Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Mike80]

It's pretty clear that if they add Pitt then they will add more. So the arguments against adding Pitt are kind of pointless.

err wha??

 

[Oh8ch]

Supposedly Pitt?s athletes have been informed of the move,

This is a major change impacting the entire conference - well, two entire conferences.

Why would Pitt run around telling their players before it is announced?

I call shenanigans.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

This is a major change impacting the entire conference - well, two entire conferences.

Why would Pitt run around telling their players before it is announced?

I call shenanigans.

Plus, the Big Ten said that there's going to be a 12-18 month evaluation period. Why would they jump the gun so quick. I could see them doing this with Texas perhaps to beat the Pac 10 to the punch, but Pitt (or Rutgers or Syracuse aren't going anywhere) all will sit and patiently wait and crawl to Chicago on their knees if tapped on the shoulder. No need to rush this.

The only possible reason would be to sweat the Big East into hastily kicking the domers out; althought I've honestly come to believe that the domers would park their basketball and other programs in the Colonial League before giving up their football independence.

 

[BUCKYLE]

This can't be true, can it? If tOSU has to play another B10 game after TSUN so that we could add Pitt, I may cry. Not a pussy cry tho, like screaming at God and shit.

 

[buckgeis]

No Way Texas Is Invited

I see that Texas is in second place in the poll. IMO, there is little chance they will be invited. My reasons are:
1. The sports culture at Texas is way different from that of the schools of the Big Ten. Focusing on men's sports, they have a strong focus is on outdoor spots like baseball (currently ranked #1 in Baseball America), golf, and something called the Texas Relays in addition to track and field and cross-country, the latter two found at Big Ten schools. Meanwhile in many Big Ten schools we have gymnastics, wrestling, and hockey. These don't exist at Texas.
2. If Texas joined the Big Ten, we could concede the Baseball and (this would be a tiny bit less of a given) Golf championships for the rest of time. Do we really want to do that? I don't think so.
3. Texas has 20 sports including the suspect Texas Relays, just another form of track i would imagine. They bring in a bit more money than we do but don't have to spend it on the 13 or so extra sports we spend money on. Ergo, if we were to admit them to the conference, they would get $10 million more money than they are getting not that they can spend on football and basketball. Do we really want to compete with Texas in these sports, as we might have to to get into National Championship Games when they are potentially spending more money on these sports than we are. (They probably already are.) [the $10 mlliion figure is taken from Frank the Tank's Slant.]

If we were to admit Texas we would have to demand that they have the average number of sports that Big Ten universities have by way of making sure their "profit" on joining the conference doesn't all go to football and basketball (yes, I am paranoid, but I used to live in Texas and I know how they feel about football.) But even that will not make up for the extreme advantage warm weather would give them in baseball and golf, as well as track and field. Maybe we would have to insist that they use outfielders as pitchers and all golf with their wrong hands.:)

 

[bkochmc]

buckgeis - Please explain your "suspect Texas Relays" comment. The Texas Relays is one of the premier track & field events hosted by an NCAA institution each year. Its a 4 day meet consisting of high school, collegiate and professional athletes. See here for more information: TEXAS LONGHORNS Official Athletic Site

If you are talking about the first link that comes up in a Google search (TEXASRELAYS.COM | for Texas Relays After Parties) that is not affiliated with the meet itself nor with the University of Texas.

A counterpoint to your #3 is that yes, Texas will get more money but so will the other members of the conference. Right now each member gets a portion of the Big Ten Network revenue. You can guarantee that if Texas joins the Big Ten that every cable company in Texas and many in surrounding states like Oklahoma will add the Big Ten Network... more money in everyone's pocket. Schools like Cincinnati and Pitt bring nothing to the table in regards to additional exposure for the Big Ten Network and other Big Ten advertising. That's why in my mind only Texas, Missouri or an eastern school like Syracuse or Rutgers are valid choices.

Don't fool yourself... the expansion comes down to three things that all point to one main goal: additional exposure through football, basketball and new geographical areas. All three point to additional revenue for the conference.'

Note: My post doesn't go into the academic discussion which has happened repeatedly throughout this thread by people that know a lot about the subject... search the thread if you want that info.

 

[Zurp]

About all the talk about inviting Texas to the Big Ten, I thought I read somewhere that there was a rule against teams in states that are not in a Big Ten state, or adjacent to a Big Ten state. I found this post:

BigTen Bylaws state that any expansion must be within, or next to, current Big Ten territory.

It is assumed that means neighboring states. If so, Florida and Texas are NOT options for expansion. Only states that border current BigTen geography would have expansion possibilities. Oh, that also eliminates Vandy.

I don't have a copy of these bylaws, so I tried to find them online. I haven't found them, yet, but I found a post on mgoblog about this.

Wanted: BigTen By-Laws re: Expansion | mgoblog

I'm looking for a copy of the BigTen Conference ByLaws, specifically the parts about expansion. The general note is that a team must be part of the AAU and must be in a state that neighbors a current state with a BigTen institution. That officially limits expansion prospects to 8 current FBS schools, and only 7 from automatic qualifying conferences.

