come true, they wont budget. Now Swarbrick can report back to ND what the Big Ten intends to do.
We heard today that the Big Ten COULD expand in waves. We will see this in the future, maybe the near future depending on the Pac 10 and the Big 12 south. Once they actually move to implode the Big 12, the Big 10 will be free to act. This point will show ND that the Big 10 is serious.
I also believe that ND when shown who the Big 10 is planning on targeting, they could see that they could maintain a national schedule while being a member of the Big Ten. Yes, there will be games against midwest schools but add in a game or two against teams from the east, one or two against teams from the south – southeast with their west coast out of conference games, they have a national schedule.
What we need to remember about ND is that they know as much about the Big Ten as anyone. Back in 1999 the Big Ten and ND shared confidential financial information about each other and their operations.
One other thing I think the Big Ten showed today to ND was their national plan. How they plan to expand the foot print of the Big Ten beyond the midwest.
LikeLike
Problem is, Swarbrick wasn’t there.
LikeLike
Hmmmm…. “back, and to the left.” “Back, and to the left.”
What is more likely… that he was there and someone reported on it truthfully, but regretfully… or he was not there, and someone erroneously invented a fact?
“Back, and to the left.” “Back and to the left.”
Just stoking the fire. No idea what the truth is.
LikeLike
If he was there, and it was reported on truthfully, why is the AP correcting the story?
LikeLike
eapg says:
June 6, 2010 at 7:47 pm
If he was there, and it was reported on truthfully, why is the AP correcting the story?
–
Presumably, a Texas conspiracy. I would have thought that you would be all over that.
LikeLike
Heh.
Give me your version of why a Swarbrick attending the Big Ten meetings would be made up out of whole cloth.
LikeLike
Frank – keep your cell phone charged. Since Delany has been most likely reading this blog, you’ve have got to be in line for Big Ten (11,12,14 or 16) deputy commish for propaganda and spin.
LikeLike
What if Notre Dame being the 12th team is important to them to have the vote on who else gets in down the road someday?
Look at Notre Dame’s options if they do not join Big 10:
1. Big Ten takes Nebraska. Pac-10 invites Big 12 South (w or w/out Colorado). SEC gets nervous and gobbles up ACC schools. ACC gobbles up Big East schools. Remaining schools combine. Notre Dame ends up with remainder league or the MAC for all but football. BCS position doubtful moving forward.
2. Big Ten takes Nebraska, plus Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, and UConn. Pac-10 invutes Big 12 South. SEC and ACC gobble up best of rest. Notre Dame ends up in an even more watered down universe.
But… Option 3:
Notre Dame bites bullet and joins Big 10. 2-4 year moratorium on expansion.
Nebraska not invited–sticks with Big 12. Colorado and Utah join the Pac 10. The Big 12 shrugs and adds someone. Everyone else stays put.
Nebraska not invited–bolts to SEC or tries to get in on Pac 10. In this scenario… there might be mega conference destruction–but Notre Dame gets to vote on who gets in to the Big 10.
After all… while Texas is comfortable playing politics… what kind of Sophie’s Choice does Notre Dame have in choosing partners? Do they push for BC? Pitt? Like-minded Syracuse? Newcomers Rutgers and UConn? If there is room for 2-3… who do they leave out? And they ruin the Big East in the process. Notre Dame is not Texas. They don’t want that role.
So… we come back to Notre Dame signing on as the 12th team and letting the world settle for a while. That’s a HR for the Big 10. A necessary evil for the Big 12 to stay afloat. And life goes on.
LikeLike
In any BE dies scenario, ND’s ace in the hole is they can keep a conference with the non-football Big East. Add a couple extra teams and you have a viable home for Olympic sports. The exceptions would be in LAX, where independence is viable and the Big East a new league, and Hockey if a Big Ten Hockey conference was started. The good news about hockey is that Minnesota is against a BTHC and few current expansion candidates field a team.
The only thing that truly forces ND is a change in the National Championship selection that leaves them out of it. Neither of the scenarios you propose does that. I still don’t see any benefit for the Irish.
LikeLike
Agreed. ND wouldn’t join to be #12. That just doesn’t fit anything ND has said about why they would join, which is if they felt the BCS might implode the next time it comes up for a new contract; and then the superconferences would hoard the bowl bids leaving ND on the outside. I don’t see how they just ignore what they said previously and sign onto the Big Ten now.
Only way they sign onto the Big Ten is if the Pac-16 scenario is coming to life, and they are worried about the viability of the BCS.
LikeLike
Look at what I posted. If Notre Dame DOES NOT join, the landscape WILL change. Is there any doubt? Run through your scenarios.
The only thing that maintains the status quo is Notre Dame to the Big 10. If Nebraska comes with Notre Dame, the end result is the destruction of the Big 12 and the Big East. Maybe Nebraska and Missouri have enough venom to want the Big 12 destroyed. And maybe Rutgers knows that it can leave without worrying about the Big East. But Notre Dame has the class to not want to demolish the whole system.
The Big East would never kick Notre Dame out. But that does not mean that Notre Dame would not feel great about getting to be its savior. (Boston College screwed the Big East, so the church owes the Big East one?)
BTW… if you are Notre Dame, you are not just thinking like a university president… you are also thinking WWJD?
LikeLike
“Maybe Nebraska and Missouri have enough venom to want the Big 12 destroyed.”
Or maybe Nebraska and Missouri understand the manifold advantages of Big Ten membership to their universities compared to continued membership in the Big 12.
LikeLike
Ezdozen,
Great line, I love it:
¨if you are Notre Dame, you are not just thinking like a university president… you are also thinking WWJD?¨
LikeLike
Missing my point.
My point is caring about what happens to WHAT you leave WHEN you leave.
Maybe Nebraska and Mizzou want the Big 12 to implode without them.
I don’t think anyone in the Big East thinks like that. I just don’t.
LikeLike
I see what you’re saying, but I’d see a Notre Dame uprising at their AD for joining without the conferences totally changing.
And of course they end up in a mostly regional Big Ten without expansion of some sort…
LikeLike
I see. It’s okay if other schools look out for their own future, just not Nebraska and Missouri.
LikeLike
EAPG… I don’t think that me re-posting my explanation is going to be sufficient to remedy the reading comprehension issue that you seem to be having.
LikeLike
Oh, I think I comprehend you just fine. Assigning malign motivation (have enough venom…) to a move that strengthens the two schools on a massive scale in academics and research. Got it.
LikeLike
Thanks for proving that you don’t get it.
LikeLike
It’s too bad you can’t go back and erase all your this school and that school to this or that conference posts. Other schools get left out in those hypothetical scenarios also.
LikeLike
Uh, Nebraska and Missouri want to join the Big Ten.
Nebraska wanted to in the early 1900s (and has come up as a name several times before this), and Missouri has wanted to join for years as well.
The Big Ten offers them the CIC (which both really want to join to aid them in improving research programs, etc.) and they get to join with the most stable group of programs with tradition and much larger population and nowhere near as top heavy, etc.
Hard to blame Nebraska/Missouri for wanting to be in the Big Ten over the Big 12.
LikeLike
Maybe Nebraska and Missouri have enough venom to want the Big 12 destroyed. . . . But Notre Dame has the class to not want to demolish the whole system.
Venom? Nebraska has been virtually silent during this entire process, even after having been given an ultimatum. I see no venom. Publicly, the university administration has been nothing but respectful to everyone involved.
Demolishing the whole system? Nebraska, Rutgers and Mizzou didn’t announce the possibility of a 16 team league, and privately float the idea of a 24 team league. If they join the Big10 they are destroying the system because they don’t have the singular advantage of being able to be an independent with their very own TV contract?
LikeLike
Just as a reminder:
“ezdozen says:
May 26, 2010 at 6:57 pm
What if Nebraska and Missouri are deal-breakers for Texas? If they are so unhappy with the Texas revenue sharing issue… well, be careful what you wish for… now that issue is gone. Enjoy the Big 12.
I think it would be great if all the early
whores (Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers) get shut out.”
I’m touched by this subthread.
LikeLike
Guys… let me help you out.
There are divorces. Some couples divorce and remain friends. Some couples divorce and are tolerant of each other. Some couples divorce and are still quite hateful–forever.
I am just saying… and I used the word “maybe” to reflect that we can only speculate. But maybe it has reached the point within the Big 12 that Nebraska and Missouri want to leave AND also would not shed a tear for the Big 12 imploding behind them. After all, this has not been a happy marriage. There have been disputes over how the conference has been run, etc.
In contrast, the Big East has been fairly happy over the years. Rutgers and the rest have been through good times and bad. I don’t think Rutgers has any animosity towards the rest of the Big East. And I certainly doubt that Notre Dame does.
That is the difference. Not whether Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers WANT to go to the Big East. They all do.
And not whether they SHOULD want to go. They should want to go.
The only issue I raised is whether the Big 12 environ has become so poisonous that Nebraska/Missouri don’t care whether the Big 12 survives.
You see. Move past the whether they should want to go to the Big 10 and consider only the issue of what they might be thinking about what they left behind.
Not sure how much clearer I can be.
LikeLike
Well, from your post a few days ago we know what you might be thinking of what you left behind. Now that the landscape may have changed, you’re singing a different tune.
LikeLike
Not to mention that all of you are blowing past the main point of my post–that Notre Dame could SEE ITSELF as the savior of college football under the “we must be 12 and there is no 13” scenario.
Nobody else is in this unique position. Name one other school that can move and SLOW DOWN expansion.
Not Nebraska. Maybe Missouri and Rutgers. But Missouri and Rutgers can’t make “the 12th and only 12th demand.”
It’s just a unique scenario. Some doubted the logic of Notre Dame making such a demand. I was just defending it.
Sorry that my speculation upon speculation interfered with the excitement of “insert your school” moving to the Big 10.
Sheesh.
LikeLike
EAPG: Who am I leaving behind?
Also… who am I?
LikeLike
And I’m sorry that events may have evolved in such a way that you may be denied getting to watch Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers get screwed.
LikeLike
Who am I?
LikeLike
Who did you want to see left behind a few days ago?
LikeLike
I’ll grant you that NU wouldn’t shed a tear for Texas. But Oklahoma? NU has a lot of history there. KU? Turner Gill just became KU’s head FB coach. KSU? Osborne and Bill Snyder founded a charity together. Iowa St? Colorado? These teams have been part of the fabric of the B12/B8 for an awful lot of years.
You think this is easy? Hell no its not easy. The current state of the Big12 is downright depressing because it’s not a we-have-your back conference in the way NU and Mizzou were used to. The Big10 is, and there’s plenty of additional perks as well.
LikeLike
And I’ve stated the best result for Nebraska and Missouri would be for Texas to also join. If Texas politics has made a mess of that, then it’s nothing we can help.
LikeLike
Oh, and I see by the post below that the sentiments haven’t changed:
“#1, they get more money without having to act like the whores from Missouri (and BC with the ACC, for that matter)…. and without having to act like the high-class callgirl Nebraska… or whatever it is Rutgers is…”
I’ll just have to recalibrate my reading comprehension, ezdozen just wants everyone to make nice.
LikeLike
Guys, I am done with this thread. You have taken my speculation as to why Notre Dame could possibly consider it prudent to agree to be the 12th team, but only if there is no other expansion, and turned it on its head.
If you want to disagree with my speculation about Notre Dame, feel free. That’s the part about speculation… who knows, right?
LikeLike
The Big East can’t be saved if half or more of the football school would leave yesterday if any other AQ conference would have them. Recent events have also indicated that every school in the Big XII that thinks it can get an AQ invite is playing a huge stare-off to see who’ll jump first and be the “bad guy”.
The Big Ten has NO incentive to stop expansion until they get a good 16 team group. ND can’t stop the B10’s need to feed the BTN. Besides, feeding the BTN is assuredly in the B10s best interests all around.
The expansion fever is based on two things:
1. The Pac-1x’s upcoming TV negotiations where they need a HR, or at least a viable CCG.
2. The BTN’s need for programming.
In no way can ND stop either, much less both of those situations.
LikeLike
“You have taken my speculation as to why Notre Dame could possibly consider it prudent to agree to be the 12th team, but only if there is no other expansion, and turned it on its head.”
Huh. And all along I thought I was showing that for you, it’s about whose ox is being gored.
LikeLike
ND still has the God & Country option..
LikeLike
Look at the positives for Notre Dame.
#1, they get more money without having to act like the whores from Missouri (and BC with the ACC, for that matter)…. and without having to act like the high-class callgirl Nebraska… or whatever it is Rutgers is… or even the cold-business like assassin Texas is willing to be (if you move, we kill everything).
#2, they ensure football relevance–no worries about BCS issues. Whatever happens, Notre Dame need only worry about winning.
#3, not only do they avoid the Baylor/Texas Tech morass Texas is in… Notre Dame gets to SAVE college football by mandating that they be added alone. This is no package deal. Notre Dame doesn’t need Syracuse or Rutgers to add markets. It does it alone. And not just NYC, but everywhere. Without Nebraska and Missouri, the Big 12 stays afloat. Pac-10 can do what it wants… but a Big 10 with Notre Dame leaves the door open for a smaller expansion.
#4, if the future dictates that further expansion is prudent, they will be a part of the fraternity deciding who gets in, while having the ability to save face with former friends if the vote does not go their way. (Sorry BC and Syracuse, I voted for you, but it was a lost cause).
#5…And, if it does not work out, they can always just move on! Without superconferences, there will be landing spots, right?
LikeLike
But none of that comes in a way that is palatable to the alumni. And ND can’t save college football. The TV money and public school financial need/desire is too great.
Plus, ND doesn’t do fraternities.
LikeLike
I get the “why it does not make sense” argument. I just offered up the only way I could think it becoming palatable to the alumni–(a) mega conferences are inevitable–just a matter of when; (b) we get to have the spotlight to ourselves with this change; (c) we do it the right way–reluctantly; and (d) we do get a financial boost–even though that’s not the reason we are doing it.
Open to suggestions.
LikeLike
Lemme think…
The only way I can see it happening is if the Big East Catholic conference (and friends) turned out to not be a good Olympic conference after all and if a cartel of the Big 14, Pac-16, SEC (14-16) and mutant combination of the BE – ACC that split from the non-football BE told us that they would be holding their own National Championship with NCAA and Fed approval and no independents were allowed.
If that happened, we’d probably be less mad, and give the admin the benefit of the doubt that they did all they could to stop it from getting to that point.
Seriously, that’s about the only way I can see this happening without a massive alumni backlash.
LikeLike
Well, who is to say that it hasn’t reached that point already?
If the Big East and Big 12 disappear… who is going to be advocating for Notre Dame?
The Pac 10? Well, that would now be a new entity.
The Big 10? Well, they have been spurned twice (+) by Notre Dame.
The ACC? Well, that would be made up of schools that were left hanging by Notre Dame not jumping.
The SEC? Why would they care about Notre Dame?
Who is going to advocate for Notre Dame in this new landscape that is coming, whether Notre Dame likes it or not.
LikeLike
Our greatest allies: The media, congress, and all the non-BCS teams who will use any means necessary to keep at least the chance at a slice of that pie available. Shoot, we believe that most BCS schools are at best tolerating working with us. ND’s already got the T-shirt.
LikeLike
ND has a GLOBAL reach and a HUGE population to draw from.. just think how many PRIVATE / CATHOLIC schools could line up behind ND as their leader to protect their positions..
LikeLike
exdozen #4, if the future dictates that further expansion is prudent, they will be a part of the fraternity deciding who gets in, while having the ability to save face with former friends if the vote does not go their way. (Sorry BC and Syracuse [really should be Pitt since ND/SU are hardly the best of friends], I voted for you, but it was a lost cause).
#4 points out precisely why ND shouldn’t and most likely won’t go in as #12, because once in they lose any bargaining power to decide as to who comes in the league.
It’s also why I never thought the expansion to 14 and get ND later would be acceptable to ND either. Since they then only get to bring along one team (if they so choose).
With Texas carrying 4 teams (possibly 5) with them into the Pac-16, do you really think the Irish will settle for any less than two or three? I don’t.
Here’s a scenario I could see playing out, IF ND admins really want in…
1) Big Ten invites Nebraska as #12
2) Nebraska accepts
3) 6 Big 12 teams receive official invites to Pac-16 and accept them
4) Big Ten (in private collusion with ND, but not publicly) announces it plans to expand further
5) The predictable SEC sabre rattling response about possible expansion with ACC teams (all the good Big 12 teams are now gone) ensues.
6) ND, reluctantly (publicly) returns to the negotiation table with the Big Ten – after all, the seismic change of 4 sixteen-team super conferences seems to be happening and with the SEC threatening to take some of the ACC’s best, that is no longer a viable conference option.
7) Then together the Big Ten and ND decide which three teams will join in addition to the Irish.
LikeLike
My point is that we are at #6. If Notre Dame says no… they might as well just stay on the line… wait for 1-5 to play out… and then start talking to the Big 10 again.
Conversely… being the 12th team gives Notre Dame the benefit of being Team 12. The Plan A.
And who is to say Notre Dame WANTS to influence who joins it?
LikeLike
ezdozen,
Once you are in, you are simply one of 12 votes. Miami found that out rather quickly in the ACC when divisions were finally decided upon.
The power resides in influencing who #14, 15, and 16 are WITHOUT being in the league because the league WANTS you in so much.
All that power disappears with ND in as #12. It might happen, but I seriously doubt it. Being outvoted on issues was one of the MAIN stumbling blocks to ND accepting the invite back in the late 90s. And there will be far more issues in terms of scheduling, divisions, etc in a 16-team conference then there were in a 12-team conference. ND will want a block of schools they can hopefully count on to help influence things their way on these issues once in the league.
LikeLike
If Nebraska makes it clear that it won’t join the Big 12, it’d be because it’s joining the Big Ten at some point (not the SEC or anyone else). The Big Ten isn’t going to let one of the top 10 football brands go to the SEC when it’s the most natural fit other than Notre Dame…
I don’t see why the Big Ten would roll back the expansion train now.
Perhaps they would if Delany is afraid of Texas/A&M going to the Pac-10, but Nebraska and Notre Dame more than make up for that…
I guess I could see the Big Ten being in an advantageous position as the only one that got what it wanted this expansion sequence, and then being able to lock down Nebraska/Texas/A&M in another expansion.
I’m really skeptical of it though. I don’t see why Notre Dame would join as #12. That one doesn’t make sense.
How would Notre Dame go to their alumni/boosters and say “well we decided to join the Big Ten even though the BCS/NCAA is going to be fine and there’s only going to be 12 team conferences”. Everyone would be livid. How could Swarbrick go back and say that after all the statements about only going if “it was different this time”?
Notre Dame won’t join the current Big Ten as #12 just as Texas won’t. Otherwise they would have done it a while ago.
Once this thing goes public, everyone’s going to be against it.
And Notre Dame wants a national schedule; they don’t want a rotating schedule through the Big Ten, so pods with schools in the East and further West (possibly Southeast/west) are what they would want in a pod…
One final thing. JD/Gee’s emails indicate that they plan to hit home run after home run and that they’re treating it like a chess game. Why make a move on Texas and then just retreat to Notre Dame, unless somehow they think that taking Notre Dame now and Texas later is plausible…
LikeLike
Yeah… well, why allow these emails to be released? It would be pretty easy to hold these back from a FOIA request. Anything passing through is passing through voluntarily.
This has turned into a high stakes poker game where a lot of people have a lot at stake. The Pac-10 wants to add 6 teams… except that we all now that some of those teams are poor fits. But Texas is demanding them because that’s what they need to do. And they would prefer to stay where they are, but Nebraska can cause it to be a necessity. Which comes back to Nebraska, the Plan C to the Notre Dame Plan B (to the Texas Plan A, which is downright difficult to pull off).
Meanwhile, the Big 10 is looking at who else to add. EVERYONE has warts. Plus, going from 11 to 16 is a little aggressive for a conference that was stuck at 11 for so long. But… that threat was necessary to get all the pieces moving.
AND… if 4 years from now, there is mega super conference expansion anyway, so be it.
LikeLike
Refusal to release e-mails that may be subject to FOIA would likely spark a lawsuit. That’s a mess no public university wants. Coverups are tricky things, best avoided.
LikeLike
Who would know if emails are not being produced? Who is to say that they would be produced, but simply redacted? There are limits to FOIA.
Someone chose to release these emails and not redact them.
LikeLike
Maybe ND would want the Big Ten to stay at 12 because it figures that it will bring so much value that any further expansion would merely dilute the profits. (Put yourself in the mindset of a school with a huge ego that has been in conference of 1 for the last century. Dividing money has to hurt.)
LikeLike
Re: Swarbrick, some relevant tweets:
Just an honest mistake, I’m sure.
LikeLike
Nice job Frank getting on that with twitter.
That said, I don’t see how inserting Swarbrick into an expansion story is innocent. Someone must have suggested that to whoever was writing that article…
There’s no way that’s an innocent mistake.
LikeLike
I think that it is pretty obvious that the powers that be in Texas are trying their best to influence this whole expansion process.
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/06/irishs-swarbrick-at-big-ten-meetings-today—-not/
looks like Swarbrick wasn’t at the meeting.
LikeLike
Thank you. Jeebus.
LikeLike
Classsic:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Needless to say, that piqued our interest. So we sent an email to several people at Notre Dame. Here’s the response to the Twitter post in question, courtesy of Brian Hardin, the Irish’s Director of Football Media Relations:
Hi John,
Thanks for the email. I think the 150 people that attended the graduation open house of Jack Swarbrick’s son today in Indianapolis would help me deny that Jack was in attendance at the Big Ten meetings today in Chicago. I hate to have to throw cold water on yet another “report” regarding Notre Dame and the Big Ten, but like many “reports” before this one, there isn’t any validity to it. Feel free to quote me on any of this.
So, there you have it. Notre Dame’s athletic director was not at the Big Ten meeting this afternoon.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LikeLike
Are you buying that? Swarbrick could have easily sent a stunt double to this supposed graduation open house. If it was anything like an Irish wake, everyone was drunk within an hour — so who could tell the difference?
LikeLike
Nice find. Although, it is odd that the AP would write “The 11 school presidents and chancellors along with Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick met for about 4 1/2 hours” without some confirmation.
LikeLike
Agreed. Someone must have posed as an independent source for that. No one would just insert that without hearing it from a source.
LikeLike
Odd. Yup.
LikeLike
Swarbrick being there makes no sense. It was a meeting of Big Ten Presidents, not Athletic Directors. If any ND representative would attend (highly improbable to begin with), it would be ND’s President, not Swarbrick. This report is another example of the shoddy journalism in much of the mainstream media.
There is a reason that good reporters such as Rittenberg and Greenstein did not report it.
LikeLike
According to the CFT twitter account Swarbrick was at his son’s graduation today in Indiana.
LikeLike
Exactly — if ND was there it would not be their AD. If not the president then a representation from the board.
LikeLike
So let’s say that ND joins on the condition that the Big 10 stays at 12. How do you divide up the schools within the Big 10? Since a pod system would no longer be on the table, would the Big 10 follow the conventional divisional format and divide up into two divisions? If so, what would that look like?
LikeLike
Michigan
OSU
Michigan St.
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois
Notre Dame (with protected Michigan rivalry)
Penn State
Indiana
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
LikeLike
I would switch Wisconsin and Illinois, but other than that it looks good.
LikeLike
Actually, I wouldn’t. Wisconsin is a pretty solid #3 in that half.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think as a basis though Michigan/OSU and Notre Dame/Penn State are how it would break down (with ND-Michigan getting a protected rivalry…).
LikeLike
Big Ten+2 North
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa
Michigan
Michigan St
Notre Dame
Big Ten+2 South
Penn St
Ohio St
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Northwestern
Do an eight game schedule SEC style with one permanent opponent in the other division. Rotate the the others with a staggered home and home schedule.
Could you guys handle it if Michigan and Ohio State played twice (The Game and Big Ten+2 CG) in a two week period?
LikeLike
Doubtful.
I start with the assumption that ND-Penn State and Ohio State-Michigan will end up in the same (with ND getting a protected rivalry with Michigan).
I don’t really see how to do it any other way.
LikeLike
Agreed. And PSU and OSU would also have a protected rivalry.
LikeLike
Doesn’t that seem to isolate PSU? Their fans would have to travel clear across the conference to go to away games. Plus this breaks up PSU’s rivalry with MSU (I guess this is supposed to be a rivalry) and ND’s rivalries with MSU and Purdue.
I was thinking maybe having PSU, UM, MSU, ND, PU, & IU in one division and OSU, Ill, NW, Wisc, Minn, & Iowa in the other and keeping OSU and UM as perminant rivalries. OSU may be a little isolated from their division, but not near as much as PSU would and you can keep some rivalries intact.
It doesn’t seem like an easy solution any which way you divide the conference up though.
LikeLike
Not a bad idea. I’m sure a ton of politics are going to come up in any decisions and that a lot of teams are going to lose rivalries, but such is the way it works.
I think they’d divide OSU/Michigan/ND/Penn State up though by 2.
No reason to have 3 in one division…
LikeLike
They could definite could (and IMO should) do some sort of pods/rotating divisions. Here’s my shot:
UM
OSU
MSU
Penn State
NU
ND
Iowa
Minn
Wisc
Ill
Ind
Pur
In this case, they probably would avoid having Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State and ND on the same side.
Another try:
UM
OSU
MSU
Penn State
Ind
Purdue
ND
NU
Ill
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minn
You also could do pods of 2, but I can’t come up with anything reasonable. In any case, rotating divisions in some form is the way to go.
LikeLike
I like your pod system (especially the first try). It would alleviate some of the problems inherent in any permanent division split.
LikeLike
easiest idea is usually the best: that is, east and west.
East: tOSU, PSU, MI, MSU, IL and Indiana.
West: ND, Purdue, Northwestern, Wis, Iowa & Minny with a protected ND/MI.
Okay, not truly accurate E/W division, but approximate.
lots and lots of rivalries are preserved even the weak one between IL/tOSU. keeps travel distances and isolation at a minimum (tho’ suppose IL is pretty isolated).
in theory, ND, Wis & Iowa could be as strong as tOSU, MI and PSU; if not, then ND dominates the West year in and year out and ND ends up playing the East Champ in the conference champ. game. Probably good ratings for that.
maybe ND would like having a weak division so maybe an inducement for them to join?
LikeLike
I don’t see ND joining the B10, then be put in a division full of us Western B10 hicks. They would want to play UM/OSU/PSU annually. Then again, a theoretical “weak” division could be attractive, but careful what they wish for.
LikeLike
this is why 12 teams won’t really work all that well. you need to do your division and have a regular rotation. you can’t do that with a protected rival in an even number division; it screws everything up.
14 works better is some ways because it gets you to 7 on each side. play your other 6 division foes and 1 protected on the other side, and then rotate the other 6 in blocks of 2. you’ll play them all every three years. 9 conference games, but that’s better than watching UM play toledo or PSU play temple.
Just get NB, ND and one of any of the others being tossed around.
LikeLike
looks a little imbalanced, but how about this
W- IL, NEB, WI, MN, Missou, NW, Iowa
E – OSU, MSU, UM, PSU, ND, IN, PU
then, just pair up one permanent buddy on the other side – for example, UM gets MN, OSU gets IL, etc. the extra teams and game will preserve most all of the the rivalries.
LikeLike
jj – A 12 team conference with two six team divisions and one protected out of division rivalry game works very well in the SEC. The other out of division games are on a staggered home and home schedule, so there is two years on and three years off.
For example, LSU’s permanent SEC East rival is Florida. Last year, LSU also played Georgia and Vandy from the East. This year, Tennessee replaces Georgia. Next year Kentucky replaces Vandy.
Under this eight conference game set-up, each team had 4 home games and 4 away games every year.
LikeLike
Thanks. I didn’t realize that was how it went. I’m on board now. 12’s cool.
LikeLike
The west division in your scenario would be weaker BECAUSE of Notre Dame.
LikeLike
A throwaway line in the ESPN article:
Expansion isn’t the only agenda on Scott’s plate. He said he will unveil a series of marketing initiatives at the July 27 media day that will include airing Pac-10 games in Asian countries.
“The West Coast is the gateway to the Pacific Rim,” Scott said. “We’ve got a lot of student-athletes with Asian roots. Some of our schools have a very high level of brand recognition in Asia and a lot of international interest. I think we’re going to be the first collegiate conference to have an international marketing plan.”
—
The next battleground?
LikeLike
[sarcasm]Well, getting Notre Dame would open Ireland to the Big Ten Network, wouldn’t it? That’s, what, 4.5 million people? [/sarcasm]
LikeLike
Big Ten should be proactive and invite Todai (University of Tokyo). They are ranked #20 in the world on AAUW. While their baseball team has never one a “Big 6 Championship,” they might have better luck in the Big Ten. We may even be able to get them to start a football team. 😉
LikeLike
They really need some a new league in baseball. *ouch*
University of Tokyo
Established: 1917
All-Time Record: 243-1470-53
League Championships: None
Last Championship: N/A
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Big6_Baseball_League
LikeLike
The Tokyo University Warriors went 4-3 last season in their conference.
http://66.196.80.202/babelfish/translate_url_content?.intl=us&lp=ja_en&trurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.tokyowarriors.com%2f
Looks like if you want a football school in Tokyo, you take Waseda.
LikeLike
Waseda? Really? Their AAUW World Rank is 303-401, same as Tech. Thanks, no thanks.
In all seriousness, I find it kind of cool that they play football. If it didn’t take 20+ hours to fly their, it be a great addition academically.
LikeLike
Thanks, *but no thanks. 😉
LikeLike
Ouch! 303-401?!? I had no idea they were *that* bad. They’re a member of Universitas 21 along with AAU Members McGill and UVa, so I assumed they must have something besides sports going for them. My bad.
LikeLike
Deanna has a fun site on Japanese baseball.
http://marinerds.blogspot.com/
http://www.big6.gr.jp/
LikeLike
Interesting
>>
Under N.C.A.A. guidelines, a conference needs at least six universities that have played together for five years. The Big 12 would lose its Bowl Championship Series bid and automatic bid to the N.C.A.A. basketball tournament. That could leave colleges like Kansas and Kansas State to be snapped up by the Big East, which could be its best bet to continue using the lure of a B.C.S. bid for football recruits.
<<
LikeLike
Unless 3+ Big East schools leave.
LikeLike
Couldn’t the remaining Big 12 schools simply invite a ton of the MVC teams to the Big 12? Those 6+ schools would have played together for more than 5 years, and the Big 12 already has AQ status.
LikeLike
I hope you mean MWC. I don’t think the Big XII would retain AQ status if they invited teams from the Missouri Valley Conference. 🙂
LikeLike
A Big 12/Missouri Valley Hybrid?
LikeLike
Haha, oops. Yes I meant MWC.
LikeLike
Well, the way I interpret it is that they would have to play together in that conference for 5 years. I could be wrong, but if that’s the case, Iowa State, Baylor, Kansas State would be heading to the MWC and praying they get their AQ. Kansas would join them if they can’t get an invite into a BCS conference or get forced to stay with K-state.
LikeLike
Well….when all was said and done, the big news (v. false alarms) seems to be—
— Big 10 may accelerate expansion, depending on Big 12/Pac 10 situation, and
— Big 10 may expand in stages…..
Hopefully, we’ll see a Neb, RU, Pitt/Mo invite very soon….
LikeLike
Yeah, regardless of ND (which I don’t think is any more likely to come even with the supposed “50-50 split” because that’s before a massive batch of negative publicity before any Big Ten vote…), I think Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers is still likely.
The Big Ten has seemed to indicate to all three that it will talk to them after getting ND on board.
I’m sure ND will tell us “no thanks” soon enough.
Does anyone know whether ND has to vote unanimously to join a conference because even 50-50 is miles away from that (in the absence of massive negative publicity…).
LikeLike
It is the same rules as electing a Pope.
LikeLike
IIRC it’s majority of the Board of Trustees.
LikeLike
how many members on the board of Trustees?
probabilities higher of getting the one extra vote that takes you to 51% if there are 20 members than if there are 8
LikeLike
50, including the 12 Fellows.
LikeLike
Interesting to note FLP_NDRox.
So that means from what you said before, all 50 voted against joining last time?
And we’re supposed to believe according to these reports that a half support it this time?
Count me skeptical. I see this coming to a vote sometime in the next couple of months. Notre Dame will publicly announce that it intends to vote. There’ll be a firestorm of discontent, and it will get voted down unanimously.
I still see no reason for ND to join as #12 until it sees the BCS as going the way of the dinosaur. Then ND will act.
LikeLike
@zeek
If landing the Irish means expansion is closed, that decision may need to be faster than a couple of months. The Big12 teams under consideration may not have that kind of time.
LikeLike
According to the NYT
there were 55 then. I can’t lay hands on the Tribune article discussing the unanimity of the vote right now. The board of Trustee number by bylaws is between 30-60, and I counted 50 on the nd.edu site.
LikeLike
Husker Al, that’s why I’m hoping for everyone’s sake that ND makes a decision either way sooner rather than later.
The last thing anyone should want is for Swarbrick to delay this decision to December.
Hopefully he says he’s for it or against it and then we move from there. I still don’t see how it passes, but if ND can make the decision sooner, we’d be able to go after Nebraska/Rutgers, which are teams that make sense and have the institutional fit so that it’s easier to work on both sides.
LikeLike
@zeek
ND doesn’t even need to make a decision on whether or not to join. All the Big10 really needs is a commitment that ND isn’t committed to a 12-team conference.
LikeLike
Who is going to be in charge of looking for the smoke?
LikeLike
: )
LikeLike
Question. If Notre Dame says no. What happens next?
Does the Big 10 invite Nebraska? Is such an invitation hopeful that Notre Dame THEN says yes… or is it under an assumption that Notre Dame is out of the picture?
LikeLike
ezdozen; it seems as if Notre Dame will be talked to until it says “absolutely no”. If Notre Dame doesn’t want to join, then it might spell out an expansion plan after which it would join…
Once it says that, the Big Ten will start talking to Nebraska/Missouri and figuring out where to go from there.
I’m pretty sure though that Notre Dame will have to give an unequivocal no before the Big Ten moves on.
LikeLike
But why would Notre Dame do that? They can’t burn any bridges pre-seismic shift. So they won’t.
But doesn’t Notre Dame stand to lose if the seismic shift happens without it?
This is why I think that Notre Dame could plausibly want in now–this is the only time that they can make demands. For now, they’ll just have to accept that “we were so special, the Big 10 cut back its expansion for us.”
LikeLike
@ezdozen – That’s pretty much the reason why ND might be willing to join now. I know that in terms of perception for its alums, ND needs to publicly say that it was backed into a corner with no other choices. In reality, though, if ND joins the Big Ten (or any other conference), I have to imagine that it’s going to be very proactive in the process in getting the situation that it wants.
Now, I doubt that ND would join the Big Ten as team #12 alone. However, if that’s the revenue maximization scenario for the Big Ten as opposed to a larger expansion even with ND, then ND has to figure out whether it should effectively force a situation where if it had to join a conference, it would be tougher competitive situation (16 team league as opposed to 12) with less money.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten stops at 12 with Notre Dame, what will you call the conference? You may be able to get the Big XII name real cheap at the Big XII garage sale.
LikeLike
I don’t see the conference name changing at this point. Brand is too valuable since people know it even though they may joke that it doesn’t have 10…
LikeLike
Zeek – I wasn’t serious. If it all goes down in flames, I’m sure the name “Big XII” will be retired for all time.
LikeLike
Hah. Yeah I know you weren’t serious about Big XII.
But I do actually think the Big Ten would change it’s name at 16.
I think 12 is tainted due to the Big XII, but 16 would be a new start. As would 20, etc.
So I guess it is something worth thinking about…
LikeLike
As for 14, we’d keep Big Ten as well. 16 and 20 are clean stable groupings at which we could use Big 16 and Big 20.
LikeLike
I dont see changing the name to be a big deal, no matter that they call it to many of us it will still be the big ten.
LikeLike
Just call it “The Big”,
much like The Ohio State. We just make numbers irrelevant.
LikeLike
@zeek
Ironically, the Big12 also owns the name “Big14”.
LikeLike
On a Badger board the leading vote getter is:
America – Fuck Yeah! Conference (2 votes)
That could be an informal name. I presume they will keep BigTen on the merchandise.
Big Barbasol Conference (1 vote) is still a contender, however.
The road is tough
Your spirit’s strong
Driving on and on,
Close shave, America
Close shave Barbasol
America, You’re lookin’ good,
Handsome, Free, and Tall
Close shave, America
Close Shave Barbasol
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure I saw this on Rivalry Esq, but the new conference name should be “The Union”. It works even in the case of adding Virginia/Texas. The headlines would read “The Union captures Virginia”.
LikeLike
What if the league keeps the name / symbol, but changes the pronunciation?
Say “the Big X” (pronounced “ecks,” as in the letter, not the roman numeral).
Since X is a variable in algebra, it can be taken to refer to any number of teams that are part of the league.
This way the Big X won’t need to spend additional money copyrighting a new title or creating a new logo. Plus, “X” is kind of cool — American History X, X marks the spot, XXX . . . there is even a football echo in the old XFL.
LikeLike
Swarbrick *NOT* at B10 meetings today, confirmed:
From NBC Sports, linked:
“…courtesy of Brian Hardin, the Irish’s Director of Football Media Relations:
Hi John,
Thanks for the email. I think the 150 people that attended the graduation open house of Jack Swarbrick’s son today in Indianapolis would help me deny that Jack was in attendance at the Big Ten meetings today in Chicago. I hate to have to throw cold water on yet another “report” regarding Notre Dame and the Big Ten, but like many “reports” before this one, there isn’t any validity to it. Feel free to quote me on any of this.”
LikeLike
http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/06/irishs-swarbrick-at-big-ten-meetings-today—-not/
Link above confirms that Swarbrick was *NOT* at the meetings today…so…whomever at the AP let that one slip by…you’re fired.
LikeLike
Perhaps there was a confrence call, no pun intended 😉
LikeLike
After reading the link it appears I was not the only one who thought about a confrence call.
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Along the lines of thinking like a University President, and in the spirit of following the money, perhaps one of the more interesting questions on the table is “Why do they want a 12-18 month timetable?” Let’s eliminate the posturing, head fakes, etc. and take the Big Ten execs at their word. I run a pretty successful business, and if I had a property as successful as the Big Ten and its member universities, and if I was looking to expand, I’d guarantee you I’d be looking to take 12-18 months. Here’s why: think Notre Dame.
No, not recruiting Notre Dame, but the application of the biggest reason ND is relevant. It’s national. That’s right. Notre Dame is small, private, catholic, and in a state already owned by the Big Ten. If fact, it hasn’t been successful at its historic levels in decades, and generates a level of disdain that one might be inclined to avoid. So why not think “yuk”? Because – they’re too big to fail! A lot of people love to love ND, and others love to hate them, but everyone’s rooting at them.
If ND became ‘just a member of a regional conference’, that would suck for them. Once we start beating them with regularity, then what? They’d likely consider leaving because it wasn’t ‘working for them’, meaning they’d lost any differentiators. I don’t think it’s just autonomy but maybe relevance. Instead of just criticizing that posture, let’s understand it and apply it to our growth.
I believe the 12-18 month time frame is an effort to confab with the universe of 20-25 legitimate candidates out there, from Stanford out west, to Florida in the east; from Texas in the Southwest, to Carolina and Virginia in the South, to Notre Dame in the north, along with many others mentioned on multiple occasions. If outreach is occurring to the entire AAU member, state-dominant universities, true due diligence would take time. There’s a domino effect that needs to occur. Maybe that’s why ND and Texas were of ‘like-minds’; you get one, the next one’s easier to get. Maybe that’s why ND’s AD was at the meeting. Maybe that’s why Rutgers stubbornly remains so important; you’ve “gotta have New York”. Maybe Texas loves the idea but has too much baggage.
Our identity is not a bunch of Midwestern yokels. As is, the Big Ten/CIC is the most successful collection of academic and research universities in the country. Why not take that brand ‘national’, in the way Notre Dame has historically taken its brand national. Give me Stanford, Nebraska, Texas, Florida and Rutgers/Notre Dame/Carolina, etc. We’ll be on basic cable competing with ESPN all over the country making $50+ million per institution before the research contributions. Elevate the conversation. It’s not about corn, it’s about preeminence!! What university president from any other conference wouldn’t take that meeting to discuss such a thing? What executive wouldn’t invest the 12-18 months of due diligence to see if this is possible? We’re not doing this on the fly, like the Pac-10. We’re building a plan for the next fifty years. Got a better one?
LikeLike
I dont know if thats more pipe or more dreams. But you do dream big. The conference though already has its identity. They are not trying to bust something out. They ARE centered in the midwest, the Do have the CIC, they are ALL AAU and that much isnt changeing any time soon cause it works for them quiet well.
LikeLike
LOL. Of course it’s a pipe dream. What else are we supposed to do while they take their sweet time? Why not try to figure out what’s going on? It certain can’t be about kissing ND’s or Texas’ behind. It better not take this long just to settle on (insert unexciting name here)… Just trying to have some fun with it.
LikeLike
I love your ideas, but I think the Big Ten has enough good options to choose from even if ND says no this time.
Nebraska/Rutgers make the most sense from top to bottom in terms of academics/athletics and markets/brands, and then we have a tough choice of Pitt/Missouri/Syracuse.
I think Pitt makes the most sense because it’s a Big Ten university that just happens to be in the Big Ten footprint (is how I see it), but I could see Missouri getting the nod.
Not making a hard run at Maryland is malpractice even if they don’t come (UVA/UNC seem like they’re impossible to grab but at least worth talking to and then getting told no).
Dunno, I just think there’s a lot of strong choices in the neighborhood before we start getting to way bigger scenarios.
LikeLike
If Notre Dame isn’t in the running, the “dirty south” scenario of Vandy, UVa and UMd might make sense, with Nebraska and Rutgers substituting for A&M and Texas. (I’m beginning to think UVa, with its new Michigan-based president, could be the institution Alvarez was referring to as showing surprising interest, and we know about the Gee-Vandy connection.) The only way Missouri gets in is if the Big Ten gets cold feet about Vanderbilt.
LikeLike
“Nebraska and Missouri have been given an ultimatum by the Big 12 and told they have until this Friday to decide if they want to remain in the conference or entertain the possibility of joining the Big Ten,”
In an unrelated story maybe I tell a man holding a gun on me, are you gonna shoot or am I gonna have to kick your ass?” What footing does the Big12 have at this point to make such a request?
LikeLike
They don’t. Maybe they can figure out a way to visit higher financial penalties on Nebraska and Missouri without doing the same to themselves, a pretty neat trick if they pull it off.
LikeLike
“Maybe that’s why ND’s AD was at the meeting.”
But he wasn’t. I can see that this really touched a chord with some of you. But reality has to intrude at some point. He wasn’t there. He wasn’t on a conference call while at his kid’s graduation. I’m sure Swarbrick and Delany have talked, but the idea that Swarbrick was there haggling with all the Big Ten presidents and all that such a meeting would represent if it happened, didn’t happen. The needle hasn’t moved one inch on Notre Dame from where it has been, so far as anyone knows.
LikeLike
I’m glad he wasn’t there. The symbolism would have been inappropriate. That being said, I don’t think for a second that multiple such meetings with ND and others haven’t occurred outside of the public eye.
LikeLike
The problem all along with saying 12-18 months is that while the Big Ten is a private business in one sense, it is unusual in that this kind of decision is of interest to the public at large.
It’s not like a company trying to pick a plant site or a conference trying to place an event. Those things are of limited interest to the competing areas, even though that information might be public.
This thing affects multiple conferences on different levels all across the country. Millions of people care at least a little, based on how it affects their school, so there is a lot more attention paid.
Delany initially may have thought he could do this on his terms, but not anymore.
LikeLike
I really only had one question going into this that hasn’t really been answered. Why the 12-18 months? Is it just arrogance and an underestimation of others to undermine our position? I still think something more global than trying to pick off one time is afoot.
LikeLike
I believe Delany said yesterday something about how the evaluation process had started some time ago, six months maybe? And that events may have moved the timetable up, which common sense would indicate you can just drop “may” on that one.
LikeLike
@RedRaiderSports #TexasTech Chancellor Kent Hance: “We are connected with Texas and Texas A&M, and have been for quite some time.”
I guess that means neither Texas nor aTm can be poached without the other two.
LikeLike
Yeah, I think the UT/A&M scenarios are pretty much totally dead. UT has made a strong commitment to seeing Texas Tech through to becoming a top research university, and the Big Ten is only willing to invite candidates that are immediately CIC worthy.
There’s just no other way around this, so the Big Ten is probably just going to focus on Notre Dame and then Nebraska.
LikeLike
I wuoldn’t want 3 TX schools in the BT anyway. 2 is one more than is desireable…
LikeLike
More like wishful thinking!
LikeLike
I just had an evil, evil thought. In the Big XII-ageddon scenario with Nebraska to the Big Ten, doesn’t Missouri lose a lot of its value to the conference? Right now, Missouri is in a first-tier conference (read: has money) with strong recruiting connections to Texas. If both of those are taken away and the school struggled, wouldn’t a lot of “t-shirt” Missouri fans lean towards Iowa/Nebraska/Illinois, leaving their relatively small alumni base?
LikeLike
Basically, if Missouri were forced into a MWC level conference, wouldn’t Missouri become “Big Ten country” by default?
LikeLike
Yeah, but the Big Ten would probably seriously start talking to them.
If Texas is off the board as it seems to be due to the Tech problem, then the Big Ten is going to focus on Notre Dame and then Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers or something like that.
LikeLike
So I guess the whole thing about ND’s AD being at the meetings was incorrect. His son was having his graduation open house, so Swarbrick was not going to be at these meetings.
This is making me seriously question both the intent and the validity of those articles from Orangebloods. I found it hard to believe before that someone would spend that much time making all this up in order to pressure other schools or in order to get readers, but it seems he might be willing to stretch the truth or mix his speculation with facts (without indicating such) in order to get what he wants.
LikeLike
Ross, I may not be fully understanding what you’re saying here, but the original source citing Swarbrick’s attendance was the AP, not Orangebloods.
LikeLike
Is that true? The first report I saw concerning ND’s AD being in attendance was the Orangebloods’ writer. I know the AP had an article up as well that was mistaken, but I only saw that afterwards.
Regardless, the Orangebloods’ writer still seems to be walking a very fine line, and it wouldn’t surprise me if he’s doing it for a reason other than viewership.
LikeLike
Orangebloods’ speculation about Nebraska to the Big Ten seems to mostly be incorrect based on what we keep hearing about Osborne/Tressel, etc.
But on the Pac-10/Texas scoops, Orangebloods has been deadly accurate.
That tells me part of this is talking about real Texas scenarios, and the other part is getting Nebraska to commit to the Big 12 (after which Texas will decide to stay).
I still have to think that Orangebloods is doing what Texas/Pac-10 would want because it knows that Texas’ optimal scenario is LSN/Big 12…
LikeLike
Well, I was unclear in my first post. I think some of the facts reported by that writer have been correct and interesting to readers like us. However, I think he is also mixing in his own interpretation of what is happening, but he isn’t reporting that as his interpretation. I would have to go back and pick out some specific lines to be completely clear, but there were some things in there that I think are solely his attempts at achieving goals we can only guess at (getting Nebraska to feel uncomfortable with waiting on the Big Ten, maybe?).
LikeLike
I can attest that a lot of Nebraska fans are viewing it that way.
LikeLike
Seconded.
LikeLike
That Orangebloods guy is the Spinal Tap of bloggers. He seems to be relishing his moment in the spotlight to the point of embellishing to maintain it. Especially about Nebraska.
One of his tweet buddies even pulled a Dick Clark and called him…”the talk of the nation!”
Don’t get me wrong, I celebrate success and am happy whenever any hardworking person achieves it. Just don’t use it to manipulate the process.
Frank the Tank is doing it right.
LikeLike
Here is the link about ND AD not being at the BIG TEN meetings. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/06/06/irishs-swarbrick-at-big-ten-meetings-today—-not/
Wasn’t sure if anyone posted it yet.
LikeLike
The writer is not your basic blogger… he worked for the AP and the Dallas Morning News for more than 20 years.
I’m sure he got the story right. The reason we know this is that the Pac 10 did not say there’s nothing to it, and the league has since given the commissioner the go-ahead to pursue expansion.
LikeLike
Nothing today changed what has been the case for over a month. ND was interested in Big 10, Alumns voiced displeasure and ND backed off. Nothing has changed, ND still a non-starter for Big 10.
Could folks in Texas be trying to plant info to scare Nebraska. Maybe, but it would be a pretty lame effort to think any rumor would actually cause a University to make a major change like switch conferences.
Bottom line is that expansion is still driven by:
1- Big 10 wants to add geography
2- Big 12 North schools want separation from the South schools, but some also put higher preference on being in ANY BCS conference that will have them.
3- Pac-10 wants conf champ game and own network for the $$
4- SEC would only expand if others do, cause size DOES matter says Slive.
5- ND can’t get over the past.
6- Texas can’t get over themselves, and the Legislature feels pretty self important
7- Delaney, Dobbs, Scott and Orangebloods/Texas bloggers-tweeters LOVE the spotlight
8- the National media is a joke
9- the blog is awesome, as are all the comments, except perhaps this one.
10- entire Big 12 North plus best of MWC, Boise, Louisville, Memphis, and Az schools is the next super conference rumor to circulate, starting……NOW! OK, maybe just 1-9 are relevant.
LikeLike
Great post, +1
The only thing I would change is that this has been happening with the ND students and alums for a decade now.
LikeLike
Nice summary.
I still am a bit skeptical about this Pac-16 scenario rolling over smoothly, but I do see the Big Ten possibly putting it into action after Notre Dame officially says no for 2010 expansion talks (and then we get to wait until 2015 ND expansion talks…).
Whether or not we get any resolution any time soon depends on when ND plans to tell the Big Ten no.
I think Swarbrick is just covering his bases, making sure the Big Ten won’t go to 16 without ND. I think the Big Ten should just tell him we’ll stay at 14 (for 2 years) if he doesn’t want to sign on now…
LikeLike
The ESPN scroll is reporting the PAC16 rumor, the ultimatum rumor, then also says WHB radio is reporting that Nebraska and Mizzou have received B10 invites. The WHB web site top story is linked below, and specifically states that no invite has been extended. Go ESPN journalism!
http://www.810whb.com/article/3722
LikeLike
OK. Just came back from a family outing. It was at 263 when I left. I guess there will be a lot to cachup on tomorrow. You guys have been busy I see. were close to 800 posts now.
LikeLike
Been gone all day and just catching up.
Only one thing to add: I sense that a number of posters believe that trying to force the Pac 10 to accept Baylor at the expense of Colorado is being done to appease the University of Texas.
My sense is that UT wants nothing to do with Baylor but is being forced by the Legislature to bring the Bears along.
End result would be the same for the Pac 10, of course.
LikeLike
I generally liken the University of Texas to the girl you might like to marry, but then have to put up with her bat-shit crazy extended family. In the end, it may be worth going with the backup unless she can sever ties with the fam…
LikeLike
Don’t you also think though (as I’ve speculated a bit above), that Baylor makes sense for the Pac-10 if it really wants to lock down Texas and doesn’t think Colorado’s market moves the dial much beyond the huge impact of Texas.
Even if Baylor’s political prowess is the weakest of the 4 (say 10% of the legislature), connect that 10% to TTech and you have much stronger gravitational pull on Texas.
I’d have to believe that Texas would prefer Colorado over Baylor for the extra market/TVs that would come into the footprint.
I think it’s the Pac-10 that floated the Baylor option as a way of making the Texas -> Pac-10 idea solidify as the best option.
Anyways, as it all comes down now, I think Texas to the Big Ten is all but dead. Texas has made every indication that it sees Tech as a valuable partner that could someday become a 3rd prominent public university in Texas. I don’t really see Texas wanting to give that up to join the Big Ten with just A&M.
Gee might have called it a Tech problem, but I’m not sure Texas sees it that way. If you’re Texas then you’d prefer to have Tech as a strong and viable 3rd public university. If the Big Ten won’t help do that, then the Big Ten doesn’t make sense even if it is the optimal choice for Texas alone…
LikeLike
Baylor makes sense for the Pac-10 if it really wants to lock down Texas
If Texas (the state) isn’t locked down without UT, A&M AND Tech, I really don’t think Baylor will push it over the finish line. 🙂
I think it’s the Pac-10 that floated the Baylor option as a way of making the Texas -> Pac-10 idea solidify as the best option.
No, I sincerely think this is 100% coming from the Legislature. Remember we didn’t want them tagging along in 1994 either.
I’m about to start drafting my BON piece on this issue — has there been any certainty that Baylor has in fact replaced CU (per the NYT tweet) or is it still ambiguous as we write late Sunday night.
LikeLike
OK, I think I misread your floating from the Pac 10 idea. Are you suggesting that the Pac 10 floated the idea, knowing that this would rally BU supporters, shackling Texas even more to the Pac 10?
LikeLike
Yes. Where I said Texas, I meant UT (not Texas markets; that’s done with Texas/A&M alone, even TTech doesn’t seem to move the dial much based on what some of you guys have said about it not having much of the casual “t-shirt” fans in Texas.
LikeLike
Also, the Pac-10 floated that idea around the same time though of Texas + 5 with Colorado or Baylor; right at the meetings as well this weekend. They knew the political issues would start coming up on Tech before and then wanted Baylor for backup it would seem.
LikeLike
The fact that Baylor is being mentioned at all speaks volumes. The one on the outs is the flagship university of a state other than Texas. There are no Texas schools dropping off the list.
LikeLike
Yeah but this is all about Texas.
As long as Texas is there, the other 5 don’t matter.
It could be Texas/Iowa State/Kansas/KState/Missouri for all the Pac-10 would care.
If putting Baylor in for Colorado increases the likelihood of getting UT, then that’s what’s happening.
LikeLike
Hopkins – I have a REAL hard time believing this Baylor stuff is being soley driven by 15 right-wing legislators and I work in Louisiana politics.
UTx must either support cutting Colorado loose from the Pac 10 deal, or Baylor is the poison pill to keep the Big XII together, as I discussed in the last thread.
Otherwise, the play is for the Pac 10 to call this Baylor bluff and invite only the three state schools. Ann Richards ain’t the governor anymore. If the Big XII is no longer viable, the state of Texas is not going to force three state schools into a bad situation just to stick with a private school, and it doesn’t matter how many Baptists there are in the state of Texas.
LikeLike
Maybe it’s the first, that UT supports cutting Colorado loose. Doesn’t make sense from a demographic standpoint, but maybe it does to Texas. They may lay some of what they consider their burdens at the door of the North/South divisions, and think they will avoid any more problems there by simply cutting any North representative out.
LikeLike
California has four teams, therefore Texas deserves four teams. Keeps things balanced. it might be as simple as that.
LikeLike
If they’re seriously looking that hard at symmetry, perhaps they should offer your Rice instead of Baylor, Loki.
Rice is closer to Stanford than Baylor is, after all. 😉
LikeLike
“California has four teams, therefore Texas deserves four teams. Keeps things balanced. it might be as simple as that.”
Good point. And if you look at it from a voting bloc point of view, who is the greater risk to get co-opted by the left coast and maybe not such a reliable member of your bloc, Baylor or Colorado? Colorado has long wanted to be associated with the Pac 10.
LikeLike
Also:
Gee might have called it a Tech problem, but I’m not sure Texas sees it that way.
I think Texas would see it that way. I know we’ve had the discussions before, and not to rehash, but I am still of the mindset that wanting Tech to rise up as an academic school doesn’t necessarily equate having to tether yourself to that school athletically. The difference between the treatment of Tech and Baylor is that, I am guessing, Texas figured out pretty quickly that Tech would be tied to them in this process, while Baylor appeared expendable.
LikeLike
Interesting that you see it that way. I suppose the optimal solution for Texas would be to get Texas/A&M/Tech into the Big Ten even though that seems to be a non-starter.
LikeLike
That could be an optimal solution from an athletics or political standpoint, but I wouldn’t view UT’s “support” of Tech altruistically.
LikeLike
@Hopkins
If all the politicians would just go away, who would be your choices for the Pac10+6?
LikeLike
Factoring in realistic constraints of geography and availability?
Texas
Texas A&M
Kansas
Nebraska
Colorado
Oklahoma (reluctantly, keep your friends close…)
LikeLike
Basically, the flagship universities of the Big XII, minus that cheating whore from Columbia.
LikeLike
That is the home run list.
LikeLike
In reality though, if that was the proposed group, wouldn’t the Big Ten easily be able to counteroffer with Texas/A&M/Nebraska/Missouri and perhaps Colorado or Kansas as the 5th…
Adding Tech and proposing Baylor along with solving the OU/OSU political issues seems to have been a masterstroke.
LikeLike
I’m surprised that there has been no discussion of Neb to the Pac 10……leads me to believe that there HAVE been private assurances to Neb from the BT…..
LikeLike
Given Texas is gone to the PAC10 and ND is like that hot but crazy girlfriend you once were high on.
Texas (gone)
Notre Dame *
Nebraska (Definitely)
Missouri
Rutgers
Maryland
Syracuse
Pitt
Virginia
Colorado
LikeLike
I know that “Arkansas to Big XII” is one of the auto-ignore suggestions, but here it is:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/7039896.html
“Two insiders said that if the Big 12 loses Missouri, the conference will make a run at Arkansas.”
Remember, Oklahoma State and Baylor to the Pac-10 would have been laughable just a few days ago.
LikeLike
Yeah but the Pac-10 is taking massive money bribes in order to take OSU/Tech/Baylor.
Arkansas would take less money to go to the Big 12?
As long as the money is increasing (i.e. it gets Texas), it seems as if the Pac-10 will do anything.
But Arkansas isn’t leaving the SEC (most stable conference other than Big Ten) for the Big 12 (where Nebraska could get poached any month and wreck their TV contract).
That thing is premised on the Big Ten taking Missouri and staying at 12. That thought isn’t worth talking about.
We all know that there’s only 3 schools for which the Big Ten would contemplate staying at 12: Texas, Notre Dame, Nebraska. Missouri works best with Nebraska and Rutgers…
LikeLike
I can’t believe we’re seriously talking about Baylor to the PAC 10, but I’m starting to get worried. We haven’t heard a damn thing out of CU today. They’re either supremely confident, or worried as !@#!@. The funny thing is the rumor is that CU has done a lot of work to put the deal together. Unfortunately I think our admin was completely unprepared for the bat-shit craziness of Texans. In what realistic world does a private religious school with 5000 students replace Colorado? It would be nice to hear anything from a source other than Texas on any of this crap. I think Baylor may be 50/50 now unless one of the schools…I’m looking at you Stanford and Cal…takes as stand here.
LikeLike
Bohn should really be in scramble mode right now. I know everyone assumes the North teams that don’t go to the Pac or Big Tens are headed for the MWC, but what Keitzman talked about, going east for schools like Memphis, Louisville, etc., really isn’t a terrible option.
LikeLike
SuperD, if you saw what I wrote above; Baylor instead of Colorado actually increases the likelihood that the Pac-10 gets Texas.
The thing is, the Pac-10 doesn’t really care that much what the other schools are as long as they get Texas (and A&M).
By combining the legislative heft of Baylor (admittedly not very large perhaps 10%) to Tech (much stronger), you get an invite that’s sure to be better than any offer the Big Ten/SEC can make from any objective observer’s eyes.
Texas gets 1/4th of the conference in Texas and another 1/8th in Oklahoma for ease of travel; and the public sentiment towards the bid (i.e. politics/media and all that) would coalesce behind the bid.
I’m not saying that Baylor is a better fit. I’m saying that Baylor makes more sense for the Pac-10 to make sure that no one can make Texas a counteroffer that would work politically, etc.
LikeLike
D–I think most of us agree that CU is a better fit for the Pac 10 than the BT….IF CU DID get left out of the 6 team PAC 10 expansion, how “happy” would most CUers be with a Big 10 invite—for the long term?
LikeLike
Lets put it this way…there have been a lot of posts saying people would prefer to give up athletics then play in the MWC. If we got a Big 10 lifeboat plus the chance to keep playing NE every year CU would jump at it.
LikeLike
Well, just got back from an amazing marriage conference (FamilyLife.com…if you’re a Christian and married, it’s well worth the money)…no laptop or cell phone for a weekend.
Needless to say, lots of reading to do tonight! Wow.
I’m reading so much “Texas to the Big 10 is dead” stuff…all because of this legislature pressure.
To me, this sounds more like the PERFECT setup for Texas to get OUT of the Big 12 and to the Big 10. Right now, this whole “Texas block” story is being blown up everywhere. When it falls through (either because the PAC10 wakes up with a hangover on Monday morning and says BAYLOR OKIES and RED RAIDERS?!?! WHAT?!?!? or because the parties can’t come to an agreement in such a monumental realignment), then every school in Texas (particularly UT and aTm) can say, “We tried.”
Simultaneously, it’s leaked by the Big 10 that Texas is interested in the Big 10…except for its political ties? Doesn’t this strike anyone as strange?
Don’t be a pawn. Frank has taught us from the beginning–think outside of what the mainstream is feeding you.
Even after 2,000 new posts to read through in one weekend, I’m still solid.
Big 16=11+Texas, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Nebraska, and A/M (the only one I’m starting to waver on).
LikeLike
Texas isn’t going ANYWHERE if there is any chance whatsoever that Texas Tech might get leftout of a major conference. The Texas state politicians will see to that since Texas Tech is a state funded school. Now it seems that they are trying to include Baylor into that requirement as well (although we’ll see how much support Baylor truely has in the state political scene being a private school). But there isn’t a snowballs chance of Texas going to the Big 10 unless Texas Tech goes with them, and I very seriously doubt that the Big 10 would take Tech.
LikeLike
If you look at the wording of Delany/MSU’s prez’s statements yesterday, they made it fairly clear that Tech isn’t going to get an invite, and that they think it’s going to be up to schools and not conferences are going to make the decision (for Nebraska).
They pretty much stated that the school has to be able to fit into the Big Ten in terms of academics (and implied graduate research as a part of that) from day 1.
LikeLike
Having slept on this, I’d like to point out another thing that at first seemed trivial from what the Big Ten said yesterday. At this point I don’t assume much is said that doesn’t have some message behind it.
The Big Ten presidents can vote on this on their Blackberries, or whatever it is they carry around to be connected. Seems inconsequential, but what it does say is don’t expect that you’re going to be able to pull off some last minute histrionics or horsetrading. There isn’t going to be time for that, no two-minute warning. When you hear Delany has called a PC, it’s game over, so if you’re still interested, holdouts, you might want to think of getting your best offer on the table very soon.
LikeLike
“Big 16=11+Texas, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Nebraska, and A/M (the only one I’m starting to waver on).”
Well, no. Despite what you may have been told, Texas is not one of conjoined twins, they’re one of conjoined quadruplets. That’s not happening for the Big Ten. I’d have to think pretty far outside what the mainstream is feeding me to think Kent Hance twittering up his success tying Tech to any Texas move isn’t the absolute truth, or that Texas politicians backing three other schools have all decided to take part in scaring Nebraska back into the Texas orbit, and they really have no influence on the process. There is history that tells me otherwise.
LikeLike
That Kent Hance tweet is exactly the reason why Texas to the Big Ten is 100% dead right now.
He wouldn’t be bragging about that if it wasn’t a complete reality as of now.
LikeLike
What if A&M and OU go to the SEC? Would the legislators force TX to go P16 in a division with Tx Tech, Baylor, Utah, Col, OK St, AZ and AZ St??
That would be a different division than the current offer on the table. Would UT be able to say sorry, we tried, but let us go our own way?
LikeLike
They’d still have Tech and Baylor to bring along. Only two homes for that, Pac 10 or remaining Big 12.
LikeLike
Mornin’ lads.
Real quick, I’d like to tell everyone thanks for obsessing over this. I’ve been reading this site for the past three days, and the insight you guys (and lasses) have offered is greatly appreciated, especially since I’m a U-Dub (University of Washington) guy.
Now, I didn’t decide to post just because I wanted to blow smoke up your asses. No, instead I was wondering if any of you have seen this:
http://blogs.mcall.com/nittany_lines/2010/06/big-ten-reportedly-offers-nebraska-missouri-rutgers-notre-dame.html
I’ll include a snippet:
“A Kansas City radio station is reporting that the Big Ten Conference has offered membership to Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers and Notre Dame.”
I haven’t been able to find any other sources to confirm, but it is only 0400 here in Cali.
So, what do you think?
Again, thanks for keeping me updated and good luck next season.
LikeLike
Bah, my apologies. It’s just the original rumor repackaged as something new.
LikeLike
article in the Idaho Statesman that the Boise State invitation to the Mountain West that was expected today may be on hold.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/06/07/1221042/twists-turns.html
specifically discusses the possibility of various Big 12 North teams becoming available instead.
LikeLike
Kind of sad that Boise would work so hard for years and at the last minute see their future snatched away by the likes of Iowa State.
LikeLike
yes but there could be a lot of undeserving losers as this shakes out. Boise really has no choice but to continue to work hard on its brand and create value. eventually it will pay off. they have no other option.
LikeLike
of all the news out there, THIS one is really significant. The MWC could end up as a power conference when this is all said and done.
Personally I’ve said, that a new conference could end up out of the remains of the Big 12, and the best of the MWC, and WAC conferences.
a Conference of these teams looks pretty good to me:
Plains/east:
Kansas State
Kansas
Colorado
Colorado State
Wyoming
TCU
Houston
Baylor
Air Force
Mountains/west
Utah
BYU
New Mexico
Boise State
UNLV
Nevada-Reno
Fresno St
San Diego St.
Iowa St or Hawaii or UTEP
LikeLike
adding
LikeLike
Yahoo Sports has been hitting the cover off the ball, lately:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AqH0ug8C9lNNaMkIdQtqBDA5nYcB?slug=dw-expansion060610
Also, for some laughs, follow @Pac16Conference, @DanBeebe & @FakeJimDelany on twitter.
LikeLike
good read
LikeLike
I dont know about the rest of the conferences but I truly do not believe that Big 10 presidents will do whatever Delaney tells them to do despite this articles assertion.
LikeLike
Everyone, please sit down and remain calm…This thing is a huge smokescreen and here’s why:
1. Pac 10 will NEVER get a unanimous vote for the Big 12 South. Just won’t happen. But talk about it all you want.
2. Big 10 is still in charge of this thing with the $$$$ they have from BTN.
3. Notre Dame needed a fire lit under it’s ass.
Does anyone here think that Delaney ISN’T pulling all the strings in this marionette show? Scott is his pupil and will do whatever is necessary to get the Big 10 moving. Texas wants something to give in Texas so it can force a decision and the law makers to figure it out and has probably told Delaney that, regardless of where Texas wants to end up – Pac 10, Big 10, or cannibalized Big 12.
This is creative subterfuge to get Notre Dame to the Big 10 table and get “Texas” (Collectively – The Tex Mess of Schools) to do whatever Texas is going to do.
LikeLike
LOL… The Texas Mess. Outstanding.
LikeLike
Well, a lot of “never will” stuff is and has happened already.
But yes, the ‘+ND to 12 and almost everything stops’ option is very real. That would please TX and ND, but it will almost certainly also produce a playoff. Wetzel can be an idiot (his playoff plan will never fly because it needlessly excludes the bowls) but he’s correct, the playoff payoff is so big that it is inevitable.
Delany trying to go to 16 is not just about BTN money, but final positioning. Get to 16 now, narrow it down to 6 surviving BCS conferences or 5 16-school super conferences. Fewer negotiating conferences with TV contracts means an easier captured bigger percentage of the pie for his conference. Create a basic cutoff of the haves and have nots, with greater $ differentiation, somewhere between 72-84 teams. Counter the increasing political fallout by then offering a playoff (incorporating the bowls) as the trade off.
But ND recognizes that plan will force them into a conference or face much higher hurdles for inclusion, or at minimum more riskier payouts. So if they are going to have to join, join at 12 and maximize their cut and scheduling flexibility. Similar end result of 6 or 7 conferences of 72-84 teams creating $ separation and a playoff (bowl-based.) Delany may not want it at 12, but this time TX and the B12 will be on board with the SEC, ACC, BEast, and MWC. ND may insist on B10+2 agreeing as part of the price for their joining.
TX will now be on board because if they stay in the B12, they get their LSN in some form. There would still be the creation of joint P12-B12 TV channel, just with the LSN factored in (not totally separate.) Some minor shifting with CO to the P12 and maybe even aTm escaping to the SEC in a trade. The latter is a long shot, but if the P12-B12 network (which would trigger immediate renegotiation of the B12’s ESPN contract) could result in $ approaching the SEC’s, then AR might move after all.
Much more is on the table than some would wish to believe. Too soon to say if we’ll end up with a (primarily or completely) 16-school or 12-school format for whatever replaces the BCS.
LikeLike
with respect, disagree on several points.
Swarbrick said awhile ago that unlocking ND required “seismic shift” (IIRC his words). I think “seismic shift” is still required to unlock ND.
So, ND joining the B10 at team #12 and then insisting that the B10/12 stop expanding — no, just don’t think that’s an accurate assessment of where ND is.
I think this is particularly true if you are also assuming that the BXII remains viable and in existence. “Seismic shift” might mean the demise of the BXII, but I suspect that Swarbrick was thinking about the death of the Big East.
In any event, if no conferences actually die, I don’t think such is “seismic shift.”
Second, I think you under estimate the resistance of the Rose Bowl Conferences to a play-off. The alleged money from a playoff is tiny compared to the money being discussed now in relation to cable networks, tv rights, cable alliances, etc. There is just no need for a playoff. Unlike B-ball, the money is made during the regular season particularly for the schools with 75,000+ stadiums (such as ND).
So, third, not at all convinced that ND cares about the potential for a playoff.
Finally, IMHO, the Pac10 play for Texas+5 is real. Long term, the P10 is not going to remain a premier conference unless it expands its tv markets and gets into the mountain and central time zones. Certainly, the P10 falls behind the SEC if they cannot expand. And geography is a serious limitation.
The B10 can wait around for expansion since there are so many options. Not true for the P10.
in any event, a few of my thoughts for the morning.
LikeLike
From the Big Ten’s (and other major conference’s) perspective, while they playoff payoff might be larger in an absolute sense, less of it would go to them. In effect they would be adding games to their teams schedules and then giving that money over to the NCAA as a whole. If they were going to add games, they would do it to the regular season and keep the money in-house as it were.
LikeLike
@Frank,
What about creating a separate thread for only links to new articles and twitters, while continuing the threads for discussion and analysis?
With so much volume, it is becoming very difficult to quickly pick out new info and very time consuming to keep up. For the first time I’m going to other sites to get a morning update. I’m afraid there are many others who just don’t have the time to wade through 500+ posts since they last checked in.
Just a suggestion.
LikeLike
Alright, I’ve slept on this, and combining everything we’ve talked about the past week and learned in the past 24-48-72 hours. I think there’s one way that this all plays out in terms of how Delany wants this all to play out.
Clearly #1: All the pressure is on Notre Dame to sign on first and help direct the bus to 16. I don’t buy this 12 and stop on ND as FLP_NDRox has stated, it just doesn’t make sense for ND to agree to a deal they’ve rejected numerous times.
#2: Texas/A&M may be free to move to a conference where there’s only 2 spots open (if 3 then Tech has to come, if 4 then Baylor seems as if it will be included to satisfy politicos).
#3: Big Ten seems to have Nebraska (and possibly Missouri) feeling confident that it will open talks with them immediately after dealing with ND.
So where does this bring us?
First, Delany needs to seal the deal with ND. He can promise them that they’ll help drive the bus to 16 and set up the pod system (more on that later), and give them some kind of reassurances on culture/institutional fit. But one thing is for certain, he will tell them that we are going to 16 with ND and that the BCS system will change in 2014. Thus, ND may feel it needs to sign on now…
If ND does sign on (or even if it doesn’t), the Big Ten opens up talks with Nebraska/Missouri. The Big Ten is likely to sign both on within a week of signing on Notre Dame. This brings the Big Ten to 14. I see no troubles or reason why Nebraska/Missouri can’t get done within a day of ND.
Finally, the Big Ten goes to Texas/A&M and says, we have two spots left. Do you want them? Texas/A&M will say; well I have no idea. Perhaps they’ll feel that they can jump if there’s no spot left. The genius of the Pac-10’s move has been that it was a “Texas + 5” and so politicos/etc. made it clear that the Texas Four were going anywhere together and the Pac-10 obliged to increase its hold on Texas.
So that’s how I think Delany wants it to shake out. The fact that the Big Ten is going to be voting on this through emails etc. tells me that Delany’s office is in total control; i.e. that Penn State wanting an eastern expansion may be entirely brushed aside because there will be no more presidential discussions on the topic.
Thus, Round 1 (within 2 months) is ND. Round 2 (within days of Round 1) is Nebraska/Missouri. Round 3 (within weeks of Round 2) is Texas/A&M.
Note that if Texas/A&M reject this, the Big Ten would then open talks with Rutgers/Maryland or Rutgers/Syracuse or Rutgers/Pitt as the Round 3 alternates.
I think this is how Delany wants this to all play out.
LikeLike
Note, this is the final play for Texas that I foresee occurring. I don’t see any real alternative other than to go to 14, and then allow Texas to tell the politicos, “well there’s only two spots open, we have to take them” (if they want them; I’ll let Hopkins Horn or someone with more knowledge of how Texas thinks to determine that). I’d imagine that Delany has indicated to Texas (Dodds), that this is how it’s going to work out.
Here are the pods for people who care:
North
Michigan
Michigan St.
Illinois
Northwestern
West
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
South
Texas
A&M
Notre Dame
Missouri
East
Ohio St.
Penn St.
Indiana
Purdue
Guaranteed rivalries can be worked out (ND-Michigan, OSU-Michigan, Texas-Nebraska).
I really don’t see any other scenario under which Texas can join at this point…
LikeLike
I think you need Michigan and Ohio State in the same division or pod, with Michigan State. if Michigan winds up with the pod schedule plus TWO guaranteed games it restricts our scheduling too much.
Sparty can keep its guaranteed game with Penn State so the Land Grant Trophy can live on.
LikeLike
Sparty cares more about ND than PSU. Much, much longer history there. MSU and ND stuck together when some of the B10 looked down upon both of them (looking at you UM). ND would, I think, want both UM and MSU and would sacrifice Purdue if it had to put one of their games off the annual rotation. Just a hunch.
LikeLike
agreed JJ. I just wanted to tease Sparty about the Land Grant Trophy again 🙂
LikeLike
Truth. ND would sacrifice Purdue for the Michigans.
LikeLike
that is the ugliest damn thing ever. george p, i think, made it himself. seriously.
LikeLike
I think it can be worked out somehow.
Perhaps switch Ohio State and Northwestern.
Either way, the shakeout of rounds is really what my post are about.
I’m fairly firm on the belief that ND has to sign on first for this to go how Delany wants it to…
If ND doesn’t, then we go to Neb/Mizz and Texas/A&M and figure out what to do there or if anything can be done.
LikeLike
I’m not so sure even Delany can untangle the knot that is Texas politics. You don’t hear it so much from the Texas people anymore, but not so long ago they were talking on this blog about how Air Force and New Mexico could replace Nebraska and Missouri. Now it seems the Big 12 can’t balance the checkbook without our little old state of 1.5 million people. But if Texas is truly bluffing about the Pac 10, they (and their politicians) may have backed themselves into a corner where they have no choice but to find replacements for Big 12 losses.
LikeLike
I don’t think he has to.
He’s going to focus on ND/Neb/Mizz first and then offer the final 2.
If Texas says no, well then we’ve got 2 eastern candidates waiting in the wings (out of Rutgers/Pitt/Syracuse and a run at Maryland).
I don’t think Delany wants to play politics with Texas. He wants to give an ultimatum/final offer.
LikeLike
Which doesn’t really change what I proposed. Delany can give an ultimatum to Texas, they may be powerless to accept it, leaving only two options, converting a bluff to reality in the Pac 10 or backfilling the Big 12. The pressure has to be enormous to take the Pac 10 deal, even if it isn’t what UT really wants.
LikeLike
I suppose, but Texas could at least say “at least we got A&M included” as opposed to the 90s where A&M had to be rushed into negotiations at the last second…
LikeLike
But remember what one of the pols said (paraphrasing), if we’re “exporting a commodity” they’ve got to take it all? Politicians generally don’t make those kind of pronouncements unless they’re pretty sure they can back it up. You can suffer a lot of blowback in a hurry if you can’t deliver. Getting only A&M included isn’t going to be enough, just like the last edition of ring around the rosy. If the Pac 10 deal doesn’t work out, because Texas or an important ally didn’t really want it to, or somebody important in the Pac 10 gets cold feet, Texas is down to the Big 12 or independence, the latter not highly likely.
LikeLike
Or, the SEC, which seems to be the nightmare scenario for Texas in many ways.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t be so sure that Texas/A&M couldn’t jump if there were clearly only 2 slots open and the Big Ten was at 14.
We’re doing the opposite of the Pac-10’s bag everything approach or “Texas + 5” to solve political considerations.
If you go to 14 and then offer slots, Texas/A&M can legitimately tell the Texas legislature that the Big Ten offered a better deal for them.
Perhaps they’d burn down some bridges, which may be a reason they turn down the Big Ten, and the Big Ten goes to Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse/Pitt./whoever, but the Big Ten does not under any circumstance want to approach Texas with 3 slots open.
If the Big Ten is at 13 and offers 2 slots to Texas/A&M, then you get the Tech bandwagon etc. So the Big Ten will go to 14 and lock in that there’s only 2 slots before we put a 20 years moratorium on expansion in place.
LikeLike
zeek, spot on. that was the best analysis I have seen from you or anyone else this whole weekend. That is how it is going to go imo.
LikeLike
Re “one way out” (Zeek)
So what happened to all your plans to target UMD, UVA, John Hopkins and so on?
“round one is within 2 months”: so Nebraska and Missouri get no offer until ND makes up its mind?
So if ND is STILL target one, is ND’s preference Missouri or points east?
If Texas is STILL in play, how does Missouri or Nebraska fit in? If Texas wanted those schools, wouldn’t they have been included in Pac 10 offer?
LikeLike
All those plans are backups.
This plan what I envision Delany’s plan to be.
Note that often I’ve stated that Delany still has his eyes entirely on the two biggest prizes “Texas/ND”, but that the Big Ten should look east if they don’t work out.
This plan supposes that ND signs on as a way of getting to Texas.
Just as the Pac-10 has unveiled it’s final offer of “Texas + 5”, the Big Ten is going to go the opposite route of narrowing the slots down to 2 open in a Big Ten (14).
Missouri is a gap filler just as Rutgers is.
This is about Delany wanting the prizes (Texas/ND and of course Nebraska which is the easiest to grab).
ND’s preference is Texas. ND’s preference is whatever gets Texas/A&M into the same conference so it has a guaranteed game in Texas every year (versus either A&M/Texas or they work out neutral sites).
The reason why those schools are in play is that we will not make the same offer to Texas that the Pac-10 did.
We will not offer 3 open slots. Why? Because then Tech gets forced into the scenario. No one in the Big Ten will vote for Tech.
So here’s how it works.
Sign ND first. Make ND realize that we’re going for Texas (16). This leaves the Big 12 alone while you get one of the biggest prizes, so everything appears to still be stable (lol) as it is now.
Then you sign Nebraska/Missouri. Note that Missouri is there solely to appeal to Texas in a (Texas/A&M/Missouri/ND) pod for regionality because it is sort of the university between Texas/A&M and ND.
Then you go to Texas and say “well we only have 2 slots open, take them or leave them.”
If they say no, then you go for Maryland/Rutgers (and JHU of course for CIC, my favorite play); Pitt or Syracuse as backup.
Either way, the Big Ten has a solid scenario that would work out, but it requires selling ND on the whole 16 team expansion.
LikeLike
“Note that Missouri is there solely to appeal to Texas”.
I’ve never seen anything to make me believe that Texas cares one bit about Missouri.
LikeLike
Would it satisfy you if I put it the other way that I intended; Missouri is there to ensure that Tech isn’t forced onto the Big Ten.
LikeLike
If they’re just filling slots to keep out TT I would think they go east to placate PSU. That makes Neb/Rutgers or Neb/Pitt much more likely than Neb/Missouri.
LikeLike
No.
Note that the most fascinating news yesterday (other than the mysterious Swarbrick incident), was that the Big Ten can vote electronically.
What does that mean? It means that the Big Ten is likely to expand before the next Council of Ten meetings.
Thus, Delany is fully in control of this process and will have electronic votes in the next months.
This is not going to be about satisfying PSU.
This is going to be about satisfying ND and Texas/A&M.
The best way to do that is a pod of Texas/A&M/Missouri/ND.
Look at the big picture; that’s the best expansion scenario for which Texas/A&M would come.
Rutgers is your round three backup.
i.e. ND -> Neb/Mizz -> Texas/A&M (Texas/A&M/Mizz/ND pod for regionality for Texas/A&M, and guarantee ND a game in Texas every year).
Backup is ND -> Neb/Mizz -> Rutgers/Pitt or Rutgers/Syracuse or Rutgers/Maryland.
That’s what Delany wants. He’s in charge now with the electronic voting situation…
LikeLike
Re “one way out” (Zeek)
Still don’t understand what happens to deadline Nebraska and Missouri face while Big 10 is still talking to ND?
And meanwhile Nebraska’s fate hangs in the wind while the Big 10 keeps talking to ND.
And doesn’t the deadline trigger The Texas 6 going to Pac 10?
And if ND, Missouri, and Nebraka then sign on, Texas can still say no thanks. Yet if supposed key for ND is Texas, then maybe ND isn’t signing on without assurance Texas is coming.
But your “strategy” appears to rest on Texas/A&M being offered final positions where Tech is not an option, so your strategy locks the Big 10 into Missouri and Nebraska and locks ND into Big 10?
And if Texas is out, then maybe ND prefers other schools than another midwest state school?
And the “strategy” is the Big 10 resolves the Tech problem by eliminating the option while the Pac 10 offer is on the table and has apparently been accepted subject only to Nebraska agreeing to stay in Big 12.
And even if Texas says yes, then the Pac 6 option is going to create an unknown political situation in Texas that could delay or torpedo process.
So if Texas is out, then Missouri as school 14 may restrict option to reach out to UMD, UVA and so on as backup.
And didn’t Texas just select its preferred regional partners with the Pac 10 offer which they presumably negotiated on.
Your “one way out” seems to have a lot of assumptions.
LikeLike
Of course. Let’s fill in the details then.
First, the Big Ten will tell Nebraska something along the lines of having it commit privately to the Big 12, which it could do if it knew that its offer was contingent on ND. That way it wouldn’t be lying to anyone because it has no firm offer.
We’ll know if/when ND signs on in order to drive the bus as #12. The Big Ten is likely to publicly announce that and privately send a feeler out to Texas/A&M to gauge whether they’d drop the Pac-10 scenario.
Nebraska seems guaranteed to be #13 regardless of the expansion scenario. Missouri would be #14 if Texas/A&M have hinted that the Big Ten signing Notre Dame makes it likely that they’ll come if the Tech problem is solved (i.e. Slot #14 = gone).
If Texas/A&M say no right when Notre Dame is added, then things probably change.
You take Nebraska on as #13 anyways and then talk to ND and Nebraska about what 14-16 will be.
I mean you’re right that I didn’t spell out all of the various scenarios.
But, the scenario I spelled out is the one I see as being the solution to the Tech problem (i.e. close off slot #14). If Texas indicates it won’t join regardless before slot #14 is closed, then you go another route and take slots #14-16 to the east if you don’t want Missouri.
Obviously, the timeline I have may be too fast forwarded if Texas indicates that it has no interest when Notre Dame is invited…; then you invite Nebraska and let the chips fall where they may.
Either way Nebraska is Arkansas.
LikeLike
One other thing, I don’t think this is likely at all. I just think it’s what Delany is trying to do.
The Pac-10 seems to have created the best Texas offer out there, so Delany is likely to go for ND -> Nebraska -> 3 more optimal choices, but I don’t know what those 3 would look like…
LikeLike
If ND is helping to drive the bus, then one question is why Missouri? Does MO entice TX/TAMU more than ND getting to play in NYC as part of the Big 10? In this plan, I think RU plays a key role of not so much getting PSU on board as making ND comfortable with a schedule that is more national.
LikeLike
Re “I don’t think this is likely at all” (Zeek)
Thanks for clarification
LikeLike
michaelC
I think that it helps you set up pods, whereas Rutgers doesn’t.
A Texas/A&M/Mizz/ND pod works well to satisfy by ND and Texas; Rutgers wouldn’t because Texas/A&M may not be interested in that travel every other year…
@ c
It’s unlikely because Texas probably wants the new SWC solution that the Pac-10 has proposed.
It’s likely to be what Delany is aiming for on the other hand. Even if he doesn’t get it, expansion will end up something like ND -> Neb -> 3 more (whether Mizz/Texas/A&M or Rutgers/Maryland/VA I have no idea)
LikeLike
I would think Texas/A&M/ND/Rutgers is an ideal pod. ND and Texas want a cream puff, and want a game every other year in Giants stadium.
LikeLike
zeek,
I still don’t see how the “tech” problem gets solved in this scenerio. Even if the Big 10 expanded in stages, the Texas legislator still isn’t going to let Texas leave Texas Tech behind if there is still an option of the Pac 10 taking the Texas schools. The Pac 10 won’t expand past 12 without Texas and there will always be the option of the Texas schools all going to the Pac 10. There is no way in hell that the Texas legislator would allow Texas to leave Tech behind (and appear to be dead set on not letting Baylor get left behind). I think that the Texas to the Big 10 ship has all but sailed. JMHO
LikeLike
@Bamatab
Agreed. But what Zeek’s proposal does do is give the Big10 a shot at both ND and Texas while picking up Nebraska in the process and not taking on Tech.
Just getting to that point might be worth it for Delaney.
LikeLike
It doesn’t solve the Tech problem, but as Husker Al is saying, it still is an optimal result and the only way to bypass the Tech problem.
Schools #12 and #13 are ND and Nebraska. After that you’ve locked in the two biggest prizes other than Texas. You’re free to go anywhere you want for #14-16 and it’s going to be hard for Maryland/UVA/GTech or anyone else to really turn away from that if it feels that the SEC may turn its cannons to the ACC.
This is as much about locking in ND and Nebraska as early schools not later schools as it is about Texas.
So it’s a good way of handling it even if the Texas ship has sailed. You get to 13 (or 14 if Texas is still on the table and you want to make a run at them but without a slot open for Tech), and then you can go any route you want because the two biggest grabs are in the Big Ten (ND/Nebraska) that are available.
LikeLike
@zeek
So you don’t believe at all the Big10 will stop at 12 if ND joins?
LikeLike
I think ND will only join if Delany tells them that we’re going to 16 and the BCS is going to look different (unlimited bids, etc.) in a way that would force ND to consider the conference.
Is there really a scenario out there where ND could join the Big Ten and then everything goes back to how it was before with no expansion anywhere? How would ND explain that to its alumni?
They’d have to be invited to apply, and then 4 other schools invited to apply.
That way they can explain to their alumni that the whole world is changing so they have to apply to the Big Ten…
LikeLike
If all that happens, i will bow down to you as a pfofit. iwould love that senario…
LikeLike
substitute Nebraska/Rutgers for Nebraska/Missouri and swap the ACC school of your choice for Rutgers in the fall back round 3 and I’m with you.
Even if Rutgers doesn’t deliver NYC it brings more potential than Missouri. and it helps more with the national profile that is important to Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Was just told by an athletic director with knowledge of the Big Ten’s plans that Notre Dame “may be on the clock as well” in talks with B10. 34 minutes ago via TweetDeck
——–
@PittsJay Texas is willing to help lead the next TV negotiation as maybe the No. 1 athletic program in the country and make $ for everyone. about 9 hours ago via TweetDeck in reply to PittsJay
In response to:
@ChipBrownOB It just seems like Nebraska is going to need more than “Well, your table scraps will be bigger. Trust us.” Too much bad blood.
LikeLike
If Texas wants neb in the conference, you’d think there would be a very public attempt and a let’s figure this out together. Instead, Texas (through beebe) have only made threats and demands. Either Texas is trying to force the big10’s hand or they do want neb out.
LikeLike
Or they’ve badly misread how the situation stands between Nebraska and the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Someone said somewhere that Perlman and Powers are actually quite friendly.
This is all a game of posturing and ultimatums.
Texas thinks the Big 12 is the best possible outcome for it.
Nebraska thinks the Big Ten is the best outcome for it.
Texas thinks the best secondary outcome is either the Pac-10’s ultimate offer or possibly (and Delany’s hoping) a Big Ten with Notre Dame/Nebraska/Missouri because the Big Ten cannot take Tech.
LikeLike
Perlman knows the ropes. Any former dean of a law college and current chair of the D1 Board of Directors understands the politics of any situation.
LikeLike
I think it will happen in 2 stages, with Neb/Mo/RU first…..then one of the following three: 1. ND and Pitt; 2. TX & A&M; 3. stand pat.
LikeLike
ND is first. Everything we’ve seen the past couple of days indicates that getting ND to sign on first is how this all shakes out. Then Neb/Mizz. Then make a run at Texas/A&M. If Texas/A&M say no; go straight to Rutgers/Maryland/Pitt/Syracuse to round out 16.
I think ND either signs on to 16 or they say we’re staying independent.
We’re giving an ultimatum based on the Pac-10’s gamble for Texas.
LikeLike
Why Notre Dame first? It seems to me that adding Nebraska(Now) increases the gravitational pull to the Big ten in two ways.
1) Another big (football) player has been added. 2)the perspective slots dwindle by one.
LikeLike
Because ND wants to drive this bus and they may back out later.
If ND isn’t locked down first, I think it’s harder to lock them in on the back end.
Plus, you don’t want to set the Pac-10’s plan in motion by pulling the domino that breaks the Big 12.
If you have ND first, then you pull Nebraska and offer the final two spots to Texas/A&M.
You explain to ND how it will all play out first of course. If they assume they’d sign on after Nebraska, then it makes more sense for them to sign on first and direct it all.
LikeLike
Zeek, Let us assume that the tech problem is too big a lover to swallow for the BT. I think it puts a bad start to the relationship with Nebraska to keep them hanging. Unless there is some under the table guarantee that they will be added. How do you do this when the decision requires an 8 out of 11 vote? Next, would Notre Dame not then feel the heat of being trapped in an inferior league of players? We know they are not going to the SEC and the PAC 10. ACC? not likely. So that leaves the Big 10 and a Wiley option, would be what’s left of the Big 12. But then again they look like they are big boy who only wants to play with the 7th graders.
LikeLike
I think the way it works is that you promise Nebraska a slot if Notre Dame signs on.
You tell them that under the table: “We plan to invite you once we finish signing a deal with Nebraska.”
Then Nebraska can commit to the Big 12 with the notion that their invite is entirely based on Notre Dame so they’re not lying to the Big 12.
Either way, you give Nebraska an under the table guarantee of sorts.
I think Nebraska is supremely confident that no matter what happens, they’ll end up in the Big Ten.
Missouri is the one that has to worry although my scenario posits that Missouri is likely in order to attempt to draw in Texas/A&M for the ND/Missouri/Texas/A&M pod.
LikeLike
Arg I confused myself. You tell them “we’ll sign you once we sign Notre Dame.”
LikeLike
maybe ND was the prize all along and others were just used to get ND into the big10. Not saying this is the case, but it could end up looking like that.
LikeLike
ND rejected previous offers to join as #12 in the Big Ten.
The likelihood is that ND would join with the stipulation that we’re going to 16 (with Neb/Mizz) and grabbing Texas/A&M or Rutgers/Syracuse as backup.
Hard to see why ND would join as #12 at this time unless they wanted to control expansion from the drivers seat onto 16 and set up a pod that guaranteed them a game in Texas every year (i.e. Texas/A&M/Mizz/ND).
Obviously, that’s not guaranteed, but ND would likely settle for Rutgers/Pitt or Rutgers/Syracuse as a backup even though they wouldn’t be that pleased.
LikeLike
I agree. But I think after you get ND you quickly take Nebraska to force Texas to make a decision on the BT or P10.
LikeLike
Rutgers is not a bad academic institution but for everything else is vastly over rated in this conversation. This includes the NY/NJ market. I like Maryland in their stead. It cant hurt to have the nation’s capital in your league. As well the DC, Baltimore, and suburban Virginia. Having suburban Virginia also sets up another domino if needed. Giving the Big east or even the ACC New York New jersey won’t hurt it. Overall what it has to offer them does not compare to the SEC, Big 10, and PAC 10. The state of the New York and City of Boston is an outlier in the ACC so I don’t believe they really can maximize on NY/NJ. They would have to have championship games there to begin and possibly move league headquarters to NJ.
LikeLike
I agree 100%. Out of all the possible colleges Rutgers=What?
LikeLike
I agree that I’d rather see Maryland join than Rugters (although I would be happy with a Rutgers invite, personally), but everyone on this board seems to be taking it as fait accompli that Maryland would join. So far, no one associated with Maryland has shown any indication that they’re interested in joining the Big Ten, that I’ve seen.
Has anyone seen anything that would lead them to believe that Maryland is interested? I’m not saying it couldn’t happen or that the Big Ten shouldn’t try, just that for most other schools discussed here we’ve seen some evidence of interest, but all we’ve seen from Maryland so far is, “No.”
LikeLike
I think we’ve all said “we’d make a really really hard run at Maryland because they seem like an outlier” but that they’d probably reject it and we’d go to one of Pitt/Syracuse as a backup to put with Rutgers.
LikeLike
Nope. I have seen no evidence that Maryland would join. For me, I just prefer The DC corridor over the NYC/NJ market (which I don’t think Rutgers will deliver).
LikeLike
Neutron, Here is a link on just such a discussion. Note I have posted here twice myself. It seems 50/50 to me.
http://www.testudotimes.com/2010/5/26/1488885/its-poll-time-if-the-big-ten I think they can be turned if more of a focus was put on them other than Rutgers. Mostly the thing that scares them is not being able to play Duke or NC in Basketball. It’s a non issue as in basketball you can play over 30 games per annum. The BT also routinely plays the ACC in the BT ACC challenge at the end of the pre season. There are also opportunities to play Duke and NC in the NCAA if they really think that much of their Basketball.
LikeLike
Gotcha, Zeek. I misspoke when I said that everyone here thinks Maryland would join. I guess I just see them come up often enough in discussions as “we’ll take Maryland” that I wondered if I had missed something. Makes sense if it’s just “we’ll take a shot at Maryland.”
@GreatLakeState – Agree with you there, I just don’t see it happening unless the SEC really destabilizes things by poaching ACC schools first.
@StvInILL – Thanks for the link! Always interesting to see other schools’ perspectives.
LikeLike
Sorry this is just silly. You argue that giving up entirely on the media capital of the country and the #1 and #4 DMAs + ~9MM in NJ is the optimal Big 10 strategy for the next 50 years? Not much faith in the Big Ten brand.
If MD is available I could see an argument that MD is a better academic get than RU and that the tradeoff on the media side is acceptable.
Frankly having both RU and MD lots like a big win to me.
LikeLike
I think Nebraska/Missouri will come first.
The reason why is that we’re talking about maximizing leverage on Texas/A&M before going east.
That makes the most sense for the first two rounds. I don’t see a plan that gets you the most likely Texas/A&M other than ND -> Neb/Mizz -> Texas/A&M. Backup is Rutgers/Maryland or Rutgers/Pitt or Rutgers/Syracuse or whatever you want.
I just think that a Big Ten with ND/Neb/Mizz maximizes leverage on Texas/A&M. That’s what ND would really want to join the Big Ten.