The last post on the page is this one:

I contacted Scott Chipman at the Big Ten office. He said that, contrary to popular belief, the reputed requirements about being in the AAU or being within or adjacent to the current Big Ten footprint are not requirements. However, he said that the required vote to admit a new member (2/3rds? 3/4ths? Unanimous?) is "not public information."

Interestingly enough, searching for "Scott Chipman" on the Big Ten official site doesn't tell me who Scott Chipman is. (Am I missing a joke?)

So I'm no nearer to the answer than I was before.

Edit - Not much, but enough to decide to quit looking for a while:
On Penn State's football site, I found some history of the Big Ten
http://psufootball.com/records/traditions/the-big-ten-conference/

Due to a requirement of the Big Ten bylaws, any expansion must be within, or next to, current Big Ten territory (although, like all bylaws, this could be amended by conference vote).

 

[Buckeye Maniac]

From everything I've heard, since I'm too lazy to look it up myself, the contiguous state requirement is bullshit.

 

[buckgeis]

buckgeis - Please explain your "suspect Texas Relays" comment. The Texas Relays is one of the premier track & field events hosted by an NCAA institution each year. Its a 4 day meet consisting of high school, collegiate and professional athletes. See here for more information: TEXAS LONGHORNS Official Athletic Site

So, it is not a different sport and the same Texas athletes in track and field would run in this. Its as if we were to link Track and Field twice by different names.

If you are talking about the first link that comes up in a Google search (TEXASRELAYS.COM | for Texas Relays After Parties) that is not affiliated with the meet itself nor with the University of Texas.

I am talking about the reference in the drop down menu for sports at the official UT athletics site. No Googling.

A counterpoint to your #3 is that yes, Texas will get more money but so will the other members of the conference. Right now each member gets a portion of the Big Ten Network revenue.

The math is this. Right now Texas gets about $12 million from the Big 12. We get $22 million. If we add Texas they get bumped to $22 million (it wouldn't be quite this simple since we would be splitting the pie from which our $22 million comes from one more way but getting revenues from the championship game, plus other considerations) but we don't get bumped to $32 million. That is, they will have $10 more million to play with than they have now and we will have nothing more. All that could go to football and basketball. The CG would bring money in as would cable revenues but they would be split evenly. This is, then, a $10 million windfall profit per year to play with for Texas. We get no windfall.

You can guarantee that if Texas joins the Big Ten that every cable company in Texas and many in surrounding states like Oklahoma will add the Big Ten Network... more money in everyone's pocket. Schools like Cincinnati and Pitt bring nothing to the table in regards to additional exposure for the Big Ten Network and other Big Ten advertising. That's why in my mind only Texas, Missouri or an eastern school like Syracuse or Rutgers are valid choices.

None of this has any bearing on my point that Texas has many fewer sports than we have or that Iowa has (only other school I have looked at -- I took it as representative of the rest of the conference) and so they have an enormous financial advantage over Ohio State. They support fewer sports than we do so can spend more on football and basketball and would be getting this windfall profit every year over what the Big 12 would offer.

Don't fool yourself

I am not fooling myself.

... the expansion comes down to three things that all point to one main goal: additional exposure through football, basketball and new geographical areas. All three point to additional revenue for the conference.'

None of this adds anything to the discussion. Everyone already knows this.

Note: My post doesn't go into the academic discussion which has happened repeatedly throughout this thread by people that know a lot about the subject... search the thread if you want that info.

Yo, I am an academic -- retired OSU professor. I believe I have the academic part of this covered, thank you.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

That is, they will have $10 more million to play with than they have now and we will have nothing more.

...

This is, then, a $10 million windfall profit per year to play with for Texas. We get no windfall.

Sure, adding a team will require the Big10 to split the pie amongst 12 vs 11 teams; however, it seems to me that bringing a powerhouse to the conference (ala Texas) will make the pie even bigger - thereby boosting everyone's piece...

 

[BayBuck]

We get no windfall.

It seems to be an overly simplistic analysis that assumes such a move would be made without a consideration for the increased overall profits for the Big Ten, which even after being split 12 ways would benefit all current programs as well as a major addition such as Texas.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Sure, adding a team will require the Big10 to split the pie amongst 12 vs 11 teams; however, it seems to me that bringing a powerhouse to the conference (ala Texas) will make the pie even bigger - thereby boosting everyone's piece...

That's what they thought almost two decades ago when they accepted Penn State...

 

[jlb1705]

That's what they thought almost two decades ago when they accepted Penn State...

Are you're saying it hasn't?

I don't think there's a way to prove it one way or another, but I don't think there's a BTN, not as good a deal from ESPN/ABC and fewer BCS berths as a conference without them. Without any one of Penn State, Ohio State or M*ch*g*n the Big Ten would be at best in the situation the Pac-10 is in. Their TV deal stinks, there's been no competition at the top in football and they struggle to get a second team in the BCS where the Big Ten is routinely getting a second team in.

 

[JCOSU86]

Yo, I am an academic

Yo, he's an academic.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Yo, he's an academic - boyeeee

fix'd