Rutgers isn’t the point.
The point is getting ND/Texas in the same conference for both ND and Texas. Mizz or Rutgers are to fill the gaps if there is a gap.
Mizz is the best gap filler in a run at Texas/A&M due to its location.
Texas/A&M/Mizz/ND is the best possible pod we can offer to Texas/A&M. That would be the final offer.
If they reject it out of hand, then we go to Rutgers and whoever.
LikeLike
I agree. Texas brings Notre Dame and getting those two in the BT is priority number one for Delany.
LikeLike
Re “I think Nebraska/Missouri come first” (Zeek)
Didn’t you just say (in your post at 7:48 am on 6/7) that the first target is ND and that could take up to 2 months?
ND wants to be in a pod with Texas, A&M, Missouri?
LikeLike
Yes and Yes.
ND/Mizz/Texas/A&M would be a way of satisfying Texas/A&M’s regional want, and ND would get a guaranteed game in Texas every year (versus either A&M or Texas).
ND wants a national schedule. That’s why they haven’t joined the Big Ten.
Bringing Texas/A&M in guarantees them travel to Texas every year. Then they play their other 6 Big Ten games in the rest of the footprint…
Obviously, Rutgers does the same thing, so Rutgers would be a backup if Texas/A&M say no.
LikeLike
Was just told by an athletic director with knowledge of the Big Ten’s plans that Notre Dame “may be on the clock as well” in talks with B10. 34 minutes ago via TweetDeck
——–
@PittsJay Texas is willing to help lead the next TV negotiation as maybe the No. 1 athletic program in the country and make $ for everyone. about 9 hours ago via TweetDeck in reply to PittsJay
In response to:
@ChipBrownOB It just seems like Nebraska is going to need more than “Well, your table scraps will be bigger. Trust us.” Too much bad blood.
LikeLike
What are the actually KNOWN upcoming events? I know the MWC presidents meet today. What other events are scheduled. Not rumored deadlines and the like, but actual events.
LikeLike
Friday the Nebraska Board of Regents is meeting.
LikeLike
ND, NEB, TX, aTm, TTECH. ….still, though I would prefer Maryland.
I think that leaked E-mail told the tale. I think the PAC 10’s aggressive response was an act of desperation because they knew this was about to do down.
LikeLike
…go down.
LikeLike
Tech seems to be off the table based on Michigan State’s president and Delany saying that every school has to be a match academically from the start.
LikeLike
In a local (W. Michigan) newspaper article, the president of Michigan State said that because most of the BT presidents rose up through the ranks of academia that they are OBSESSED with the academic aspects of this decision and that the sports writers are seriously downplaying its importance. That said, I still have a hard time believing if it meant getting Texas and thereby Notre Dame that they wouldn’t make an exception. I very well could be wrong.
LikeLike
But you can solve the Tech problem by taking away the 3rd open slot.
The Pac-10 has made their offer the opposite. They’ve said “Texas + 5” and allowed politics, SWC, etc. to fill up the gaps. Thus, you get Texas Four + OU/OSU.
The Big Ten is going to do the opposite; we’re going to say “Well, we’re at 14, you’re on the clock if you want to be in the Big Ten/CIC; we plan to stay at 16 for a long time so there’s no space for Tech…”
LikeLike
True. The Big Ten does appear much more principled in their approach and I like that.
My fear is that once the dominoes start to fall, the lowest common denominator might well come out on top.
I’m relying on the fact that Delany is two steps ahead of the game.
LikeLike
And that’s why I’ve laid out this ND -> Neb/Mizz -> Texas/A&M scenario. I think that’s how Delany stays several steps ahead of everyone (including the Pac-10) as he creates a 14 team Big Ten and offers only 2 open slots to Texas/A&M without having to deal with the Tech problem.
Perhaps, Texas says no, but then you’ve already got ND/Neb/Mizz and can go to Rutgers/Maryland (with Pitt/Syracuse/GTech/whoever as back up).
LikeLike
As a Fan of the Big ten I was alarmed by that offer, But after rereading it, it did say they were exploring expansion from 2 to 6 teams. This leaves a door open really. It could be two it could be more. I still do not believe it’s a package deal. There is a mater of the vote that at this point has to be unanimous. So remember you have Stanford, UCLA, Cal as well AZ and ASU voting. For their own reasons this package deal may not fly. This Big Texas deal would also fundamentally change the PAC 10 conference in its internal politics. 3 or four Texas schools would really eventually challenge the power of the 4 Cali schools. That’s too much power to give up without a fight. A more intelligent strategy would be to defuse this power by only taking 1 or 2 Texas schools and Colorado. The Look at a Hawaii and Utah perhaps.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t really worry as a Big Ten fan.
The alternatives are numerous for the Big Ten.
Nebraska/Missouri are still on the table regardless of what Notre Dame does. And the Eastern expansion that I favor as a backup is as well (Maryland and JHU-CIC as well as Rutgers/UVA/UNC/Pitt, or whoever).
I just think that Delany is positioning the Big Ten to make a final offer to Texas/A&M but he has to have a Big Ten at 14 in order for the Tech problem to not gum up the offer.
LikeLike
Simon: “The Council identified four criteria for expansion – academics, competitiveness, institutional fit and fiscal responsibility. Academics…is purposely top on the list”
This being (allegedly) so, how the hell is Pitt going to be kept out? Rutgers would also seem to be a sure thing.
Now the broader question is what do those terms mean? My take:
“Academics” = Academic ranking ,level of research $, AAU status
“Competitiveness” = 50% football status/potentail, 25% basketball status/potential
“institutional fit” – geography, culture, public/private, enrollment
“fiscal responsibility” – tv sets
The other thing I saw was one poster’s description of JD as a “basketball guy”; I think I’ve read that before–that might make Pitt and Syr (esp) more attractive to JD than otherwise.
LikeLike
We’re not keeping anyone out.
We’re offering spots in a way that makes sense.
First, Notre Dame, the Big Ten has always wanted, and locking them in ensures that the Big Ten can go to 16 (which is very important); it also makes Texas/A&M more likely to come.
Then, Nebraska (and Missouri) as a way of being able to make a final offer to Texas that bypasses the Tech problem.
If the Big Ten is at 14; then Tech can’t be forced onto it with Texas/A&M.
If Texas/A&M say no, then Rutgers/Pitt or Rutgers/Syracuse will come.
Nowhere do I say that Rutgers/Pitt won’t end up in the Big Ten…
The biggest prizes are Texas/ND. That’s what Delany has his eye on. Nebraska is the 3rd biggest prize in play, A&M is 4th.
The 5th is likely to be Missouri in that scenario as a way of setting up a Texas/A&M/Missouri/ND pod (Nebraska/Iowa/Wisconsin/Minnesota would be the West pod).
LikeLike
The other 25% on competitiveness would be overall strength of the program—ie..Director’s Cup….Neb has been in the 20s, Mo in the 40s, sYR. IN THE 50S, pITT AND rUTGERS IN THE 90S.
LikeLike
StvInILL:
I can’t help but feel, after the initial excitement wears off, that the PAC16 deal is going to appear less and less appetizing the the California schools. It will only be out of desperation if they play along.
Mushroom:
PITT, in terms of fulfilling BT criteria, is the most obvious choice. In the end, however, I’m afraid their location will leave them out in the cold. They simply don’t bring enough new eyeballs to the Big Ten Network to earn a slot. That is, assuming money and viewership are the conference’s top priorities.
LikeLike
If the Big Ten has their way on this, I believe it will play out almost to the letter as Zeek has described.
LikeLike
GreatLake—The point was that Simon is claiming that $/markets is NOT the first priority…that “academics” are….so we’ll see how truthful she is….
LikeLike
This is a good post. Let me add my interpretation/translation:
1) Academics = AAU status a must, w/possible exceptions for Notre Dame and any school on the cusp of making it; research commitment in $; ARWU ranking. US News ranking a minimal factor (maybe 10 percent).
2) Competitiveness = 75 percent football, 15 percent men’s basketball, 10 percent everything else (as reflected in, say, Director’s Cup placements over a 10-year time period).
3) Institutional fit = I look at this as a package deal. Not every school has to have the same “fit.” Take the idea of “partnership,” for example, Rutgers or Pitt fit as a logical partner for Penn State; if Texas were to come in they would need a partner, most likely aTm and maybe also a “bridge” school to address the geographic gap; an academic heavyweight like Vandy would be a natural partner for Northwestern, and so on. The textbook “fit” of course would be in large, research-driven state universities. Another “fir” issue I think is the idea of the conference’s “branding,”geographically and institutionally (i.e. if the Big 10 the grouping of major research institutions in the U.S., east of the continental divide, then Texas “fits;” if it is the “northern conference” of research universities, UT and Vandy don’t fit. I think “fit” also addresses the concern some may have about the place of a sectarian university in the CIC.
4) “Fiscal responsibility” refers mainly to the value that new schools would bring to the Big 10 and BTN, i.e. new TV sets but also quality of the conference’s inventory. Travel concerns, particulary for non-rev sports, would also fall under this category.
LikeLike
This is completely foolish. It is not that the presidents are obsessed with academics, it is because they understand the mission of their institutions. That sport writers haven’t been paying attention (or perhaps cannot understand) is not news.
The Big 10 brand is much more about academics than football. Has been since the beginning of the conference and it’s not going to change now. That’s why TT is a non-starter.
The real surprise in the last couple of days is the apparent degree to which the Pac 10 doesn’t care about its academic reputation as a conference. Looks like they are willing to accept they are just an athletic conference and there is no particular Pac 10 academic brand when it stretches from Stanford and Cal to Texas Tech and Oklahoma State. Not much different than the SEC in that regard — Vandy and Florida to Mississippi State.
The point of all of this is that the Big 10 has a brand that is at its core an academic brand. The presidents are not going to mess with that and every Big 10 alumni should be thankful even if it means no Texas.
LikeLike
Omaha WH’s Lee Barfknecht’s summary of approval process to change conferences, quoting Board of regents chairman Bob Phares:
“This is a campus decision, so this is a UNL arrangement first,” he said.
“We’ve had some of that with UNO when they’ve done some conference realignment,” Phares said. “Those did come to us for ratification.
“It’s not something that happens all the time, so it’s not ‘in the book.’ ”
In theory, the athletic director would make a recommendation, the chancellor would study it and send it on if agreeable, then the board would ratify it. According to Barfknecht, two of the Regents said they haven’t been briefed individually nor has the board as a group concerning NU’s place in any conference realignment.
http://www.omaha.com/article/20100606/BIGRED/306069874/-1#sources-pac-10-may-act-soon-on-expansion
LikeLike
Interesting about the “no briefing” business….Saint Tom probably thinks they’ll be briefed when they need to be briefed, and not sooner….
LikeLike
There’s nothing to brief the Board of Regents about at this point. There’s no official Big 12 deadline, there’s no official Big Ten invitation, and they aren’t going to vote on this, no matter what Kirk Bohls and his sources have dreamed up. If a vote does come, the extent of the briefing is Perlman says we’d like your OK to go to the Big Ten, the vote takes about ten seconds, then the conga line forms, snaking through the streets of Lincoln.
LikeLike
There never will be an official Big Ten invitation. The process is such that Nebraska will apply to the Big Ten and the Big Ten will officially approve or deny the application.
I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if Nebraska’s Board of Regents is voting on the application process Friday.
LikeLike
I want to take a step back and ask is ND really a great get for the B10? Sure they are football royalty and have a great past, but so does Army and Navy. I think there is some legitimate concern that by including them in the B10, they could lose some of their national appeal. However, I think they are losing that anyway, so for their sake the B10 makes sense. But does it make sense for the B10?
I don’t ask this question lightly. Conventional wisdom is ND is the perfect fit. However, after following this board for the past few months, I’m not sure it really is – especially considering the long term.
From an academic side, there is no doubt they are a great school. However, there as some key differences on the research side? So long term is this a plus or negative for B10? They expand the footprint now, but ND has few alumni comparatively. And as more people go to college, the idea that all Irish or all Catholics (Can you be the former without being the latter?) will root for ND is less true. So what if my dad/granddad rooted for ND, I went to State College X – so why should I root for ND?
Power these days is in demographics and in DC. ND is losing in the former and I’m not sure they have much in the way of the latter. As stated many times before on this blog, a state college brings at least 2 senators to the mix. Plus, they would simply be the third school from IN.
From my perspective, I have always been a B10 fan. I have also always hated ND, but I wanted to see them in the B10. On the surface, it just made too much sense. But after reading these discussions, I’m starting to wonder if just keeping the Irish as an Independent doesn’t really just help the B10? You get the benefit of ND scheduling some games against your schools and are somewhat tied to them from a culture/geography standpoint. But you aren’t saddled with them. There is something to the notion, that if you don’t want to marry me, why would I want to marry you.
I can certainly be persuaded that ND is a good long-term fit, but I am not as sold on ND to the B10 as I was 4 months ago.
LikeLike
Adding Notre Dame would be great for television ratings, but the discussion here over the the last few months has led me to conclude that ND would not be a good institutional fit with the B10. I would prefer the B10 expand with schools that enthusiastically want to join, such as Nebraska and Rutgers, rather than adding teams that feel forced into a new conference.
LikeLike
I want to make an additional point. It seems like many commentators here are of the opinion that both ND and UT ask too much and/or don’t really want to join – thus it would be a risky marriage. From my review of the commentators on this blog who are more informed than me and have scanned other blogs, here are the constituencies at each school who are for and against joining the B10 (this is a gross simplification, and please correct me if you think otherwise):
ND
For – professors, other sport programs
Against – alumni, certain trustees?, football program
UT
For – professors, alumni
Against – politicians, other sport programs?
Not sure – football program, basketball program
My question is which constituency is easier to overcome? It seems like once UT joins the B10, whatever happens to the other schools in Texas – it is over. The politicians will get used to it and they will find other causes. They aren’t really looking out for UH – because it was settled back in the 90’s. If the football program is behind the move, everyone would eventually fall in line (I guess so long as they win). The politicians could punish you for a while, but UT is the flagship school – it will survive obviously.
With ND, if the alumni are constantly bitching, that just exerts constant pressure on the administration.
Thus for UT, the hardest bond to break is that initial bond (and this may prove impossible). For ND, there will be the constant harping and 2nd guessing.
I probably haven’t really flushed this thought out as much as it is sitting in my mind. Just seems like, UT would be a happy marriage if you could simply get the girl to move and get her dad’s blessing. With ND, you may get the dad’s blessing, but he will always be interfering in your relationship. To me, the longer lasting marriage is the first one.
LikeLike
Notre Dame is small, Catholic, and has a completely different focus than Big Ten schools. By any dispassionate measure, they don’t look anything like a Big Ten school. The only thing compelling about Notre Dame joining the Big Ten is their football team (which is less compelling than in years past) and their geography. That’s it.
Further, the vast majority of Notre Dame alums are absolutely dead set against joining the Big Ten, and no matter any objective measure that demonstrates otherwise, they will always feel completely superior to the Big Ten (or any other school, really) academically, athletically and morally.
They would be about as ‘high maintenance’ and impossible to please as any school you could find in the country. If the Texas schools are the Clampetts, Notre Dame is Stephanie Vanderkellen.
LikeLike
No one could give Izzo more love than Michigan State. He is a Michigan (state) homer if there ever was one. If he’s leaving it has nothing to do with gratitude.
LikeLike
Wow. Did I get this in the wrong place. It was supposed to be a response to Duffman below.
LikeLike
djinndjinn says:
June 7, 2010 at 9:47 am
Notre Dame is small, Catholic, and has a completely different focus than Big Ten schools. By any dispassionate measure, they don’t look anything like a Big Ten school. The only thing compelling about Notre Dame joining the Big Ten is their football team…and their geography. That’s it.
Further, the vast majority of Notre Dame alums are absolutely dead set against joining the Big Ten…
This is soooo true. And the fact that only things similar between the typical Big Ten school and ND is geography and football is really the root reason the alumni are against joining.
LikeLike
I’m pissed that we continue to dither with ND. My thought is to add 3 as soon as possible….keep it that way for a few years, then look at it again. I don’t like the perception (reality?) that ND is once again holding up the process…..
LikeLike
I’ve argued often that ND wasn’t a good fit for the B10. I think a lot of people here agree with that, especially the ND alums.
But many disagree. Probably Jim Delany disagrees.
LikeLike
On a completly different note, what could the Texas legislature do to harm the University of Texas or A&M? You think they would cut public funding to them because they switched confrences? I would have to think that UT % A&M alums would be upset and that has to be at least part of the voterbase in Texas. What can they really do to those universaties if they did decide to head to the B10?
LikeLike
I dont know, but I am as much a fan of politics as I am of college football. It seems to me that you can game play The Texas longhorn football team and it’s administration. You can’t Game plan texas politics.
LikeLike
Honestly, I don’t think in the long run, they can do much. States are already cutting funding to public schools. Maybe this gives them another reason to, but they don’t really need it. Once the bond the ties UT/A&M and Tech is broken, the politicians will find another cause. But breaking that bond is not easy.
LikeLike
The Texas legislature controls the multi billion dollar PUF fund that only is accessible by UT and A&M. If you can get enough votes, that can change…
This is an over the top doomsday scenario, but there is all sorts of games the legislature can play with UT and A&M’s budgets.
LikeLike
The legislature could do a hell of a lot to harm UT/A&M. These two schools (and most of their satellite campuses) are backed by the Permanent University Fund. 5% of the value is distributed each year to the UT and A&M systems, 2/3 to UT, 1/3 to A&M. Tech gets nothing (currently). While it would require an unlikely state constitutional amendment for Tech to get a cut of that, the legislature can adjust how to balance all three systems’ annual taxpayer subsidies, and Tech does use the lack of PUF/AUF funds to its advantage when lobbying for its cut of the state budget.
More importantly, the legislature can continue to tinker with admissions criteria for public universities. The top 10% rule (anyone in top 10% of their high school class gets automatic admission to public TX universities) has not been good for UT-Austin, and they worked very hard to get a one-campus modification to 8%.
LikeLike
Morning Folks… here are some thoughts….
a) Frank.. a way to add without posting might cut down some traffic, and a different blog that does not allow posting for collective links and assorted goodies.
b) TOM STEP BACK FROM CLEVELAND!!!! any Big 10 blogger should email MSU and flood Tom with the love to make him stay! Yes I am an IU and fan of Crean, but without Tom we all lose.. (I know I am a little off topic here, but I have never hidden my basketball homerism).
c) NEWS FLASH! The media is not to be trusted!! (for those that have been following this blog for quite awhile, this is not news, but for the rest of you keep this in mind). The Swarbrick 4.5 hours may someday rival the missing 20 min of the watergate tapes, but for now everybody is so hot to be the first to leak, that the dutch kid with his finger in the dam will look tame. Going forward, let the first wave pass and wait till there is better confirmation.
d) ND
I am going to offer some points that I posted near the beginning of this blog but I will miss some, but need to be addressed again for those that have arrived after the fact.. this may be long so bear with me….
1) I am a basketball guy and having ND, IU, and PU all in conference and all in easy driving range appeals to ME (the operant word being ME, as I am just a fan – NOT a president, BoT member, major donor, media entity, or other such person in power). This said no matter what I want, it has NO bearing on what decisions get made. This said I am trying to make objective arguments that view this far away from what I want. From day one I have not felt that ND or Texas would be in the Big 10, not from what I want, but from a view removed from a Big 10 fan.
2) Look at the equation if ND did NOT play football! and then compare and contrast some points..
==> PUBLIC vs PRIVATE
I know everybody says the Big 10 has Northwestern, but they are the ONLY private school in the Big 10 and they have been grandfathered in by history. If Northwestern was just now applying to the Big 10 and Nebraska was the other choice.. My bet would be Nebraska..
==> STATE vs CHURCH
Look at this from the big picture, aside from the obvious separation from church and state as outlined in american history. State schools are beholden to the states that give them their life. Church schools get their marching orders from a higher source. If I am running ND I have to report to catholics worldwide and the order that gives me my life. I may interact with the state of Indiana, but I am not driven by it.
==> RESEARCH vs EDUCATION
Frank has been good enough to make me understand the difference between the two. Research has nothing to do with education as it is separate, and why I understand that no matter how good a school is in terms of strong liberal arts or “classic” education it is moot in this conversation. I am not trying to be crass here but look at this in simple base thinking. In “modern” state flagship universities you must view them no longer as the “non profits” and “public good” institutions of old. Look at them as large “for profit” corporations who have 2 sources of revenue via “research” and “entertainment” AKA “sports”. If you think I am crazy that is okay, but in the big picture (and I am older than most bloggers) I have seen HUGE attitude shifts in education and sports in the past 40 – 50 years.
==> HUGE vs SMALL
From a business view size matters in how you market your product. Microsoft is huge and impersonal, so Apple becomes hip and intimate to carve out a place in the market. Outside of football and research, what possible gain in market share or identity exists for ND. I would argue that long term for their school it is better to focus on what they know, than to change marketing strategy and hope for the best.
==> FIXED vs MOBILE
I made this argument early on and I know many thought I was off my rocker but I will revisit it now. The Big 10 schools are by and large locked to the states that they live in. ND IS NOT! I know it seems crazy to imagine that ND would pack up and move to another state, but the big picture view would be foolish to not acknowledge that they can! 50 years in the future IU will not relocate to AZ, but ND can.. let that little thought sink in for a second.. 50 years from now the america we know could be southern, hispanic, and soccer is the biggest sport in the US. Now go one step further.. ND is Holy Cross, which has roots in France.. Louisiana is the only state still operating under French law vs English common law.. ND moves over the next 50 to a main campus in Louisiana! I am not saying it WILL happen, I am saying that the POSSIBILITY exists!
==> USA vs GLOBAL
The Big 10 is a US brand, ND is a global brand – not to address this in cold economic terms but look at what drives the brand. The Big 10 is “research” and “sports” while ND the brand is “faith”. No matter how you argue for ND in the Big 10, it does not change the base roots of these institutions. The Big 10 has to appeal to the folks in the BTN, ND has to appeal to catholics all over the world. This is the base reason I can not see the two becoming one. if they did go this route, over time you will be heading for a divorce – and the catholic faith has pretty clear rules on how they view divorce. I would love to have ND in the Big 10, but I can see why it can not work.
==> COLLECTIVE vs INDEPENDENT
I think in an earlier blog I compared the Big 10 to seniors in a local high school that have been together since 1st grade. ND was the new kid transferring in in the middle of their senior year. No matter what ND does it does not have the shared history with the rest of the kids in school. They may get to play sports together, or take classes together, but they will never be on the same level as all the other students. The cultures are opposite as the Big 10 has a history of being bound to each other. ND has the opposite makeup, as they have a history of independence. NO MATTER what either side does, you can not go half way. If ND draws strength from independence, then taking that away chips away at that which makes them who they are. I know this seems odd, but if you take away the thing that draws strength, will you be satisfied with the shell of their former self that they will become?
Not to get all sappy but that saying “if you love something set it free” rings in my head with ND.
3) ND has an option that nobody seems to agree with but I feel it exists. They do not have to join ANY current conference and they can remain independent via the GOD & Country conference….
8 football school.. ND, BC, Army, Navy, UC, UL, Uconn, and Syracuse
8 catholic basketball schools (gtown, st johns, villanova, etc)
under such a conference ND could remain “independent” via TV contracts. They would feel comfortable that their partners (Army and Navy) would view honor over $$ (called me old fashioned) and offer global reach via the armed services network. Think if ND played alternate games in the east coast and globally between Army / Navy.
(ie ND plays NAVY in NYC the same year it plays ARMY in europe). ND could still play OOC with the BIG 10/16 and if they did not want to they could find games in the new PAC 16 or SEC 16. As backup, you have the “scraps” like Kansas or a “Magnolia Conference” who would love to put you on their schedule with terms that favor ND.
4) add back in football and think like ND.. yes in the big 10 you get the Michigan game.. but it means the replacement of OOC with Big 10 schools of lesser football prowess. from an IU standpoint I would love ND as a pod rival, but does ND view me with the same excitement as the good OOC team they have to give up to put me on their schedule. keep in mind that football schedules are a zero sum game. If you add a new opponent you must subtract an old one. the limit of games in a season in finite, not infinite. Let this sink in for a moment…. and ND goes from master of its football universe to a minor player in a big collective with their own set of rules and regulations.
5) Nebraska – not to sound like yoda but “you do, or do not” or the beloved bard “to be, or not to be” but Jim needs to offer the Big Red the invite and be transparent (I grew up listening to broadcasts of the Big Red Thrashing Machine so I am admitting some bias) so it gets done.
==> Nebraska gets the Big 10 to the magic number of 12
==> They fit the current Big 10 best of all
==> They do not carry ND or Texas baggage issues
If you jilt a girl once, no matter what you do later on it will come back to haunt you.. Will was a pretty smart cat when he observed “that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned” and it is not like Nebraska has all the parts to make a successful marriage..
okay, time to get back to real life for awhile..
🙂
LikeLike
Duff – good post. I think this is why I have been thinking that in the long term a ND – B10 marriage is not a good one. We have all seen marriages, where everything was there on paper but it didn’t work out. For ND and B10, on the surface everything is there. But there are some big structural differences which would make the marriage a rocky one from the start. Maybe both schools are better in a symbiotic relationship where ND schedules games against the B10 and that is all. Could BTN and ND work out some arrangement – if only for football. Say a ND coaches hour every Tuesday night on BTN? Would such an arrangement work? You would really just be paying ND for some programming at that point. Giving ND some income and the BTN a way to get more viewers.
LikeLike
I agree that the BT needs to stop dicking around with Nebraska….perhaps they have, and assurances have been given to T. O. — if not, BT deserves to get screwed on this….
LikeLike
Look at the evidence though.
Osborne talking with Tressel?
Osborne acting as if he has no worries with how the situation will play out in interviews?
I think Nebraska has basically been promised a spot after the Big Ten signs a deal with Notre Dame.
I don’t see how that’s “dicking around with Nebraska”.
Everything points to under the table assurances that they know what the Big Ten plans to do…
LikeLike
I wouldn’t read too much into his body language. Having watched Tom Osborne for nearly 40 years, that’s just the way he is.
But I do get the feeling he believes he is working from a position of strength.
LikeLike
Except for the reports that if ND wanted to join the Big 10 would stop at 12…..I hope that JD is on the phone to TO telling him that it ain’t so…..
LikeLike
You made go and look up what Dennis Dodd is saying today, damn you. Doesn’t stop at 12 w/Notre Dame. Syracuse is now the key to prying them loose. Seems not to have picked up on the corrected version of the Swarbrick story:
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/22395511?tag=comBlogEntryListCnt;entry22395511
LikeLike
Adding ND and staying at 12 is such 1999 thinking. Thamel just hasn’t spent enough time thinking about this, or he’s listening to a source who’s not plugged in. This breed of conference commissioner (Delany, Scott, Slive) and activist, engaged university president (Gee, Perlman, Powers, Spanier … even Jenkins, I think) are not stuck in that sort of thinking.
LikeLike
Zeek–
Agreed. I think the people that are talking the least hold the most power.
B10–Holds all the cards from a financial perspective. They can sit tight. Add 1,3 or 5 as they see fit. Hence no need to leak anything or get caught up in the back and forth of the B12/PAC10. The only “leak” that occurred was the Gee emails IMO. Which I discussed in another post as being what I believed to be a coordinated release with the Orangebloods story.
Nebraska–If Nebraska had any concerns about not getting a B10 invite or being left in purgatory with the likes of KU, KState, Iowa St. etc.. there would be a helluva lot more “public” activity coming out of Lincoln. There’s just to much uncertainty in that conference for Nebraska to remain quiet…unless of course they’ve already got a YES from the B10.
The obvious exception in all of this is UT. The reason they’re talking the most is that they’re trying to shake off all the fleas on their coat (Tech, Baylor, etc…). I have yet to be convinced otherwise.
The B10 by remaining silent and not making any offers is calling the PAC10’s hand IMO. Delaney and Co. IMO are betting that one or more of Stanford/Cal/UCLA/UW are going to 86 the B12 6 pack by vetoing Tech/Okie St./Baylor. Thus sinking that scenario.
In which case, like others and yourself have mentioned it provides political cover for UT to say “hey we tried to look out for our little brothers, but the PAC10 shot us down. What more can we do?”
LikeLike
And that’s why I think Delany wants to fill spaces #12-14 before he makes his final run at Texas/A&M.
Delany will not be forced into accepting the Tech problem. He’ll create his own solution (i.e. Missouri takes spot #14 after ND/Neb as #12-13) or he’ll go his own way.
LikeLike
Lobills,
“Agreed. I think the people that are talking the least hold the most power.”
Think about what you just said….
The SEC and Silve have been the best “poker face” at the table so far….
LikeLike
Or Texas told the SEC offhand that it would take Pac-10 or Big Ten invites if they looked like something it wanted…
LikeLike
ND is a global brand? you lost me there. ND is a good private undergrad university. The large US research oriented universities have a much greqater gloabl reach and recognition.
there is nothing in the essential nature of Notre Dame that would make them a bad fit for the Big Ten. Much as with Northwestern they may have a different academic mission and nothing will force that to change or impact it in any way.
as much as we talk about the Big Ten presidents intent to focus on academic credentials for affiliation once the schools have joined it would have no day to day impact on the athletics functioning of the conference. And in athletics Notre Dame is EXACTLY like the Big Ten schools. It is a big time program which focuses on the same issues and challenges.
That is not to say ND joining is inevitable. But there is only one thing that makes Notre Dame possibly a bad fit. That is the intense desire of a large segment of their alumni to remnain independant. And they have every right to that opinion. If that is what they decide so be it. But that is the only bad fit. There is nothing on the academic side that would impact the mission Notre Dame wants to serve and the athletic side would be a good fit.
LikeLike
I would suggest that if you look at the demand for spots at U.S. universities, Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin and Berkeley are far more global as brands than ND. I think ND is a great national brand, with reach also into Latin America and countries like the Philippines, but I don’t think there is much demand for Notre Dame football in, say, Germany, except maybe among American expats.
LikeLike
Amendment: I don’t think there is much demand for U.S. college football — even for UT or tOSU — anywhere in the world outside of the States (with the obvious special exception for Notre Dame in Ireland due to cultural links).
LikeLike
Hank..
reread the post.. ND’s Global Brand is FAITH not RESEARCH it is apples and oranges. If you do not think ND is a GLOBAL brand via the catholic faith, then you are not catholic or you have your head in the sand. I have friends in africa, asia, and south america who follow ND even if they are associated with another order. They may have NEVER attended ND but they follow ND football. Think of the Mormons and BYU to a smaller degree with the same type of reach based on ‘faith”.
ND reaches far beyond alumni. Someone on here made mention of the Wal Mart wolverines (Ironic as Arkansas is an SEC school) which I guess is a slight for people who follow Michigan that never attended a class at Michigan. If you can understand this, then you should be able to understand ND as a global brand that extends WELL beyond their alumni.
Michigan = school the citizens of the state of michigan can follow as they have a common bond, even if they never attended the school. Michigan is regional
ND = school the citizens of the catholic faith can follow as they have a common bond, even if they never attended the school. Catholicism is global
I do not know how to make this any clearer.. so if I am not communicating this well enough can somebody else convey this in a better way….
thanks
LikeLike
Catholicism is global, but so are Catholic universities all over the world. The only distinguishing feature of Notre Dame is playing football at a historically high level.
BYU is different because it is directly run by the LDS and it is effectively the only LDS school.
LikeLike
US Vs Global
About your US vs Global argument. The Midwest and East are full of fine Catholic type universities. They all accomplish their mission of education with a religious identity just fine. Notre Dame is just, with all do respect stuck on itself. I offer in the Midwest alone Marquette, DePaul, Xavier, Loyola (Chi) are some of the better know but not the only ones.
http://kaarme.com/catholic_midwest
LikeLike
Only one of them has the following to schedule a game in Europe in 2012.
LikeLike
Ireland is a unique situation vis a vis Notre Dame don’t you think?
LikeLike
Perhaps. But I can’t think of another school that could pull it off in any country. I think ND might be able to in a few others such as France, Italy or (to a lesser extent) Spain.
LikeLike
Loki I think Notre Dame’s appeal in Dublin has less to do with their Catholicism than their nick name. If you say Notre Dame in France I doubt anyone will think of a school in Indiana.
LikeLike
Sometime ago when FLP was making the same sort of claim, I asked six Irish (from Ireland) people about Notre Dame. Two didn’t know what I was talking about, one said it was a professional football team, one said it was a football team but didn’t know at what level, two knew it was a university with a football team.
When I asked the two who knew it was a university what they knew about its academics, neither could say. When I mentioned that FLP said they had aspirations to be the best Catholic university in the world (or claimed to be already), both indicated that the best Catholic university was (no surprise) in Ireland.
Listen, it may shock you to know that most Europeans couldn’t care less about American football, let alone Notre Dame. They follow football about as closely as I follow Australian Rules football. I’m guessing that most of Duffman’s acquaintances who follow Notre Dame are transplanted Americans, but if you can find a European who follows US football, I’m sure they’d have heard of Notre Dame. It is a storied institution. But beyond its football fame, I don’t know.
I’d bet than outside of the US, 98% of the time the words “Notre Dame” are uttered is in reference to the Cathedral in Paris.
That Notre Dame football is important to American Catholics, fantastic. If that represents all Catholics, giving the school a more national or even international following to whatever extent, outstanding.
Even though this is a blog primarily about Big Ten expansion, I, for one, never tire of hearing about the different ways Notre Dame is superior. That’s just one of the things that makes the Irish so endearing.
LikeLike
@ Djinn^2
Yeah, ND is nowhere near her ultimate goal of becoming the world’s greatest Catholic University (i.e. “where the Church does it’s thinking”). Probably won’t happen in my grandkids’ lifetimes, either. It’s like building a cathedral back in the day. We just try to contribute what we can while we’re here. 🙂
Also, FWIW, I remember the last time we played in Dublin, we had to promise Navy we wouldn’t wear green. Then again when asked about having an advantage with the locals as a rooting interest, Lou said that there’s a lot of guys who’ve been in the Navy…
LikeLike
loki..
you are confirming my point..
and to take it further, if college football goes global what school has the best chance to succeed without a current football base (again I can see ND vs Army in Paris before ND vs Texas).
LikeLike
I was agreeing with you.
And Hank, I think the ‘Irish’ moniker does enhance NDs appeal in Dublin. But on my few forays into Catholic Europe, I did see ND regalia. Not much of anyone else. Could ND sell out in Rome? Probably. Paris? Maybe. Barcelona? Who knows.
Can anyone else sell out in Europe at all? I’ve seen nothing to indicate they could.
LikeLike
loki..
*I could have had a V8 moment*
I totally forgot about rome!!
and with all the soccer stadiums in africa and south america..
LikeLike
I take your points but I am not sure how that translates to them joining a conference in the Midwest in the USA. In any case what they have or what they think they have would surly only be augmented, not diminished. What they will lose is a few football games AND they will be assured of not being able to win the ND football league. Being the big fish in a small pond is not a lofty expectation.
I RECALL
When Penn State joined the BT in 1993. There were small portion out east who thought it was bad because they would get beat on and lose their stature. There were a smaller few that thought this is great AND they will win the conference regularly. Umpteen years later there are one or two Big Ten championships and a lift up of the conference football prowess.
They did get screwed one year when they went undefeated and won a Rose Bowl and never one the national championship because of the BCS BS.
LikeLike
Penn State has always looked and acted like a Big 10 school.. again it is like apples and oranges..
LikeLike
You are confusing the Notre Dame of lore with the Notre Dame of reality.
==> STATE vs CHURCH
In 50 years all schools will be effectively private. Whether they are Catholic or not, schools will not be receiving a substantial portion of their income from state taxes. Notre Dame is not run by the Catholic Church (in the way that BYU is run by the LDS) nor is it run by the order that runs most Catholic colleges (Jesuits). They are not the only Catholic university in the country (despite their best efforts to denigrate all the others) and they are not the official representative of the Catholic Church in higher education.
==> USA vs GLOBAL
Notre Dame has very very few international students. I would hazard a guess that every Big Ten school has more international students than Notre Dame, especially when considering graduate students. The vast majority of students attend school in their home country and only venture outside for graduate degrees, of which Notre Dame offers relatively few. Internationally, students are far more likely to hear of schools where they or their friends have attended. Furthermore, if you look at any sort of international rankings, Notre Dame is lower than any Big Ten school and often behind other Catholic universities (e.g. Georgetown, Louvain).
==> FIXED vs MOBILE
Another dirty little secret is that Notre Dame attracts very few Hispanic students, especially considering that Hispanics are overwhelmingly Catholic. It turns out that a school in Indiana that used to be good at football has little appeal to the new Americans in Texas and California. Notre Dame’s draw has always been the Chicago/New York/Boston corridor of ethnic European Catholics.
LikeLike
M,
ALL SCHOOLS PRIVATE- WOW!
take the government (state & federal) “research” teat away!?!? by responses I think the odds of that happening are slim to none.. losing the “teat” of the the state, and losing the protection of “Sovereign Immunity”, plus opening up an attack on “non profit” status. are you serious.. please tell me how this will come about!?!?
I never said they were the only catholic university. I am well aware of many other orders in the faith. I am saying that they are followed by many more people than the Holy Cross order. What I am pointing out that what you gloss over as no big deal, is in fact a big deal to MANY people globally who have never, nor will ever attend ND.
Quit looking at just students when it comes to global reach. I find it quite odd that people who are “fans” of something find it impossible to believe that there are people out there who feel the same way about something else. I may think IU basketball is great even if I never took one class at IU, but I seem to have “closed” my mind to the probable outcome that someone in another part of the country feels the same way about UCLA, whom I may view as an enemy because we compete for national titles in basketball. Just because I view something from one perspective does not make it correct.
If for the sake of the argument ND announced tomorrow that they were shutting down football, would the Big 10 want them the way they do now..
come on folks denial is not a river in Egypt..
I have tried from the beginning to say that some people are too close to let go, when letting go is the best long term option. I personally would be ape sh$t happy to see the Big 10 and ND become one. I have made the decision to let go based on what I see when standing away from the situation. I am not happy personally, but I think it is best for all parties concerned..
SH has made the comment of a shared revenue stream based on football. The more I look at this the better this solution seems for all concerned. They could cross brand across the BTN, much like Chicago is part of the CIC.. but not part of the Big 10 for research purposes. It is out of the box thinking, and lets each party keep its own identity.
On the hispanic issue, I think within the next generation it will go the other way based on demographics. Especially if you start to notice ND football playing games in high hispanic areas (ie not the Big 10). In fact if that is the future, it actually benefits ND not to join the Big 10. I am not saying I am right, I am saying that the possibility is real and that it must be considered.
Case in point, as michigan has the Wal Mart wolverines, Texas has a large chunk of hispanic that never took a class at UT, but look in the “burnt orange masses” and tell me that they do not affect ticket sales or eyeballs….
seriously!
LikeLike
The “research teat” as you call it is available to any private or public university. The difference in funding now is in tuition subsidies to in-state students and in direct funds from the respective states. These funds will be gone and in many cases are already being reduced.
All schools have non-alumni fans; the problem with these sorts of fans is that they tend to only follow teams that play well. If ND next 15 years are like their last 15, they have a great risk of losing them. Unlike Texas or Michigan, ND does not have the gobs of alumni who are likely to stick around. Furthermore, they don’t have a default base of people rooting for their state. Michigan is much more a proxy for the state of Michigan than Notre Dame is for the Catholic Church, which was my point in mentioning the many other Catholic schools across the country.
You and I will have to disagree on the ability of Notre Dame to attract Hispanics. I don’t think that a mediocre football team with moniker “Fighting Irish” playing 1 game a year in the area to a half filled stadium is going to attract ethnic Mexicans to the school.
LikeLike
M,
yeah and i still believe in the easter bunny.. The big contracts are government based and it is not equal. If it was the CIC argument in the Big 10’s favor goes right out the window. I do not for one second buy what you are saying.. ESPECIALLY as you have offered no supporting evidence to support your claim that all schools will be ‘private’ in essence in 50 years. Some of the biggest lobbyist of the state house and federal government are the STATE universities.
Like football money going to a select few, research dollars follow suit (except in much larger numbers) and if you can sit there with a straight face and say this is incorrect, then I will find some nice swamp property just for you to buy.
Maybe I am just older but it is sorta like road contractors. The bids are open to everybody, but the same few firms get all the work. I saw one job for 1 million that wound up being 30 after the deal was done. Look at the military and their 800 dollar hammers, has that ended? If you can offer me proof have at it.. give me links.. seriously, does anybody on this blog believe the CIC would not fight to keep those research dollars coming in?
It is the bonus value of picking up Kansas and Missouri [yeah they may not be sexy] as it give you more votes on capitol hill.. If “research” dwarfs “entertainment” by 10:1 then Kansas and Missouri look pretty sexy indeed.
I agree about your proxy issue but expand your thinking.. Which is bigger 1% of Global catholics vs 50% of Michigan alumni and residents?
I think catholic basketball is much more fractured but ND football is more cohesive. In southern Ohio I have many friends that follow ND football and Xavier basketball. I will agree that this is a small sample size, but in my travels it would not surprise me to see this in other places.
LikeLike
Duffman,
State funding for universities was in a downward spiral before the most recent economic issue and has only worsened recently. As an example, Michigan only gets about 6% (22% of the general fund, which makes up 27% of overall budget) of its funding from the state.
http://vpcomm.umich.edu/budget/fundingsnapshot/2.html
This isn’t just in Michigan. Cal gets half the funds from California that it got just 10 years ago. UVa’s state funding has gone from 26% of its budget to 7% in 20 years. (I have links for these too, but I don’t want to trigger the automated moderation). If these schools are hurting for state funds, everyone is. Whatever the lobbyists are doing isn’t helping.
I never said that research money doesn’t favor a few select universities. Rather, location and quality of school is more important than the public/private distinction. As we’ve seen in Texas, legislators are all too willing fight for their local private school over a public school further away. The idea that private schools have difficulty on an institutional level at getting research funds doesn’t reflect reality. By my count, 8 of the 14 schools receiving more than $400 million in federal research are private. (from the Center for Measuring University Performance)
As far as 1% of global Catholics rooting for Notre Dame football, I am not sure 1% of non-Americans in the world could identify American football. I doubt any Brazilian is particularly interested in whether Brian Kelly is running the spread or a pro-set. Cincinnati on the other hand is a bastion of ND potential: ~50% Catholic, of whom most are of European origin.
LikeLike
M makes a very good point. Maybe they will not be “private,” but UT already refers to itself as state assisted, not state supported anymore. Legislatures are giving less and less. Students are paying more and more. Its a common theme throughout state universities.
And I think ND needs to join the B10. I think independence gives their players less to play for and their opponents more reason to get up for them, meaning more losses. I also think they need to look long term like the B10. 80 years ago Catholics weren’t allowed on the Supreme Court. Now there are no Protestants. Irish were discriminated against. Those generations who understood that discrimination and so united with the Fighting Irish are passing away. I don’t think ND has any substantial Hispanic Catholic following in Texas. ND needs to strike while they are still strong as the B10 is doing.
LikeLike
If nothing else, good formatting. With the overwhelming volume now, consolidated posts are a good idea, vs. reflexively tossing out 20 repetitive posts for every thought that pops into one’s head. Hopefully your lead will be followed.
LikeLike
What I don’t get—please somebody explain—given all the arguments against ND-BT—why does the BT seem to want them? This dance has been going on for decades.
LikeLike
you tell me..
I think it is like hot dogs come in 8 packs and buns come in 10 packs..
or why the smart pretty girl marries the deadbeat a$$ clown..
why do we do half the things we do when it makes no sense..
maybe a benefit of getting older is you give up chasing the high demand “sexy” girls and settle down and have kids with the smart and sensible ones..
something can be said for book smarts..
and..
something can be said for wisdom that comes with age..
LikeLike
Does anyone know if these Pac 10 invites would be individual invites or a collective invitation?
It seems to me the Pac 10 would want to make sure Texas is on board first before offering the other five. But I haven’t seen anything anywhere that clarifies that.
LikeLike
I can’t seriously believe OSU and Tech are getting blanket invites that they could accept even if UT and OU don’t.
LikeLike
supposedly contingent on all 6 accepting.
LikeLike
That’s what I assumed, but, again, I haven’t seen any article addressing that.
LikeLike
The Orangeblood guy says it’s happening this week:
And Colorado is still in the running. Must have reconsidered the ski trip angle.
LikeLike
It is pretty ridiculous just how much play the Baylor swap has gotten; time for the Pac-10 to put Colorado in and actually make it a decent outcome…
LikeLike
It all makes sense. Have you read The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, where he argues that the corn industry drives the US food supply (and the world’s)? If and when the B10 asks Neb to join, the top 5 corn states will be in the B10 – Iowa, Ill, Neb, Minn, Ind. OH is #7, and SD is #6 (they are just northern Neb fans). The B10 will basically control the countries food supply. That is scary.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Top-10—States-With-The-Most-Corn-Production–2007/2008-06-27/Article.aspx?oid=593386
LikeLike
Once the Big 10 gets Nebraska in the fold (a few weeks from now),
they can immediately start starving out the state of Texas. Once Dodds and Mack Brown get hungry enough for food, they’ll realize what’s best for them.
People need to eat. Another reason the Big 10 will win at this expansion war.
There are new twists to this saga every day.
LikeLike
I think a Big Ten with Notre Dame and Nebraska committed would be hard for Texas/A&M to turn down even if they like the regionality of this Pac-10 package.
But we’ll see I guess. I’d let people like Hopkins Horn speculate as to that.
LikeLike
P.S. I know you guys were jesting.
LikeLike
Holding Bevo hostage!?!! That’s playing mean.
LikeLike
What’ll those farmers use for fuel to harvest all that corn?
Just wonderin’…
LikeLike
Corn ethanol. Hey, that may be mandated on all of us, especially after BP. So now the B10 will control the food and energy supply. It is maddening.
LikeLike
You seem to have forgotten the power that Texas has as reported by the Nebraska fans on this board. They manipulated the AP reports into getting everyone to believe that the ND AD was there at the B10 meetings. They have also probably used the CIA to bug the B10 meetings and understand that NU is all but in and Mizzou is all but out, so they put the ultimatum primarily to NU. They also used the CIA to find out P10 invites CU anyway, so they got Baylor in and left CU behind. They also arranged for the oil spill in the Gulf manipulating the Obama administration into halting drilling in the Gulf, driving up the price of oil and the value of the W. Texas oil holdings of UT.
And A&M and Tech are included so the Aggies will discover a superior corn that grows well in the vast High Plains around Lubbock and destroy the corn economy of the B10 states.
LikeLike
And B10 states pretty much own the Great Lakes and the water tables that emanate from them. In 2 or 3 decades when fresh water is one of if not THE most important resource in the world. The Great Lakes make up what 20% of the world’s total fresh water supply? The midwest will essentially be providing a large portion of the world’s food and water needs.
Maybe as Wetzel says the B10/Delaney is evil…well, that’s what everybody gets for constantly chanting their f*&king conference name at us for the last decade. Haha. Kidding….sort of.
LikeLike
And, Wisconsin in #10 and Michigan is #11.
New name, “Big Corn Conference”?
LikeLike
The time-line for most expansion to take effect has been the 2012-2013 season by most accounts. Unless the end game eventually ends up being the movement of only 1-3 BCS teams in total, I find it unlikely the conferences could wait that long. As is, 2010 seems like it will be quite tense between schools in the Big 12 and if the Big 12 is to be dissolved, they are not likely to play an extra year beyond this as a conference.
Also, Gopher86 posted this link earlier and I thought it was an interesting read that was worth posting again. Talks about 2 different roads college football could be on Delaney’s legacy road vs. Playoffs and Revenue based conference harmony road, essentially. I can’t speak for the accuracy of the numbers, though I don’t doubt them. He does sound spot on regarding Beebe though, at least I think so.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news;_ylt=AqH0ug8C9lNNaMkIdQtqBDA5nYcB?slug=dw-expansion060610
LikeLike
Where to begin?
“Just know this, the BCS offers not a single, real world, tangible benefit to college athletics.” Thankfully he has a book coming out entitled “Death to the BCS” otherwise it might be hard to find one tangible benefit.
“The BCS has killed everyone financially.” That is why they continue to extend it. What a terrible money costing operation this silly BCS is. We’ll take 4 more years.
“Even a powerhouse such as Ohio State needed to raise ticket prices this year to balance future books.” No they probably raised ticket prices because they can. That was just the stated reason, because saying “We raised ticket prices because we know every OSU fan will pay whatever we charge for the luxury of attending a game at THE Ohio State University” is probably bad marketing. People don’t keep prices low when the demand is there to raise them.
“Under our detailed plan (essentially the NCAA’s model for lower divisions), every time a team plays a game it would receive a share of revenue, in this case $25 million.” Ah, but what happens when you have to open the coffers up to all FBS teams to avoid anti-trust penalties. Then your #’s go down a little bit for BCS programs.
“More money only means something to the small group of people (athletic directors, commissioners, coaches) who will see their already huge salaries grow, will be able to charter more private planes and will continue to justify remodeling their already opulent “facilities.” My God, it is like corporations like maximizing their revenue or something (including non-profit corporations).
“It’s almost assuredly too late for the Big 12 and the Big East to make the bold moves that could save them.” Did they have any moves to make that could save them. They were likely doomed from the get go, based on the shoddy way they were put together.
“They could try though. If Beebe and current Big East commissioner John Marinatto want to display real leadership, they can tell their current members to sit tight and allow them to build a consensus for a real football postseason that will solve all their revenue problems.” Meanwhile the B10, SEC and P10 will get richer. Don’t worry we have this plan for a post-season which the B10 and P10 seem to oppose. We’ll find a way to make it work. Put those B10 and P10 invites away and let us do our job. We are the BXII. We have power.
“Go ahead and dare the Big Ten and Pac-10 to not come along.” I would bet with the B10 and P10 and against the BXII and Big East.
“At the end of the day this has always been about the BCS and billions in revenue it has cost cash-starved college athletics.” Or maybe it has been about the billions in revenue that the BCS teams have provided to its constituencies. Why is it the BCS’s job to provide for all of college athletics. Why should the Big 10 schools be providing revenue for the University of Cincinnati?
LikeLike
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned this or if it is off base, but what about this scenario: the recent Pac 10 invite to the Big 12 Six helps launch the Pac 16 Network in partnership with Fox. Fox then has both the P16 Network and BTN to sell as a package deal to cable providers. So far, pretty conventional…
But then, correct me if I’m wrong, doesn’t the Notre Dame NBC deal come up for renewal in 2015, just around the time the Pac 16/Big Ten cable package ripens? Why would Fox not then bid for Notre Dame in order to put them on the cable package (or the regular Fox Network where the BTN/P16N is not part of the basic cable package) as well. Notre Dame would get to keep their nominal independence in football while the Big Ten (and their partners) would get the benefits of selling Notre Dame games as part of their TV package. Bet that would secure NYC for the BTN partnership!
If the deal needs sweetening, how about if the Big Ten consents to add Notre Dame as a member minus football, giving ND a desirable home for those sports while giving the BTN more attractive (relatively) content to telecast as well. In this scenario, ND wouldn’t even necessarily have to come in as a CIC member, which doesn’t seem to be a big deal for them, but would satisfy the academic objection.
LikeLike
MikeBuz – I advocate a similar arrangement. Didn’t see your post. I’m not sure I like ND as a member for everything but football – again the “all for one, one for all” angle. But I do think the BTN could be a potential home for ND football games or just as a platform for distributing ND content. BTN gets national brand to help market the network, ND stays independent. How it could all work with a P10 Network is too much thinking for me. But the idea is the same.
LikeLike
The P10 Network would remain a separate entity from the BTN though the two would be pitched as a package deal by Fox to cable providers (like ESPN and ESPN2). ND football would be carried by one or the other depending on the game, and on the local Fox over-the-air affiliate in markets where the P10 Network and BTN are not a part of the basic cable package (mostly the South, I would imagine). I don’t see anything here that couldn’t be worked out easily among the parties.
LikeLike
mikebuz – love the idea. I floated it during one of Frank’s original posts a few months ago, but Frank says no way the BigX would admit ND as anything but a full conference member.
I don’t know…I think it might make some sense.
LikeLike
INDPENDENT, PA-LEAS!?!
Question for you all. Is Independence viable today? I submit that Notre Dame orchestrates a charade upon all of us all the time. The play football as an independent but play in 20 other sports within the big East Conference. Check out their website http://www.bigeast.org/ Its been said that people know you by the company you keep. Look at the logs at the top of the website and look at the conference box scores per sport.
LET US PLEASE END THIS CHARAED ABOUT NOTRE DAME BEING INDPENDENT, PA-LEAS!?!
The Time of the independent is OVER!!!! And we all know it. I tire so much about this talk about ND wishing to remain an INDEPENDENT!?! It’s time for ND to come play with the big boys. It’s a process of growing up. You can’t continue to play with the 7th graders or people will think there is something, well different about you? Honestly, the service academies will be just fine.
LikeLike
Independence works until it doesn’t.
When will independence not work? When there are 16 team superconferences that threaten to take all the BCS bids for themselves.
That’s when it won’t work. That’s what Notre Dame is focused on. If the BCS system changes in 2014, as Delany is probably telling them it will, it will change for the better of the Big Ten/Pac-10/SEC/ACC. ND won’t be anywhere near as powerful as it was last time in getting its way because of how powerful these conferences will be by then.
ND sees that and will react accordingly. As for TV presence/markets, ND will be fine as long as NBC is willing to pay them $15M a year.
ND doesn’t need the money. It needs to be sure that as an independent it doesn’t get screwed over by BCS changes.
What happens when a Pac-16 and Big Ten (16) say that they want to remove the limit on BCS bids?
Then ND will know that it’s a very bad day for independents…
LikeLike
Remove the limits on BCS bids? Interesting. In a strong 16 team league you can conceivably give a bid to each team in the conference championship game. The winner or loser statistic would also be a good determinant in figuring out a national championship spread of bowl games. Loser in the conf championship games plays the winner in another leagues conference championship.
LikeLike
Winner/Loser of CCG + top team that doesn’t go to CCG would get bids.
LikeLike
Combining this with MikeBuz idea above of a joint BTN/PTN and ND. Could we possibly see a synergy between Fox/B10/P10 (one of which would include Texas), and ND (not in a conference)? Honestly, hasn’t the B10 and P10 been the real power players in the BCS for all these years. The B10 and P10 may be fine with keeping ND independent so long as they are making money out of the deal. Having them advocate on ND’s behalf (because a strong ND gives them TV sets with respect to their networks) will always mean that ND will have a seat at the major college football table.
LikeLike
I think something like this would be a great result for the Big 10, Pac 10 and ND. But first we’ve got to figure who, if either, gets Texas.
LikeLike
Latest from Dodd: “Syracuse the key to prying Notre Dame loose for the Big Ten”
Just to add to the confusion.
Dodd yesterday reported if ND joined, Big 10 might stop at 12. Today “reporting” 16 more likely. His source is “scuttlebutt” so that obviously is very important. Tomorrow’s report?
————————————-
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/22395511?tag=headlines;other
————————
“The latest scuttlebutt Monday morning has to do with Syracuse being the key to prying Notre Dame loose for the Big Ten.
If Missouri and Nebraska say yes to the Big Ten, I’m hearing that then either Pittsburgh or Rutgers would be paired with Syracuse to form an expanded eastern boundary of the new league.
In this scenario, the addition of Syracuse collapses the Big East and potentially forces Notre Dame to find a conference home for its minor sports. Not to mention a conference home for football.
In other words, Notre Dame needs a compelling reason to join a league in football. I reported yesterday that if Notre Dame came to the Big Ten, that league’s expansion might be capped at 12. That might not be the case now. The two biggest words to remember in this entire process is that it is always a “fluid situation.”
————————–
LikeLike
Sounds like he has no real idea what’s going on…
I still think this is about Texas, unless Texas has indicated it will accept the Pac-10 invite because there’s no comparable Big Ten package.
If so, then this ND/Nebraska/Mizz/Syracuse/Rutgers scenario makes sense, but I’ll believe it when I see it.
Perhaps Texas has told the Big Ten that it plans to accept the Big Ten invite, in which case this is really all about figuring out a 16 team set up for Notre Dame and to a lesser extent Nebraska.
LikeLike
If in fact there is just a bluff going on and Texas is free to extricate them from the Big 12 without the baggage of Tech, where would they choose to go? I think their heart says the Pac 10 but their head says the Big Ten. There are Interesting days for those in the administration for the U of T ahead. So it’s all up to pot sweeteners then.
LikeLike
Well, the only way they’d get rid of Tech and Baylor is if the Big Ten goes to 14 (ND/Neb/Mizz) and then makes an offer to Texas/A&M. That’s the only way I see it coming down for Texas/A&M to come in without baggage.
(Just realized a mistake with my post, I meant the Pac-10 invite being accepted by Texas).
Of course this is first about Notre Dame and then Texas. Once you get Notre Dame you go to 16 regardless of whether you have Texas, so Syracuse seems to be a backup…
LikeLike
@zeek – It all depends upon what Texas wants. Does it really want the more provincial aspect of the Pac-10 offer that keeps the Big 12 South intact, is likely more politically expedient and coronates UT as the leader of that conference? Or does it want to be in a more nationally-based Big Ten that would yield substantially more revenue but can’t take any other regional school besides A&M?
LikeLike
Yeah, I think that’s why the Big Ten is going to go with a scenario that only leaves 2 slots for Texas/A&M if Texas/A&M indicate to the Big Ten that the Pac-10 deal isn’t fait accompli.
If the Big Ten grabs ND and then Nebraska and 1 other (probably Missouri if Texas/A&M indicate interest after an ND application becomes public for a ND/Mizz/Texas/A&M pod), then it’s at 14 and can give Texas/A&M a take-it or leave it offer to weigh against the Pac-10’s “Texas + 5” approach.
LikeLike
Why would ND care about what Syracuse does? Even if the Big East football contingent splits, ND Olympic sports can remain in a high-quality conference with the non-football Big East schools, like Villanova and Georgetown. By the way, I think Syracuse is a mediocre-to-poor candidate for the Big 10 but a reasonably strong candidate if the ACC expands.
LikeLike
Yeah, I mean if I’m ND, why else would I join the Big Ten other than if I can bring Texas in as well.
I still don’t think the Big Ten gets Notre Dame unless we promise Texas… but Texas looks likely to receive its Pac-10 invite soon and will face pressure from all the other parties to accept…
LikeLike
If they can’t get ND or TX they should hold off on expansion until they can. Don’t blow up the Big 12 by taking Nebraska. I hate the idea of expansion for the sake of expansion without any Home runs.
LikeLike
I disagree; I think they have to get off the pot. Remember this last expansion thing was THEIR idea. So your talking about starting a war and then while you are talking another guy comes and punches you in the mouth staggering you. And you answer is to do nothing?
LikeLike
I lost faith in Dodd early when he was saying that BYU was a natural choice for the Pac 10. He changed his mind when everyone told him there was no way that BYU was getting in the P10, but it all indicates to me he’s just speculating like we are.
LikeLike
Football independence will remain viable for Notre Dame as long as they can qualify for the NCG by finishing No. 1 or 2 in the BCS standings; automatically qualify for a BCS game with a Top 8 finish, and have access to enough quality opponents in October and November to make qualification a reasonable possibility. I think it is in the best interest of BCS-AQ conferences to keep ND in the BCS fold, as a national independent, because it increases the size of the BCS contract for everyone.
LikeLike
Yeah, but they haven’t reached the BCS CG and how many BCS bids have they gotten?
I’d be worried if the BCS conferences remove bid limits. Could easily see the SEC get 3, Big Ten (16) get 3, or Pac-10 get 3 every year or 2 of the 3 getting 3…
LikeLike
Sounds good but have you watched ND football over the past 15 years? Sure NBC overpays them for what they deliver but not everyone is a sucker and not for long. I could easily see USC, ,Texas, Ohio State and Florida filling the shoes of ND over the same period for the network. This and no service academy filler on the schedule. ND would be better served to have an overall upgrade in their football schedule. Yes, I know they get USC and Michigan each year. You would have two heavy hitters, at least in any good conference and you would have to beat them to crawl over them.
LikeLike
My latest Texas-centric spin on this is up. I’m not a happy camper with the turn of events over the weekend.
LikeLike
Hopkins I take back every uncharitable thought I’ve had against Texas in the last 48 hours (mostly the state, not the school), lol. Texas has been CU’s number one ally in trying to maintain respectable academic standards for the for the conference. Hopefully this is the way the PAC is thinking as well. FWIW I’ve seen some stuff on some of our boards from our connected folks that state this is the stick being used on CU to try and keep us in line with the Big 12 and that things still look good, but I’ve been worried that the longer this stays out there the more time it has to build steam. I just got through sending a round of emails to CU administrators and regents that they need to be more proactive on the Baylor attacks.
LikeLike
That sounds like a bad idea; in terms of trying to get Colorado to commit as well to the Big 12.
From what it sounds like the Big Ten may get ND and Nebraska on board which means that Texas legitimately needs a Pac-16 solution.
LikeLike
If the Pac 10 has to turn down Colorado (in favor of Baylor!), JD would obviously make an offer to CU, but would immediately explore making offers to Stanford and Cal (and maybe USC & UCLA also). I think Baylor is a poison pill for the Pac 10.
LikeLike
@hopkins Horn – Great piece. Everyone should read it.
LikeLike
Gracias!
LikeLike
Nicely Done!
LikeLike
Wow! That article was good stuff. I assumed that Texans were all for the okidoke but Hopkins really fires on that Texas and Baylor deal like a realist. I think he fired one Texas school to short on this. But he sure got it right. I am not looking for the PAC 10 deal to go through but I have to take my hat off to ya. Oh, and don’t go to Waco anytime soon OK?
LikeLike
What I don’t get is whether the Pac-10 has given approval for them to issue invites or what?
Is all the voting over; they can invite anyone they want and all the schools have said they’d accept it or what?
LikeLike
they can invite anyone they want and all the schools have said they’d accept it or what?/i>
I sure as hell hope not . . . and if that were really the case, why wouldn’t pro-TCU legislators be jumping up and down to demand that they be taken instead of OSU? (And you see what the ultimate step after that is…)
LikeLike
Well we’ll see. What’s your gut feeling on whether Texas would take that over a Big Ten invite with A&M.
I outline the scenario above but what if the Big Ten had ND/Neb/Mizz invited and had 2 spots left open. Would Texas/A&M accept being in a pod with ND/Mizz or would they still go with this Pac-10 invite?
LikeLike
My gut feeling has been that Texas would prefer the Big 10 invite, all things being equal, but I’m not sure politics will allow it anymore.
Unless the Baylor deal blows up in the face of the State Legislature and leads to Texas and A&M being free not only of Baylor but also Tech as well, freeing them up for the Big 10.
LikeLike
“I sure as hell hope not . . . and if that were really the case, why wouldn’t pro-TCU legislators be jumping up and down to demand that they be taken instead of OSU? (And you see what the ultimate step after that is…)”
I am fully expecting the other Texas schools to try to exert power in this manner. The only reason more of them didn’t get squeezed into the Big XII was the perception that 12 was the max. Why should UTexas take along Oklahoma schools over Texas schools? Even if UHouston or TCU don’t have enough power to ultimately force it, they probably have enough power to be a nuisance. Since the Pac-10 seems to want to avoid nuisances, they might be able to sneak in.
The Pac-10 should have been cleverer about this plan. Invite Utah instead of Texas Tech and then give in and bring Tech.
LikeLike
Hopkins: Do you think A&M would be a sure thing to go to the Pac-10? AD Byrne has made noises that suggest otherwise.
LikeLike
Hopkins – You a little too conveniently gloss over the e-mail information given concerning the Baylor booster claiming this move has support from Texas by inferring it would take a gun to the head for that to be so. There’s an e-mail claim, and there’s your personal prejudice about the matter. I don’t know that the e-mail claim holds that much weight, but I know that your personal opinion of how you think UT should act does not make it so. It could very well be that Texas supports bringing in Baylor over Colorado, if they think they can get that, if for no other reason than Baylor is a vote more reliable than Colorado for Texas purposes.
LikeLike
The point of his post though is that the Pac-10 needs to start off on the right footing with Texas.
That means not catering too much to what Texas wants and solving the Baylor problem. It means forcing Texas to solve that particular problem on its own and not entering the Pac-10 with the most leverage of any schools (6 guaranteed votes for anything it wants…).
The last thing you want is resentment or similar things to what killed the Big 12.
LikeLike
That assumes Texas feels they have any part in any resentment or other things that have (probably) killed the Big 12. If you can find evidence of that, let me know. Otherwise, I’ll stick with the building-the-kingdom, voting bloc theory.
LikeLike
Hopkins Horn was talking about what he thinks is best for Texas for the long term, not what Texas thinks is best for Texas in the long term.
Perhaps having Baylor in is better for UT in the long term from UT’s perspective. That may very well be true according to the background info…
LikeLike
I understand it’s one guy’s opinion. I’m simply pointing out what appears to me to be an error in how he shapes his conclusions. The only possibly real evidence we have, from obtained e-mails, personal communications, is that Texas supports Baylor over Colorado. Until that’s proven wrong or right by events, it seems to me to be intellectually dishonest to dismiss it with a wave of the hand and a oh, they must have had a gun to their head. Nothing more.
LikeLike
I think this “six guaranteed votes” thing is overstated.
Do all of these schools vote with Texas today on disproportionate revenue sharing?
Did any of them vote with Texas last year when UT advocated changing the division tiebreaker rules in the wake of the 2008 fiasco? It was kind of a big deal for Texas, in case you hadn’t heard. 🙂
LikeLike
“Reliable” doesn’t equate to “guaranteed”. In the political landscape of the Pac 10 and Colorado, Colorado may jump the fence more often than Baylor. They’ll be with the group they’ve always wanted to be with on the west coast.
LikeLike
At this point, I really don’t care anymore what you think I, or any other Texas booster, might be “conveniently glossing over,” because your blatant anti-Texas bias will lead you to infer the absolute worse in the motivations of UT, no matter what the reality is.
LikeLike
Ah. Sort of a non-denial denial. Fair enough.
LikeLike
A non-denial to a “do you still beat your wife” sort of question.
LikeLike
How so? By pointing out that you skipped over evidence that Texas may support this move by using a gun to the head metaphor? Do you have evidence of that?
LikeLike
Couldn’t one scenario be that UT is supporting Baylor because they would like the Pac 10 offer to fail to free themselves up from tag alongs?
LikeLike
Boilerfan-
There is really no reason other than conspiracy theories for Texas to support Baylor. The Baylor fan’s claim makes no sense except that UT might support Baylor only because the legislature gave them no other choice (and I doubt Baylor has that much influence-but I have been proved wrong before-like when almost all of us thought P10 earthshaking move would be a network). Colorado is much more similar to UT than Baylor is.
LikeLike
The fundamentals of the dealmaking augur against a Baylor-for-CU switch. The two schools the Pac 10 actually *wants* are Texas and Colorado. Now, a Baylor switch for, say, Oklahoma State, might be something that the Pac 10 schools might swallow to make the deal go down. But losing CU (probably to the Big 10) would reduce the value of Pac 10 expansion appreciably by removing the growing Denver market. I think most of us would agree that the marginal benefit of Baylor approaches zero. So they can’t jettison CU for Baylor. They just can’t. Right?
LikeLike
If Texas wants it, they can do it. They’ve already done that, for the most part.
LikeLike
Yes, the voting block angle could definitely be a factor, along with several other reasons. And I wouldn’t put it past TX to be ramping up demands with the real intent of the P16 offer failing. Or anywhere in between.
High stakes poker.
LikeLike
Great job on the article.
LikeLike
Despite what our school’s leadership might say, fans of Texas do not want Baylor tagging along.
No, YOU do not want Baylor. Texas fans have a range of opinions. There are plenty that agree with you, but it is far from unanimous.
After having thought about it, I’m fine with Baylor. Excellent academic school and good in about everything but football. With Robert Griffin healthy that may change this year, too.
Of course I also want CO. OK St is the real weak link, the furthest from the average of all the schools mentioned. The problem is that OK St is there to keep OU from going to the outlaw SEC. Perhaps we should call OU’s bluff. Say sorry, but OK St. is out. If you go SEC we’ll never play you in anything but the RR Shootout. If they still run, there’s always KS or Utah. Or TCU, SMU…
LikeLike
If I have both eapg and Playoffs NOW!!!!!!!!!!! criticizing my work, I’ve done something correctly.
LikeLike
There’s nothing wrong with Baylor…until you compare it to Colorado.
If Baylor is such a great school for the Pac, swap it with TT.
LikeLike
“Baylor is superior to Colorado academically. Baylor has athletic facilities superior to Colorado. Colorado doesn’t participate in the number of sports that Baylor does. Baylor’s overall record in all collegiate sports dwarfs that of Colorado.”
per Baylor Regent http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/95804854.html
LikeLike
Thanks Horn that was a great read.
LikeLike
HH – Good article. Right on with marching to another SWC. I have lived in Texas for a long time. The one thing people always say about Texas is true – we Texans do brag a lot about our state and are rightly proud of it. But that can lead to thinking along the lines of – there are enough good schools in Texas for a conference, we don’t need any schools from other states. I don’t think rational fans think this way, but if you listen to sports talk enough you will always here fans (older fans) argue about how great the old SWC was and how we could do it again (this from fans of TCU, UH, SMU, Rice). So it doesn’t surprise me when politicians start thinking that way. In the end, this P10 arrangement with a Baylor included is setting up a marriage to fail. I don’t really believe it will work well with CU over Baylor. But I don’t really know I guess.
This seems like a disaster waiting to happen – which could negatively impact the B10. And here is how, if this marriage doesn’t work, you will have the two largest states starting to look for a different model. They may claim the conference model is no longer suited any more. Despite the fact the B10 and SEC will be doing just fine. Maybe the B10 and SEC open up their arms at that point, or maybe with all those representatives we start getting hearings on all sorts of issues most colleges don’t want hearings on – tax-exemptions, antitrust, research dollars.
Does anyone else see a possible negative fallout from P16 marriage gone bad – to the detriment of SEC and B10? Or am I just being paranoid?
LikeLike
Interesting isn’t it that Texas is on-board with Baylor ousting CU? Texas A&M stands alone and does not offer its support to Baylor, is interesting as well, isn’t it?
Makes you wonder what about the true motives of both of these schools. One seems to want to arrange things so it is the dominant school in a conference of unequals. The other is lookin (begging) to find a conference of equals.
LikeLike
Hopkins, is there any chance A&M could say they want to join the Big Ten without Texas or Tech? My theory here is this would break the three team Texas connection and could possibly free up Texas from it’s Tech problem.
LikeLike
The thought of Stanford donor Bill Clinton stopping the addition of Baylor (whose president is Ken Starr) is just too sweet to think about.
Gut feeling of the week (hey, it’s good enough for Dodd): Pac 10 and Big Ten end up with 16 teams. SEC and ACC stay at 12. Big East and Mountain West settle in around 10 teams each. The Big 12 evaporates.
LikeLike
And people actually think that Baylor (and Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State) actually have a shot at getting unanimous approval from the Pac-10… 🙂
LikeLike
I think in Barfknecht’s story in the Omaha paper’s Web site, he says Larry Scott has been given authority to make a deal from all of the Pac 10 presidents. Maybe that means Stanford is on board for resolving the “Tech problem” (and swallow OU and OkState) in a way that satisfies UT. Maybe it means that Scott has authority to bring on board CU, Texas + any other four that seal the deal. Is there another interpretation for this?
LikeLike
Sorry, I won’t root for a corrupt, irresponsible gangster over an honest man who simply did his job, tasked to enforce the law.
But then I’m old enough to actually remember Whitewater, Monica, lying to a grand jury, witness intimidation, death threats, a myriad of scandals, Loral Corporation’s donations and the shifting of export license controls from defense to commerce, the resulting 2-decade leap in missile targeting for the Chinese after Loral’s treasonous actions, and China’s threat to nuke Los Angeles a year later during a dispute over Taiwan (a threat they had no ability to carry out until Loral’s actions.) Starr was slandered and vilified in the media not by facts, but crass partisanship.
So yeah, I respect Ken Starr, despise Bill Clinton, and don’t hate Baylor based on urban myths. Go Bears!
LikeLike
I’m part of the group that thinks that Texas isn’t going anywhere. All this jockeying is about the Big 10 trying to force Notre Dame’s hand so they can expand to 12 and the Pac 10 trying desperately to convince someone of significance to join their conference (Colorado alone wont’ do this). Many think that Nebraska is the key, but if the Big 10 was going to invite them, why have they not done it already (I think they would have jumped in a heartbeat)? Because they want Notre Dame. If Nebraska stays in the Big 12, then my guess is that Texas stays and holds the whole thing together. No one will care if Colorado or Missouri leave, they will just replace them. If intereted, I wrote a piece talking about the Texas situation after hours of research on the topic. It can be read at: http://thepolesposition.com/2010/06
/06/texas-hold-em-what-will-the-lon
ghorns-do/
LikeLike
The Little bull once told the young bull as they we sitting up on a hill looking at cows. Hey look, let run down there and get us one. The big bull told the young bull, now hold on son. Let’s just walk down and take our time and get them all. In the case of the big ten, in a matter of choice I would say 1. ND 2. Texas and 3 Nebraska. In terms of new markets Texas has got to be the biggest prize on the table. Even if forced to marry one ugly sister along with the prize.
LikeLike
I don’t think Notre Dame is JD’s prime target anymore. I think the Gee e-mail and the “growth states” statement Delany made a couple of weeks ago are pretty clear indicators that Texas is the main prize in this round of expansion. This is 2010, not 1999 or 2003.
LikeLike
Despite ranking Texas #2 out of a possible regional 3, I totally agree with you. Texas is the biggest star in the ski. But the other galaxies are realigning and they will outshine both Texas and ND if they both stay put.
LikeLike
Yeah but the politics of Texas seem to make Texas impossible.
The only way Texas goes to the Big Ten (unless they’re seriously willing to ignore the Tech problem) seems to be if Stanford or Cal ends the Pac-16 plan, which seems unlikely at this point…
LikeLike
I am still not convinced that Stanford will sign off on a T Tech. They could bite the bullet and swallow hard for the sake of the conference and take a Texas/Texas A&M package. But then you add Tech, Baylor and an Oklahoma and I think you have more than just Stanford think for more reasons than just academics. But we shall see. In the PAC Ten expansion is dependent upon a unanimous yes vote on any one school. While in the Big Ten its 8 out of 11. If your rules are so conservative (unanimous) would this deal make sense? It only looks desperate to me.
LikeLike
Okay, but what about the Tech problem? I refuse to believe the Big 10 will allow Texas Tech to come aboard. So in a vacuum, I agree with you, Texas is the bigger prize. ND would come with no other strings (other than the ones that they present).
LikeLike
Texas is like a Hot Girl you are thinking about proposing to.
you can live with her cop father-A&M
than you find out she has:
Bad Credit-Tech
And a Kid- Baylor
LikeLike
Well we’ve seen a bunch of these analogies, but I like your’s the best. Well played.
LikeLike
It could very well be that Texas is the last mover in this whole drama…even though their mind is made up first.
Think about this. Texas wants the Big 10. They have a “Tech” problem. Meanwhile, politically, UT is going to spend the next six months wringing its hands to keep the conference together.
Meanwhile, Colorado only will get invited this week (my prediction…CU only, not the entire 6 Big 12er’s at this point). The rest are befuddled, maybe under the guise that they couldn’t take Baylor along too. Next, Nebraska tells the Big 12, we’re out by June 15. While we’re at it, the Big 10 adds another school with Nebraska (Rutgers or ND…probably the former because I don’t think ND’s alumss are quite there yet). To summarize, June ends with the Big 10 sitting at 13 and the PAC10 sitting at 11.
Enter the SEC. The SEC (rumored to be sweethearts with Texas A/M) starts making a play for Texas and the “block” of Texas schools. I could see OU, OkSt, Tech, A/M all getting invites from the PAC10 (OU and aTm in a heartbeat).
Now the game looks like this. PAC10 at 11 with one glorious spot avaiable for Texas. Big 10 at 13 still looking to expand at least one more school (maybe 3). SEC at 15 with one glorious spot available for Texas.
Texas has political cover. The other Texas schools (minus Baylor) have already left them “high and dry.” Now, it can act freely. Its “Tech” problem is solved. They can be THE Big 10 school of Texas.
Maybe I’m a fool to believe that Texas and the Big 10 are the power plays in this drama. But if I’m not, there’s no reason to believe that everything that plays out, plays out because Texas and the Big 10 intend for it to play out like that.
LikeLike
Rumor is though that the Pac-10 are going to give all 6 invites within the next week or two…
LikeLike
How could you be the fool to think Texas and the Big 10 are the two power players? You are talking about the number one grossing athletic department and the confernce that generates the highest TV revenue presently? It is so obvious to me that this is the Angelina Jole-Bradd Pitt marriage made in heaven that I can buy your whole scenario–let someone else fire the first shot and sit back and wait.
LikeLike
There’s just too much dissension in the B12 for it to remain a viable conference as presently constituted. Say the B10 decided to add just ND (highly unlikely IMO)and the B12 remained the same. What kind of leverage would they have in renegotiating their TV deal when most every school has been plausibly rumored to leave? How do they mend fences with one another with ultimatums issued and threats levied?
As presently constituted the B12 is dead. Just a matter of when.
LikeLike
I agree with this. There are fundamental differences between the member schools that a new TV contract isn’t going to solve. At best (worst) the Big12 lasts another four years until the TV contract expires and we go through a version of this all over again.
LikeLike
If its just a matter of “when,” it’s also a matter of “how.” With every school angling for its best possible outcome, securing such an outcome as soon as possible becomes a priority. After all, if it is simply a matter of time, what must happen eventually is best acted upon immediately. The logic of this process is moving toward a relatively swift playing out.
LikeLike
Perhaps all the conferences are unstable, with the B10 being the least because the schools are the most alike. FL and GA are growing less and less like MS in resources and every other way, so that could lead to changes in the SEC over time. The SWC schools at one time had similar resources and fan support. There is a good reason Rice built a 70,000 seat stadium. The B12 and P10 have uneven revenue sharing because the schools bring such differing values to the table. There simply isn’t that big a gap in the B10. The Big 3 bring fb, but IU brings bb (which used to mean a lot), IL, WI, MN bring whole states, IA, PU, MSU have great followings, while NW is NW.
I agree the end of the B12 is probably near, but it isn’t inevitable. There is no problem that more money couldn’t reasonably cure. But for that money to be found would require the B10 to look only east for expansion candidates.
LikeLike
“I agree the end of the B12 is probably near, but it isn’t inevitable. There is no problem that more money couldn’t reasonably cure.”
No disrespect meant, Bullet, but I think this perception is behind a lot of the discord between the conference members. Money is certainly the primary force, but it isn’t the only one at work here. Equality, the sharing of power, and viewing the conference entity as more than a vehicle for the top schools to widen the distribution gulf are also concerns. The Big12 lacks a shared identity.
NU (and to a lesser extent MU) is doing very well financially, yet even the prospect of a lucrative new TV contract doesn’t seem to be enough to keep them aboard.
LikeLike
I haven’t sifted through all the comments since the B10 press conf. yesterday SIAP, but I think they indirectly told everyone when they’ll be adding teams.
Next scheduled meeting for the B10 Presidents is in December and they went out of their way to mention that they don’t have to assemble to take a vote. They can do it electronically is what the MSU Chancellor said I believe. To me that translates to “these vote(s) will happen before December.” I highly doubt the B10 is going to announce expansion plans into the new school semester come August…mainly as to not distract or interfere with classes/sports teams.
In short, the B10 will DEFINITELY be making it’s intentions known before fall semesters start. Maybe nothing happens this week, but I believe Delaney and MSU’s Chancellor let us know something WILL happen this summer.
LikeLike
Duff – maybe you and I can explore some more outside the box thinking. I’m starting to believe that maybe this B10 – ND relationship is perfect the way it is. It constantly generates interest for both parties. ND – Mich is always a big game regardless of how good the schools really are. If it was in conference, does it then just become another in-conference game?
Could the BTN ever be a possible network for ND games? Could the BTN market it that so long as you play your traditional B10 rivals those games will also be on BTN. I know ND is dropping Purdue (or has explored dropping Purdue). My guess is to Purdue’s dismay. Would this be a way for BTN to get the benefit of ND without having them in the conference? At then end, isn’t it just a network which has a lot of content which it owns? Wouldn’t the BTN love to be able to show ND – USC every other year?
I remember a few years back, when ESPN was able to outbid the big networks for sports. I was amazed that they could. So why can’t the BTN? Couldn’t BTN offer a better package than NBC? Seems to me, most ND fans and B10 fans have some interest in the other (whether positive or negative – but does that matter?).
LikeLike
SH..
funny about the ND vs USC game on the BTN, including past games (that cost no money to produce) was going through my mind as well. Not to go down this road again, but long term it is much more calm. Lets take it a step further, say ND keeps Michigan, but drops PU to rotate through the Big 10 / 16 an an annual basis. Both sides get a boost without making the other bend to the will and cause friction.
Michigan State falls off, so maybe ND does Michigan + 2. Michigan is constant and ND rotates two other Big 10 schools per year (but to be fair certain pairs would not hit in the same year [PSU & tOSU] or [Nebraska & Wisconsin] so there would be a sense of balance and fair play by all parties involved..
LikeLike
Of course, I advocate that ND keep all its old B10 rivalries – just the traditionalist in me. I would also advocate they add back PSU – I believe they were a long time rival? I like a college football world where ND plays the following schools every year:
USC
Mich
Purdue
Mich St
Navy
Add Penn State and then one other B10 school that it can rotate through, or rotate through 2 B10 schools a year (with one being Penn St, OSU, Neb) and I think you got a pretty good thing for both ND and B10. Maybe, the two can find a way to partner up and put all this bickering aside. Smiles for all.
LikeLike
SH,
the problem might be the Big 10 if you do not rotate. If the western half of the league never gets to sell tickets for their home stadium for a ND game it might cause friction.
plus if USC, Michigan, MSU, and PSU are on the schedule every year it would force ND to drop other big conference schools (stanford, asu, pitt, and others are already on their future schedules) to avoid a totally brutal schedule every year.
LikeLike
At this point, I’m just simply rooting for keeping those traditional rivals in place. You are right, others might want ND to come in so Pur/MSU may have to drop the rivalry for the good of the team. But I do like preserving rivalries if possible. I think either option seems workable.
LikeLike
SH,
Here is another thought – If the Big 10 and Pac 10 get along as well as bloggers have implied, they “share” ND with content going to BOTH BTN and PTN. ND agrees to Mich + 2 for the BTN and USC + 2 for the PTN, and 6 OOC to fill out their schedule? comments?
LikeLike
I think that could work. I think it makes sense for B10 and P10 to remain strategic partners for a lot of reasons. Maybe they can get ND on board and use them to their advantage. I like that better than trying to bring ND into a fold it doesn’t want to be in.
LikeLike
Bewhahahahah!
This mans sleeping better these days.
Anyone know who he is?
LikeLike
How? The Pac-16 guarantees a big hit to the Big East.
Sure we’re all talking about the Big 12 implosion, but if the Texas schools go West, then the Big Ten is going to go straight for the Big East and ACC (after Nebraska and perhaps Mizz)…
LikeLike
I think Big east football is always very vulnerable but as long as the Big Ten is focused on the following schools.
SouthWest – Texas, Texas A&M Midwest – Nebraska, Missouri, Notre Dame East – Maryland , Virginia, Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt.
The way the dominos are starting to fall the emphasis will be more Southwest and Midwest than East.
The BE can recoup a 1 team loss with East Carolina, Memphis or Central Florida. Any of these will be a better football program than Rutgers. And as we know they have basketball covered.
LikeLike
StvinILL-
“The BE can recoup a 1 team loss with East Carolina, Memphis or Central Florida. Any of these will be a better football program than Rutgers.”
Normally I would have to defend RU with some transitory arguments (RU beat team A, team A beat Memphis, etc.)
Given the fact Rutgers smoked Central Florida in a bowl game just this past December, your idiocy speaks for itself.
LikeLike
Big Ten East: Mich, MSU, OSU, PSU, Wisc, Minn, NW, ILL.
Beg Ten West: USC, UCLA, ND, Cal, Stan, Pur, IU, IA.
Last game of reg season: M v. OSU, USC v. UCLA, ND v. PSU, Stan v. Cal.
LikeLike
There goes the Rose Bowl…
LikeLike
Mountain West announces today that due to rumors surrounding expansion in other leqgues, it will not expand at this time. However, the league stated this position could change quickly.
LikeLike
Mountain West Conference decides to not expand at this time. Commissioner Thompson, says “Door is not closed on Boise St.”
The MWC invited the media/press from Idaho to the conference meetings in Jackson WY it was ASSUMED to cover Boise St getting an invitation to the MWC. Why else would they invite the media of a team/area that is not in your conference?
Apparently this is about all the rumors from this weekend.
(side note: If I were a school Prez or AD, I think I’d look at joining the MWC, just for the trip to Jackson, WY. Jackson beats Kansas City all to hell as a place to visit. )
LikeLike
Don’t know if this has been talked about.
But a link between ND and Syracuse from Dodd
http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270202/22395511/2?tag=mccBlogView;comBlogCommCnt
missouri, neb, nd, pitt, syracuse…man I would love that…Rutgers of course is mentioned.
LikeLike
Syracuse with Notre Dame makes sense. Notre Dame I’m sure wants another private school besides themselves and Northwestern (especially in a 16 team league where two private schools can feel kind of lost). Syracuse fits this bill. (I also thought this was a reason Vanderbilt was a possilbity too.)
LikeLike
Vandy would certainly be a plausible partner school for Northwestern, but I don’t really think Syracuse is a viable partner school (look at the disparity in research $ and ARWU ranking) for Northwestern. If you wanted a true partner school for ND you would pretty much have to go for BC.
LikeLike
Syracuse does nothing for me (as a fan). I would love to see Pitt instead, but it doesn’t look like that is in the cards.
LikeLike
another rumor from MO.
LikeLike
http://www.examiner.com/x-6668-Penn-State-Nittany-Lions-Football-Examiner~y2010m6d7-Rumor-Big-Ten-invites-Nebraska-Notre-Dame-Missouri-Rutgers
LikeLike
I think this is the old rumor posted weeks ago.
LikeLike
Isn’t that the 2 month old KC radio rumor? Same analysis as back then too…
LikeLike
was dated today – agree that it appears to be the same old rumor.
LikeLike
Thanks again to Frank and the rest of you for your incite and analysis.
2nd time poster. Disclaimer, I’m a PSU fan since high school that graduated from Carnegie Mellon and didn’t take to the Pitt Kool-Aid even though I think Pitt would be a great addition to the Big Ten
Anyway, well count me down for just add 2 now, Nebraska and Rutgers, and then see what happens for a few reasons:
1) They both want in badly without looking back, (Nebraska has already lost Oklahoma and Rutgers doesn’t care about BB like other BEast schools) and, more importantly, want to stay in badly. They are already Big Ten schools in most ways as you have all defined and it is easy to see them as very content and contributing schools over the next 50 years and beyond.
2) Let’s see how much more the BTN starts bringing in with NJ subscribers and Husker ratings. How much more does 11+2 bring in over $20 million to each school from this past year? $30 mil? $40 mil? More? Even if you can’t get these schools until 2011, it definitely speeds up the projections. It’s one thing for Texas and others to turn down an additional $100 mil over ten years, but $200-$300 million or more? More BTN money on top of the boost to the CIC makes JD’s hand so much stronger. Pealing off Texas Tech, turning down the LSN, turning Notre Damn votes, cracking the ACC to get the higher prestige academic schools there, or Vanderbilt becomes much easier. Especially when you show that just adding these 2 raised the BTN this much and adding you could raise it this much more.
3) To Zeek’s point, if there is still a play to be made for ND and/or Texas in another phase, I think having Rutgers in makes the “national brand” Big Ten a much easier sell to those schools than Missouri. Remember Frank’s point way back when about how Jerry Jones insisted on keeping is Cowboys in the NFC east so he could keep banking all that merchandising to bandwagon fans in NYC, Philly, and DC through the “America’s Team” aura? It still applies to Texas and there is definitely an appeal for ND to play in front of its alumni in the region every other year. Jerry Jones knows that KC and St. Louis don’t offer the potential jersey and hat sales that the I-95 corridor fans do.
4) I think we’re all overlooking Frank’s Syracuse over Missouri prediction in his post before this one. Not necessarily that Syracuse is in, but that Missouri is farther down the list than I think most of us are acknowledging or realize. Syracuse might be the immediate beneficiary of having to go to the even number of 14 now, but it also makes me wonder what other schools are higher up on the list to go to at 14 or later. Are their projections showing that Nebraska and Illinois already creates enough demand in the state that Missouri offers smaller returns than other schools like Syracuse? This would point to the “penumbra” return being greater than getting higher and more cable subscriptions from Missouri.
5) To JJ’s point, also count me down for University of Toronto. Who cares what the sports talking heads say, that is a huge boost to the conference brand as it becomes tangibly international. Not even the Ivy League could say that, although they don’t need to either.
6) This is where my background comes in on a sort of side related note. With your suggestions of extending lacrosse power Johns Hopkins a CIC invitation like the position Chicago has, wouldn’t it also be a good idea for the CIC to look to add the rest of UAA schools to it? They’re all AAU and would benefit both sides in collaborating on research. Is it more that UAA schools wouldn’t be receptive or that they don’t all have the giant research money pouring in that Johns Hopkins does? Or is it something else? While it wouldn’t help the Big Ten athletically, it would expand the CIC footprint to Missouri, Georgia, New York, and the center of NYC.
LikeLike
As to your point about ND or Texas; yea if they would want Rutgers that’s fine. I was just saying that if your strategy is ND -> Nebraska -> 3 more; then the 3 more are contingent on what it takes to get the schools you want, regardless of what they are.
On the CIC point; the CIC is tied to the Big Ten and by extension to the Big Ten’s footprint. Thus, I only advocate bringing in JHU if Maryland ends up in the Big Ten’s footprint because JHU is in an extremely similar situation to UChicago in terms of its athletics programs. Perhaps they could join the Big Ten for lacrosse, I have no idea.
Anyways, the CIC shouldn’t be about random land grabs. The CIC should be associated with the Big Ten footprint, especially since UChicago is a former Big Ten member. I just brought that up as a way of targeting D.C. where all the $ comes from.
Personally, I think Maryland is as attractive a school as Texas, especially if you can bring in JHU somehow to the CIC…
I’m almost certain that other non-D1 sports schools have at least inquired, but the point is that the CIC should just be for the footprint schools that are worth it but not D1 so wouldn’t want to be in the Big Ten…
I just made it up entirely (and perhaps someone else did if I grabbed it from someone), I have no idea whether there’s any interest on either side for that kind of partnership…
LikeLike
I would note though that JHU is an independent in lacrosse.
And that the Big Ten doesn’t sponsor lacrosse.
But if you add Maryland, Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers to Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin (from the GRLC), perhaps the Big Ten could make a D1 lacrosse league and see if JHU would want to join.
Either way, JHU is something to think about after you get Maryland (which seems totally unrealistic unless there’s something we don’t know)…
LikeLike
Oh, Penn State is in the CAA and Ohio State is in the ECAC. Perhaps that is worth doing, but still first we should just be thinking about how to get ND and Nebraska in and whether Texas is coming. There’s a lot of other avenues to think about at a later date…
LikeLike
Lacrosse independence forever!
LikeLike
Yeah, I’d say that JHU is to lax as ND is to football. We kind of think we’re better than everyone else and don’t need a conference affiliation.
Interestingly. JHU was nearly forced into D1 a few years ago. The general rule for the NCAA is that, if you play one sport at the D1 level, you have to play all sports at D1. A few schools have grandfathered exemptions (JHU for lacrosse, Bennington (?) for skiing, Colorado College (?) for hockey), but there was a move — motivated by WHAT, no one knew — a few years back to eliminate those exemptions.
JHU led the successful effort to stop the legislation but made it clear that, if it had passed, the school would have made the move to D1 in all sports rather than sacrifice its lacrosse program.
But to where? The Ivy League would seem to make the most academic sense, but JHU would have had to forego athletic scholarships for its lax players, and I instinctively think the Ivy League would make Stanford look like an SEC school when it came to criteria for expansion.
Something like whatever league the Drexels of the world are in might have made geographic sense, but I think would have considered itself better than those schools.
OK, then, who’d be left? Would JHU have dropped football and sought to become a school attractive to the Big East?
It would have been very interesting to watch it all play out had JHU’s hand been forced.
LikeLike
Good post. I may quibble with Syr over Mizzou (not because I want Mizzou), but because this blog and your last point have basically shown us some fundamental truths.
1. Politics matters. We’ve seen it before (Virginia), and are seeing it now (Texas). It matters at the state level and at the federal level. A large state school gets you the senators and representatives from that state. I’m not sure a private school does the same. Hence, is Mizzou ultimately a better add than Syr because you would get its congressional reps.
All that being said …
2. Research and prestige matter more. Certain private schools are held in such high regard, that they are a valuable commodity – Northwestern, Stanford, Vandy, Duke (I’m sure there are some others). Does Syracuse rise to this level – I don’t think so. Johns Hopkins is very interesting, because of the research they do and proximity to capital. Could you make them part of the CIC, would they want to join? Most fans probably don’t care, just like they could care less about the U. Chicago as it relates to the B10. But it is a fascinating sub-plot. And it helps to understand the appeal of some private schools. While you are right, it may not directly help athletically, it does have two potential benefits: (1) The potential to be used as a recruiting tool for now or in the future (what if 10 years from now UT is available again), and (2) keeping the group together – say UT joins but the athletic department wants out in 10 years – does the research side trump the athletic side.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone would ever want to even contemplate leaving after entering. There’d be a firestorm about leaving the CIC from faculty.
And considering just how much $ is at stake in research, I doubt any dean would contemplate such a move.
LikeLike
I’ll say this. People like to root against Syracuse. Maybe it’s all the announcers that come out of that school.
If Notre Dame is not interested, I think Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt are the way to go.
LikeLike
I actually like Syracuse early on. I even thought all the announcers was actually a positive. Might as well have those ESPN announcers talking up their own school and conference. But they have lost their luster for me. Could change my mind, but I don’t think they offer that much. 11+1 = 11.5 with them for me. As part of a 5 team add – I’m still meh. I’m not rooting against them, just not for them. But convince me otherwise of the positives they would bring. Positives that only they could bring.
LikeLike
“add the rest of UAA schools”
This would be the craziest possible action (in a good way). Could you imagine the ESPN talking heads trying to explain this one? Plus, you get the “Nerdy Nine” which actually has 8 schools added to the “Big Ten” which has 11 schools.
LikeLike
You sound like a sensible person.
LikeLike
Time for another overflow thread, frank. Thanks for this one.
LikeLike
For Husker Al and others,
As a Nebraska fan does it feel like you are getting played?
If the Big 10 wants you, why not go public and offer the invitation?
I mean the Big 12 has set the deadline, if the Big 10 is looking out for you why not just go ahead and make the offer? If we all agree that Nebraska is a good fit for the Big 10 (and this blog seems to reinforce this) as a good faith effort it would be nice to be public (just seems more genuine) than taking the “back door” promise from Jim Delaney?
The Dan Wetzel article just makes me a little uneasy in the way Delaney dealt with Beebe. If IU falls farther down with expansion, how is that good for IU? In the end is Delaney working for the Big 10 or tOSU? I must wonder what it must be like to be a school outside of the Big 10 like Nebraska and what happens if the Big 10 does not extend the invite? Maybe I have been reading this blog to much lately, but it does make me wonder?
Guido.. thanks for the link to the Wetzel article! informative read..
LikeLike
I think Wetzel wanted to make Beebe look like an idiot and that he got played. But Beebe isn’t stupid, he knew the minute the B10 announced expansion that BXII schools would be targeted, and that things would be done behind the scene. He made the right statement for a conf commissioner in his position to make at that point. I think he knew Delaney would be acting in the B10’s own self-interest.
I don’t know how Neb fans feel. I think as long as they make it to the B10, they will feel very happy. I’m sure the Citrus Bowl and Hall of Fame bowls are happy (or whatever they are called). The must love the idea of Neb fans coming down.
LikeLike
Delany works for the Big Ten and by extension for the Big Ten universities.
I don’t buy his notion that somehow Delany is starving the athletic departments of the Big Ten.
Oh and one final thing, Delany is thinking about maximizing revenue over the long term.
What good is it to pull the trigger on a playoff before the Big Ten is large enough to get the biggest slice of the rewards?
Would you rather have Delany pull the trigger when there’s 6 BCS conferences or 4? He’s going to make the Big Ten only 1 of 4 true have’s conferences instead of 1 of 6.
Even if it’s a little painful in the short term, we really should appreciate his long term view for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Well said. Also, I think the B10 and P10 want to remain strategic partners. They own a valuable asset – the Rose Bowl. You don’t just give it away or make it less valuable. Regardless of what pro-playoff proponents think – a playoff does lessen the value of the Rose Bowl. Instead you find a way to maximize your assets. I don’t know how this is done, but if you are right and we are left with 4 super conferences, maybe each year the Rose Bowl hosts the championship game. I’m not proposing that, just that his job is to maximize the brand and assets.
Wetzel knows that most fans want a playoff and dislike the BCS because it interferes with that premise. A pro-BCS book won’t sell. So write a Death to the BCS book and watch the sales fly. Who cares about the actual arguments. Yes the BCS allows the big conferences to keep power. Power generates $$$. I doubt that B10 wants power over $$$ – as Wetzel seems to imply.
LikeLike
I agree with your sentiment about the big tens need to pull the trigger on Nebraska. I don’t feel its good to start off along term relationship with this type of uncertainty given the ultimatums being given by the B12. Some feel it has to do with securing Texas or Notre dame first. They have been careful but I think Nebraska’s posture is I’m here; I’m willing and I’m just waiting to be asked. I think the time is now for Nebraska. Let ND and Texas fall where they may. Playing hard to get sometimes backfires. The fact is I think Delany thinks this one is in his hip pocket and he fully expects to take it out and show it. When he’s ready. The only thing that would change this is if like Texas Nebraska has another suitor of high quality and determination.
LikeLike
“As a Nebraska fan does it feel like you are getting played?”
Not yet, but if I was a Missouri fan I might feel that way. I understand the landscape and the dollars. NU has an awful lot of advantages for the Big10, but so do a couple of other schools. In the end, the Big10 is going to do what is best for them and it’s hard to be critical of that.
I do think most Nebraska fans feel that Texas is trying to manipulate the media to their benefit. It comes off as rather unseemly. That’s not a knock against their school, which I think is terrific. But some feel that it does reveal some of the difficulties NU has had within the conference. In the meantime, NU’s administration hasn’t made a public peep, and I have a lot of respect for that.
“If the Big 10 wants you, why not go public and offer the invitation?”
Don’t know. We just have to trust that the people representing NU know what they are doing. Perlman and Osborne aren’t newcomers to collegiate politics, and they aren’t hotheads. Perlman and Osborne have spent virtually their entire lives in Nebraska, so I have no doubt they have the best interests of the entire university in mind. Both put a strong emphasis on education … how many AD’s out there have PhD’s in Educational Psychology? I believe they feel the Big10 is a fantastic fit not just for athletics but for education, research, jobs and growth of the university.
If NU doesn’t join I’ll be disappointed, but not for athletic reasons. This is a chance for my alma-mater to really do things academically that from personal conversations I know they’ve wanted to do for decades.
LikeLike
Husker Al,
thanks.. i guess i was pondering if when the dust settled the Pac 16 dropped OU & OSU in favor of Nebraska & Kansas or some such combination. The Big 10 would have been wasting time and effort to watch 2 AAU schools find a new home in the Pac 16 [they get the cherries, and leave the pitts for the SEC]. I am looking at the academic side.. plus the Pac 16 adds 2 states in DC instead of just 1 with the OK twins.
LikeLike
Maybe, but I doubt it. Depending on the structure of the new conference the same philosophical differences would be present.
OU has been a major ally of UT’s in conference meetings. Geographically and culturally they are probably a better fit. If they are tied to OSU, so be it.
My hope would be that if NU doesn’t get an invite and the Big12South bolts, the Big10 takes them anyway (assuming they aren’t full at 16). They aren’t raiding a conference at this point and the same positives NU brings to the table are still there.
LikeLike
I think Wetzel is wrong on several points. First, I think expansion was going to happen anyway. The Big10 and Pac10 wanted a conference championship game. Expansion was going to take place, and people have astutely noted that JoePa suggested the Pac-10 would make the first move.
Well, who is the only major conference between the Pac10 and the Big10? Beebe knew Big12 teams would be targets when he took the job. He’s not stupid. But he is trying to pull together the most dysfunctional conference family in America. It was a shotgun marriage that hasn’t worked out.
LikeLike
Husker fans certainly think there’s an attempt to play them—but hey, we’re all big boys and girls sitting at a high stakes poker table, so everybody’s playing their hand to win.
One thing I think the last week’s news shows some of the posters less familiar with the BXII is just how dysfunctional the conference is, despite on the success on the playing field.
I think most Nebraska fans feel very good that we’ll end up among the winners when the chips are cashed in. We have a good state school, a highly successful money making athletic program, and good savvy people in Perlman and Osborne representing us.
That said, in the fog of war strange things do happen. The guy sitting at the poker table with the best hand or most chips doesn’t always walk away a winner.
LikeLike
If anyone is trying to play Nebraska, I’m guessing that it is Texas more so than Delaney. I beleive that the OB reports are fairly true, but there have been some things that are thrown out by OB concerning Nebraska that are far from the truth and I think are planted by UTx to try to (1) make Nebraska look like the bad guy and (2) make it sound like Nebraska doesn’t have a shot of getting a B10 invite.
I beleive (hopefully not just wishful thinking) that TPTB at Nebraska know for a fact that a B10 invite is coming. I’m assuming that they are just making sure that all T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted before annoucing anything.
LikeLike
As a Husker fan, I’ll say that the B10 dragging its feet makes me very nervous. I know Nebraska is going to be just fine because they’re too big a brand to be left out in the cold. But some scenarios are definitely better than others. I personally would love to join the B10. But in the end I’m a Husker football fan and just want to see my team do well, whether that’s the B10, B12, P10, SEC, BE, ACC, etc.
One scenario I haven’t seen get much play is NU to the MWC. I’m pretty sure that makes the MWC an AQ conference immediately. That’s not going to make the other BCS conferences happy at all. TV money is probably not good, but NU makes most of its money from other sources anyway (ticket sales, merchandise, etc.). And NU is reportedly looking at their own TV network anyway because of the LSN. That’s a pretty clear shot to the BCS for NU in the MWC. I don’t personally see this playing out, but Osborne might be mentioning it in certain circles. Osborne was a senator for a while so he knows how politics are played.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure Nebraska is one of the “Any conference they are in is an AQ conference” schools.
The MWC may actually come out of this nonsense with the greatest gain of anyone. They could probably add most of the Big XII North and aren’t at risk of getting schools poached like in previous scenarios.
LikeLike
Nebraska is a top 10 all time team.
They’d have a home in the Big Ten, Pac-10 or SEC.
The only reason no other conference is chasing Nebraska? Because they’re right next to the Big Ten and the Big Ten view it as off limits (as in the Big Ten would immediately take it if SEC tried to invite Nebraska)…
LikeLike
I think Nebraska has a few cards left to play if they have to. The thought of joining the Big 10 is exciting, but I would hate to see some of our conference schools that we have known for 100 years get the shaft.
If the schools don’t like Texas how about this one:
Just in! This is a manuscript of what Tom Osborne and Harvey Perlman will say when this “Ultimatum Deadline” occurs.
Osborne: “We are here today to talk about commitment. I have been at or part of the University of Nebraska for more than 40 years. I am committed to my school. I’m committed to my family and I was also committed to the run game in the 90’s when everyone was funnin’-and-gunnin’ it.”
*Crowd snickers
Osborne: “This university is committed to excellence and providing the best possible education to every student, including our student athletes. That commitment is displayed proudly on the side of Memorial Stadium with and NCAA record for academic all Americans.”
*Crowd claps
Osborne: “We cannot teach our students that money is the answer to everything. We must teach them respect, honor and allegiance. You take care of your family and you take care of your friends.”
*Someone in the crowd shouts “Amen!”
Osborne: “The talk of conference expansion has created a lot of rumors and speculation across the nation. Nebraska is committed to doing the right thing. We have had a relationship with many of the schools in our conference for generations. We never want to lose that and we never want to see our fellow schools in a position where they have no place to go. I want you all to know that the University of Nebraska is committed to the Big 8 conference and any school north of the Red River that is interested in picking up where we left off 14 years ago is welcome to join us. Maybe there are some teams out west in the mountains that would be interested in applying for membership in our Big 8 conference so that we can keep our title, that I hate so much *wink wink, going.”
*Crowd roars and in his mind Dr. Tom is giving the middle finger to the state of Texas. Texas football programs were in a tailspin when the Big XII was created. Your welcome.
LikeLike
No way this won’t be (somewhat) duplicative after scanning the last 400+ posts, but how’s this for a contradiction: Until a few days ago, I thought ND was the best move/top priority for the B10. Now, some 2000+ posts later I’m persuaded they are not really a great fit in many important ways. However, having said that, I think zeek has the most compelling view. ND must still be in play with the B10 or we would have heard about it. I agree that ND is the best #12, because it is the only move that can be done without knocking down all the other dominoes.
In other words, if ND signs on, Delaney holds a press conference, smiles, and says: “This is what we were always intending to do.” This gives DeLoss Dodds more than just a “Tech problem” if his “We won’t start it, but we’ll damn sure finish it” (a creative paraphrase) is to be believed. I think the B10 is totally willing to go NE if they are turned down by ND. The rest of zeek’s logic is
unassailable to me–if ND goes first, especially the part about ND then having a say in who follows them. After ND, then NE and someone else–I don’t think it matters who–and then they wait and see.
The worst case scenario for the B10 is to take NE and then (1) stop for now, or (2) take two more teams, as above, holding out out #15/#16 for the future. Despite the P10-16 scenario, it still seems to me the B10 has the most leverage.
LikeLike
1) JD is working to secure the future of the Big 10. Not “knocking down all the other dominoes” is a minor consideration.
2) ND has been pretty clear that only a “seismic shift,” i.e. the formation of “superconferences” that would leave ND locked out of national title contention in football (and/or destroy the school’s Big East home for basketball and Olympic sports), would force Notre Dame to choose a conference affiliation for football.
3) Therefore, the Big 10 adding ND and stopping at 12 is one of the least likely scenarios imaginable.
LikeLike
That wasn’t what he said. He was following the scenario I laid out above.
You get Notre Dame as #12 so that you are best prepared to go for #13-16. If you get Nebraska first as #12 and then try to go for ND and others in #13-16, the dominoes are falling all over in the Big 12, so it’s hard to get Texas/A&M or whoever you want.
I.E. get Notre Dame as #12 (not to stop) but rather to best be prepared to pull the domino (Nebraska = Arkansas) as #13.
LikeLike
Thanks for saying this much more succinctly than I did (or could!). I’m not convinced the ND as #12 scenario is even likely, but you’ve made a great case for the logic behind it, regardless.
LikeLike
It also wasn’t clear in my post, but I did not mean to suggest that the B10 should or would stop if the got ND first, so Mike R’s post was fair.
LikeLike
I’m a big fan of waiting rather than settling once the Big Ten gets to 14.
The true treasures out that we know we can’t get right now are UVA/UNC; perhaps Maryland can be pried away but I don’t believe so at this point in time; all public indications are that they won’t contemplate moving at this time.
But let the SEC move to 16 to catch up to the Pac-16 and then the Big Ten has a chance to move in tandem.
I don’t see Texas as the end of the expansion road. There are plenty of great schools out there that easily fit the bill of Big Ten universities even if we just have to be patient to get them…
LikeLike
I am not sure if Notre Dame would want Nebraska, the last time Nebraska played at Notre Dame’s stadium the Husker fans filled up half of the stadium.
LikeLike
I don’t think Notre Dame wants anyone. Who would they want?
LikeLike
Here’s what I think Notre Dame wants, juding from FLP’s and Rich2’s posts: they want to be a national independent in football, and they want to be in a conference with Villanova, Georgetown, DePaul & Marquette for basketball. Oh wait, they’ve got that. Bottom line: I think Notre Dame is what we would call in international relations theory a “status quo power.” Jim Delany & Gordon Gee’s Big 10, and Larry Scott’s Pac 10 are “revisionist powers.”
LikeLike
Look at the picture atop Frank’s post from a few weeks ago. It looked like ND Stadium was way more than half-Husker.
LikeLike
Private jet from B10 HQ to Lincoln today…
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SFH234
LikeLike
Well, this is a done deal fellas.
LikeLike
Wow– I thought all the athletic departments had taken their jets off the flight ticker by now. First the message board, then the emails, now this– Delany could write a book on leaks by now.
LikeLike
Wow– I thought all the athletic departments had taken their jets off the flight ticker by now. First the message board, then the emails, now this– Delany could write a book on leaks by now.
Do we know for sure that this is their jet?
LikeLike
Looking around to see if I can find out. Doubt the B10 or Neb actually owns a plane. It’s probably leased or time shared and we won’t be able to find out who’s on board.
LikeLike
Per flightaware — unknown owner. History suggests it’s a charter.
Where did you get this link?
LikeLike
It came off a Neb fan board.
LikeLike
Which one?
LikeLike
http://nebraska.rivals.com/forum.asp?fid=522
LikeLike
it’s a troll
LikeLike
FWIW,
when UK got calipari they used a private jet and did not fly to bluegrass field
when UL got pitino they did it outside of the US
LikeLike
It’s a decoy!
LikeLike
It’s a trap!
LikeLike
@OleMiss_Ackbar
LikeLike
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SFH162
Ahhh, flight aware. Gotta love it.
Same plane waited 2.5 hours and is now flying back to Pewaukee.
Is the flight even related? Frank…. get someone to Pewuakee, maybe Harvey Pearlman is getting off the plane!
LikeLike
“Private jet from B10 HQ to Lincoln today…
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SFH234”
We’re one step from camping out on Jim Delaney’s porch…
LikeLike
TV Math Doesn’t Necessarily Add Up For Conferences
>>
If the Big Ten wants to give a full share to a new team, and they want to make the same amount of money, they have to hope that that team alone can generate $20 million by itself.
How many teams can do that? Notre Dame. Maybe Nebraska. Rutgers, if you think that gets you the New York and Philly market. I personally don’t think it does.
…
“It doesn’t make sense to add teams that don’t have incremental revenue opportunities,” said former CBS Sports president Neal Pilson, now a TV consultant.
With this partly in mind, Pilson doesn’t think the Big 10 or the Pac-10 will add more than one or two teams.
Plus, Pilson adds, “if any conference expands to more than 12, I think they are going to run into a hailstorm of criticism and condemnation that will surely earn them a trip to Washington D.C. and to some possible lawsuits.”
The only way I think 16 really works financially is if the Pac-10 gives different values to each school based on tradition and based on projected audience growth.
For instance, and just for argument’s sake, Texas gets a full share, Colorado gets a 75 percent share, Texas Tech gets a 70 percent share and so on. Or, maybe — if a new network emerges — they retroactively figure out shares based on who signs up and what team they are a fan of.
<<
LikeLike
Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/37558483
LikeLike
What I don’t get is how these people don’t think that adding another major brand to the stable wouldn’t increase revenue tremendously.
How does Notre Dame and Nebraska in the Big Ten not increase the value of Big Ten games substantially from a subscribership (outside of the Big Ten footprint) and advertising standpoint (within the Big Ten footprint).
And the Pac-16 projections are for $20M per school per year with a network. That’s way above what each school takes now in the Pac-10 or Big 12…
LikeLike
And you can scale memberships to the desirability/risk.
Heck… the Pac 10 could do that with Texas Tech and Okie St. “Fine, we will take you, but you start out at 1/2 membership.”
What option do they have? SEC? I am sure the Pac 10 would rather that bluff be called.
LikeLike
Nebraska adds a strong and supportive fan base but not a substantially populous state. A strong football presence is one thing and a substantially increased viewership is another. NE does not deliver on the second part. You can say that Notre Dame will not deliver much improve viewership as it already overlaps Indiana, Purdue, and Chicago markets. But this is ND after all. The expectations are that they will deliver a hidden cache of national proportions. Number undetermined.
LikeLike
Yeah but Nebraska and Notre Dame get the highest ratings on TV of any school not named Texas on the expansion board. That’s what Delany’s looking at; I think Big Ten subscribership would go up outside of the Big Ten footprint because Nebraska has a quite substantial fanbase as does Notre Dame obviously, and both would drive up ratings for games they play on it…
LikeLike
I posted much of this above, but summarized a bit:
The conference football games – by far – get the biggest ratings for the BTN, and therefore make the network the most money.
ABC/ESPN get 3 games/week, or roughly 27 games each year.
11 schools currently play 44 conference games, leaving the BTN to show 44-27=17 games.
16 schools would play 64 conference games, leaving the BTN to show 64-27=37 games.
5 new schools therefore more than doubles the current inventory of conference games provided by the existing 11 schools.
Therefore, even if the footprint did not expand, the 5 new schools doubles the revenue of the BTN’s biggest money producing product.
If you expand the footprint, the subscription value also increases.
If you add a name-brand football power, your ABC-ESPN contract will be worth much more at the time of renegotiations (in 2015?), if not sooner if there is an expansion clause.
Additionally, mens basketball games make a little bit of money, and will have added inventory.
Finally, the BTN may add additional name brand teams in currently under-developed sports (such as UT baseball, UVa / MD / UNC LaCrosse, UCONN women’s basketball), which may open additional markets.
LikeLike
All good points, and worth thinking about with respect to what specific teams add (i.e. ND and Nebraska more likely to take up ABC/ESPN games and push some OSU/Michigan/Penn State games onto BTN as well, which would be huge for that).
LikeLike
I just don’t see the Big10 trying to dismantle the Big East in a hostile takeover move to force Notre Dame’s hand. A key to the Big10’s success is cohesiveness, and all new members should enter as willing members. If Notre Dame is pushed into a position of ‘nowhere to go but the Big 10″, it will be a recipe for disaster.
My feeling is the Big 10 gave Notre Dame a heads up as soon as plans for expansion started to gel. The path Notre Dame is on now may not be sustainable and no matter what, it is important for the Big 10, and college football in general, to maintain the brand status of Notre Dame. It is apparent the Big 10 has been moving forward with Notre Dame fully in the loop?
Notre Dame’s protected status in the BCS and the expiration of their NBC contract (2015?) have to be on their radar. As an independent they now have very little control of the seismic changes that seem to be coming. Will they continue to have a strong position as an independent going forward?
If there is any truth to this cooperation, the “add Notre Dame and stop at 12 scenario” only works if all other conferences beat the Big 10 in a mad rush to 16-team conferences.
If the Big 10 is actually trying to keep Notre Dame happy, current expansion plan into Big East territory will be limited (Rutgers only). If the ACC is forced to move into the Big East when the SEC starts poaching, all bets are off and Notre Dame will want a safe place to land.
If Notre Dame has to give up their position as an independent, they will definitely not want to lose their national brand name.
Expansion of the Big 10 that brings New York exposure (Rutgers), additional football brand (Nebraska), and a move to the Sun Belt (Vanderbilt? Georgia Tech?) are all steps that could be part of the Big 10 plan’s expansion plans, but also fit very well with Notre Dame’s objectives. Add in a possible cooperative arrangement of the BTN and a future Pac10 Network (PTN) and you further develop a national presence that Notre Dame desires, plus it includes all of their traditional rivals (except the independent military schools).
On this path it may even be possible the independence for Notre Dame could be protected for all time. Could the Big 10 (and Pac 10) are working to help them maintain that status? The Big10 (plus 6) and Pac10 (plus 6) would be a very strong coalition that could protect Notre Dame’s status in the BCS. Furthermore a BTN-PTN tv alliance would be in the strongest possible position to replace the NBC contract when it expires. Would there be any better option for Notre Dame in a world of super-conferences?
LikeLike
I agree with you on certain things but this is still all about getting ND into the Big Ten as a springboard to 16. Notre Dame will drive the bus to 16 if it is on board.
If we go ND -> Nebraska -> Rutgers/Maryland/GTech; that seems as if an expansion ND could be happy with depending on what pod it gets placed in (I’d imagine it would want Rutgers/Maryland/GTech or something).
Still, the fact that the Big Ten is so focused on landing ND first, tells me that they aren’t ready to pull the Nebraska domino and send everything flying until they have ND locked in…
Also, it tells me the Big Ten isn’t going to make some kind of Tech solution based on Texas/A&M/Tech or whatever. We’re going Delany’s preferred route. It all depends on ND whether the Big Ten gets there…
LikeLike
Maryland’s not coming to the BT. The Big 10 doesn’t want GT.
LikeLike
I should have proofread better..
Is it possible the Big 10 has been moving forward with Notre Dame fully in the loop? (Evidence would suggest they have been in communication for a long time)
On this path it may even be possible the independence of Notre Dame could be protected for all time. Could the Big 10 (and Pac 10) be working to help them main that status? (64 plus 1 BCS)
LikeLike
Independence in a conference that has been all for one and one for all for just about forever does not make sense. It automatically setup fault lies. It will set them up right in state as a matter of fact. Wlll Pen State like it? Will Ohio State love it? Will Michigan?
LikeLike
Big 10 plan:
1.Offer Nebraska a full share.
2.Offer Notre Dame a full share.
If ND says no, offer Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, and Pitt a 1/2 share. Increases 5% a year for 10 years.
Now you have 14 shares. Only need to add $60M in revenue to make it work.
If ND says yes, offer Missouri, Rutgers, and Syracuse or Pitt a 2/3 share. Increase over 10 year period.
Now you have 15 shares with ND, eventually you have 16 shares. Need to add $80M in revenue to break even.
LikeLike
This is really not the Big 10 way. This is a conference where the Indianas and Michigans split up everything equally. The all-for-one one-for-all ethic is key to this conference. Some concessions and allowances may be made for especially valuable new members, but the basic mold ought not to be broken.
LikeLike
Agreed. I honestly don’t know what the rush is for the B10. They could stand pat and will still be the richest conference. So there is no reason for them to move to secondary options. I honestly think the only slam dunk for B10 right now is UT and go to 12. Every other option out there has its own pitfalls. Just getting UT looks impossible, but including Tech to get them isn’t a good option. I am no longer sold on ND. I like Neb, and if you add only one not named UT, they may be my top choice. But won’t they be there in a year from now. The B10 is obviously looking at all the angles. I’m just a guy following a blog. But the B10 has all the power. I just don’t see a good reason for B10 to rush into something just because other conferences are potentially making moves.
LikeLike
The reason we’re doing this is because UT doesn’t want to be #12 in the Big Ten.
UT wasn’t interested in the UT/TAMU to 12 offer from the Pac-10 either.
Then the Pac-10 unveiled this Pac-16 offer for Texas + 5 and Texas started talking.
The question is whether the Big Ten can get what it wants.
What we know about that is that the Big Ten wants Notre Dame and Nebraska along with Texas, but it’s not likely to get Texas at this point because there’s no offer other than likely one for Texas/TAMU…
LikeLike
At this point, the only strategy left is to simply play a waiting game with Texas. Maybe the B10 can cause some destabilizing of the BXII by taking Neb. But if the goal is to get UT, then time is the B10’s best card. Taking Tech is not. Maybe the Pac10 + 6 option doesn’t pan out. Maybe A&M goes to SEC. A lot can change in a year or so, which may give UT a way to go to B10.
LikeLike
I agree, but the Pac-10 seems to have made an offer that Texas can’t refuse.
I still think the Big Ten can have as successful an expansion if it includes ND/Nebraska/Rutgers along with possibly Maryland if we can get them.
We can’t make an offer like the Pac-10 because Tech and Oklahoma and OSU would never fly in terms of academics.
LikeLike
In fairness, the Pac offer is one Texas can’t refuse only because it thinks Neb, Mizzou, and CO are already out the door.
If those three affirmed they are not leaving the Big12 Texas would nix the Pac offer immediately and stay right where it is.
LikeLike
if you think Nebraska is off the table for the b10 or is not going to join the b10, you are crazy!!!
Texas, ND, and Neb are the top schools b10 is looking at.
LikeLike
Most entertaining comment of the day came again from ESPN.
At first, I did not quite hear it the way he said it:
Big XII should be out plucking schools!
LikeLike
I’ve glanced at a few threads at ESPN’s college football message board over the past few days and can only shake my head at the level of discussion there.
LikeLike
You mean, such things like the nonsensical thoughts of why West Virginia should be invited to the Big Ten, without any thought of academics, markets, etc.?
LikeLike
Baylor President Ken Starr holding a press conference at 5 pm EST. Anyone dare to speculate what it is about?
LikeLike
He wants to show off the semen-covered dress?
LikeLike
I would assume its a call to arms for the solidarity of Texas football and the Big 12 South, as well as extolling the virtues of Baylor vs CU. I wonder how TCU alums feel about that. That said CU better have a gold-plated guarantee to stay quiet while they kick us around in the national and Texas media.
LikeLike
To be fair, he only started June 1. So this could be routine.
LikeLike
Poor Boise State. Unlike the people on this board, a lot of “fans” probably look at Boise State as a good pickup simply because they have a good football program. Early on, people were suggesting that the Pac 10 or BXII pick them up. Now, not even the Mountain West will take them, because they must see other valuable properties potentially out there – CU, Kansas.
I’m guessing a lot of us on this blog knew that BSU was never a good option for a major BCS conference. However, I think we are all better educated now – I know I am – as to why they aren’t.
But does BSU offer us a cautionary note with respect to Neb. Having a good football program is not enough? I’m not equating the two programs – just making the observation. I realize Neb offers immense tangible benefits over BSU. But at the end of the day, Nebraska’s only real asset is its football program. Without it would they even be in the discussion? So are we putting too much value in their football program?
LikeLike
I must say if the B10 can somehow manage to get Neb, ND, and UT – how awesome would that be? Are the ND alumni and politicians of Texas really going to deny us from such a great conference with 6 of the all time best football programs. Say it ain’t so.
LikeLike
There is still a good chance that MWC will invite Boise St. The only real takeway from the news today is that the MWC would rather have Colorado or the Kansas schools if those schools were available and interested. If they aren’t, the MWC will invite BSU, and quickly. BSU is not a revenue generator, but it will be able to count all of its wins for the last 3-4 years toward the MWC’s inclusion in the BCS if it joins in time for the 2011 season. This is the primary reason the MWC has been looking to add BSU.
LikeLike
nebraska has AAU and senators/congressman behind a flagship with no twin to have to deal with..
LikeLike
Doesn’t Mizzou offer the same, but more congressmen and more eyeballs? What about Rutgers? Almost every state school is going to offer you 2 senators and congressmen. The difference is the number of congressmen – meaning population. And of course some states have a twin – Kansas, OK.
LikeLike
SH,
I am on record for missouri – no argument here.
AAU
no twin
midwestern fit
LikeLike
Yeah, ya know, Nebraska is such an awesome draw, that ABC chooses to show Cincinnati/UConn in more households than OU-Nebraska in 2009
http://huskersgameday.com/tv/nebraska-oklahoma-abc-coverage-map-november-7-2009/
And in 2008, ABC picks Penn St./Illinois over Va Tech/Nebraska in a whopping 70% of households.
Either Nebraska is totally overrated as a national draw, or ABC is run by a bunch of idiots.
LikeLike
ooops
http://www.zombienationpsu.com/2008/09/abc-coverage-map-penn-state-vs-illinois.html
LikeLike
With more division 1 confrences there are beter options locall I believe than there ever have been before. So right maybe that nebraska gamer looked even better years ago but to day thats not always true. Penn State ILLinois has not been a bad game to watch over the years dipite PenN state leading. With the addition of Uconn (div 1) Football why would there not be more regional interest in the North East of Uconn over whats happening 1500 miles away.
LikeLike
It’s easy to cherry pick certain maps and say team X isn’t as big as a draw as team Y. However, what we don’t know is the contractual obligations that went into that decision to show what game where. There are much more forces at play than what team is a bigger draw. For example, conference Z could make a part of their TV deal a minimum number of households broadcast to for a certain number of weekends. All you need to know about Nebraska’s drawing power is that Texas is willing to be in the Big 12 if Nebraska is there, not without it.
LikeLike
Not to mention that ABC has been known to make some huge boners when it comes to choosing which games to televise where. ABC may not be run by complete idiots, but sometimes they come close.
LikeLike
I am a UC alum, but I would rather watch Nebraska / Oklahoma – but I am older and grew up with that game before the days of cable.
😉
LikeLike
and yes, at times I think the media are idiots [or they want to drive more PPV games and use basic cable to do it].
LikeLike
The flip side of that coin is that when the game was aired NU was unranked and OU was #20. How many of those games get prime time consideration?
LikeLike
To be fair, Penn State outdraws virtually everyone when it comes to tv eyeballs.
LikeLike
Academics aside, there is a difference between a momentarily good football program (Boise) and a storied program like Nebraska.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but no one will ever convince me
ND, NEB, TX, aTm, and yes T-Tech if absolutely necessary,
isn’t an infinitely better option than any other.
I’ll take three Home Runs a Triple and a Single over
One home run and four Doubles any day.
That being:
NEB, MIZ,RUT,SYR,PITT
You can always bring TECH up to snuff. Think long term Bit Ten!!!
LikeLike
Big Ten. -Freudian slip.
LikeLike
Would you take a marriage to someone everyones telling you will sooner or later be a devorce. You just are not willing to look at the negatives.
LikeLike
I agree with this. I personally would not want 3 TX schools in the BT. No way, no how.
LikeLike
It seems that Tech would be a bridge too far for the Big 10, with the MSU president having said the league is not going to be taking on schools that academically don’t fit from the word “go.” That was clearly code for “no TTU.”
If UT really needs to bring along Tech (and Powers hinted at that in his Q-and-A with alums back in April), then it will have to be the Pac 10 for them.
LikeLike
Zeek,
you definitely have the best inside and knowledge on this site. And i mean by that that you have gathered all this info and put it together accurately in what Delany wants to do and is optimum for the b10. Will b10 get the best scenario out there? Not sure. but, delany is going with that plan and will go to plan b as you suggest if he doesnt.
One thing I havent seen from you is, what happens if ND declines. Do we go for neb as 12, rutgers/? as 13 and 14 and then go after tex/am?
LikeLike
For the record, I have no insider knowledge of anything.
I just happen to read every single internet report/rumor/news report about expansion (as many here do).
This blog has been a great sounding board for ideas, and as time has passed and certain things became more plausible than others, the scenarios have sort of lined up.
If ND declines, then there’s a chance that we only grab Nebraska as #12. Nebraska makes sense in every way and it pushes the dominoes in a way that would probably make plays available elsewhere down the road (i.e. Pac-16/Big 14 -> SEC move on ACC).
I’m sure the presidents would also look hard at Missouri and Rutgers and possibly Pitt. I could see the Big Ten going to 14 and then waiting yet again.
If the Big Ten goes to 14 and the Pac-10 goes to 16, the SEC will be forced to make a move on the ACC.
That’s why this Pac-16 scenario isn’t scary and no Big Ten fan should find it scary. Taking away OU/OSU/A&M from the SEC means that the SEC must raid the ACC to catch up to the new paradigm. This is something that few people have focused on…
The Big Ten should wait for that and make its move on Maryland/UVA and possibly UNC. Those are prizes that figure to be as big as Texas/A&M demographically and research $ wise with D.C. being the center of everything.
LikeLike
I personally like the strategy of going for 12 or 14 and then sitting pat as they watch the dominos fall. It could be that there is no need for 16 if they play their hand right. In any case there is room for either a ND or a TX should they decide to come along after the next round of dominos. In a perfect world, TX, NB, ND and Rutgers for the BT. They can even make Rutgers conditional based on how they capture the NJ/NY market and how well they perform in conference over a 12 year period. Then reevaluate there position in the conference. Then take another look at around.
LikeLike
thanks zeek.I know you have no real inside connections or anything. If I made it sound like that sorry. you are just like me and read as much as possible. I came to the same conclusions you did, just not putting it down like you did.
Nebraska would make a great 12. B10 of course would have to move to 16 because the 4 top conferences are heading there…it just might take a little longer depending on what other conferences do as well.
LikeLike
I think this board has convinced me that Neb as No. 12 is a good pick up. I’m not sold on Mizzou and ND. I like the idea of starting the dominoes and seeing who else is in play later. There are a lot better schools out there than Mizzou and ND.
My only concern with ND is they don’t want to join (not like UT – who I think wants to join, but the politicians don’t want them to). And I think ND may have value to B10 as an Independent (I’ve explained in other posts).
So once Neb is in the fold, who else. Obviously, UT and A&M are great additions, but there is also MD (not my favorite), UVA and UNC (both of whom I like), Georgie Tech, FSU, Miami, plus the Big East Schools (Rutgers).
My point being I wouldn’t want to tie a spot up with Mizzou, foreclosing the opportunity to get a UNC. Maybe I’m underselling Mizzou, but from reading this board I think there are a lot schools with more to offer. Maybe they won’t join now, but could see them joining in 5 years.
But sounds like we may be seeing some news soon. Patiently waiting.
LikeLike
no, those are good points re: mizzou. Rutgers or Maryland would be better academically and money wise imo. We already have st louis locked up bc of illini. Mizzou would only help destroy the big12 and get texas. Now, Mizzou isnt a BAD pickup by any means. But there is better out there id ND and Texas dont come. I agree with you on Texas. Hopefully us forcing there hand with a limited 2 spots will do the trick!
LikeLike
Here’s another off the wall thought.
What if the SEC can’t raid the ACC? What if those schools say no & prefer to stay where they are due to academics? What if Vandy is raided from the SEC? Aren’t Vandy and Florida the top academic schools in the SEC. What impact will that have on the perception of academics at Florida 20, 30 years down the road. Will they be able to cope with that or start looking to join a conference that doesn’t see football as the be-all end-all?
LikeLike
Florida has been an academic outlier for a long time. It doesn’t seem to bother them or their fans.
LikeLike
The SEC’s for now is that there really is no good place for them to expand unless they can get A&M. They may be able to pick up Clemson and Va Tech could pick up Clemson, but a lot of other schools would probably balk because of the academics. That being said, they have no need to expand and already have a great brand and are in a growing region of the country (unlike B10 states).
That is why I think a better long term play for B10 is to simply surround SEC by taking Texas, UVA, UNC, and maybe FSU/Miami.
Although I’m not sure I could ever envision a scenario where UNC/UVA/Miami would really consider the SEC – academics are just too important.
LikeLike
One thought on Nebraska and Missouri. Is it to their advantage to wait a bit? If the Friday deadline comes and goes, and Texas is pressured into the Pac 10, do the remaining schools collect exit fees? If NE and MO go today, do they pay exit fees?
I can see an advantage in waiting.
LikeLike
they dont have to say anything at all. they can stay mute on the topic if they want.
LikeLike
Maybe Nebraska, Missouri, and Colorado have put a deadline of this friday for the B12 South schools to make a firm committment to the Big 12.
I personally have an 8am deadline Tuesday for all 12 schools to say something…or else!!!
LikeLike
Great article on TX-NE poker playing from Nebraska’s Sam McKeon.
Excerpts:
The Eyes (and Fate) of Texas
UT doesn’t have to bolt the Big 12 for the Pac-10. But it says it might – against its own interest.
By Samuel McKewon
June 07, 2010
So let me get this straight.
The Big 12’s been good to Texas and UT’s been darn good to it.
Texas wants to pursue its own sports network. The Big 12 appears open to that. UT doesn’t want to equally share league revenue. The Big 12 doesn’t, either. The league offices are in Dallas. The Big 12 football championship is in Dallas. The league’s annual regular season game of the year – Texas vs. Oklahoma – is in Dallas.
The Longhorns have a fiefdom in the Big 12. Their own private kingdom. Their own news outlets, too, it would appear.
But if Nebraska can’t commit to that kingdom by June 15, UT will burn it to the ground and take five schools with it to the Pac-10.
Everything UT loved about the Big 12 – the freedom, the control of the league office, its own sports network, its standing as the league’s best academic institution – goes up in smoke. And those things will not reconstitute in what amounts to a “Pac-West.”
The Longhorns are willing to sever themselves from all the benefits of the Big 12 because they just can’t bear to see Nebraska leave it. Even though UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds said on May 18: “If two teams come out of the Big 12, I don’t think it changes our world that much.”
Texas is committed to the Big 12, even though it talked to Big Ten in April about expansion and “the Tech problem.” Texas is committed to the Big 12, even though it hosted Pac-10 folks two weeks ago for an “exploratory visit.” Texas is committed to the Big 12, even though, quite oddly, we know so much more about the Pac-10’s willingness to invite the Longhorns – the league or “someone” has generously suppled Rivals.com with its school menu – than we do the Big Ten’s interest to invite Nebraska.
Confusing, huh?
So why the Pac-10 flirtation? So why the Big Ten emails? Why, if Nebraska and Missouri do walk, doesn’t UT go poach a few schools from the SEC or the Mountain West? It’s not like the Longhorns will be that badly injured either way. Dodds said so just a few weeks ago.
And though it seems impossible, at this moment, to pity Texas, UT flirts dangerously with the pitiable existence of a colonist, of an occupying force in a foreign nation, bearing immense responsibility and scrutiny as it trudges forth into a new landscape where it will be expected to speak for all of the Big 12 teams it drags along. Non-revenue sports teams will make long, punishing trips to the West Coast, and will struggle to win conference titles. The mercurial Pac-10, which has generally been indifferent to filling its stadiums, much less capturing the football flag, will be a constant, irritating foil, the one major league with the academic reputation to look down its nose at UT.
Of course, it could just be a big, fat bluff, too and Texas might just replace Nebraska if the Huskers jump to the Big Ten.
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2010/06/07/4c0d26f40874b
LikeLike
This guy nailed it. Texas wants the B12 to remain, so it can keep the schools together in a conference of unequals. Hopefully NU gets it and moves along, starting the end of the B12.
LikeLike
I wish we could get A&M to come alone to the Big Ten with Texas dealing with its Tech and Baylor problems.
A&M has seemed to be the most team player out of any school in the Big 12 with the options that it has…
LikeLike
You know, I think that idea has merit. A&M is a good school with passionate fans. I wrote early on that if you use Frank’s index it would be right up there behind UT and ND. And I said A&M had a UT problem not a Tech problem. Meaning if you could over the initial split of UT and A&M you would be free, but that may be tough. However, I suspect UT is not going to want A&M to get its coveted slot while it is forever tied to Tech and Baylor. But if I were the B10, might not you offer your first spot to A&M? Right now all this is being done behind the scenes. There is no concrete proposal for the public to talk about. If the B10 didn’t get A&M, I don’t think they would lose much face over it. I don’t know, but I think the idea has some merit and we need more discussion on it.
LikeLike
I think it comes down to the previous idea Hopkins put forth that both schools would have to be happy with their landing spot for the two to be split. Can’t see Texas happy with that.
LikeLike
That’s a smart idea though.
If you get A&M to agree first to be #15, Texas has to come along; there’s no way Texas would let A&M go to the Big Ten without it…
LikeLike
Yeah, but you get into the problem of could it even be explored for A&M first, before Texas really knew where they end up. An A&M and OU bolt to the SEC giving Texas the freedom to go Big Ten seems likelier.
LikeLike
Plus A&M fans could make sure UT fans knew that if they didn’t go first to the B10, UT would be stuck with Tech and Baylor. I think a public invite to A&M could be a potentially great card to play.
LikeLike
http://nebraska.statepaper.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2010/06/07/4c0d26f40874b
great article about what is going on
LikeLike
I feel bad for Kansas.
KU chancellor urges Nebraska to stay in Big 12
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/chi-ap-kansas-gray-little,0,5928597.story
LikeLike
Me too.
LikeLike
Kansas will still be in an AQ conference, either the MWC or the Big East. They are too valuable a brand to get left out completely.
LikeLike
I do feel bad for them, but the big12 north has to realize they made their own beds. Sounds poor, I know, but it is true.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t say they made their beds, so much as they have two BCS teams in a low population, low growth state. If the State of Kansas had one flagship University, this whole thing would play out differently.
LikeLike
Kansas, of all the schools, has an excellent chance to land on their feet somewhere great. You can’t ignore the basketball component.
LikeLike
Like where? The Big East?
LikeLike
Or maybe a #16 slot somewhere in a very good conference. Things would have to fall right for them, but I doubt everybody targeted is going to get pried away. The Big 12 divorce makes acquisitions easier than the later stage where good conferences are trying to pull away teams that are basically happy where they are. If that doesn’t happen, as I said upthread, the remainders of the Big 12 North might be better served in the Keitzman scenario of looking east to schools like Louisville, Memphis, Cincinnati and the like rather than trudging off to the MWC. They might have a rough couple years getting things back in order for the BCS, but there’s some real upside there. There’s some great basketball right off the bat.
LikeLike
Guys, there may be another scenario. One that is listed in the press releases.
Colorado joins the Pac 10.
Pac Ten (12) and Big 12 form a new conference. Pacific Division is as stated above. Southwest Division, in a new conference mind you, is………
A&M
Texas
OU
OSU
Tech
Kansas
Kansas State
Nebraska
Missouri
Each conference plays a six games indivision schedule. Then six games cross division schedule. Winners meet in a CCG.
Then there are a lot of people to drive Fox and the PAC network plus a lot of Senators for political support.
Food for thought and would solve hurt feelings. Make a lot of money.
LikeLike
What is the Chance B10 lands NE and ND. and makes the offer to Tex, aTm and hold their nose and offer Tech?
does anyone think the votes may be there?
LikeLike
I do not. Especially after MSU’s president confirming academics is a primary consideration. The idea of having just two slots available and telling the Texans they are available for UT and TAMU is the right way to play it. The TexasPowersThatBe will be forced to think forty years down the road and that just might possibly permit them to rise above the football fog and consider the academic future of their premier public institutions.
That said, it is Texas politics and that is an entirely different universe. Hard to say what would happen.
LikeLike
The only way that works is if Pac 10 also says Tech and Baylor are not available.
LikeLike
I tend to agree with you Mike,
But if it hinged on Tech, could Delany make a strong enough argument to the Presidents, about how their standing increases with tex senators and research pull, in terms of the cic?
Could he sell it to 8 of 11? I think there is an argument to be made.
how convincing it is, remains to be seen.
LikeLike
In the bizarro world where we are talking about Stanford and Cal and to get them you would have to take San Diego State, I think getting 8 votes is is real possibility. Texas and TAMU are academically in the middle (maybe a bit higher) and below average in the Big Ten. Very welcome academic additions to be sure, but not monumental.
Remember that in the scenarios floated Nebraska, Missouri and ND are all below every current member of the Big Ten academically. TT is in the basement. Even if you get Texas and TAMU this is no stellar expansion for Big 10 academics and the CIC.rt5 4Since BB analogies are rife, I call that a triple, a solid double, and a single, and a walk. If TT is part of the deal instead of a single you have three takes for a strike out. This is a important moment for the Big Ten and each of its member schools. The impact will play out over 40+ years. I simply cannot see 8 presidents having a weak (in net terms) academic expansion as part of their legacy of stewardship.
This is especially true because unlike the Pac-10, the Big 10 has lots of options with great academic institutions. They may not maximize football reputation but it is safe to say that doesn’t matter so much. BTN revenue may not be optimized but a better academic expansion probably covers the difference and then some via CIC impact.
UT and TAMU probably realize this. I doubt the Texas legislature understands football is not the only coin in the realm.
LikeLike
No he can’t sell it.
Michigan State’s prez made that perfectly clear.
Michigan will also vote this down every day of the week.
I also doubt Wisconsin/Northwestern (although I said maybe earlier) and some of the others will be on board.
You probably could get some reluctant votes, but no way this hits 8.
LikeLike
Agreed.
I was looking for a good argument but it really can’t be made, can it.
LikeLike
I can tell you Northwestern won’t buy Tech. I doubt Michigan will either. So add Wisconsin to that and one (Illinois)more and the deal is dead. Mich, IL both have two schools in conference 3 of them are academically superior public schools. Why bring 3 Texas schools in giving the Texas newbees 3 votes and still yet diluting the academic strength with Tech..
LikeLike
no way in hell will that happen. B10 would rather close shop. ok, maybe not that, but still no way.
LikeLike
A really short new Greenstein article:
Nebraska Good Bet for Big 10 Invite
http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/06/greenstein-nebraska-good-bet-for-big-ten-invite.html
LikeLike
This is big news for Nebraska. The Chicago Tribune is by far the most “plugged in” newspaper for the Big 10 region.
Remember, they leaked that the Big 10 accelerated the timetable several weeks back, which by all accounts was true, until the Big 10 pulled back at the last moment.
I’m still of the belief that the KC radio report of May was true and that Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers have three (3) Big 10 invitations sown up.
That leaves 2 spots. If ND declines, there are a couple possibilities.
1. Wait for the SEC move — Rivals radio hinted that the SEC will target Clemson, FSU, Louisville (??) and GT. If they lure those four schools, then the Big 10 can make a play for Virginia and Maryland. In a weakened ACC, they may have a decent opportunity to pull these schools — especially Maryland which doesn’t have an in-state rival to worry about.
2. Take a hard look at Colorado – The Buffs never figured to be a serious option due to their longing for the PAC 10. But if this is a decision for the “next 50 years” as Delaney constantly mentions, then there are few states growing faster then Colorado. You cannot reject Colorado because their football team is currently in the tank. Its a very good academic school, brings a great TV market (Denver) and is rapidly growing.
LikeLike
1. clemson, FSU, UL, and GT – doubtful
UNC/NCSTATE/VA TECH/UVA – more probable
the SEC already owns SC,FL,GA, and KY – where is the value, it would be like saying that the Big 10 would take ISU and K state in the big 10.. if I were silve i would expand into southern states NC and VA. It is the smarter move.
LikeLike
That’s not going to happen duffman.
The SEC for those 4? No way.
LikeLike
They will take a couple of teams from the ACC (GA tech Miami) because they can. Weakening another rival league in its own territory. The only real expansion for the SEC is Texas and Texas A&M. Take politics out of it and A&M is doable. Texas probably does not want any part of the SEC. Its favored suitors’ have already been discussed.
LikeLike
Oh, I left out OK and OK ST. This is some on tapped market for them.
LikeLike
The strongest signals from the SEC have been they will protect their turf if expansion mania kicks in. Speculation is their biggest targets would be Texas, Texas A&M and Oklahoma because they bring brand enormous value. However those options appear less likely with the Pac16 overtures. Their secondary options may be to bring in strong football members within their footprint for more high profile football matchups. The SEC tv contract is fixed and risks dividing the pie in smaller pieces if they can not bring in schools that can really bring the tv ratings. Additional premium match-ups from the schools mentioned may be the only way they can reopen negotiations of their tv deals. There have been statements from some of the candidates listed (FSU, Clemson) that they are trying to upgrade their academic reputations. This could be a signal to the SEC to stay away… or bring big sacks of money.
LikeLike
Maize N Brew has the perfect solution:
Rutgers and Pitt….MUST MERGE!!!
http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/7/1505311/the-solution-to-the-big-tens
LikeLike
@GreatLakeState – Maize N Brew has been killing it lately – that’s awesome!
LikeLike
YIPE!!
if BAMA reads that they will annex Auburn, Mississippi, and MSU.. then the SEC has 3 new slots to fill!
LikeLike
Hilarious. Shouldn’t the Camaro in the logo have rusted through fenders?
LikeLike
How lucky to be Purdue, IU, Minnesota, Wisc, Mich St, Illinois, Iowa – knowing that you are getting more $$ than Alabama from TV deals. Knowing that you belong to a prestigious conference and don’t have to worry about this right now.
LikeLike
Every conference has 6 schools like that.
The difference is that the Big Ten is about more than football, so every member brings value in its own way.
Wisconsin’s research budget, etc.
LikeLike
I didn’t mean it in a bad way. And not every conference has 6 schools like that. The B12 has six schools who are in limbo about whether they will land in a solid conference. The only 2 stable conferences are the B10 and SEC. Lucky to be in those conferences. What if Purdue was in Big 12 and Mizzou in B10? Purdue would have no where to go. I’m not knocking those schools, just commenting that they are lucky to be in such a great conference. Of course they helped build it up. They have reaped what they have sewn.
LikeLike
New Stewart Mandel article at SI:
Sweet 16: Exploring scenarios for how expansion dominos may fall
LikeLike
Not a bad summary, even if it is nothing that hasn’t been said on this board. Personally, I like Mandel and his college football reporting. Too bad he couldn’t somehow acknowledge this blog. I’d be curious to here from Frank as to if he has been contacted by national college football writers on this subject. I would suspect so.
LikeLike
Yea, when I read that it seemed like a summary of what has been posted here. I’d be surprised if he wasn’t reading Frank the Tank’s Slant.
LikeLike
I know that Stewart has read at least a few of my blogs and I’ve talked to several national writers.
LikeLike
“If an invite appears imminent, the Huskers head north.”
Oh no. Beebe’s flying us on a plane to Canada.
LikeLike
Okay…so reading through the news stories about Baylor’s PR effort. How the hell does the Big 12 put that genie back in the bottle, even if they want to. We now have a “pseudo-representative” for one of the Big 12 schools putting together talking points, many of which bearing only a passing resemblance to the truth, e.g. Baylor’s supposed academic superiority (good school but that 10 million in research doesn’t really cut it), and CU’s “small local market” relative to the power of the Baptists. Even if CU wanted to stay as long as Nebraska did, I think we want out now, problem is I think we’re outgunned when it comes to market and political savvy unless the PAC is willing to say they definitively want us, that or find two schools to replace Mizzou / Nebraska and sign up for permanent status as yet another vassal state to UT. This whole thing couldn’t have blown up at a worse time given the state of our program.
LikeLike
Better yet, how does Baylor and Tech get veto power over UT. Really that is something to marvel at. I understand the politics of it all, but it is still amazing. When we think who holds the most power, its starting to look like it is Tech oddly enough.
LikeLike
Tea leaves and rumblings around here today…
Nobody to source, yet… but it is almost to the point of unnessesary.
Whispers are Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Missouri by Wednesday. Our sports guys…. and everyone else…. working on it.
Sounds like Greenstien is hearing similar.
I hope to source later, but when the source occurs EVERYONE will know, sounds soon.
LikeLike
Good to hear. Crossing fingers.
LikeLike
That would fall exactly in line with zeek’s analysis.
LikeLike
Where is around here?
LikeLike
Sorry SH,
I work at a tv station inside the Big Ten footprint. I am NOT in sports though. I have NO connections, I just relay what is heard / discussed / being worked on.
Could be a staggered addition as Frank discussed to bring UT / A&M and none of the other hangers-on. I have not heard anything about UT / A&M at all.
LikeLike
Thanks. Just didn’t know where here is. I have learned one thing these past few months. When I was deciding what I wanted to be when I grew up, I should have answered a B10 expansion consultant. It fascinates me.
LikeLike
If that is true then Texas and TAMU are in play. The chess match amounts to a proxy battle between the Big Ten and Pac-10.
If the BXIIS bolts to the Pac-10, then what is the Big 10 move? (1) stand pat (would ND be OK with that?) (2) grab Colorado if available? (3) Go hard east/mid-atlantic?
I’m unconvinced the SEC will be compelled to move if the result of all of this is the evaporation of the Big XII.
LikeLike
Yeah this matches the Tech bypass that we discussed earlier.
If the Big Ten manages to get to 14 with Notre Dame and Nebraska, then Texas/A&M will have to consider the final two slots strongly and there’s a chance they can dodge the politics of the Tech problem.
That’s a small window of opportunity, but if this all shakes out as predicted, then the Big Ten is fine either way…
LikeLike
What if SEC intervenes in any # of ways. Gives an invite to Ok, and Texas 3. Or just gives invite to Ok & A&M. If A&M goes to SEC and there are two spots in B10, Tech now has a spot available again.
LikeLike
Then you invite Rutgers or talk hard to A&M about coming to the Big Ten.
Remember the KC radio interview; that strategy takes us to 15. Then there’s only one spot open.
Actually though, an SEC invite for OU/Texas would immensely increase the chances of the Big Ten grabbing Texas.
Texas would start to look out for itself as opposed to trying to keep it’s own mini-conference.
A&M is an integral part of the Texas + 5 strategy. Texas will not go to the Pac-10 without A&M and it won’t go to the SEC regardless.
Thus, Texas could easily fall to an open 16th slot in the Big Ten if the SEC intervenes.
Perhaps we should hope for an SEC intervention aimed squarely at OU and A&M.
LikeLike
Sure, but there is no way TT gets an invite because the Big 10 presidents won’t accept the school. If TAMU is not on the list, then two slots for one good school and one bad school vs. two good academic schools (any of CO/RU/MD/Pitt/+) that fill some other needs is not a hard choice to make.
In any case, JD just announces the next invite to RU/CO/Pitt/MD and tells UT there is one slot available. Get back to me.
The Big 10 holds all the cards if this is the game that is played.
LikeLike
Exactly, I think the Big Ten has it’s counteroffer for Texas.
The Big Ten is going to do the exact opposite of the Pac-10’s “Texas + whoever” strategy.
We’re going with the only Texas/A&M or only Texas strategy because that’s who we’re going to leave open slots for…
No way the Big Ten is going to leave a slot open for Texas politics to fill.
LikeLike
and if the “tech” problem is still an issue then I would think they use the last last 2 spots to go east for PSU to get them to the 16 (Cuse+Rutgers?).
Either way – they get ND, Neb, and MO and they will be sitting in good shape
LikeLike
only two spots left on the train. hopefully?
can’t sell three tickets with only 2 seats. even Texas Legislature can figure that out.
Those other schools will more than likely need a soft spot to land. To pull this off.
LikeLike
After reading this article about the legislature wanting to keep the Texas 4 together, I say let them stay together, BXII, Pac 16, whatever. Having them tied together diminishes the reason for bringing Texas along in the first place. Obviously A&M and UT could maximize their value by going to SEC and B10 respsectively. But let them hang together if that is what the politicians insist. Just don’t involve the B10.
LikeLike
I’d love the Big 10 for Colorado if the PAC doesn’t happen, hell probably over the proposed SWC 2.0 that we’d be in if the likeliest PAC scenario happens. But I’d think the Big 10 would be looking to solidify the East and have more partners for PSU.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t worry about the Pac invite.
I can’t imagine I live in a world where the Pac would take Baylor over CU.
LikeLike
SuperD, I pointed out earlier that Penn State has perhaps lost any leverage it might have had to require an Eastern partner.
The Big Ten presidents are voting electronically because they’re not meeting any time soon.
That tells me that Delany is now almost entirely running this show, which is why I came up with that scenario earlier.
LikeLike
I’m not sure where the idea that PSU ever really wanted an “eastern partner” gained traction. Probably from Joe Paterno comments, but given that Joe isn’t the University president (he just thinks he is) I really don’t think his comments carry that much weight other than sports page fodder.
Frankly I’d rather hang onto the PSU-Ohio State rivalry than jeopardize replacing that with PSU-Rutgers or PSU-Syracuse. Now, Pitt would be a great add, but again I’d rather keep PSU-OSU than replace with PSU-Pitt.
Now, PSU-Notre Dame would make a dandy season-ending rivalry game, wouldn’t you agree?
LikeLike
I agree with you entirely 84Lion.
JoePa himself said “we’re the new guys, we don’t want to rock the boat on this process” when he was talking about expansion.
He also noted that he wouldn’t try to lobby Delany for anything because that’s not how he operates.
So I do think the Penn State requiring an Eastern partner thing got blown up a bit much.
Penn State wants what the other universities want, good academics, good athletics, etc.
Penn State is going to care a lot about who their rivalries are, etc.
LikeLike
Don’t shrug off Paterno’s comments so quickly. He’s pushed for eastward expansion before PSU even joined the Big10 (tried to start a north eastern conference in the 70’s). He knows well enough there are a LOT of alumni that transplanted to those areas and while they may not grow as fast as other areas, they are still high population markets that have never really had the big name brands in them.
If Texas is seriously in play (especially with ND) I don’t think you’ll be hearing any negative comments from Paterno, but if Texas doesn’t come, you can bet at least 2 schools out of the 5 team expansion will be eastern.
LikeLike
PSU can just bite the gd bullet and schedule Pitt or WV OOC.
LikeLike
@PSUGuy,I agree, if the Texas twins don’t make it to the Big Ten relatively quickly, I’d say Rutgers and another Eastern team. It only makes sense from the demographics side. I also wouldn’t discount the Big Ten stopping at 14 and taking a breather for a few years.
Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that Mizzou got an invite and Rutgers didn’t, given the B10 emphasis on academics. When all the smoke clears it’ll be interesting to find out the story behind the story.
LikeLike
that said, ND, NB and MO are a grand slam. take them and hang tight for awhile – opportunities will always be out there. take it slow.
LikeLike
michaelC
The backup plan is Rutgers + someone most likely. A hard run at Maryland or GTech is probable as well. Possibly Syracuse if that’s what ND wants.
Could wait for the SEC to start making eyes at the ACC, etc.
The world is an oyster if the Big Ten has ND/Neb/Mizz. We can grab any two schools from Georgia to New York and be fine (okay well I shouldn’t go that far, but you know what I mean).
LikeLike
Actually, I’m afraid the announcement of NE, ND, MO is a strong indication they have all but captured at least UT. TAMU is likely to come along in that case.
This would be a strong result for expansion. In fact, weighed against the original hopes it would be a monumental outcome. Many worthy schools will be disappointed however.
Given that the SEC doesn’t move on the ACC (and I don’t see why they should), I doubt the ACC will be proactive with a new contract in hand. Oddest outcome of all is that the Big East somehow survives, just if ND goes to the Big Ten and expansion stopped at 12.
We knew the BXII was unstable, but complete vaporization in the space of a couple of months?
The end game is here. When it is over frankly I’ll miss reading everyone’s thoughts and the action of collective intelligence at “Frank the Tank”.
LikeLike
How do you figure on the UT capture? I think you may be right on the rest of the post. You know the “Less is more” paradigm might work for the SEC. At least for now.
LikeLike
Well I wouldn’t put the book down so fast.
Texas may have been ratcheting up pressure on Nebraska with the belief that the Big Ten couldn’t sign Notre Dame.
The fact that ND/Nebraska/Mizz may be in the Big Ten means that Texas/A&M now really have to evaluate their scenarios without pushing it off on some proposed Tech problem, which is more of a delaying issue.
I doubt that they’d do anything against what’s in their best interests.
I’d imagine that the Big Ten should focus most on A&M and then Texas. A&M seems like it would be easiest to get to commit. After A&M, Texas would follow most easily.
But we’ll see. Texas politics are another universe entirely, and we’re going to see how ugly this gets if the Big Ten does hit 14 and then make a push for them both.
LikeLike
more not most*; didn’t mean to imply it’d ever be an easy lift…
LikeLike
@zeek
“The fact that ND/Nebraska/Mizz may be in the Big Ten means that Texas/A&M now really have to evaluate their scenarios without pushing it off on some proposed Tech problem, which is more of a delaying issue.”
With the electronic confirmation issue, you’d think the time for delaying is over for them. Fish or cut bait.
LikeLike
My reasoning for the probable capture of at least UT is the inclusion of MO. Assuming ND is on board and has had influence in the expansion criteria (that is of schools that are acceptable to the Big 10) then the probable argument is that MO is there to ease travel concerns and make UT less of a geographic outlier. That is, MO is there because it makes it acceptable for UT to say yes.
JD and ND would not have closed off one slot and option unless it was part of either a deal with UT or a mutually agreed upon strong bet made by the Big Ten + ND as part of the deal getting ND on board. Without an end game that probably yields UT (and most likely TAMU as the kicker), MO has no real connection with the presumed needs of ND as a member of the Big Ten. A move east (NYC, DC) or deep south (Atlanta, Miami) would serve its purposes better (e.g. national schedule).
That’s my reasoning. NE+ND+MO is implicit evidence that UT is captured or nearly so.
LikeLike
Yeah, I’ve argued before myself that ND/Mizz/A&M/Texas is the strongest possible pod in terms of geography for satisfying ND/Texas.
But we’ll have to see if that offer is enough to withstand Texas politics which are heavily leaning towards the Pac-16.
Baylor and Tech both arguing for a Pac-16 makes this a really hard lift.
Going for A&M first is the best course of action, but I don’t think anything is certain.
I think Missouri is a compromise all ways. It ensures that the Tech problem doesn’t get foisted upon us and works geographically even if Texas/A&M don’t come…
LikeLike
I’m not as convinced of this freeing Texas from any obligation to stay with their state brethren. If the Pac 10 offers don’t work out, that doesn’t mean Texas politics suddenly caves. The four may still have to stay together, which is probably good news for the Big 12 – 2. There are good, workable options in that scenario, maybe not Air Force and New Mexico, but again, like Keitzman put forth, look east.
LikeLike
Texas and Nebraska together again?
LikeLike
@ezdozen
re: Nebraska and Texas together again
Yeah, like a bad couple that need to hate each other. “You complete me.
LikeLike
@ezdozen
Not a problem. Texas and Nebraska have a lot of pissing contests on the internet, in person we get along just fine. Beer and brats for everyone, in both locales. Put us in the same division or make them our designated rival. Both sides would look forward to it.
LikeLike
@Zeek –
Great job with all of your in-sight on here. Very much appreciated.
My only point of contention with your analysis is the pod of Texas, Texas A&M, Mizzou and Notre Dame. I find this difficult for two reasons: 1) It is entirely comprised of new additions to the Big 10 and 2) Notre Dame (at least appears to be) very conservative/historical in their football scheduling, such that having at least 3 new opponents each year probably would not sit well.
Rather, if everything shakes out in this scenario, I see a potential pod of Texas, A&M, Missouri and Illinois. Notre Dame would be with Michigan State, Michigan and Purdue, which would provide it 3 opponents each year that it would play anyway and Notre Dame could have a protected game with Texas every year (which would result in a game in Texas every other year).
The other pods would be Iowa, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota (the easiest to figure out) and that would leave Penn State, Ohio State, Indiana and Northwestern.
Thinking even further, protected annual relationships outside of the pods could be Notre Dame/Texas, Nebraska/A&M, Ohio State/Michigan, Iowa/Missouri, Illinois/Wisconsin, Northwestern/Minnesota, Michigan State/Penn State. Some of these are clearly less logical fits than otherss……
LikeLike
With Notre Dame, Nebraska, and Missouri on board and the Big XII South joining the Pac-16, possible additions for spots 15 and 16 include:
Rutgers
Syracuse
Pitt
Connecticut
Maryland
Virginia
Georgia Tech
Miami
Vanderbilt
Kansas
Colorado
To varying degrees, all are acceptable additions. My guess, if this happens, is that Notre Dame probably would have had a say in the final two. Based on what the Big Ten and ND would most want, it would seem likely that Rutgers (or Syracuse) would get at least one spot and the second would be a school from farther outside the traditional Big Ten footprint (Miami?, Ga Tech?, Colorado?). If the Hurricanes are game, it would seem to be a great final addition, given all of the Big Ten retirees in Florida and the recruiting down there.
LikeLike
@Patrick – I’m hearing the same thing separately. I’ll try to get a new post up tonight. If Mizzou gets into the Big Ten, it looks like it can thank Notre Dame.
LikeLike
Must be a busy afternoon for you. I am just enoying the ride.
Congrats Frank… it’s a hell of a blog and you seem to be well ahead of almost everyone!
LikeLike
I tried telling everybody the other day that Mizzou was in due to the money they bring because of the Missouri population.
LikeLike
Mizzou is in because it’s way more of a match for the Big Ten than Texas Tech.
Then again, that’s an easy bar to leap, but Mizzou is still a Big Ten university where it counts (AAU/research, etc.) and as an added benefit, no competition in terms of prominent state universities always helps.
LikeLike
Dont see the ND-TX connection–or why it would be appealing to one or the other to be in same conference?
LikeLike
My best reply is to look up.
Regardless, the best possible pod for ND and Texas is ND/Texas/A&M/Mizz. This gives Texas/A&M the regionality aspect while giving ND a guaranteed game in Texas (home/away with Texas/A&M) and two guaranteed Texas games a year.
ND fears becoming regionalized to the Big Ten footprint.
Texas/A&M are the best cure for that because then 1/4th of their Big Ten schedule is them.
LikeLike
Frank is right. MO is in because ND wanted them.
MO is part of the deal to allow Texas to say yes (because ND is part of the deal as well).
LikeLike
Why does ND want Missouri?
And why does Texas consider Missouri helpful?
I get the reasons for adding Missouri. I don’t get the reasons for other schools needing Missouri.
LikeLike
Gold helmets? Illinois wanted them too?
Really, their academics are good, their geography is good, and if Pinkel can keep his program up, their football isn’t going to stink it up, for be it from Nebraskans to woof too much since they’ve had our number quite often lately, basketball program is usually well above average.
LikeLike
Texas is not going to the Big 10. Not only will the Texas Legislature make Texas and A&M take Tech wherever they go, they are also trying to make them take Baylor. The Big 10 doesn’t want Tech or Baylor.
As for Notre Dame wanting Missouri, they don’t, or at least they don’t care one way or another. The reason why ND is pivotal though to Missouri, is because if the Big 10 had their choice, they would only take ND and quit at 12. But ND has let it be known that they will not be #12, only #16, so there aren’t four other schools that bring more to the table than Missouri. Look for Missouri, NEbraska, ND, Syracuse and Rutgers.
LikeLike
And to add a mercenary thought to that, if Kansas ends up in a bad place, Missouri would probably benefit.
LikeLike
And why does ND want TX?
LikeLike
I’ve posted elsewhere on the reasoning — zeke has argued earlier that a ND, MO, UT TAMU pod is the most attractive for ND and for UT.
Recall the UT-ND scheduling email from earlier. The suggestion was that UT would be in if ND was in and vice versa. So the real game for JD has been to allow that to happen.
The fact of a NE ND MO announcement implies ND and the Big Ten (at least ) reached a deal that MO would be included to ease UT as a geographic outlier. UT may have also agreed to it as well.
Why else would MO be invited closing a slot and an option at this point? NE alone is enough to start the dominoes in the Big XII after the Pac-10 offer.
If the goal was to simply reduce the number of slots to two (sorry no room for TT), then other choices that are more strategic than MO are available. Especially if ND is helping to make choices out of the acceptable schools (e.g. a more national schedule — Columbia vs. NYC, DC, Atlanta, Miami?).
This is all about ND and UT now and either the deal is done and the kabuki is playing out, or JD + ND believe they have everything set up that allows UT to make the jump.
Getting Texas is the strategic win for ND (Latino Catholics and another epic rivalry) and of course ND+UT (+TAMU and NE) is an epic win for the Big Ten and all of its members.
As Dr. Strangelove said “Simple, No?”
LikeLike
I’ll say it again, Texas isn’t going anywhere without the other Texas teams. They’ve already tried it. Texas had an agreement with the Pac 10 and A&M with the SEC when the SWC was disbanding. But the Texas government blocked it, and made them merge with the Big 8, with Baylor and Tech apart of the conference. Nothing has changed.
LikeLike
@Missou1
The stakes are orders of magnitude higher now. The result of this round of expansion has enormous long term impact both on academic and athletics. Future options are greatly diminished.
It is just possible that enough Texas politicians understand that and work to get the best outcome for their academic institutions. It isn’t a new version of the SWC or a move to the SEC that does not help anybody academically and so only penalizes UT and TAMU on the international stage. Apart from football (being in a BCS conference) I have yet to see any description of how coupling TT to UT/TAMU improves the future academic standing of TT.
LikeLike
Look, if anyone thinks that the Texas state politicians are going to allow UT to go to the Big 10 while TT and BU rot on the vine of the MWC or CUSA, they are sadly mistaken. I don’t care if the Big 10 only has 1 spot open, the Pac 10 has 6 spots open and will invite the whole state of Texas if it has to. As long as the Pac 10 has 4 spots open (and they will always have 4 spots until they get UT), the Big 10 will not get UT and the Texas state politicians will make sure of that (I lived in Texas for 13 years and I know how the state politics works, just ask the Big 12).
LikeLike
Yeah, well I have driven through Texas. Twice. And I can tell you that you may or may not be correct.
LikeLike
Anyone who thinks they can confidently predict Texas politics have not lived here nearly long enough. No outcome from Austin should surprise anyone.
LikeLike
You are wrong Bamatab. There is real pressue from Tech but the Baylor add-on is mostly wishful thinking by their alumni.
There is real interest from both Texas and Texas A&M to bring Tech along (read – not political) as both systems gain if Tech improves academically. That is the goal and is why Tech is being attached to Texas.
LikeLike
Just so everyone knows, in Texas the legislature meets only once every other year (though special sessions can be, and are often, called). State legislators have other jobs. So basically, there is no state issue for them to tackle right now other than football, which they do behind the scenes and not from Austin because they are not in session.
LikeLike
Patrick, any update? Every part of me says that your source cannot be right — that Patrick or your source is simply a typical anonymous internet poster. But I still believe in the potential perfection of mankind. I cannot believe that anyone would be so vile as to post such a heinous rumor without some evidence.
I literally am praying that ND is the decoy and Texas is the target. If not, if ND were to accept an offer against the wishes of 60-75% of its alums, it would be one of the darkest days in the history of the school. Seriously, I would be embarrassed for Fr. Jenkins and the administration. If true, I hope there is an out clause because the next slate at the Board of Trustees will be a “stop the madness, undo the damage and leave the Big 16” slate. Working to replace those who voted in favor would become my new “hobby.”
LikeLike
This made me laugh really hard.
LikeLike
25-40% in favor?!? I would’ve be no higher than 20%, and probably closer to 2%.
LikeLike
Don’t doubt that’s what you’re hearing Patrick, but I don’t buy it………ND’s not going to be the first to move……the President and AD don’t want people burning down their houses…….
LikeLike
This didn’t end up where I thought it would be, but I must say I’m amazed that so many people are willing to accept thgis ND rumor at face value……it goes against everything the AD had been saying for the last 6 months….I’m definately a Doubting Thomas here………..
LikeLike
I’ve read a number of interpretations on what Larry Scott can do next and I was wondering what people here thought. Can he add schools without going back to the presidents for a vote? Can he merely invite schools to apply, leading to a vote by the presidents?
LikeLike
He never said whether the Pac-10 presidents have voted on anything.
Thus, we can assume that either they did vote on scenarios (unlikely they’d give him that big a blank check) or that it will work like the Big Ten but that he can give invitations out, and then the universities have to apply.
We did hear some rumblings about TTech and OSU academics yesterday, so who knows whether all the Pac-10 presidents are on board…
LikeLike
An entirely predictable poll result about what conference UT should be. Though Alaska and Hawaii surprise me a little.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=frontpage&pollId=92059
LikeLike
SH,
I was pretty shocked at #2 in TEXAS!!
#1 BIG 12…………58%
#2 SEC……………..18%
#3 PAC 10………..15%
#4 BIG 10…………09%
If this becomes political lets hope the voters do not decide!
LikeLike
I see some disgruntled Texans in 15% for the Pac Ten.
Yeah, I know, anybody could vote.
LikeLike
Not shocking to me, because most people are simply looking at it from a football fan’s perspective. SEC is best football conference (outside of BXII of course – again average Texas fan thought), so if we can’t go BXII, we go to SEC.
Take a poll of Frank Tank followers from Texas like myself, and you probably get an inverse result.
LikeLike
Slightly different poll without SEC as an option
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=pollindex&pollId=92023
Basically take the other poll and switch all the people who voted for the SEC over to the Big XII.
LikeLike
Anyone wanting a good laugh should go here:
http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/95804854.html
This is a copy of an email sent by a regent of Baylor University to alumni and other important supporters extolling the virtues of BU vis-a-vis Colorado. It includes some of the talking points that made their way into BU president Kenneth Starr’s recently concluded press conference. Don’t read this while you’re eating dinner.
LikeLike
Did these make it into the presser (at least the anti-CU ones?) Most of the summaries I’ve seen of the presser looked like it was more of the “we support the Big 12” variety. Almost seemed like someone had told Baylor to STFU and stop actively trashing other league schools in the media while we’re trying to hold the league together. CU fans were much more worried that the presser was going to be more of the full-court call to action type.
LikeLike
“But harder still to influence a bunch of corn shuckers.”
That’s gold, Jerry, gold! 😉
LikeLike
Anybody else have a vision of Buddy from Friday Night Lights when they read this. The ultimate in used car salesmanship in these emails
LikeLike
Texas is indeed another country. There have been tails of Chicago Politics but I dear say we would never have seen the likes here in Illinois. Corn Shuckers and Buffalos beware. You have both been served up
LikeLike
Best suggestion I’ve seen for the super conference names is to name them after what they were in the 19th century. We’d have the Union, the Confederacy, and Mexico.
(For anal history nerds out there, I know that the Mexican-American War and the annexation of Texas predate the Civil War. Just deal with it.)
LikeLike
Guess we’ll see if Lew Perkins was serious about ending the Border War.
LikeLike
I fully endorse this, not so historically accurate, plan of action.
LikeLike
Some buzz down here that TX and TT are solidly behind adding Baylor, but aTm is firmly against. One might speculate that is gutlessness on the part of the Ags, since Baylor has often embarrassed them in football lately. But my guess is this is positioning for aTm to jump to the SEC. Going to be a hell of a fight with TX if they try that.
The Ags can argue that their going to the SEC allows Baylor and CO to get in. Wouldn’t be surprised if the politicians then try to tie UHou around the Ags neck. “We’ve got another state school we’re investing heavily in with Prop 4 that we want Tier One, if you want us to go to war with TX’s lobby, you help us out.” If aTm and the SEC agree to that, aTm probably wins that battle with TX, though likely with a provision that the SEC can’t invite OU or aTm loses X percent of its PUF allocations (basically a vehicle for major state funding.)
———-
BTW, if I were the Stanford band, the first time TTech came to town I’d do a ‘Welcome!’ halftime ceremony dressed as Sesame Street and playing the alphabet song. With several short yellow buses.
LikeLike
Well if A&M is against Baylor, perhaps the Big Ten can swoop down and invite A&M.
If the Big Ten could somehow get ND/Neb/Mizz on board (last two are a given, it’s ND that’s the issue of course) and shoot an invite to A&M immediately, then this thing could blow up.
The Big Ten needs to act before this Pac-16 plan solidifies any more though or it might be too late; it goes without saying that the Big Ten needs to act before the SEC…
LikeLike
I think Zeek and I are in agreement. Maybe attack this by going after A&M. Let my A&M over UT bias show here (I didn’t go to either school though). A&M has the corp, they are leaders. Let them lead the two schools in the right direction, since UT obviously can’t handle Tech or Baylor.
Actually, A&M may have more political capital to get it done.
LikeLike
A&M also allows Texas to follow it more freely because they can claim they had to.
A&M isn’t under the pressures of the Tech/Baylor problems anywhere near as Texas, so if A&M is out first, then it would become easier for Texas to follow…
LikeLike
I really like the TAMU invite as a flank attack. I’ve been suggesting it actively on the Michigan boards.
LikeLike
I’d certainly hope A&M accepted a Big 10 offer even without UT. UT might then try and follow, but I could see it still wanting to bring a region to the Pac 10. In fact, that might let UT get a better agreement for itself. I think the Pac 10 would be disappointed, but would still happily take UT, Oklahoma, and Colorado with 3 throw-ins.
Unfortunately, I think our AD leans to the SEC and I have heard nothing to indicate the admins would overrule them. In that case, I’d prefer the Pac 10.
A&M would be in a strange position if they went alone to the Big 10. A few hours east of a few Pac 10 schools, about 5 hours west of an SEC school. The non-conference rivalries with UT and Arkansas would be important to maintain a regional presence. Still, I’d be supportive of the move.
LikeLike
Texas legislature could may win the battle but lose the war. Or they are losing the forest through the trees. Pick your metaphor.
LikeLike
Would not be the first time our representatives in Austin were short sighted.
LikeLike
“Texas legislature could may win the battle but lose the war. Or they are losing the forest through the trees. Pick your metaphor.”
The legislature sounds like its not made up of rocket surgeons.
LikeLike
what legislature is? they are focused on their own special interests. state and local politics at its finest.
LikeLike
M – LOL
LikeLike
Baylor has beaten A&M twice in the past 25 meetings, so I wouldn’t quite say they’ve “often embarrassed them.” That said, Baylor does get under the skin of a lot of A&M grads/fans.
LikeLike
Does anyone have a good link describing Starr’s presser? I have been looking and have not found anything better than one or two lines on the subject. I am curious to know what he said in detail.
LikeLike
@duffman
I just read your post about ND global appeal and I think you are really missing the big picture here.
1) Nobody cares too much about college sports outside USA, not even Canada.
2) Nobody cares about football (not soccer) outside USA.
3) Go to Europe and ask about Notre Dame and 99.9% of the time the answer will be a cathedral in Paris, France.
LikeLike
What if the SEC sees the Big 10’s Nebraska/ND/Missouri and comes back and offers “Texas, A&M, Tech, and Baylor”?
The Texas Legislature smiles.
What does the Pac 10 do? They are left with Colorado and Utah.
Then you have Kansas, Kansas St. Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Iowa St. Does the Big East take all 5 and Memphis? Throw L-ville into that side. Now you have 14 football schools and an AQ for the Big East.
LikeLike
The Pac 10 goes a lot further east than they planned on. They’d get OU football and Kansas basketball.
LikeLike
Can either of those schools abandon their partners?
Now you are talking the Pac 10 swallowing OSU and KSU. Seems even more far fetched than OSU and Texas Tech.
LikeLike
Not really any change in distance at all, and the Pac 10 options would be rapidly diminishing to nil.
LikeLike
I meant academically.
I’d say geography has become pretty irrelevant these days.
LikeLike
I should have said they go east, but a lot more north than they planned on.
LikeLike
@eapg
The Pac-10 clearly is not too concerned about academics.
LikeLike
But again, the options are running out, and they’ve already shown academics may have to take a back seat, as long as they can keep schools that don’t pass Stanford’s sniff test off in a separate division. They’d also get two good to excellent schools in KU and CU, OSU had some Sun Grant thing I’m not aware of the someone brought up.
LikeLike
@eapg
You are exactly right. So long as the schools are in another division I think just about any state school that is roughly comparable to WSU or OSU works. That opens more expansion options. But nothing available outside of Texas and Colorado comes with decent TV markets. So Utah and CO have to be the first two gets before they roll onto the plains.
LikeLike
In 72 hours, we have gone from “there is now way Stanford is going to let OSU and Tech in” to “well, looks like OSU and KSU” is the best that they can do.
At what point does Stanford step in and say “no”?
LikeLike
Or does the Pac 10 come back with… fine, we’ll take Baylor over Colorado.
LikeLike
I think that’s probably already on the table. From a Big Ten point of view, I know Texas to the SEC gives you the heebie-jeebies. Rumor has it they’re not so fond of the idea either. The road gets a lot harder.
LikeLike
Texas apparently doesn’t want to go to the SEC for the reason to keep SEC schools getting greater access to Texas for recruiting. So they would be strongly oppossed.
LikeLike
But who is making the decisions? If it is the Texas Legislature… the desire to keep Tech and Baylor afloat may outweigh the other concerns.
That is why the SEC could make the offer.
LikeLike
UT is not voiceless. They are willing to go along with Tech and Baylor latching on to the Pac 10 because it costs them little and they get a mini-conferenc/division that they will dominate. great deal so they go along.
but the SEC is another story. if it is true Mack Brown doesn’t want Les Miles sending minions into East Texas they will use their political power to fight back.
LikeLike
Agree. There’s going to be some real rebellion in Austin. Who knows how it shakes out, though? I’m way outside the loop on handicapping that.
LikeLike
Hank – LSU has successfully recruited Texas for as long as I can remember. LSU averages about 4 recruits per year from Texas. In 2009, LSU received commitments from two 5-star recruits from Texas. LSU doesn’t need UTx in the SEC to successfully recruit the state of Texas.
Matt Flynn, LSU most recent BCS NC quarterback, was from Texas.
The state of Texas produces so many highly rated recruits every year that UTx couldn’t possibly take them all. UTx usually gets who they want. OU, A&M, TTech & LSU usually fight over the 4-star kids that UTx didn’t want. UTx shouldn’t be worried about other teams coming into the state to recruit. They have and will continue to lose a few players they really want, but UTx will always get the vast majority of “their” players.
LikeLike
Alan from Baton Rouge
I know that LSU recuits Texas well. I used to live in Houston. That was just code for the SEC in general because a) you are close and b) Les Miles or as we some of his fellow Wolverines lovingly refer to him, The Meandering Cocksman, is a personal favorite. But the point is that the SEC already makes in roads in Texas and Mack doesn’t want to give them increased access by letting them play regularly in Texas.
I should have said Saban but I didn’t want to give that Spartan #$&@ any more publicity 🙂
LikeLike
Could it be that Texas can push back somewhere? I mean of the 3 conferences can they not say I don’t want to go there? And they don’t. It’s the Pac ten, then a close second is the big ten and a distant third is the SEC. Without all the political baggage there would be no chance at the 3rd option as the other two would be a done deal.
LikeLike
Don’t ignore the academics. If Texas wants TT & Baylor to become Tier 1 schools the academic prestige associated with the Pac would be much preferable than the SEC.
LikeLike
Texas wants TT and Houston to become Tier 1. They could not care less about Baylor.
LikeLike
In this situation, it would be very Pac-10ish for them to take:
Colorado/Colo St.
Kansas/Kansas St.
Oklahoma/Oklahoma St.
LikeLike
The old geographical pairs doesn’t work in today’s world so I doubt they go a direction revolved around that.
If TX/aTm get wiped off the board in a multi staged plan of some sort from the B10- I am more than comfortable (as a Pac fan) moving forward with CU and Utah invites, preparing the launch of PTN, and then reassesing additional schools.
LikeLike
Thinking it over some more (and I know it has been said before), Neb and Mizzou as being lone state schools sure does have a lot of benefits. It must stink for a large flagship to be shackled with its lesser brother.
Think what happens when the SEC decides to expand. Does SC push for Clemson, does UF push for FSU, does Georgia push for GT (all because the various state legislatures want it). I think this could be a potential problem for the SEC down the road. I doubt the B10 would mind that kind of expansion.
LikeLike
SH,
I have been saying it all along.. single state flagships are the bomb!
LikeLike
I am actually surmised that they do not look at the possibility of having a slightly different option in that two or more teams in two or more conferences have an opportunity to be successful in their own but separate realms. I know it does not work-out that well for Iowa State but Iowa State would be in the exact same position in the Big Ten.
LikeLike
Well I’m a believer now. Frankly when it comes to big time college sports, some contraction may be needed. Iowa and Kansas can’t support two large BCS sport programs. Ok can only because of Pickens. Maybe some of these programs should die of anyway. Or at least shrink in size.
LikeLike
Yet here, UT-San Antonio and Texas State want to move up to FBS and become the 11th and 12th teams in Texas.
LikeLike
I see that as potentially dangerous. Texas in B10 is worrisome because you wonder if UT will always be acting in B10’s best interest. Texas in P10 is worrisome because it looks inherently unstable. I worry about CA and TX using its political power to alter the landscape in college athletics.
LikeLike
@SH – bingo, TX is a poison pill
LikeLike
Lesser brother, tell me about it. We’ve got little brother UM tagging along with us.
LikeLike
I figured I would chime in after obsessively reading this blog the past week. I am a longtime member of the various Maryland scout boards and the current ESPN board, so I have good feel for the MD fanbase, from the plugged in folks to the plain fans. Maryland fans are torn between their history with the ACC and the potential that membership in the Big Ten (sorry, almost reverted to the B11 shorthand). Alot of Terp fans are continually sick of the perceived NC centric administration and management of the conference (similar to the BXII and TX), not to mention salivating at the $ and prestige that would come with the Big Ten. But in reality, Maryland will likely not go anywhere right now for a simple reason: the school is in the midst of a search for a new president. That is going to take precedence over any move of this magnitude and no way will the outgoing president make this move (sadly, as I would almost prefer the Big Ten at this point, especially if the Terps could come with UVa). Anyway, my two cents on that.
I also wanted to bring up a conspiracy theory that I don’t think anyone has mentioned. With the MWC announcing that they were putting off the anticipated invite to Boise St today, does anyone else think its awfully convenient for the BCS conferences that the MWC has decided to forego (for now) the move that would likely gain them an auto-bid? How hard would it be for the Pac 10 or Big 10 to say let’s accelerate the chatter (obviously at the BigXII’s expense), forcing the MWC to cool their jets in the event they could gain a Kansas or K-St? All the BCS schools have to do is keep the conversation going past the July 1 deadline for Boise to join the MWC for its record to count in BCS assessment (there’s no question they would accept an offer) to prevent an additional conference getting an auto-bid and thus reducing everyone’s BCS take. Sure the MWC could decide the day before the deadline to invite Boise and still get their bid, but I wouldn’t rule out this sudden acceleration as just being about the big boys.
LikeLike
for what its worth – http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=726140
LikeLike
tigerman may know something. the rest dont though. The guy saying his source told him the exact schools that will go to the b10 and it includes pitt and cuse and no ND or Texas has a BAD source.
Texas NOR ND are a smoke screen. They are the top 2 choices.
LikeLike
Today I had to back up a moment and think about this from the beginning. The ultimate B10 goal from the beginning had to be to get both TX and ND, nothing else mattered. An odd number doesn’t even matter to B10, however they figure they could easily get another “hr” player with those two already on board. The double chess part was the Pac making a play for TX as well. The key to ND is: 1. have seismic shift and 2. enlarge B10 footprint to provide a “national” schedule- then ND wants to come to B10. Pac plan unzipped the fly that showed TX politics still at work. I bet even ND is saying what a joke. But it showed the way to B10 how to start the seismic shift – take NEB (not like its a hard decision). Now the B12 is gone and TX (blowhards even with all their money) are actually on the clock and it isn’t theirs for a change. ND is interested right now with Neb. in fold, but I bet they also want TX now that they realize that this is going down and they have no choice but to join conference- It isn’t like ND has many options at this point and they know B10 is only real choice. Now B10 and ND are negotiating the rest of the story – who comes and how. B10 has decades invested in pursuing ND and isn’t backing down now – they let ND into decision making process and may even let them finish their TV deal with the $. Both want UTex too (now that ND realizes it has no choice but to join). The B10 and ND will select a 14th member to leave only two spots open (keep out trash) and offer TX and a&M or just TX (or maybe just A&M if TX won’t budge). Either way, ND is picking the remainder of the conference and B10 really doesn’t care b/c ND has high standards too and will only choose schools that the B10 would accept, all things considered. If TX and A&M commit, its done. If one or both are out, look for one or a couple of ND’s friends/rivals from the east that would pass muster academically (rankings)- BC, UMiami, Pitt, so they can use their non-conf games on the west coast and on Navy
LikeLike
Pete Thamel, New York Times:
BCS AD told me tonight: “Notre Dame and the Big Ten are very much in deliberations.” The question is, will they finish before B12 deadline?
LikeLike
Well, if you say “everything,” you are eventually bound to be right about something.
I don’t know what happens… but these reporters are being played like kazoos.
LikeLike
ezdozen
i could not agree more!
LikeLike
Oh my, I can’t believe I am about to defend a member of the MSM and particularly the NYT, but here goes.
Pete Thamel is an insanely well connected guy in the sports world. I really don’t think, in this cause, a ‘source’ would risk never being used as a source by this guy again by lying to him. Regardless, Thanks for the link PHIZZY, I think this is big news.
LikeLike
If my logic is as F**ed up with mistakes as that last comment of mine, you’re guys are probably right.
I meant “in this CASE”
LikeLike
See my new reply below.
I wounder who is lying? A BCS AD, or AD Swarbrick?
LikeLike
Update…
Pete Thamel, New York Times:
Talking to ND AD Jack Swarbrick. On deliberations with the Big 10: “That’s just not true.”
LikeLike
Either way, he is right.
I repeat… being played like a kazoo.
Or maybe Homer Simpson using Lisa’s saxophone: “Sax-A-Ma-Phone.” I just can’t make out the voice…
LikeLike
I told you so people….this is all bullshit.
LikeLike
Possibly related, and FWIW, in twitterland Chip Brown’s tone has become a lot more conciliatory:
LikeLike
That tells me the strategy of putting pressure on Nebraska has backfired and made Notre Dame more likely to join as #12 and allow the Big Ten to pull the trigger on Nebraska as #13.
Texas still wants the Big 12 no matter what, and this Pac-16 and Orangebloods leaks gambit (about how the Big Ten doesn’t want Nebraska – what a joke, like the Big Ten is stupid enough to believe that Texas really wants Nebraska but the Big Ten shouldn’t…) has failed.
LikeLike
Is keeping the BXII such a bad thing for the B10?
LikeLike
The Big Ten has a manifest destiny I guess…
LikeLike
One other thing: A&M may want to jump from this Pac-10 deal and OU may be getting antsy.
UT may not be able to hold the Big 12 South lifeboat together and it’s taking on water fast. They threw off Baylor to try to last a bit longer but now Colorado and Baylor are fighting to climb back aboard and as a result it’s sinking faster. (I can’t believe I just wrote that…)
LikeLike
Interesting reading the new tweets and then the previous tweets. Seems to be a significant adjustment in tone toward Nebraska.
Like many of us have said, at the end of the day NU and UT are the big dogs in the Big 12 and agree on most items. That said, the opportunities of the Big Ten & CIC are too good for Nebraska to pass up.
LikeLike
Agreed. Forgetting about the $ and TV deals; Nebraska tried to get into the Big Ten 100 years ago.
And furthermore, the CIC as you point out, is way too big a bonus for Nebraska to stay. Everyone’s seen how well Penn State (and all the Big Ten universities) have done the past 20 years in research.
Nebraska’s been upgrading it’s facilities heavily and believes that now is as good a time as ever to join the Big Ten.
I don’t see how Nebraska turns down an invite. It just seems impossible at this point even if there is a reconciliation…
LikeLike
No way in hell Nebraska backs out, zeek. No way. Assurances, if they happened, which they had to, are a two-way street.
LikeLike
I agree completely.
Now if we could just get Notre Dame to sign on the dotted line, so we could get this train out of the station.
LikeLike
I can’t turn off my computer; everything is moving so fast; you can’t trust most of, if not all of the main-stream media because (like Hank said) they are usually a day or two behind the real story. I find myself refreshing thread every 10-20 minutes. I can’t get any real work done, I am an addict.
Since December, this blog has consistently beat just about everyone to the expansion punch.
LikeLike
Chip Brown is looking more and more like the mouthpiece for Texas that he has always been (yes even as a DMN reporter). Texas has overplayed its hand and Nebraska and Texas A&M have both called them on it.
I’m really surprised OU is not more vocal but that might be because they truly have no other options.
LikeLike
So… who are tomorrow’s flavors?
I say “Dodd” will report that there is scuttlebutt that the ACC is looking to take, I don’t know, New Mexico. State.
“Orangebloods” will report that the Pac 10 has extended invites to 14 teams, with the first 6 to sign up winning a vintage Pac 8 hula hoop.
“Thamel” from the NY Times will report that Notre Dame is in, but only if Indiana and Purdue are forced to switch mascots.
Am I leaving anyone out?
LikeLike
Tom Osborne will be arrested driving down I-35 wearing a diaper with plastic, duct tape and a hammer in the trunk mumbling about being spurned by Deloss Dodds.
LikeLike
I’m not sure if that’ll actually happen, but I’m sure Chip Brown will tweet it once he learns Nebraska may be jumping soon…
LikeLike
(:
LikeLike
Notre Dame, Nebraska and Missouri is a freaking grand slam if it happens.
Don’t kid yourself guys. The Big 10 has been after ND for DECADES. They were the top choice because they literally would give the Big 10 the one chance to control the major northeast TV sets. Look for an annual ND/PSU game. Then, you add another big national name like Nebraska? You can’t top that.
If this were to transpire, there is no doubt the Big 10 will give ND a strong voice in who completes the last 2 spots. Its possible that the Big 10 makes one last run at Texas and A&M, however, the PAC 10’s skillful move in taking TTU and maybe Baylor may make it too difficult for Texas to bypass the PAC 10 (which will be very lucrative).
I think if you get ND, you will see the SEC react (adding two all time top 10 programs will do that).
I wouldn’t be surprised if the last two schools were Maryland and Boston College. You get footholds in DC and Boston, and then use ND and PSU to get the presence in Philly and NYC.
LikeLike
Boston College is not AAU and Boston has no relevance as a collegiate sports market. Maryland is AAU, in two markets more attuned to collegiate sports (Washington and Baltimore) and would give the Big Ten a presence in the D.C. market where much federal research largesse is distributed.
I still don’t get why Missouri is deemed a lead-pipe cinch. It essentially has Nebraska’s academics without Nebraska’s athletic program — and if Nebraska were at the same athletic level as Missouri, in both team quality and fan support, it wouldn’t draw a sniff from the Big Ten.
LikeLike
ezdozen..
BIGGEST EXPANSION NEWS YET!!
UAA makes midnight raid to expand from the nerdy nine to the new and improved PRIME conference with the addition of MIT and Cal Tech. In a related move they sent a fake invitation to former member johns hopkins. When representatives from the three conferences showed up to accept the invitation, the folks from johns hopkins were told that 12 is not a prime number and they were not getting back in after multiple noogies. Afterwards everybody partied with cheetoes and hawaiian punch.
LikeLike
I’m starting to believe that UAA is the appropriate place for Rice to land in this realignment.
LikeLike
puzzled. dodd, orangebloods, and thamel are in quotes. what does that mean? so-called dodd, etc?
LikeLike
Well, Mr. Dodd seemed out of place and undeserved.
Mostly just threw them in there in case of misspellings and for emphasis.
LikeLike
toronto. wait, that one makes sense.
LikeLike
jj,
I am still with you here, it really does nail down the academics and has the most potential if research really is a driving force….
LikeLike
Check Thamels latest.
LikeLike
sorry
LikeLike
Back to the drawing board with all of this then?
LikeLike
ND has never been very cooperative. Hopefully they are being quiet instead.
LikeLike
More form Thamels
LikeLike
His article is based on the inherently incredible assumption that two of the biggest power players (ND and Texas) are being “forced” into moves that they do not prefer based on the actions of other actors. I don’t buy it.
LikeLike
I don’t buy it.
I might believe that the Big Ten and Notre Dame haven’t reached any sort of decision, but zero deliberations between ND and the conference that has courted it for years?
No way.
LikeLike
I don’t think that is what he meant.
Somewhere in between the extremes of no deliberations and “will be signing up ASAP” is the truth.
LikeLike
why are we believing anything this guy says? He has been consistently wrong.
ND would NOT want to stop at 12, they would want to go to 16 like the other conferences are going to do.
LikeLike
In the end, the power players always get what they want.
I suspect that Texas has, all along, wanted to end up in the Pac 10 along with its Big XII South rivals. Demographically, California beats Michigan every time. For obvious reasons, the Big Ten wants Texas in the Pac 10 rather than the SEC. Maybe adding both Missouri and Nebraska to the Big Ten was planned, all along, as the best way to make this result happen. (In other words, I suspect Missouri is joining Nebraska in the move because Texas saw that as the key to it’s escape from the Big XII. One school can be replaced; two schools is a conference destroyer.)
I suspect the Big Ten then informed Notre Dame that a seismic shift was in the offing (i.e., the explosion of the Big XII), at which point Notre Dame decided that it had to get involved with the Big Ten planning. Notre Dame probably decided it was in its best interests to tentatively commit to the Big Ten, in anticipation of the Big XII explosion, in order to help shape the rest of the Big Ten expansion.
So, my guess is that Texas, A&M, TT, Oklahoma, OK State, and Colorado will end up in the Pac-16 and that the final two Big Ten teams will be, effectively, selected by Notre Dame. I’ll go out on a limb and predict Rutgers with either Georgia Tech or Miami. ND’s annual game with Navy already covers the mid-Atlantic region. The biggest gap in its “national schedule” design is the South.
(Heck, maybe the Big Ten should take both Georgia Tech and Miami instead of Rutgers?)
LikeLike
This would be great:
PENN ST
NOTRE DAME
MIAMI
GEORGIA TECH
OHIO STATE
MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN STATE
NORTHWESTERN
INDIANA
PURDUE
ILLINOIS
MISSOURI
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
IOWA
NEBRASKA
LikeLike
Sorry Paul, but if TEXAS had to go it alone and was forced to choose between the BT or the PT, they would choose the BT all day.
More money, more stability, more viewers, far more academic perks and a better time zone. The PT is a desperate conference that needs the B12 to even make a network viable. They need any new Baseball is the P10 ‘s only advantage.
LikeLike
I really think the geography is an issue for Texas. The Pac-16 deal lets Texas play in a division that is essentially the same as what it has now plus two Arizona schools. There was no way that Texas could import the entire Big XII South up into the Big Ten. Going back to playing Oklahoma as an OOC game would be a bad deal. The time zone argument is overstated because most of Texas’ games would be against the same teams that it is already playing. Two trips to the far west coast is no big deal. Probably helps recruiting. Which brings me to point two:
The three most powerful states going into the 21st century (from a demographic perspective) are California, Texas, and Florida. The new Pac-16 locks up two of these three states. Maybe the Big Ten is more organized right now, and hence more profitable, but I think you could make a long term argument in favor of the Pac-16. The population footprint is huge. Adding Oklahoma and Texas to the conference would create a lot of football excitement. On a purely football level, getting better access to the California recruits would be huge. And Pac-16 would still be a step up in academics, though not as big a step as the Big Ten.
We’ll see who is right. If Texas wants to join the Big Ten, they can make it happen–Texas politics notwithstanding. I predict that they will happily join the Pac Ten.
LikeLike
Texas will have a decision to make indeed.
“The Big Ten has the CIC, which actually has helped Penn State dramatically improve its research budget. For those who want to know, Penn State was only slightly above Texas in terms of research money back in the early 90s. Now Penn State has a lead of around $200M+ on Texas and it’s only going to get bigger.”
It is hard to argue with that.
LikeLike
Absolutely agree, Paul. People underrate the geography issue.
LikeLike
Yeah, for the record, I think Texas/A&M is all but dead, but that the Big Ten would make a final offer to Texas/A&M at 14. Perhaps we’d even offer to A&M first if they could be pried away, but as several have stated they don’t want to be a geographic outlier and would prefer the SEC if they split up from Texas…
LikeLike
Agree, but your argument hinges on TEXAS bringing half its conference with it. My only point was that if TEXAS had to go it ALONE it would be far from a given that they would choose the PAC10.
The Big Ten could never offer TEXAS a better deal than what the P10 is currently offering, but if that deal falls apart and aTm and Oklahoma go to the SEC with Nebraska going to the B10, I believe TEXAS would be more likely to go with the sure thing. We just disagree.
LikeLike
First, a huge shout-out to Zeek, who’s been laying out the ND/Neb-to-14 scenario all day before it was reported anywhere else. I have to disagree re: UT, though – having only two B10 spots left won’t change anything, as UT isn’t joining a faraway conference with only one partner. That’s the beauty of the Pac-10 deal; if the Big 12 isn’t viable, which looks likely (and I can’t blame Neb/Mizz for moving to the most natural home for a lone flagship AAU school in the Midwest), then the next-best result for Texas is to keep as many nearby rivals as possible to maintain rivalries and cut down on travel. The fly in the ointment is A&M, who might try to seek its own deal in the B10/SEC. UT would obviously fight this, but if A&M succeeds, it won’t make UT-to-B10 more likely, it will mean that UT turns to Houston or Kansas to replace A&M in the Pac-East.
If ND is involved in choosing Nos. 15-16 , then doesn’t Rutgers become a stone cold lock? The Subway alums could see ND-Rut at the Meadowlands every other year.
LikeLike
I’d be happy with TAMU in the Big 10. At the same time, I just can’t believe UT would accept it. TAMU would have both the academic prestige upgrade UT covets and after a few years of CIC catalyzed growth the little brother might begin to upstage UT.
No way UT lets TAMU go to the Big 10 alone.
LikeLike
Yeah, I do think that the Big Ten should make a run at A&M. It probably prefers the SEC without a doubt, but it seems as if it is totally free of the Texas/Tech/Baylor problems.
Either way though, going for ND and Nebraska early is the best choice from a flexibility standpoint.
I don’t think it would change anything but it would be the best possible offer that can’t be gummed up by Tech and Baylor because they’re not getting into the Big Ten. That just seems like the only response the Big Ten would want to come up versus the Pac-16 offer.
I don’t think it would work either, so you look at Rutgers/Maryland/Syracuse/Pitt/GTech, etc. for the final 2.
LikeLike
My only thought on the A&M thing is this…
Although it would seem to be a very smart ploy to getting Texas, I think the Big Ten has been very clear about one thing in particular this entire process: it wants a feeling of unity, “destiny” as some have been quoted saying, over the next 50-100 years. While doing such an offer with A&M might be smart, I am not sure the Big Ten is, despite having the best position, going to tell any school “Hey we’re going to give someone else the good stuff, get on board or watch them get better than you”.
I really think the Big Ten wants to encourage a feeling of cooperation and mutual respect among its own members and potential new members. As such, I don’t see it making the ploys that many people have accused them of. I think they are going to be as straightforward and honest about their intentions and the benefits to joining the Big Ten as possible.
LikeLike
Part of that was to address the potential for them making this run at A&M with the larger goal of Texas. The other part was geared towards though that have been telling fans of schools like ND and Nebraska that they are just being pushed into joining by the Big Ten convincing them big change is coming when it really is not. I don’t think the Big Ten needs to stoop to such levels, and I think every school/conference should simply do what is in its best interest, no need to try guessing at other people’s intentions.
LikeLike
I’ve read quite a few posts seriously suggesting the likes of UVA, UNC, Duke or Maryland coming over to the B10. Getting Missou, Nebraska and Rutgers to uproot themselves and join the Big10 is one thing. But pigs will fly before you get the aforementioned four to walk away from the ACC. The Big10 is a great conference but many of you are giving its draw a bit too much power.
The Big10 schools stand to make a lot of money, but these four ACC schools simply aren’t poor. They also have their own academic clout and simply don’t need the Big10 affilation such that they’d walk away from over 50 years of academic, athletic and cultural ties with one another. In fact, the block of UVA, VT, UNC, Duke, Wake, NC State and likely Maryland, are more apt to start their own conference before they walk away from one another. There’s a lot of variables at play here that bind these schools together and athletic money simply isn’t the only one.
The southern most ACC schools “may” be open to the SEC because they have sister instutions already in the SEC (and even then its not a lock), but those mid-Atlantic schools are going no where come hell or high water.
LikeLike
It’s all speculation, but it would not seem likely that ND or Texas would join the B10 anytime soon. Texas prefers what they already have, or a controlling interest in the pipeline to recruiting Cal. ND still has a viable Big East for non-football, a guaranteed BCS slot and a TV deal, not to mention alums stuck on the Independent or Bust Mobile.
I’ve found, after reading way too much of this stuff, these rumors of imminent news are usually the result of actual conversations that are merely exploratory, but in the end, schools are who they are and we already know which ones are interested in what.
LikeLike
Texas to the Pac-16 is a clear upgrade over the status quo. Texas would still have just about all of the same schools in its own division, meaning its schedule would be about the same, but the other side of the conference would be the old Pac-8 instead of the Big XII North. Arizona, California, Oregon, and Washington offer a lot more opportunities than Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, and Nebraska. And Texas would still be the single most powerful player in its conference.
Assuming that Texas has decided that the Big Ten move would come with too much geographic and cultural baggage (and maybe would have left Texas with even less relative power within its conference), Texas’ logical move would be to craft the Pac-16 out of the Big 12 South and Pac-10.
Of course, Texas needed the Big Ten’s help to create the climate that would allow this to happen. And the Big Ten was only too willing to oblige because it would be the key to getting Notre Dame into the Big Ten.
LikeLike
The B10 is run by morons. Buffoons, idiots, arrogant fools. They screwed this up royally.
A bit of political history: In 1984, Walter Mondale had won the Dem nomination. He was the MAN (at least for the Dems) and wasn’t that far behind Reagan at the time. He came up with a brilliant plan — open the process of Veep selection, publicly interview a bunch of candidates, including minorities and women to curry the favor of those voting blocs and then pick one. Well, the process go totally out of control and the NOW part of the Dem Party forced Geraldine Ferraro on him and her “connected” husband. What a clusterfuck!
The B10 thought it had it all figured out — the richest, most coveted conference in the country. A midnight raid (a la the ACC) was beneath them. The B10 does not need to stoop to such low tactics. They would do deliberate due diligence to determine which schools would meet their standards and eventually hand out bids to the lucky few.
Well, Delaney, how’s that working out for you?
So much for controlling the process. The whole thing is completely out of control. They are under pressure to move — and they don’t appear to be ready at all. The other conferences decided that cowering in the dark was not such a good strategy and have started to make moves and make them swiftly.
Is Delaney reduced to begging Nebraska to join? Talk about shoe on the other foot.
The B10 never should have made its search public. They never should have let this go so long. They should have taken a page from the ACC — after all the ACC did get 2 of the 3 schools it wanted and VA Tech isn’t that bad a replacement for Cuse (maybe it hasn’t worked out as they planned, but they got the schools they wanted). The B10 would have taken some lumps in the press for sneaking around and doing it all privately. But by the time the private investigation became public, the B10 would likely have been ready to move right to negotiating.
How’s this for an entertaining possibility: Nebraska’s President and Trustees reach an accommodation with Texas and figure the conference should make a commitment to work together to improve itself — ape the B10, not join the B10. The whole crowd tells Mizzou to get bent and figures Utah isn’t such a bad replacement. ND says thanks, but no thanks. It turns out the new ACC contract locks in its members, so that’s not an option. The B10 is now stuck with choosing from Mizzou, and the BEast.
I love the smell of humiliation in the morning!
LikeLike
I don’t even know where to start.
First off, Notre Dame and Texas won’t go anywhere in a midnight raid. Notre Dame has said they aren’t going anywhere unless there’s a paradigm shift (i.e. 4×16 conferences all over, and the Pac-16 helps that argument…). Texas of all things would never go anywhere in a midnight move.
As for Nebraska, what accommodation could the Big 12 make that would appease Nebraska? They’re going to start a research consortium to better all the schools? Really? What a joke. There’s more to this than just college football.
Institutional fit is a way bigger deal for the Big Ten. And the schools the Big Ten is targeting are the biggest fish out there.
Even if the Pac-10 has jumped with this 16 school move, how does that not help the Big Ten make the argument to Notre Dame that the paradigm is about to shift.
Everything is still relatively on track. The Texas situation may have been an unrealistic pipe dream the entire time, so that wouldn’t have been helped by an attempted midnight raid…
LikeLike
Did you actually read the post?
I was NOT predicting the last part. The point of my post is that the B10 messed up by being public about this whole thing.
Moves like this are best done quietly, not publicly. That’s the point. If schools start to balk or you run into a “Tech” problem you can escape with your dignity intact, not with egg all over your face.
As for “Everything is still relatively on track” HA! Just like the train in “The Fugitive”
Maybe things will work out, but it looks like a huge clusterfuck right now.
LikeLike
I’m not sure the B10 has actually done anything bad or wrong here. They could wait a few months, even after the BXII explodes and simply say they explored expanding at this time and decide it wasn’t right. They can walk away with their dignity.
LikeLike
I read the whole post.
Your post sounds like the Big Ten was trying to bring in Rutgers/Pitt./Syracuse.
Yes, that can be done in the cover of night.
But Notre Dame, Texas, and Nebraska?
Notre Dame has said it will only move if there’s a paradigm shift. That alone required a public approach, since Notre Dame has been the goal the whole time.
Talking quietly to Texas would end up a disaster. Texas would want to weigh offers from the Pac-10 and SEC. The SEC said they’d basically give Texas + 3, and the Pac-10 would have jumped into the expansion talks as soon as it heard Texas was entertaining offers. There’s no possible way a negotiation with Texas could have been done privately or quietly. Haven’t you noticed that most of the news nowadays comes straight out of Texas or Texas-linked sites?
As for Nebraska, Nebraska won’t have to be begged to join the Big Ten. Nebraska makes sense in the Big Ten regardless of whether it commits to the Big 12 or not.
Regardless of what you’re saying, there’s no evidence that Notre Dame would have joined if this had been handled privately or quietly. Quite the opposite, they’d have said, “we’re not interested, call us back when the paradigm changes”.
And why is it such a disaster if the Pac-10 goes to 16? That means that OU/OSU/A&M are not on the table for the SEC.
That’s a terrific outcome for a Big Ten that is at 12 or 14 (with Nebraska and presumably 2 others).
If the Pac-16 and Big Ten (14) exist, then the SEC has to raid the ACC which may free up Maryland and UVA.
I think everything’s going fine. Regardless of whether the Big Ten gets Texas, other scenarios may have opened up because the Big Ten handled this publicly and the Pac-10 rushed in to try to pick up the whole Big 12 South (which would have happened anyways when Texas says “well we want to share offers”.
Raids on the ACC become much more likely with the SEC closed off of a Western expansion, etc. A Pac-16 where Texas ends up in the Rose Bowl is not bad for the Big Ten.
LikeLike
@zeek
relax brother!PensfaninLAexile is talking all crazy and getting you worked up.
the fact that the big ten is doing the “Right” thing is way more important than who we get. Nebraska is a good get as is Mizzou. TBH I’m not big into go east. this is a mid west conference and having Curse/rut isn’t bad but having, Neb Mizzou and ND would be better in my book, or at least Neb,Mizzou , ND, Pitt and curse.
LikeLike
I keep thinking of Robert Irsay moving and storage. Who better to strike before they know what has hit em..
LikeLike
That is so unfair. Just like the saints at Notre Dame and the paragons of virtue at Texas, a respected longtime owner of a prestigious NFL franchise would never stoop to a midnight move.
He’d do it at 2am.
LikeLike
A bit of actual history: Suggesting that the decision to have Ferraro as the VP candidate cost Mondale the election is insane. Mondale lost 49 out of the 50 states, only very narrowly winning his home state of Minnesota. He was a sacrificial lamb for an election the Democratic party knew they had no chance at winning. Short of Reagan clubbing a baby seal with a small child, Mondale’s choice was irrelevant.
It’s like saying the MAC has lost at expansion because they didn’t invite Michigan right away.
LikeLike
Not at all, the point is that Mondale thought he had it all figured out and making a process best done privately public backfired. Can I infer from your response that you think Mondale handled the Veepstakes well?
LikeLike
Sarah Palin was a pretty surprising VP choice. Is that an example of a private selection process?
LikeLike
That’s an example of what happens when a presidential candidate values surprise over preparation.
Thank you for being specious.
LikeLike
Oh & Joe “I think I’ll assume somebody else’s identity & life narrative” Biden was a better private selection process?
LikeLike
There’s a difference between process and results. The decision that you end up with may be the wrong one, but at least in a private process you control it. In a public process, you are not in control, thus your decisions are more likely to be forced upon you.
Twice in recent history VP nominations were opened in a public process, Mondale in ’84 and Stevenson in ’52. Both candidates came to regret that decision as events overtook them and they ended up with less than ideal running mates. So the public process was 0 for 2.
One last thing: NEWSFLASH, Obama/Biden won the election, so, yeah, that worked out.
LikeLike
The B10 expansion will more or less result in what they set out to do. Research dollars will continue to go up, pretty soon getting into double-digit billions. The league will continue to get the most BCS bids and have the best slate of bowl agreements. People like you will bitch that its undeserved and the league sucks, and the B10 schools will laugh all the way to the bank. What a cluster***.
LikeLike
Where did I say the B10 is undeserved? Where did I say the league ‘sucks’?
The public process has raised expectations enormously. It seems likely that the B10 will get at the very least Nebraska — strong possibility NE and ND, and not likely, but still possible NE, ND, Texas. But there is also the possibility (however unlikely) that they will whiff on all three and be stuck with leftovers.
A more quiet process would not have raised expectations as high. It might not have resulted in the ultimatum to Nebraska and Mizzou. It is a clusterfuck.
Take your blinders off and try to look at the situation with some detachment. If you don’t you’re just another homer.
LikeLike
He doesn’t need to.
The question is and always has been, how do you get Notre Dame to sign on first?
The answer, you can’t unless you make it seem as if the world is about to collapse (aka 4×16 conferences).
The only way the Big Ten suffers a loss in any of this is if the SEC gets Texas/A&M/OU/OSU or any combination thereof. If Texas goes to the SEC, then the Pac-10 never goes above 12, and Notre Dame never joins the Big Ten.
Texas going to the Pac-16 on the other hand, starts to set up a snowballing effect whereby the Big Ten goes up to 14 (probably has to wait for the SEC to move and ACC, etc.) to get to 16.
You can gloat all you want if A&M/OU/OSU end up in the SEC or if the Big Ten retreats and doesn’t expand.
Let’s not get hasty. The Big Ten can trade Texas to the Pac-10 and raise the probability of getting Notre Dame, while getting rid of the Big 12 and thereby reducing the power conference count by one.
Raising expectations was the right thing to do when you’re trying to land a whale. Even if you don’t land the whale you first targeted, you can dramatically increase the chance of targeting another.
But if the Big Ten doesn’t expand at all or if the SEC nabs A&M/OU/OSU, then you’re right and this was an unmitigated disaster.
The Pac-16 on the other hand sets us up for 4×16 and Notre Dame finally coming into the Big Ten fold. That alone is worth watching the Pac-16 happen as a result of a public process…
And read Wetzel’s piece. The long term goal is to narrow the number of conferences and then create a playoff.
Why create a playoff to split dividends between 6 conferences when you can do it for 4 later? Pain now, much bigger gains later.
LikeLike
Talk about grassy knollery. This is all part of a master plan to create a playoff. And the B10 can “trade” Texas to the PAC-10. I thought the consensus on this blog was that Texas was the most valuable commodity in college sports. And the B10 is going to “trade” them away? HA!
Raising expectations is always the WRONG thing to do, unless you know you can deliver.
Public processes are messy and uncontrollable. Unpredictable things happen and happen often.
As NDx2 says below, the key issue is risk. The public nature increases the risk enormously.
The permutations that are possible are still enormous, so things could still work out for the B10. But by making things so public, they gave up some control — bad move.
As for any personal feelings, I don’t care that much. I just find it amusing the hubris of the B10 might end up biting them in the ass.
LikeLike
Zeek’s right about the public discourse being necessary to bring in ND. Delaney’s biggest mistake, IMNSHO, is that ND is his white whale, while I think ND is a terrible fit and shouldn’t be brought in. Otherwise, its too early to judge it a clusterF or not. We’ll see how things turn out.
LikeLike
This is of a piece with my observation yesterday that Delaney is screwing this up by not pubicly locking up Nebraska NOW. Then he can continue working on ND, but by leaving Nebraska hanging in limbo, he’s risking exactly the scenario you posit.
LikeLike
Agreed. Good to know someone reads the posts, rather that reading into the posts.
If the B10 had at least a quiet agreement with Nebraska before the meetings, at least that part of the equation would be settled. The ultimatum becomes inconsequential.
With Nebraska, the B10 can declare success no matter who the other 2-4 are.
The point is as you state, it’s all about risk — and unnecessary risk.
LikeLike
Nebraska is Arkansas.
Getting ND locked in and then setting off the dominoes is a better idea than setting off the dominoes and trying to lock in ND and Texas or whoever at the same time.
Giving under the table assurances to Nebraska while fostering storm clouds (aka Pac-16) is the key to getting ND to do anything.
The only way this backfires is if Nebraska somehow says no at the end of the day…, which is way too early to judge.
LikeLike
“The only way this backfires is if Nebraska somehow says no at the end of the day… ”
Unless the entry costs are too high, I cannot envision a scenario where NU declines an invitation. I believe Nebraska is fundamentally concerned with the Big 12’s long term stability. The threat of the Pac-10 aggressively pursuing Texas hasn’t been eliminated, simply delayed until the next TV contract. Texas, in turn, would use that as leverage for concessions from the members of the Big12.
I don’t see Nebraska choosing to stay in that environment if better options are available.
LikeLike
Just catching up at the end of the day.
Question for the sensible, knowledgeable, level-headed Aggies on this board (which pretty much means all of you save AggieFrank):
Any scoops into what the insiders within Aggieland might be thinking now? Anything which could augment all that has been discussed above?
LikeLike
Well, I think the only Aggie who has claimed any real inside knowledge has been AggieFrank, although there was that one person who posted that he/she heard the administration is serious about continuing to improve academically.
How about you? Do you think your admins would continue to move to the Pac 10 with a posse if A&M announced it was going to the Big 10 or SEC?
Aside–this is over 1600 posts now! The post isn’t quite 2 days old!
LikeLike
Do you think your admins would continue to move to the Pac 10 with a posse if A&M announced it was going to the Big 10 or SEC?
I think that’s two separate questions. If y’all go to the Big 10, I think we’re going with you. Not to the SEC, though.
Although anything seems possible now.
LikeLike
The silence out of Aggieland over the past few days has been interesting to me. Other than some Bill Byrne quotes last week, I can’t recall seeing any higher-ups speaking (i.e. University admins like President Loftin). Either things are tight as a drum there info-wise, or local media (what little exists) isn’t pressing like it could. Or it might be because A&M is in an odd position (not the draw that Texas is, not the “problem” that others have been labeled). I’m not there anymore, so I can’t speak to how much talk radio talk there has been.
The vibe out of the A&M message boards over the past few days seems to be devoid of scoops and constituted of 1) frustration about the Tech/Baylor developments and 2) loud SEC advocates hoping for eastward movement (and pretending as if it’s coming despite lack of any signs).
LikeLike
You are a touchy little guy, aren’t you? Calling you out on your “saber rattling” about Texas A&M a couple of weeks ago makes me irrational?
Anyway, to answer your question, A&M is still adamant that Texas must drop the LSN and commit to a “conference of peers” or the school will consider the SEC option. In general, I think the leadership is very receptive to the Pac-East though.
LikeLike
I’ve seen a lot of questionable posts on this blog over the past few months, but we’re all just fans speculating, so no harm, no foul.
And while my motto has been anything can still happen, IF the posters here believe the Irish are “thrilled” with Missouri being part of this expansion, then you simply do not know Notre Dame either the institution or its fans.
Personally I’m not even convinced the Irish are back at the table, but if they are, I’d bet my house on them working an angle whereby the Tigers do not wind up as part of this expansion.
The ONLY midwestern institution that would be acceptable to the Irish are the Cornhuskers and that has more to do with their elite program status than anything else.
LikeLike
You are not going to like my Temple, Baylor, Notre Dame, and BYU prediction. And I suspect that the 5 pods of 3 is not going to go over well. 🙂
LikeLike
Well the point was more as a compromise between Texas/A&M wanting a more regional pod and Notre Dame. Those 4 would be in the same pod.
If Texas/A&M are entirely off the table then the Big Ten would go for ND and then Nebraska and then figure out 3 others; probably all on the east coast up and down.
LikeLike
I agree completely. MO is there only if UT and TAMU are in play. If not then the strategy has to be hard east and possibly one in the south. RU, Pitt, MD would be the probables assuming UVa and the NC core ACC schools are untouchable. GaTech and Miami seem like real possibilities in such a case which I would not have supposed a week ago.
LikeLike
ND needs Mizzou in conference if they are hoping to beat any B10 team outside of their home state.
LikeLike
My theory is that Missouri’s inclusion (which works just fine for the Big Ten on its own merits) was seen to be a necessary part of creating the “seismic shift” that is (or may be) bringing ND to the table. In other words, Notre Dame is team No. 14 and, as such, can only really influence Nos. 15 and 16, with Nebraska (12) and Missouri (13) already “in place.”
I agree that Missouri does nothing to entice Notre Dame.
LikeLike
How?
It is irrelevant.
If Notre Dame is being wooed, why not allow them to pick 3 teams to come with them instead of just 2?
Who says ND can’t just hold out and see what happens to the SEC/ACC/Big East now?
Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers? Well, if the ACC doesn’t want Rutgers and the Big East isn’t losing sleep over them… why would Notre Dame care?
Conversely… Nebraska alone could be enough to break up the Big 12, setting the seismic shift in motion.
Not caring about Missouri here… just wondering why they are the key point for landing Notre Dame. Doesn’t make sense.
LikeLike
Arguably, getting BOTH Missouri and Nebraska out of the Big 12 to the Big 10 was key to destroying the Big 12 and getting Texas and the rest of the Big 12 South into the Pac-16. I think Texas and the Big Ten may have been working together on this all along. Maybe not, but it doesn’t really matter.
They only way to bring ND to the table was to create a major shift in the landscape. I think a calculation was made that Nebraska, alone, could be replaced by the Big 12, but that losing Nebraska and Missouri (the largest state apart from Texas) would kill the Big 12.
Maybe this calculation was wrong, but if it was made, and the ball was set in motion before Notre Dame came to the table, then it cannot be undone. It would not be right for the Big Ten to now double-cross Missouri and tell them “No, sorry, you were only a pawn in the game, but we don’t need you anymore.”
LikeLike
Also, it’s possible that Missouri’s inclusion helped to bring along Nebraska.
LikeLike
I don’t think Nebraska needs anyone’s help to consider joining the Big10. But the publicity and internal discussions it generated might have crystallized just how difficult it was going to be for NU and MU to ever be happy in the Big12.
LikeLike
Pingback: Possibly for real expansion news
By the way… as a lawyer… when do WE get involved?
Is there really any chance that this is all going to go smoothly without lawyers? Remember that Boston College was sued by Rutgers, UConn, etc., when the ACC came a calling. And the Big East schools were primted to land softly.
You don’t think Iowa St., Kansas, and the gang aren’t going to get lawyered up over this one?
This is NOT going to go down without a fight.
People yesterday were worried about FOIA requests.
Welcome to the Big 12 North versus the Big 12 South, Nebraska, Missouri, and the Big 10…
LikeLike
so many lawyers on this blog. i am one as well. let’s get crackin!
LikeLike
This could be a huge client development move for Frank The Tank.
LikeLike
I may need one of you guys my wife is about ready to drop this computer on my head. Expansion better be fast tracked or I may be.
LikeLike
Does anyone think Mizzou is screwed if TX and A&M are not part of the mix?
If the Big 10 get ND and NEB, and Tex and A&M don’t bite, why Mizzou?
For some reason I don’t like Mizzou or Rutgers. Help?
LikeLike
If Mizzou is where they want to be (the Big 10), then they win. I don’t think the other 1-4 teams matter all that much to them.
LikeLike
Not trying to be a jerk or anything, But I think Mizzou and Rutgers stand to gain much more than the Big 10 does.
I understand the tv set argument, but I’m just not on board.
LikeLike
How about the fact that two conferences are on the brink of death and they really don’t care whether they lose Missouri and Rutgers?
I know TV sets are important. But how is THAT the home run for the Big 10? It’s a double at best. Maybe just a single.
So, yeah, those schools have EVERYTHING to gain and nothing to lose.
LikeLike
Count me as one that says MO is in only if UT and TAMU are in play. If not then the strategy has to be hard east and possibly to the south as well. RU, Pitt, MD become the obvious choices assuming UVa and the NC core ACC schools are untouchable. GaTech and Miami also look like reasonable targets. Apart from the demographic and media play, these options offer ND a schedule that is widely distributed.
LikeLike
If this is one big cluster f&%k by the Big 10…. what happens next..
a) they invite Nebraska, get to 12 and reboot
b) they grab Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Colorado (all are AAU) and they pick up 4 states in one swoop – not as sexy as a Texas sweep, but all have academic qualifications and keeps a big block of states in a Big 16 / Pac 16 alliance.
c) hold spot 16 for ND, if it does not pan out pick up Rutgers or Maryland and move on.
Boy I hope everybody is wrong, if the Big 10 has just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory the Big 10 will catch nothing but grief for quite some time in the future.
LikeLike
How is this a clusterf—?
Four weeks ago, everyone was talking Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers. Is there anything rendering that impossible??? No. So what’s the problem?
Texas? Texas never fit. And to what end?
4 SuperConferences only works if all 4 conferences are super. If the Big 10 landed Florida, Texas, USC, Nebraska, and Maryland… sewing up the whole world… who would they play?
Better to have 4 roughly equal Superconferences to make things interesting. Pac 10 gets Texas to go with USC. Big 10 already has Ohio St, and the better of Nebraska, Penn St. and Michigan. The SEC has Florida, Bama, LSU/Tennessee, Georgia. The ACC has FSU, Miami, Va Tech.
The goal is to make money, not make ALL the money.
LikeLike
“If the Big 10 landed Florida, Texas, USC, Nebraska, and Maryland… sewing up the whole world… who would they play?”
Each other. This is like saying the NFL doesn’t want all the good professional teams.
“The goal is to make money, not make ALL the money.”
No, the goal is to make all the money.
LikeLike
If the NFL took the best franchise and put them in the NFC East, how interesting would it be?
The NFL works because all 32 teams have a legitimate chance each year, at least in theory, resulting in fan bases being able to care.
The NCAA tournament works because everyone gets involved.
I have said it before… this is NOT the game of RISK. The goal is to make money, not destroy everything else. You want to be the best conference, not the only conference.
And so on.
LikeLike
duffman, as I’ve said before, the Pac-16 is not bad for the Big Ten.
A Pac-16 with OU/OSU/A&M off the table for the SEC means that the Big Ten and SEC would work together to raid the ACC next to go to 16. That may open up Maryland and UVA. There’s no reason to think that defeat is on the horizon unless the SEC gets Texas/A&M/OU/OSU. Then and only then the Big Ten (and Pac-10) are defeated.
LikeLike
Zeek, I agree with you.
I believe the Big Ten goes with Nebraska, Missouri and Rutgers. That leaves 2 spots.
If the Texas bunch goes to the Pac 10, the SEC can only go east. The ACC gets raped, leaving Georgia Tech, Maryland and Virginia available.
The Big Ten could be leaving the dirty work to the Pac 10 and the SEC with them picking up what they really want.
LikeLike
I completely agree. I said this before, the Big Ten started all of this. It would not have gotten to this point if the Big Ten had not, in some way, wanted it to. The only logical conclusion in my mind is that the Big Ten is trying to get the reactionary SEC to finally act on its own and poach the ACC, a conference with growing southern regions, and make it available to the Big Ten.
Texas may be a big win for the Big Ten if they were willing, but isn’t it equally possible Delaney realized it was out of reach to start, but, as that leaked email indicated, is “leveraging” the situation to get future home runs in a second expansion (UNC, Virginia, Maryland, etc.)?
I think that scenario actually sounds the most plausible when compared to the leaked email, though that could just be because I came up with it and would like to think I am right!
LikeLike
Maryland and Virginia are now home runs?
If the Big Ten can’t get two of these three (ND, TEX or NEB) they should stand pat and not blow up the Big 12 until they get their ducks in a row.
Once they get ND they can poach Nebraska and go from there.
I like Zeek’s idea of taking a run at aTm.
LikeLike
ND wont move until they see the hand writing on the wall. And even then I have my doubts they will give up independence.
Best thing the Big Ten can do is move on but leaving open the lines of communication with ND.
I believe that is why the Big Ten is going to expand in waves. Lets ND see what they are doing with a pause after each to give ND time to think if they want to join. ND has to see the door closing before they will move. ND views it as all talk no action, thus the Big Ten must move. But only after the other conferences move their pieces first.
LikeLike
Aren’t Maryland and Virginia academic home runs?
LikeLike
Loki – Virginia is on the level of Michigan if I remember right and Maryland would be on the level of Penn State.
Both very good schools.
LikeLike
UMd and UVa are “home runs” in getting the large, affluent Washington area (where many Big Ten alums live), boosting the academic and research profile of the conference and getting more influence with federal power brokers. This isn’t solely about football. And with both universities having leaders with Big Ten ties (Kirwan, former Ohio State president, runs the University System of Maryland, and will have a big say in who succeeds Mote as College Park president), they would be good fruit for the Big Ten to pick.
Sure, the Big Ten would like both Nebraska and Notre Dame, but I only see Missouri as a last-ditch alternative, not a first-tier choice.
LikeLike
Our favorite pirate will now be coaching in Key West:
http://okblitz.com/Article.aspx?id=22430
————–
Rumors that the MWC didn’t add Boise today not just because some B12 teams may soon be available (they could always go to 16 if the other power conferences are doing so) but some of the power teams may pull out of the MWC and form their own conference with the leftovers. Drop the dead weight to ensure that they’re the 5th or 6th BCS/super conference.
—————
Just a hunch, I think aTM is up to something. They keep coming up with some specious objections. With all the attention and the image of power Texas has been getting, little brother want to flex his muscles. I don’t think they stay on board and go quietly into the P16, at least without some suspense. Whether that is an SEC threat or perhaps securing some goodies from the legislature remains to be seen.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t A&M bolting the deal make it easier to do in one sense? That the Colorado/Baylor question is solved by the inclusion of both.
It’s not as if replacing A&M with Colorado is a terrible result. Colorado made the most sense for the Pac-10 anyways in terms of its institutional fit, etc.
LikeLike
SEC would be all over aTm,
LikeLike
If Nebraska and Missouri go to the Big Ten and A&M goes to the SEC, I can see the Pac Ten saying no to Baylor and taking Utah instead. This would preserve the pairings and expand the footprint:
Texas/Texas Tech
Oklahoma/Oklahoma State
Colorado/Utah
I doubt the Texas legislature would be able to screw this up, but who knows…
LikeLike
This can add up to only one conclusion: TAMU to the MWC !
Brilliant!
LikeLike
TX does not want aTm in the SEC, where they could get a recruiting advantage with the more lax rules and under the table environment. Jackie Sherrill and FedEx are not forgotten. Plus the fear that OU would quickly follow and TX might be forced into the SEC or have a brutal OOC schedule.
I’m starting to wonder if TX’s quick agreement to TTech and Baylor is in part to gain allies in the state gov’t in order to block aTm moving to the SEC. Of course the delusion UHou types will view it as their chance to go P16, but hopefully TX won’t need their votes to fight the Ags. Better to take CO, let the Ags go, but force them to insist that the SEC not invite OU and perhaps take UHou.
Just musing, no real hard rumors.
LikeLike
BTW, I’m ok with the Ags going to the SEC, as long as OU doesn’t follow (and vice-versa.) Ft. Worth is where the west begins, Dallas is more Southeastern, and that line drifts down between Austin and College Station.
We may see how much weight OK St has in its legislature and how much they value the MWC. If OU goes SEC, OK St instantly goes byebye from the P16 slate. CO and KS fill in nicely, which I’m sure TX has already noted.
LikeLike
Things are going to get much more interesting once the Pac-10 sends out the invites…
Then we’ll probably end up seeing the Big Ten and SEC play some sort of hands.
LikeLike
“TX does not want aTm in the SEC, where they could get a recruiting advantage with the more lax rules and under the table environment”
The Pac 10 does a great job at ensuring NCAA compliance?
LikeLike
The one aspect of the ‘TEXAS to the P10’ argument I find totally specious is the idea that the Midwest is a worse cultural fit for Texas than California. As someone who has lived in Thousand Oaks Ca and Ft. Worth Tx I can tell you they are culturally contrary in the extreme.
Granted, Austin itself has much in common, politically, with Berkley etc., but so does Ann Arbor and Madison.
Hot weather and large populations, beyond that I’d be interested to know what makes them a good cultural fit.
LikeLike
agreed. in the 80s I was transferred from San Francisco to Houston but still reported back to San Francisco. Travelling back to California for meetings was as much a metaphysical journey as physical.
LikeLike
🙂 Funny.
LikeLike
Austin fits just fine with Berkeley. Dallas is no different than Orange County. The Central Valley is the same as the Valley. Both states have their extremes.
LikeLike
Perfect analogy. I grew up in Dallas and am now an OCer, and the OC is Dallas with a beach.
LikeLike
I think Texas has a better cultural fit with the Midwest than any other. But that is my own perception. I think we see what we want to see.
LikeLike
I agree. That’s why you can’t take these message board disagreements personally.
LikeLike
No question. When Texas-based SBC bought NorCal-based PacTel, there were huge cultural problems. When they later bought Chicago-based Ameritech, it was a very smooth transition.
LikeLike
I keep getting a sneaking feeling that Fox Sports is behind alot of the pieces moving. Maybe I am just a conspiracy theorist, but it seems awfully interesting that a Super Pac16 conference is going to be newly in the market for a conference network if this deal goes down. If Fox sports is in on that network the way they are in on the Big10 Network, then Fox makes untold amounts of cash and can push the two networks as a national package to all college athletics fans from NYC to L.A.
It seems almost too good a deal for them.
Just my humble opinion….Ill take off my tinfoil hat now.
LikeLike
In this day and age that is no conspiracy theory my friend that is collegiate sports reality. Sad, but true.
LikeLike
I do hope the Big 10 throws a life line to KU.
Bill Self and Turner Gill:
>>
“As reports have said and it’s not anything new we need Nebraska to be involved. We’d love for Missouri to be involved but we need Nebraska to be involved,” Self stated.
“Whether it’s Nebraska or it’s Kansas or whoever we could help a lot of conference from that standpoint, but more importantly, the Big 12 is a solid conference and that’s why you see people talking about the Big 12,” Gill said
<<
http://www.1011now.com/nreport/headlines/95822724.html
LikeLike
that’s interesting. nebraska is in a position to really screw the kansas schools. wonder if they will do it?
LikeLike
Nebraska will do what is best for Nebraska.
FWIW, Kansas is in the exact position that I feared Nebraska would be in when this all started.
LikeLike
Thinking way ahead here on the ultimate fate of Kansas: Assume the expansion floodgates open as expected and ACC eventually loses Miami, Florida State, Georgia Tech, and Clemson to the SEC.
If this happens, then the ACC could decide to become a 16-team super conference (and a super-duper basketball conference) by adding 5 schools from the Big East (U-Conn, Pitt/Syracuse, West Virginia, Cincinnati, and Louisville) plus Kansas, Kansas State, and Memphis.
The geography is a little odd, but Kansas and Kansas State would be travel partners. And Memphis-Louisville-Cincy-Pitt would form a nice bridge to the eastern seaboard.
In the basketball-crazy ACC, I can see this happening.
LikeLike
Another possible fate would be the creation of a new “Western Leftover Conference”:
KANSAS
KANSAS STATE
IOWA STATE
BAYLOR
UTAH
BRIGHAM YOUNG
BOISE STATE
TEXAS CHRISTIAN
HOUSTON
MEMPHIS
UNLV
COLORADO STATE
Not too bad…
LikeLike
Really hoping this recent story from one of the TV stations out of Austin is true. Good new for Colorado to the PAC if its true. Not counting any chickens though, and certainly not thinking the fight is over. Rumor here is that Colorado fired up a campaign to fight back against some of this stuff behind closed doors.
http://news8austin.com/content/sports/271636/baylor-president-responds-to-pac-10-expansion-effort
LikeLike
(Crossing fingers)
LikeLike
I said it before, but I will keep baging the drum……Baylor WILL NOT be in the Pac 10.
There is no scenario that can be approved where no less than UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, and Arizona would have NOTHING to do with Baylor being invited into their conference.
LikeLike
i don’t like it when you “bag’ the drum brother! please just bang it like the rest of us! : )
LikeLike
Okay, bear with me while I go through this theory…
So far, two things have been clear at every stage of this process and each time the Big Ten has spoken regarding expansion:
1. The Big Ten will greatly value the academic side of all potential schools.
2. The Big Ten wants a conference of schools that engage in mutual cooperation, respect one another, have similar goals, and will last for 50-100 years.
We also know of a leaked email in which we heard of a “Tech” problem and of Delaney wanting to leverage the situation to increase the number of “hrs” (homeruns is everyone’s best guess).
What if the “Tech” problem was never a problem for the Big Ten, but rather a problem for the Pac-10. The Big Ten began this process, and we have all believed the Big Ten and Pac-10 are closely aligned in this expansion process. However, I have yet to see anyone consider that the Big Ten could be helping the Pac-10 deal with its expansion problems in order to better its own situation. Perhaps the Big Ten meant from the start for the Pac-10 to expand, but Tech (and later Baylor) became problems for the Pac-10 and thus problems for the Big Ten.
But why would the Big Ten want the Pac-10 to take 6 schools out of the Big 12? There would seemingly be 3 potential reasons:
1. Encourage Notre Dame to finally join a conference by beginning the “seismic” shift.
2. Prevent Texas schools from joining the SEC, at all (No Tech, no A&M, no Texas)
3. Encourage the currently reactive SEC to finally act on its own and poach the ACC and perhaps Missouri. I know some other people have also speculated that the ACC would be the SEC’s first target if it ever did make a move.
If this is true, then we must obviously reconsider what the Big Ten’s goals are. Let’s assume we are correct that the Big Ten definitely views Nebraska and Notre Dame both has homeruns. Who, then, are the other 1-3 candidates that might be considered homeruns for the Big Ten?
Although Missouri is certainly a valuable school, and I think any other conference would greatly value them, some of their value to the Big Ten is diminished by the current Big Ten footprint already penetrating part of Missouri. On top of this, while a good candidate, I don’t think anyone has said they are “homerun” quality.
This leaves the Big 12 North, the ACC, and the Big East.
The Big 12 North, as everyone knows, has little in the way of TV markets, like it or not. Due to this, I cannot believe any of them would be considered homeruns.
The Big East, while having schools in valuable regions, is essentially an enigma. Nobody knows if the schools could really deliver on the markets that would make them worth it; thus, if there are other options that would certainly deliver major markets, these schools could not really be considered homeruns in comparison.
This leaves the ACC, a conference with three important characteristics:
1. Schools with academic excellence rivaling the Big Ten.
2. Geography in the growing South.
3. Significant T.V. markets.
We have long assumed the ACC untouchable due to its relative stability (to the Big 12 and Big Eas) and its new TV contract. In my mind, however, there are 2 groups of schools in the ACC. And please, ACC fans, correct me if you think I am wayyyy off base here, but I think that there are some schools that would say no to any conference inviting them if the conference was stable, no matter the offer (UNC, Duke, Virginia, etc.) However, I think there are others that might be lured away by an offer to the SEC, those schools that do not have academic reputations like UNC/Duke/Virginia that would be risked/out of place in the SEC or schools that believe the SEC is better for sports and contracts. Thus, it would seem the SEC is in the best position to destabilize the ACC, just as the Pac-10 was to destabilize the Big 12 (oddly enough it seems the Big 10, even with the best position, could not destabilize entire conferences on its own).
If the ACC were to begin to break, only then would you see the first group of schools available to expansion. If the Big Ten were sitting at 13 schools, it could readily take schools like Maryland, UNC, Virginia, etc. There would be debates about the merits of each one, but there are obviously homeruns in the academic and tv market debates within the ACC. I realize they may not be homeruns by overall sports standards, but locking up D.C., Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina, along with Notre Dame and Nebraska, would most certainly be viewed as a homerun in terms of tv contract and academics.
Ironically, if this was the case, the Big East might gain the other ACC schools and become a large conference again. I think, when estimating how stable the Big East was, we missed that the problems we cited as reasons for destabilization were the same ones causing other conferences to look elsewhere, thus keeping the Big East alive.
I could be completely wrong about this entire thing, but this scenario to me meets several things.
1. It keeps Texas out of the SEC’s hands.
2. It helps the Pac-10 grow.
3. The Big Ten becomes an amazing academic conference and vastly extends its markets and recruiting grounds (we shouldn’t forget that D.C./Maryland/Virginia/North Carolina are fertile recruiting grounds).
4. The Big Ten brings in, other than potential Notre Dame, all schools that would be interested in complete sharing and cooperation, and I think Notre Dame would even fall in with this, given the massive benefits to being in such an athletic and academic conference.
Let me know how insane I am! I can see why conspiracy theorists do what they do; this is a good excuse to not do work!
LikeLike
You don’t need to be a conspiracy theorist to see how the Pac-16 works for the Big Ten. I would point out that it’s equally important to keep OU/OSU out of the SEC’s hands though…
Making sure that OU/OSU/A&M go to the Pac-16 instead of the SEC means that most of the SEC’s targets will be ACC schools.
And the Maryland/Virginia/North Carolina region is as coveted as the Texas/Southwest.
Thus, a Big Ten at 14 with Nebraska (and hopefully Notre Dame) would mean that you could wait for the SEC to make its move and go after other schools.
LikeLike
Yes, I agree on Oklahoma. My main point in addressing mostly the Texas side was to address why the Big Ten might have seemed like it was courting Texas. If what I said is correct, then Delaney might have known from the start Texas was never going to come to the Big Ten.
Personally, I’d be happier with the expansion scenario as I laid it out than I would be with Texas and Texas A&M. While both fantastic schools, I am too much of a basketball guy and too obsessed with the academic part of this (I attend Michigan) to not want homeruns like Virginia and UNC.
LikeLike
Naw.
Texas was legitimately soliciting offers, and there’s no reasons to believe that the Big Ten had an equal shot of landing Texas/A&M.
Perhaps the Big Ten was close to something, but then the Pac-10 launched this Pac-16 (Texas + 5) offer that no one expected.
Just a week ago did anyone expect that Tech and OSU would ever find their way in, let alone Oklahoma?
We figured they only wanted Colorado/A&M/Texas just a week or two ago.
So, the field has totally shifted mostly out of the desperation offer by the Pac-10 that the Big Ten can’t compete with because Tech/OSU/OU aren’t going to be admitted to the CIC.
LikeLike
that should read no reasons not to believe…
LikeLike
That could be completely true. I was offering another view of the situation. If the Big Ten is so big on this cooperation thing as I mentioned, Texas, as valuable as it is, might have been a big problem in the Big Ten. The Pac-10 seems it was willing to placate from the start, so I wouldn’t be surprised if this is playing out very close to what the Big Ten wanted.
A lot of this comes from my belief that the Big Ten would not have done things in this way without a reason. They had the best position and they still do.
LikeLike
I don’t think the Big Ten expected the Pac-10 to go all in, otherwise the conventional wisdom wouldn’t have been “Stanford/Cal will never accept Tech/OSU/OU”.
From the NW Rivals rumor and ensuing incident, the indication was that the Big Ten was close to landing some kind of Texas-ND agreement.
That seems entirely off the table, so the Big Ten is focused on ND realizing that the Pac-16 is the beginning of the end.
Perhaps the Texas-ND deal would have never happened because ND would have believed that it would be the only 16 team conference.
But a Pac-16 invitation situation clearly changes that and the Big Ten also proposing to go to 16 means that 2 of the 4 are set.
With every indication that the SEC will follow, ND is much more likely to move than ever before.
Whether that’s enough, time will tell.
LikeLike
Ross, I agree with your thinking (not often a Buckeye agrees with a Wolverine). But it makes too much sense when one goers back to delany’s statement about demographics and the south. Alot of northerners (retirees) through those states.
Again, good analysis.
LikeLike
Haha, thanks! I think the theory I offered is honestly the best one for both Michigan and Ohio State as universities and athletic programs. Delaney really would have done something amazing for the Big Ten if that is how this all unfolded.
To Zeek (I can’t reply to your most recent post for some reason): I can see that as what occurred. It is probably more likely, since what I proposed requires some amazing foresight by the Big Ten officials, which, while not impossible, would be remarkable if things turned out that way.
That said, and I think you have voiced this as well, the ACC-poaching and Nebraska/ND additions might be the Big Ten’s newest efforts to expand as a result of recent developments rather than the causes of them.
LikeLike
I’m not a lifelong ACC fan, but I am attending graduate school at Virginia (and I stayed at a Holiday Inn last night). The way I look at the ACC is as a series of concentric rings. The first ring is the North Carolina schools (UNC, NC State, Duke, WF). I doubt these are separable under any circumstances, especially given the type of stuff we’ve seen in Texas. The next tier are the other original members Maryland and Virginia. These 6 form the core ACC. The other schools are less connected. Clemson is more of a football school and also (not sure how to put this gently) more of the redneck south as oppose to the genteel (aka uppity) south. The Florida schools are each kind of their own separate thing, as are BC and GT. VT is like the yokel that is overjoyed they got invited to the country club. I highly doubt they would leave.
As far as potential Big Ten targets, I actually think it works opposite of how you describe. For Virginia, I think it would be easiest to leave the conference politically if it were still viable for VT. Maryland’s connections are really only to UVa and the NC schools. I don’t think anyone would be more likely to leave just because Clemson or FSU went to the SEC. Like the Big Ten and the Pac-10 (at least before the recent scenario), the ACC has strong historical and cultural connections, especially in the core. I am rather skeptical that any of the ACC schools are looking to move, though of the ones that the Big Ten might want, UVa and Maryland are more likely than UNC or Duke.
LikeLike
Well I do not know what the SEC would go after, but I assume it wouldn’t only focus its efforts on FSU, Georgia Tech, and Clemson as some have suggested. I assume it would actually go after schools like Virginia Tech and NC State in order to expand.
If those schools were approached by the SEC, then would you expect the Big Ten to be more successful?
LikeLike
If the SEC wants Virginia and North Carolina, two fairly populous states, its likely only outlets are Virginia Tech and N.C. State, since I doubt Virginia and UNC would have any interest in SEC culture. As I’ve stated previously, going to the SEC would enable NCSU to rebrand itself rather than being the athletic weak link in the Research Triangle. It would almost certainly give State the lion’s share of North Carolina football recruits, severely weakening UNC, Wake and Duke.
Regarding Virginia, it has changed quite a bit from its preppy days (remember, until 1970, it had no female undergraduates). There used to be calls from alumni to preserve UVa traditions and avoid what one letter-writer once called “state U-ism”; that train has long left the station. Virginia has reconciled strong academics with big-time athletics and done reasonably well. Moving to the Big Ten, with Maryland, would be a logical step. For Maryland’s part, it’s a border state, and I sense many of its officials would see a move to the Big Ten as confirming its rise in the academic firmament, the Duke basketball-obsessed fan base be damned. And if Debbie Yow won’t get on the bandwagon…well, she’s done a great job for the university, but a new AD can always be found. (And perhaps Debbie could wind up at NCSU, back in her home state and continuing the Wolfpack Yow legacy.)
LikeLike
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/daily-chicago-sports-tab/2010/06/how-lebron-james-could-impact-big-ten-expansion.html
Wow, Lebron controls Big 10 expansion AND the fate of KU!! It’s quite the theory!
LikeLike
I’m really hoping that the whole Pac 10 / Big 10 network semi-collaboration speculation is true (assuming CU gets into the PAC, and ND to Big 10).
What if the two leagues agreed to a regular OOC game agreement between the two leagues where you played the same team every year as a cross-conference rival. You could be looking at games like Texas/OSU, USC/ND, Michigan/OU, CU/Nebraska, Northwestern/Stanford etc. as a regular part of your annual schedule. It’d be a little tough to work out partners for the schools that don’t really have histories or are less marquee match-ups, but tell me that wouldn’t be beneficial for the networks and help build both brands over the SEC.
LikeLike
That sort of agreement would be pretty amazing in my book. Though with the whole ND/Texas contact I assume those two would be each other’s partners, especially since USC is already playing ND every year.
LikeLike
Since ND would be part of the Big Ten now, they’d have limited OOC slots, and that would be their game to allow them to maintain their long running rivalry.
LikeLike
“Hell Boy!” i like that idea a lot… only one thing though.. Rose Bowl! if Texas and tOSU play in Sept then play again in the Rose bowl does that hurt it or make it that much better? IDK?
LikeLike
This may have already been addressed, as I haven’t read all the posts, but –
If this Baylor spoof turns out to be true, what about having Colorado join the B10 with NE?
– ILL fan vacationing in CO
LikeLike
So how does ND explain joining the B10+ as the 12th member and stopping expansion? Going to be hard to adequately explain beyond $. One guess? They reveal that a bowl-based playoff is being created, and they’d have to be in qualifying conference to participate.
They are going to take tremendous heat from their donors and alumni, so might as well position themselves as giving college football what most fans want. Perhaps the best way to split the ND base from an otherwise strong backlash.
LikeLike
I have fantasized about that concept myself. Except I would go for something like how the Big10/ACC challenge is set up. New match-ups are announced for each year to build the anticipation. Then on one of the early football weekends (or maybe two weekends to milk it a bit) you start rolling a full slate of games with staggered start times. Have live look-ins like the NCAA BB tourney opening rounds. Make it an absolutely huge event to grab audiences that will have football fans glued to the tube. It is fun to dream sometimes. 🙂
LikeLike
@SuperD. That post was meant for your idea. I love it.
LikeLike
Re Joe Schad of ESPN on ND
“One source close to Big Ten cautions me that ND is “not budging.”
LikeLike
Re Re: Thamel on ND
“Talking to ND AD Jack Swarbrick. On deliberations with the Big 10: “That’s just not true.”
LikeLike
Schad has excellent taste in wallpaper!
LikeLike
This may actually be funnier then the Big 12 as cheerleaders thing. Kudos to the guy who runs the KSU SBNation blog.
What really happened in the Big 12 meetings:
http://www.bringonthecats.com/2010/6/7/1506558/adventures-of-the-big-12-twelve
Warning A&M fans may not really like it…
LikeLike
That’s awesome. As I read it, I see “A&M” as played by Steve Carell’s character in Anchorman.
LikeLike
Fantastic!
LikeLike
Hilarious
LikeLike
Definitely the best expansion satire I have read in six months. Thanks for posting.
LikeLike
I rarely laugh out loud at work. But the video playing in aTm’s head is awesome.
LikeLike
Very, very funny. There is actually a guy on one of the A&M websites that refers to the SEC as the SEX conference.
LikeLike
Being a 30+ year resident of the Garden State, let me offer my thoughts about RU.
As far as academics, the numbers don’t lie and they show just how far academic standards at Rutgers have collapsed. In 1997, USNews & World Reports pegged Rutgers as the 45th best university in the country. In 2010, thirteen years and hundreds of millions of dollars poured into the football sinkhole later, Rutgers tumbled to #66th, where it is tied with UConn, it is eight spots worse than Pepperdine, eight spots worse than Syracuse and 14 spots worse than Yeshiva. Slightly over a decade ago, Rutgers had reason to dream big, to hope to become one of the nation’s leading research institutions. Today’s Rutgers is fighting off the University of Delaware.
As Rutgers fell 21 spots, most other universities moved very little in the rankings. Illinois, for instance, moved from #50 to #39. Wisconsin went from #41 to a tie with Illinois at #39. Univ Calif at Irvine went from #37 to #46. No top 50 school in 1997 moved as many rungs, up or down, as Rutgers did in the 13 years that followed. Which shows how stark the decline at Rutgers has been.
Additionally and despite being domiciled in one of the more affluent states in the country, Rutgers would have the smallest endowment of any school in the BigTen……..a rather embarrassing $500M.
Add to that:
1)a sitting president who was fired from his last job at the University of Washington for having an affair with a subordinate
2)a head football coach who actively recruited and signed a known two time convicted juvenile sexual offender and retained an assistant coach who was arrested and charged with assaulting a women all while the university was standing in solidarity of its women athletes during the Don Imus controversy,
3)a school that dropped 6 Olympic sports to be able to funnel more money into a marginal football program while it was raising tuition rates a gaudy 8% and laying off over 500 teachers and support staff
4)a school that had to fire its Athletic Director for conspiring with the head football coach to hide the coach’s total compensation from state taxpayers
5)a school whose Chair of the University’s Academic Oversight Committee for Intercollegiate Athletics thinks its OK to admit students-athletes with SAT scores of just 800.
6)I can continue but I think you get the point.
Bottom line, RU IMO is not BigTen material athletically, academically, and morally.
LikeLike
Did I miss when conferences that weren’t the Big Ten could become profitable by going to sixteen?
Clearly the BTN needs the programming and subscribers. Since that’s the case, the Big Ten needs to get the best five schools available and get them as quickly as they can. I get that.
The Pac-10 is desperate. USC is looking down the NCAA’s enforcement barrel. Washington and UCLA are still rebuilding. They league lacks a CCG. More importantly all this is happening as the PAC-10 are coming into renegotiation time for their TV deals. Their problem is the lack of viable additions. Colorado could be a solid pick-up if they get their act together. Utah…would get them enough members to get to a CCG.
The only real school on the western half of the US that would make a splash is Texas. I can totally see the Pac-10 making a one time big grab at UT thinking that at this point they need them in the short term. And as an added bonus, Texas has exhibited a recent knack for being in exploding leagues, and maybe the Pac-whatever’s-left can remake the league later. If the Pac-10 has to take half the Big XII to get comparable $ to the remaining AQs, I don’t know if that would be a problem for the PAC-10 to do so…even Stanford.
For everyone else, I don’t see the attraction…or the money. If the MWC-BXII leftovers rebuild with BSU, will the TV money be there to go to twelve much less sixteen? The Big East is at sixteen already for basketball, but will have the devil’s time replacing football losses. The ACC just signed a TV contract this summer, right? And that move to twelve’s been kind of a let down for them. BTW, plenty of good seats will soon be available for the ACCCG, if you’re in whatever town they hold it in. (I know I should know, I’m embarrassed).
In a similar situation, the SEC is also locked in with a recent TV deal. Plus where are they gonna find high profile volunteers for that meat grinder. When the SEC first started the CCG in Div I-A, it was considered a handicap to winning the MNC. The SEC spun it as that they were having their own championship [with more legitimacy than the poll-based ones], and the rest of America wasn’t their issue. We see how surprisingly well they’ve done with that attitude for the last twenty years.
Despite what you all think, I think ND has been pretty up front about what they will do: monitor (by keeping up their intel via conversation), and try their best to maintain football independence and the status quo without cutting off their nose to spite their face. ND has practically gone on record saying that they will move last and forfeiting independence is a nuclear option.
So, going by the follow the money principle, here’s my best guess as to what will happen.
1. PAC-10 *will* extend offers to the B12S.
2. Texas will wait to see if Nebraska will play the Arkansas part.
3. Delaney will inform the President’s that ND and Texas aren’t coming right now, and get their permission for “Plan B”
4. The Big Ten will offer their first expansion invites. One if they go East, since they want to see if Texas actually will take the Pac-10’s offer. Three if Nebraska is the third choice, since that would assume that the “Tech problem” and Baylor will keep Texas out.
5. Then we see what Texas does. The Horns are the one variable I just can’t figure out.
6a. If the Pac-16 happens, the Big Ten will go for any additional Big XII teams the Big Ten wants. It will then wait for the SEC and ACCs moves. I think Delaney’ll be surprised when their moves are both yawns. Although if the odds were good enough I’d bet Slive will get a great zinger off at the Big Ten and Pac-16s expense.
6b. If it’s all a bluff the Big XII will raid the MWC for whatever the Big Ten took and the PAC-10 will go to their plan B which has to be Colorado and Utah. The system will chug on waiting for Texas and ND to move.
Either way, I don’t see any scenario where ND moves first. I can’t see any 16 team conferences whose champs won’t meet in Pasadena.
LikeLike
Well I agree on most points.
The Longhorns want the Big 12. The question you’re asking which is the right one, is what happens when their bluff gets called. This is all a high stakes showdown with Nebraska to get them to stay in the Big 12.
Delany wants ND to sign on before he pulls an Arkansas on the Big 12. You’re right that he’s not like to get that.
The question is what does Texas actually do. They’ve sort of just gone along with this Pac-16 approach, and we haven’t really heard a peep from OU/OSU and maybe some rumors about A&M about the SEC, which is really where all 3 would want to be…
All 4 of Texas/A&M/OU/OSU seem to have agreed to go along with this Pac-16 invite plan as a way of calling the bluff on Nebraska to the Big Ten because Texas knows that Notre Dame isn’t coming along first (as you’ve posited and ND is probably going to make clear soon).
The biggest variable isn’t Texas at first though. It’s Delany. Does he pull the trigger on Nebraska without Notre Dame on board?
I’d imagine he would, but that’s not necessarily a given, since he has said there’s a 12-18 month guideline and could retreat on that issue, while giving assurances to Nebraska (maybe Missouri). Whether he goes to 12 or 14 is inconsequential in that respect, Nebraska is the focus of all of this.
But even if Nebraska is pulled, does Texas really go to the Pac-16. Yes a lot of fans are sold on it, but Texas is only going to lord over 1/2 of the conference as opposed to the whole thing in the Big 12.
Either way I don’t see the Big Ten going to 16 without Notre Dame unless it’s for Maryland/Virginia or something, so we’d have to see the SEC raid the ACC (presuming it’s Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers to 14).
The SEC supposedly has its TV partners on board for a raid, so we have to see how that would play out. Do they go after some remnants of the Big 12 (unlikely) or do they turn their guns towards the ACC underbelly in SC/Florida/Georgia or even VA Tech.
LikeLike
Perhaps the most important question at the end of the day for Notre Dame is whether ACC teams will jump to the SEC even if all of this plays out. I tend to agree that there’s too many iffy situations built into the hypothetical for ND to have to feel it needs to jump first.
Nebraska to Big Ten? Texas to Pac-16? SEC raids ACC?
We just don’t know whether Clemson/FSU or VA Tech will jump to the SEC. Some of the ACC teams are explicitly not in the SEC over academic standards; the ACC tends to have much higher ranked undergraduate schools as well (US News), etc.
It still all comes down to whether this Texas bluff gets called and whether they actually go to the Pac-16 or just pick up Utah or something…
LikeLike
I don’t think its a bluff. Its hardball. UT wants the B12. Without CU, NU, UM they don’t believe it will be financially competitive, so they take the P10 offer. So to NU & UM-they are betting their athletic futures on a B10 invite or a belief the UT is bluffing. They had better know that invite is coming.
LikeLike
Yeah but what if only Nebraska gets an invite of all 3?
I mean we keep hearing that it won’t be financially feasible without Nebraska but is that really true?
LSN combined with the way that contracts are doubling over the last time means that Texas could presumably make 15-20M staying even without Nebraska.
LikeLike
@zeek
I think you are right. There is a lot of ground between financially feasible and financially optimal, and Texas may be faced with determining where on the spectrum they land without NU.
Perhaps the public and acrimonious divide between members of the Big12 makes it politically easier for JD to make the first move by taking Nebraska. It looks like the conference was fractured beyond repair before the Big10 came calling.
LikeLike
I know the Horns *say* they want the Big XII, but I doubt it.
Both the Pac and the XII have uneven revenue distribution. Outside Texas, the largest TV markets are St. Louis and KC in the current Big XII. If they joined the Pac-10 they’d be looking a an uneven share of LA, Seattle, Portland, SF-Oakland, Phoenix, etc. money. Even split 15 ways that’s much better than they’d ever do with the current B12N. The only thing that might help the BXII in Texas’ eyes is the LSN. But, I would assume Delaney’s been thoroughly describing the pain it was to get the BTN to its current state. The Horns may be souring on the LSN but using it as an additional chip.
The opportunity to hobnob with Stanfords and Berkleys of the world is just bonus for Texas. Oh, and I almost forgot about that potential Nike facetime, too. I’d expect that OU and the rest (except TAMU) would be thinking the exact same way.
I’d be surprised if they DIDN’T go to the now PAC-16.
—
There’s some stuff I remember reading here about the SEC, but I can’t lay hands on it. Please correct me if I’m wrong. Because if I am, this is gonna be waaaay off.
IIRC, CBS gets first pick of the SEC games, then the ESPN family. The leftovers revert to the schools. There’s already enough games for the major broadcast partners. What CBS, etc. will pay extra for is for the opportunity to get more marketable games.
The SEC’s problem is finding teams that will cause CBS and the rest paying the same per-school fee for those additional matchups. Who do you get if you’re the SEC. Texas? They don’t want you. TAMU or OU and OSU? Maybe, if you can outbid (or close) the PAC-16. Raid the Big East/ACC?
Hmm. Raid the Big East/ACC? OK, time to put my university hat back on. First, you can eliminate any teams north of the Mason-Dixon line, since you’re AD doesn’t wanna play up there after October 1.
Question- Is it true that all SEC schools have the power to veto another in-state member. I think I read here they did. If so, you can kiss Louisville, FSU, Miami, USF, GT, and Clemson goodbye.
What does that leave? West Virginia, UNC, NC State, Wake, Duke, Virginia, VT, and Maryland. Do any of those schools look like they would cause the Networks to pony up an additional 17mil/year/school? No. And there’s no way the Schools would take money out of their pockets so the Conference commissioner and the ADs can play “who’s bigger”.
Heck, half of the proposed schools wouldn’t even stay on the phone to hear the SEC pitch to the end.
So the SEC is stuck.
The ACC is in the same situation, except they have more options, since they seem more willing to head north. But from what I’ve heard, they lack the political will.
Even if there is no veto power, who outside of FSU and Miami actually move the needle in football?
—
This ought to be a really fun week. Can’t wait to see Delaney’s realistic plan. I don’t think in good conscience he can let Mizzou and Nebraska twist in the wind. We’ll see some cards played in the next ten days or so.
LikeLike
The thing is, it’s really easy for the SEC to expand.
They don’t need good brands as much as the Big Ten or Pac-10.
Why? Because the SEC is the brand. Note that their last expansion was Arkansas/South Carolina. Neither of those really moved TV dials outside of the footprint, but all the games they played became SEC games.
Thus, SEC expansion is actually much easier to peg as being worth the money.
Alan or the other SEC commenters can speak to this, but there’s plenty out there the SEC can grab. I’m more skeptical on whether ACC teams would want to jump.
Also, the veto thing; if the SEC needed to go to 16, the teams would support it.
And back in the early 90s, UF and Georgia were actually pushing for FSU and GTech, so perhaps that veto thing can be swept away if Slive tells the SEC that they need to go to 16.
The issue is whether these teams would go, a lot of them joined the ACC over higher ranked schools etc.
LikeLike
I disagree. With its academic rep there are actually justifiable reasons why schools might not join. Maybe Clemson, but GT left the SEC in the 70’s under very unhappy terms (so why would they rejoin) and Miami is as far from “southern” as a northern school.
What’s more schools like FSU, that are going to have a new football coach and have to rebuild their team, might not want to be a high profile whipping boy to the “powers” in the SEC.
If the Big12S goes west and the ACC is largely uninterested, who does that leave? WVU? Kansas? KSt? Clemson?
Don’t get me wrong, Florida, Bama, and LSU would love the addition as it would be 4 schools that go undefeated OoC, but win just enough in conference to to have a winning overall record and “prove the SEC’s dominance” while allowing those same schools to keep making runs at the national championship, but will this addition make ABC/ESPN want to renegotiate that new contract?
I don’t think so.
LikeLike
I thought I heard any SEC expansion would require a home run (like Texas) to reopen negotiations. Raids on ACC land get complicated because ESPN is already paying for both sides of that fence.
The only public comments I have heard about SEC expansion plans are they would “own the region” and act as needed to defend their brand. They have even hinted at splitting the pie in smaller pieces if they needed to be aggressive.
LikeLike
Texas wants the Big12.
Its the only conference that will allow them to do whatever it wants and still get paid very well to do so.
The Pac is always going to have the original Pac8 block, with individual vetoes, that will stand against the Texas block and the Big10 wouldn’t allow anyone other than Texas/TAMU in in the first place.
In either scenario, Texas will be forced to go with decisions that are not 100% pro Texas.
And lets be honest, if you had that type of situation (having your cake and eating it too), would you give it up?
LikeLike
Good comments in the last day or so, FLP. Two questions for you:
1) Is the only sort of Big 10 that ND would join a “national” Big 10, i.e. one stretching from Texas to New Jersey?
2) Is there a chance that ND is working together with the Big 10 now, with the Big 10 agreeing to help protect ND’s position in the BCS and thus preserve football independence? I think Delany and Swarbrick have been talking quite a bit during this last six months.
LikeLike
1. I think it would be the preference, yes. But I also think it would be helpful if all the new editions were small schools. Y’know, Miami over FSU/UF, Vandy over Missou, GT over Nebraska, Maryland/UVa/UNC over Rutgers/Pitt, that kind of thing. The exceptions would be Texas, since they own the state’s interest and Colorado as the sleeping giant of the Rockies. The key would be getting a wide spread of schools outside the midwest/great plains.
I don’t know how that’s in the Big Ten’s long term best interest.
2. I would hope that’s exactly what’s been happening. ND provides major interest for the three OOC games they play against Big Ten schools. I personally also think Independence is what makes ND the power that it was and could be again. The Big Ten as traditionalists and schools that do a better than average job of trying to do it the right way would be a powerful ally in the Brave New World we’re seeing. I see an Indy ND and an expanded Big Ten as a mutually beneficial relationship. I pray the ND brass would as well.
LikeLike
I’d like to expound on that comment. This whole Texas -> Pac-16 notion is being driven by mass population counts.
Yet intensity matters. The SEC followed by the Big Ten and Big 12 followed by the ACC and Pac-10 distantly followed by the Big East is the ordering for intensity among the footprint.
Just smashing the Pac-10 and Texas/Oklahoma together isn’t going to fill seats in the Pac-10 stadiums or increase the footprint especially since it seems to be arranged in a way that minimizes crossover (divisions).
This is the a variant of the Rutgers problem that the Big Ten faces.
The only region in the entire Pac-10 that resembles the Big 12 or Big Ten in terms of intensity is South California. Just look at stadium seating and TV ratings as a rough proxy. Areas where stadiums can only fill 50k are not where the intensity of TV ratings are generally.
So I have to wonder whether Texas is giving up more than it would gain by staying in a Big 12 depleted of Nebraska. The Big 12 had a better contract than the Pac-10 did before this round of negotiations next year.
The Pac-16 East footprint will be worth more than the Pac-16 West footprint, so it begs the question of whether Texas would really leave.
Even without Nebraska, the Big 12 TV contract may still be better than the Pac-10 contract, so Texas is going to have to be certain that the numbers crunch right.
As of now it’s a high stakes game, but looking at the Pac-10 wanting a league wide network, whereas Texas would still favor the LSN, perhaps there’s an out for Texas to stay in the Big 12 even if the Big 12 only takes Nebraska.
I’d imagine that Texas would be doing the due diligence while this high stakes poker game goes on, and that their decision of whether to take the invite or not will be evidence of their determination that the Pac-16 will pay off even though they bring much higher intensity in their footprint…
LikeLike
I’m making mistakes all over the place, need some sleep.
LikeLike
Zeeek you son of a mother you! i agree with almost everything you said. but Texas looked like they would have to listen to the BIG 8 before and in 15 years took all the power down to Texas. so if… and i’m saying if they want all the power they could just play the waiting game like they did before.
LikeLike
All the more reason to take Missouri too if your goal is a seismic shakeup.
LikeLike
There’s one thing you aren’t considering. The big twelve needs a vote of 9 schools to affect any real change. OU, TU, TAMU, and Nebraska have been voting as a block to maintain things like inequality of revenue. If Nebraska bolts the Big 12 needs to add someone to maintain the championship game. They will not be adding anyone one who will be voting for unequal distribution of wealth. This would help sway the numbers further towards the them leaving the B12.
LikeLike
They all know that Texas has options, I don’t see that as being a realistic problem.
They can reduce the requirement to 3 schools required for a veto or something if they really want.
You think the Big 12 North schools will vote for something that would send Texas out of the Big 12?
LikeLike
I actually think Texas should want neb to leave. The existing big12 members would bend over further to keep Texas in the confence and the other Texas schools have proven they’ll follow daddy. Without Neb around to fight with, Texas could get a good TV deal PLUS the LN. Win win for them.
LikeLike
I don’t think A&M would want to sit in the remains of the Big 12 to prop up the LSN. So they’re looking at a conference with a good chance to lose Nebraska, Missouri, Colorado, and Texas A&M.
LikeLike
Double chess in eight steps (some occurring behind the scenes):
STEP 1 – Missouri to Big Ten
STEP 2 – Nebraska to Big Ten
STEP 3 – Big XII South to Pac Ten
STEP 4 – Notre Dame to Big Ten
STEP 5 – SEC raid ACC
STEP 6 – Big Ten fill two spots (with ND input)
STEP 7 – ACC raid Big East
STEP 8 – Leftovers pick up pieces
LikeLike
Step 1 – Pursue ND
Step 2 – ?
Step 3 – Profit!
LikeLike
PN! wins the interwebs with that plan
LikeLike
I like it Paul,
But I think I add NEB first, leaving the option of staying at 12 teams.
LikeLike
I think I might have steps 4 and 5 reversed. If the Pac Ten goes to 16 and the Big Ten adds 2, its a very good bet that the SEC will try to keep pace. At this point, if not sooner (i.e., when Pac Ten expands), then Notre Dame will have the kind of conditions that require joining a conference.
Once the SEC raids the ACC, the writing is on the wall. The ACC will become the forth superconference by snapping up the leftover Big East teams and maybe even Kansas and Kansas State. ND does not want to be left out entirely. It will have to choose between joining Big Ten and joining ACC/Big East merger. I think joining Big Ten is more likely.
LikeLike
The Big Ten puts the ball in motion by taking BOTH Missouri and Nebraska as 12 and 13, leaving Texas no realistic choice but to leave for Pac 10 or SEC. That’s why I think Missouri and Nebraska are both shoe-ins.
After that, the remaining three depend on when and if ND decides to join and what combination of 15 and 16 would maximize the chances of ND agreeing to the Big Ten. That’s why I think a southern team is likely (either GA TECH or MIAMI or both).
Sorry to keep repeating this.
LikeLike
FWIW, which may well not be much, a poster (Tigerman) on the Miss. site says Neb and Mo have been offered, and have accepted. He claims the Mo. president has so informed the TX pres.
Don’t know if this is accurate, but think it has more chance to be correct than the ND rumors….IF ND comes, it will be in the “second stage”, for political cover for the AD and Pres.
LikeLike
add
LikeLike
Big 12 is clearly trying to force Step 1 — by forcing Nebraska and Missouri into Delany’s fold — or abort the entire process. But that’s a game of chicken because if Nebr > Big 10, then CU > Pac 10 and Texas will then be forced to choose between “going north” and “going west.”
I think FLP is absolutely right when he insists that ND will be the last card played, and I think there is a good likelihood that the big players find a way to move on with Notre Dame staying independent in football and remaining in a basketball+ conference with natural partners like Villanova and Georgetown.
LikeLike
I think leaving the 16th spot open is the play. Because there has been talk of the BE giving ND a choice as well, either you are all in or not.
LikeLike
Not happening.
1. The hoop only schools want ND in.
2. The football schools know that if forced out of the Big East, ND’s first call would probably be the Big Ten. Since half the football league would eat glass to join an expanded Big Ten, they don’t want ND taking what could potentially be their slot.
LikeLike
oh, and ND would never join Big East football as currently constituted.
LikeLike
of course ND would never join the BE in football. But the play is to keep the BE together.
ND in Basketball doesn’t trump keeping the league together. The thing is the BE must not be convinced the B10 would stop at ND.
LikeLike
I don’t think they are, esp. according to Frank. Nor should they be, really, if an NYC grab is doable.
Maybe I’m biased, but ND as a basketball only member is still probably more attractive than Memphis, ECU, or UCF to most of the league.
At a certain point, it just isn’t worth it to hold a league together, y’know.
LikeLike
Unless you are a member of that league.
If they can minimize the loss of teams and The Big Ten and Pac 10 don’t go nuclear the BE has a shot.
they could easily add Xavier and Temple with the Temple football program making strides.
of course if the nuclear option is used the BE and probably the Big 12 is history.
LikeLike
Rox, you are biased, because for basketball only Memphis is a more attractive option than ND.
LikeLike
Rox.
http://www.ndnation.com/blog/2009/12/no-means-no.html
This explains it to me perfectly. I get it now.
LikeLike
Theory on SEC moves….
a) UL – with much family in Louisville, 95% that is no go for SEC, If you think Cincinnati has a chance in the Big 10, you think Louisville has a chance in the SEC. Louisville has a BIG UK fanbase, and a decent IU fanbase (no new market, and small stadium by SEC standards).
b) UC – Cincinnati is like Louisville, as their biggest fan bases are UK in the SEC and tOSU in the Big 10 (yes Frank you have made me see the ways of my alma mater). UK has played HOME games in football and basketball in Cincinnati (Louisville as well in Freedom Hall – UL home court). When UK plays football in Cincinnati they play in Paul Brown (home of the Bengals – and the Bengal training camp is just outside of Lexington KY (UK’s home) in Georgetown KY. (UK and tOSU already own southern Ohio, and Nippert stadium would be a joke in the SEC).
c) WVA – Think of the SEC like the Big 10, in this blog we have gone over why WVA would not work in the Big 10. We are armchair quarterbacks, do you think if we can see this Slive can not (footprint, state population, and a stadium at 60,000 it would be one of the smaller in the SEC). I am not making the Big 10 argument here about academics, I am just saying look at the overall numbers. I know we keep talking about Arkansas to the SEC, but WVA does not have Wal Marts HQ right down the street. I have been to Fayetteville many times in the past 20 – 30 years and unless you have been there you can not appreciate what Wal Mart has meant to Arkansas. (and a reason I keep seeing OSU and Boone in a different light).
d) Miami – always listed as one of the first to the SEC, when everything tells me they would be the last. 1) Miami is full of Pro teams – more folks in Miami probably root for the Dolphins and the Heat (why I am still not sold on an expansion by the B 10 into the NYC market). 2) Miami is PRIVATE, and the SEC is PUBLIC. 3) Miami is not southern. Just because they are in the south, does not make them southern. FWIW they are not midwestern either, which is why I would not be happy to see them in the Big 10. 4) Miami does not own Miami much less the rest of the state (Think if I said Cincinnati and Xavier own southern Ohio if it helps). 5) Miami is new, the SEC is old (remember we are in the south where this matters). Howard Schnellenberger put Miami on the football map in the 1980’s (before he went to Louisville). 10 – 20 great years may seem like a big deal but the SEC is the old guard. Maybe I am wrong here, but the fact that Miami has been down is not lost on the SEC. If I were picking a home for Miami, It would be with the likes of ND and other PRIVATE schools.
e) FSU, Clemson, Ga Tech – In descending order.. All already are second fiddle to an SEC team in their home state. When the SEC expanded last time they went into NEW markets, to not think this would be their PRIMARY plan in this expansion would be folly. Football drives this expansion talk, and these three offer no new revenue stream. Heck, Tech can not even command the city it calls home.
Now if I was the SEC I would go back to my roots and consolidate control that way…. the SEC & ACC have common roots in the old SIAA, from that sprang the Southern Conference which composed of (Alabama, Auburn, Clemson, Georgia, Georgia Tech, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi State, North Carolina, North Carolina State, Tennessee, Virginia, Virginia Tech, W&L) later additions were (Florida, LSU, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tulane, Vandy) last to the party were (Swenee, VMI, Duke).
The SEC came from this group in 1932 and the ACC in 1953….
Now look at rivalries (rivals drive ratings)
Arkansas – Texas / Texas A & M
Florida – Miami / FSU
Georgia – Georgia Tech
Kentucky – Indiana (historic) / Louisville (modern)
LSU – Tulane
South Carolina – North Carolina / Clemson
The SEC already has their in state rivals covered, so expansion would be Texas or North Carolina to capture new markets. I keep hearing people pooh pooh academics in the SEC but think of the SEC in the same vein as the Pac 10….
If the Pac 10 goes to 16 we have the Pac 8 division (academic) and the Texas division (sports)
now overlay the SEC as east 8 and west 8.. pooh pooh if you will but UF, Vandy, and UGA have good academics..
SEC east (academic – UF, UGA Vandy + UNC + NC State + UVA + Maryland (leaving UK – with a current top 20 plan in place, UT, and USC – a natural rival for the North Carolina schools)
I guess if people can see a Pac 16 with split academics, why can folks not see this in the SEC east…
If I am silve, my expansion plans would go through Texas and North Carolina FIRST! (the states).
I know academically Stanford is tops, but the bottom of the Pac 10 are no Stanford..
I am not saying this will happen, I am trying to see this from a non Big 10 view (just because we may want WVA to the SEC does not mean Silve does). I just think the long history of the SEC and ACC with common roots might not be reflected here (if i am in my 30’s it may be no big deal, but if I am in my 60’s or 70’s or older (see also decision makers and BIG donors) I can remember a different history of the SEC and ACC.
just some points to think about….
FWIW Ga Tech, Clemson, and FSU already play UGA, USC, and UF so how does adding them to the conference help.. the SEC already has the rival game as things exist right now….
LikeLike
I think West Virginia is a guaranteed invite if ACC schools don’t want to come over academic perception (yes, even if unfair, perception is perception: check US News rankings of undergrads and almost all of the ACC is way higher ranked).
VTech is iffy, they may not want to burn their bridges with UVA unless UVA and Maryland are heading out the door to the Big Ten or something…
Kansas would be a dark horse for an SEC invite if they can pry loose KState.
LikeLike
Another reason why so many domers would not want to join the Big Ten.
http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/22938/dorsey-situation-tests-michigan-rodriguez-bond
As a loyal conference member, wouldn’t we have to adopt Rittenberg’s spin — that the fact that Michigan signed Dorsey to a LOI but after the dust settled gets cold feet is an example of “higher academic standards”? Higher than whose standards: Auburn? Kentucky BB? It is one thing for ND to say if asked “that is how another school wishes to conduct its own affairs” and quite another to say “how conference colleagues act has no bearing on me” — it does.
What is wrong in simply declining to recruit someone who is a poor match for your university other than that he plays football well. The current stance is what leads to a 38% graduation rate for AA football players at Michigan (prior to RR’s arrival).
LikeLike
Of course there is more at play here than just recruiting a kid who by the way did qualify.
The question is why did u of m let RR recruit the kid and accept his loi if they were going to pull the rug before he came in.
unless there is a new situation that has come up, that shows he doesn’t deserve a second chance.
But please save me the holier than thou attitude. If anyone a catholic should be schooled in forgiveness, and second chances.
LikeLike
Because ND never recruits kids who are a poor match for their university:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1019088/1/index.htm
LikeLike
Rich:
[sarcasm] That’s right. By being a member of the Big Ten all ND fans will be forced to toe the company line. [/sarcasm]
I like slamming the “Michigan Man” BS as much as the next man, but you’re fishing for reasons when trying to bring it into this conversation.
LikeLike
Can you explain to us what D. Dorsey and Rich Rod have to do with Big Ten Expansion? If you want to bash Michigan go back to NDNation site please. There’s no place for you here. Let’s keep it clean, can we? This post got to over 1800 replies in 2.5 days. I don’t think we have time for something like that here.
LikeLike
First, cudos to universities that won’t compromise academics. Seems RR put the cart before the horse in Dorsey’s case. Perhaps this worked at WVU but UM is saying “not so fast…” Tressel had some similar issues where NCAA qualified recruits didn’t get past OSU admissions. Tress now only extends offers to kids who have passed muster with the admissions office. Post-Cooper OSU has made great efforts to improve their overall academic standards and specifically athletic academic standards.
My guess is UM is taking some heat for things that Harbaugh brought up and will act to improve athletic academics. My guess, Rich Rod will take a cue from the school down south and work closer with admissions before extending offers.
LikeLike
Spencer Boyd says hi.
LikeLike
I’m a Michigan Man. I’m not a big fan of Rich Rod, but I am convinced that this was done to make Rich Rod look bad.
It reminds me a little bit of when there were certain folks at IU who were out to get Bobby Knight.
I’m not saying RichRod or Knight are faultless, either.
There are too many factions within Michigan, and enough are not happy about the current direction, and are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.
If we’re going to keep him, then support him, because that is the best way to support the current students and athletes.
Needless to say, I’m not thrilled with the situation.
LikeLike
Step 1 – Take Neb – get to 12 teams.
Step 2 – Don’t have a conference title game
Step 3 – Piss off SEC fans who can’t believe B10 should have title game
Step 4 – Tell Texas good luck with P16 or BXII leftovers
Step 5 – Wish Chip Kelly good luck before ND totally falls into irrelevance
Step 6 – Continue to make more money per school than all other conferences.
I must be in a bad mood today.
LikeLike
Ha! the champ game idea is a hoot
LikeLike
SH,
after mild depression yesterday thinking Delaney may be dropping the ball.. Your number 1 and 2 have put a smile back on my face….
ps.. number 6 just makes me smile everyday..
LikeLike
I like your result better than mine. I wasn’t advocating anything with my post. I was just predicting what is going on and what will happen. Personally, I would be happier if the Big Ten just added Nebraska and left ND to die, but that doesn’t seem to be in the cards.
As a backup, getting ND and Nebraska looks better than going all the way to 16 with only Nebraska, Missouri, and three Big East teams.
LikeLike
I agree Paul, NEB and Mizzou without ND does nothing for me.
would rather just have NEB, but if Mizzou increases the chances of another HR than bring them on.
I think JD should invite NEB today, and see what happens with the other players. If something big begins than ND will join.
LikeLike
If B10 took Neb, could they develop a strong Neb – PSU rivalry? It would never be like Mich – OSU, but if I’m B10, I want those two games to take place every year. With each team at least playing one from the other pair. In business you maximize your assets. However, a conference must also balance fairness. Those two games, plus the two from the other matchup would produce 4 must-see games for most years. Play them at the end of the season when they will have the most impact on conf title.
With this, I forgo a conf title game. The B10 is an innovator not a follower. A conf title game seems like just following the rest of the conferences. I think a mistake of the BXII was that it stopped the OK – Neb rivalry. It did not leverage a primary asset – in the name of fairness and divisions and conf title games.
Just my two cents I guess, if we see Neb get the sole invite.
LikeLike
I think the focus would be on Neb-Iowa and Neb-Wisconsin rivalries…
LikeLike
If NU was in a pod/division with Iowa, Minnesota and Wisconsin, I think most Husker fans would be thrilled. Many have wanted an Iowa rivalry for years, and have closely followed Alvarez and Wisconsin because of his Nebraska ties.
If a rivalry game ala the SEC is established, Penn St. and NU have quite a bit of history. There’s no downside from a Nebraska fan’s perspective.
LikeLike
UNC, UVa and UMd have no interest whatsoever in the SEC. If it wants the mid-Atlantic area, it would likely have to get N.C. State, Virginia Tech and West Virginia (which once belonged to the Southern Conference and has many fans and alums in the Washington area — remember, WV’s eastern panhandle is in the Washington TV market). And if WVU went to the SEC, perhaps Pittsburgh would want to tag along to continue the “backyard brswl.” (Yes, I know the concept of Pitt in the SEC sounds bizarre, but it may have more of a chance of landing there than it would in the Big Ten if WVU was an SEC partner.)
LikeLike
Pitt to the SEC is intriguing. Doesn’t look like something that could happen, but hey if Baylor can con its way into the Pac 10 – who knows.
On another note “The Backyard Brawl” is my all time favorite rivalry name, followed by the “World’s Largest Outdoor Cocktail Party.” Which may have been #1 except the administrators no longer want to call it that.
LikeLike
Ignore what the administrators want to call it.
And the game in Dallas is still “The Red River Shootout”.
LikeLike
Oh, I do ignore it. I guess that one is ok too, but if I had to rate them it would be:
1. Backyard Brawl
2. Cocktail Party
3. Iron Bowl
4. Red River Shootout
5. Civil War ??? Probably not because it is Oregon and Oregon St – who cares.
LikeLike
SH
I would make the Iron Bowl #1 if what my vet friends that went to Auburn tell the truth. I am older, so maybe this is not the case and it could have just been good storytelling by my friends.. but..
It was their assertion that in the old days the loser of the Iron Bowl had to apologize to the governor / state for the loss. When I think of Alabama I think of college football (and I have never been to an Alabama or Auburn football game). Much as you hear the phrase “cold on ice, or white on rice” I can see such a tale being true. If it is, that alone would put it at the top.
for a team I think Georgia would be number 1..
It has 3 MAJOR rivals EVERY year..
1) Clean Old Fashioned Hate….
UGA vs Ga Tech
Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate is the nickname given to the college rivalry between the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets and the Georgia Bulldogs. The two schools are separated by 70 miles (110 km) and have been heated rivals since 1893. The two schools, in essence, are not only competing in athletics but are also competing for government and private funding, potential students, and amongst other things academic recognition in the State of Georgia and the United States.
As I stated early on my second choice for college was Ga Tech and to this day I have many old friends who wound up at Tech (many were multiple legacies). My understanding was that Ga Tech was Bobby Dodd (who played at Tennessee before going to coach at Tech). It is worth nothing that Tech dropped out of the SEC not about academics, but football! Bobby Dodd and Bear Bryant might have been the Woody Hayes / Bo Schembechler of the south in their competitive nature (not necessarily their personal nature). I was told about 20 years ago by some old Tech alum that Dodd later regretted dropping out of the SEC but do not know if this is true.
As an aside talking to some of these folks about expansion I think they would not want to be in either the SEC or Big 10. This was not aimed at either conference, it was more of they would rather be at or near the top of something than in the middle or bottom. A reason I keep thinking about the old Magnolia Conference for teams like Duke and Ga Tech.
2) The worlds largest cocktail party
UGA vs UF
Aside from the football game you have a border war with adjoining states at the top of the SEC academic pecking order. Recruiting wars between the schools is crazy as well. It the recent tebow debate UF thought he was a god, and the folks at UGA thought the devil. Pure hatred like that is hard to come by.
3) Old South (Deep)
UGA vs Auburn
Begun in 1892 and going on to this day.. along with UNC vs UVA (the difference is UNC vs UVA did not stop for WWII) what separates the value of duration is UGA vs Auburn has destroyed more NC hopes than UVA vs UNC. Having the 2 old south games in the same conference is probably not lost on Silve (UGA vs UA & UNC vs UVA).
My personal favorite rival game for football tho.. is Nebraska vs OU because I got hooked on the game back when I lived in Arkansas in the 70’s. I never went to Nebraska, or lived there but I will watch them when I can (I am the demographic that skews The Big Red Thrashing machine numbers). Hey IU is no football god, at least Nebraska has similar colors.
LikeLike
SH – what about the Egg Bowl?
LikeLike
Eh, you’ve all been played. After the first domino falls you’ll see ND, TX, aTm, and TTech join the same conference:
The ACC is Keyser Soze.
LikeLike
This guy at CNBC has it exactly right. Without the Home Run schools of Notre Dame, Texas and/or Nebraska, the Big Ten is better off not expanding.
He also thinks the PAC16 idea is a big loser unless the profits are unevenly distributed which is untenable and undermines cohesion.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37558483
LikeLike
Good article. One reason, why I think B10 should consider A&M alone. A&M alone to me seems much more beneficial than UT, A&M and Tech (which some on this board advocate). My reasoning is this. If you get the Texas 3, you get Texas but divided by 3 schools. You also get the baggage that the politicians know they will have some control – as they exerted it from the get go. However, there are also lots of upside with that approach. You lock down Texas as much as any state can be locked down and it is a huge state.
If you just get A&M, you get the benefits of Texas for the BTN. A&M is a rapid fan base and has huge numbers. They alone may get you on basic cable. However, you only split one way. You seem to be getting a school that will go along with “all for one, one for all.” You also lock up Texas as a state for the bigger national political purpose. Again, one of my biggest concerns, which this article touches upon is Congress getting involved.
LikeLike
I meant rabid fan base. I have never met an Aggie that moves fast.
LikeLike
I like the idea of inviting the Aggies without regard to UT. I do think that might lure UT as well, but that shouldn’t be the overriding concern in chosing aTm.
LikeLike
overriding reason for CHOOSING aTm.
I also questions the Aggies desire to join the BT.
LikeLike
“I have never met an Aggie that moves fast.”
http://www.kbtx.com/sports/headlines/95811959.html
LikeLike
The A&M fans, admin. et al have very little interest in being in the BT.
LikeLike
That may be true. Though I think the admin and profs would see the benefit. When athletics start seeing those checks come it, I think they will fall in line. As long as fans aren’t diametrically opposed (i.e., ND alums), then I think they could assimilate. If UT comes along, they have a partner. If UT goes elsewhere, they are finally out of their shadow. So long as UT doesn’t go to SEC, I think would be ok.
It’s a longshot, I get that. Just seems like a reasonable alternative with lots of benefits.
LikeLike
You also lock up Texas as a state for the bigger national political purpose.
Really?
LikeLike
I think you do. Maybe I’m paranoid, but I worry about Congress getting involved. The congressmen from Mich and Indiana aren’t going to do anything that could upset the B10. Just as the congressmen from Alabama/Mississippi aren’t going to do anything that could harm the SEC. I would like the Texas congressmen to be on that side. I simply worry that if the Texas 4 are always together, they will never find a permanent happy home. Maybe I’m just being paranoid.
LikeLike
SH, two things about your post above that are on the money. You would get on basic cable and Aggies are very much one for all and all for one, even if the wonderful u to the west paint us with every word they utter as weird. Whether or not your conference would be first choice over the PAC 16 or the SEC is a little too close to call for right now. I personally would love the Big Ten.
LikeLike
We already knew everything he was telling us though.
Texas and ND seem to have their own plans going on.
Nebraska or Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers is what the Big Ten is going to do.
LikeLike
I thought Nebraska, Missouri, and Notre Dame were signing up within 36 hours?
Again… it is interesting that the Big 10’s play would be Nebraska (a great add, IMO), plus two expendable teams from conferences on life support.
LikeLike
New blog post is up, guys.
LikeLike
Let’s talk about the ACC for a second. Let’s assume the Pac 16 comes to fruition and the Big 10 moves to 16 as well. Wouldn’t it then be in the ACC’s best interests to be proactive and try to move before the SEC does?
I realize the ACC just signed a pretty nice deal and moving to 16 teams would probably mean less money for its current members. But the upside is that if you move before the SEC and get to 16 teams first, maybe your conference is stronger in the long run.
Maybe it doesn’t matter, and Florida State, Miami, Clemson and whoever the SEC may target jump regardless if they get an SEC offer. But I have to think if you’re in a stable 16-team conference already, you’re far more likely to stay put than if you’re at 12 teams and you fear the SEC is going to tear your conference apart.
LikeLike
So let me see if I understand the B12 ultimatums of declarations of loyalty. There are only rumours that NU & MU might receive a B10 invite & may accept and there are rumours that Texas & 5 other B12 schools might receive an invite from P10, whose Commish has full authority to make such an invite, & may accept— and the B12 forces NU & MU to declare their allegiance by Friday? Really?
LikeLike
Interesting emails from Dan Beebe to Big 12 Members during expansion happenings this year.
http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B7FYBEkmWghRYjNlMThmYTQtMTNjZC00ZjdlLWJhYmYtZTU2N2ZjODRmZWNk&hl=en&authkey=CI2EjO0K
LikeLike