Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Bleed S & G]

I can root for scUM. I respect them. I root for them in OOC and in bowl games. There is no such respect for ND. I cannot root for them...ever.

My perspective is - I would really, really, really love to kick the shit out of ND on a yearly basis.

 

[matcar]

Again, this isn't worth doing w/o Texas.

 

[Gatorubet]

I wish Delany and Slive would schedule a celebrity death match or go to the mens room and brag about who has the biggest dick or whatever and just get this [censored] over with.

The SEC also has a hammer in the form of a pair of monster deals with CBS and ESPN that allow the SEC to pay out $17 million a year to each team and -- unlike the Big Ten -- still allow teams to negotiate their own local rights deals. The Pac-10 doesn't have as much leverage, but it owns the Los Angeles and Bay Area television markets, and that's a very big deal.

Would the ability to take the CBS/ESPN bucks and then re-broadcast Texas and A&M games locally for even more $$$ make a difference to the twins? Dunno.

But if Slive says he won't be outmanuvered, then means there is already a bidding war going on for some prime schools. If Delaney is an evil mofo, he should make a play for Vandy



​

 

[lvbuckeye]

Plus, you get to fuck the Irish out of the big $$.

ND's money is crap. Indiana makes more money RIGHT NOW than the Irish.

 

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

Max, if you snag Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Pittsburgh and need a 5th, are you still opposed to Notre Dame? I think they'd be a solid addition and it would be fun watching them struggle to compete in that juggernaut, especially if the enhanced conference raised the reputation of Purdue or Michigan State (who they have enough trouble with when they stink).

I'm not Max, but I can say I'd be happy with:
Texas
TAMU
Mizzu
Pitt
Notre Dame

I mean, there's some pretty heavy tradition in that list. Not that tradition is the determinative factor - just that when you see a list like that (and from a football perspective) you see some pretty "legit" teams being added. I guess I don't know how to say it any better than that, but such an expansion just looks better than UConn, Rutgers, etc..

 

[zincfinger]

I can root for scUM. I respect them. I root for them in OOC and in bowl games. There is no such respect for ND. I cannot root for them...ever.

So there'd be one conference team you don't root for in OOC games. That's no reason to turn away a money and interest generating machine in favor of a middling program. And sure, you "can" root for UM in non-conference games, but do you? Always? Were you rooting for UM to make that last-second field goal against App St, or were you like the 99.9% of other OSU fans who were high-fiving anyone within reach when it got blocked? So Notre Dame would have you doing that a little more often than UM does. Big deal.

 

[Steve19]

I'm not Max, but I can say I'd be happy with:
Texas
TAMU
Mizzu
Pitt
Notre Dame

I mean, there's some pretty heavy tradition in that list. Not that tradition is the determinative factor - just that when you see a list like that (and from a football perspective) you see some pretty "legit" teams being added. I guess I don't know how to say it any better than that, but such an expansion just looks better than UConn, Rutgers, etc..

I agree with what you say about these teams.

But you lost a lot of credibility in the first sentence. We know that you are Max. And everyone else for that matter. I can't believe you, er I, er, uh, we tried to sell that one.

 

[Mike80]

Am I the only one here that fully expects Delaney to screw this up??

 

[zincfinger]

...there's some pretty heavy tradition in that list. Not that tradition is the determinative factor - just that when you see a list like that (and from a football perspective) you see some pretty "legit" teams being added. I guess I don't know how to say it any better than that, but such an expansion just looks better than UConn, Rutgers, etc..

Looking at it from a football-centric point of view, I personally think that tradition and location should be the determinative factors, with tradition being #1. And it's not because I'm especially nostalgic, it's because tradition has a near-perfect correlation to consistency of success and fan interest. Because of that, the premium tradition programs are the only ones that would enhance rather than dilute the overall product, in my view, and the only reason to add any middling-to-weak tradition program is if it's required as part of a package deal to land a premium tradition program. Of course one can argue about which programs have middling to weak tradition, but as you implied, the northeast programs that are being named pretty much all fit that bill.

 

[BB73]

Obviously, Texas and ND are the big prizes out there. They have both indicated publicly that they'd prefer the status quo. But they also both realize that if dominoes start falling, they may have to make a move.

If I were Delany, I'd be doing this:

Decide that the league is going to 16. Accept 3 of these teams: Rutgers/Syracuse/Mizzou/Nebraska, and announce it publicly, but say that the Big Ten isn't yet done expanding. Tell Texas and ND that there are 2 spots left, but that they have 30 days to decide if they want to be a part of the new Big-16 (and trademark that name now, before it gets grabbed). Otherwise the last 2 spots will go to Pitt and the other team from the 4 mentioned above.

From ND's perspective, they're looking at a Big East that would be down to 5 football teams if ND doesn't join the Big 10/16. And the ACC/SEC/Big 12-remnants would be looking to pick off what was left in order to help themselves survive and grow. The Big East could be doomed, and ND's other sports need to go somewhere.

From Texas's standpoint, if they turn it down, they'd be in a Big 12 that's lost Nebraska and Mizzou, and may well lose Colorado to the Pac 10. So Texas can decide to either join the Pac 10 (more travel and everything is 2 time zones apart), join the SEC (academics and culture differences make this somewhat of a problem), or try to stay in the Big 12 and salvage it by adding TCU, Houston, SMU, etc.

I think the eventual expansion to 16 is bound to happen. Why not make it happen right away, and use the timing as the best chance to try to sway Texas and ND into the fold?

And if the Big 16 ends up with Mizzou/Nebraska/Pitt/Syracuse/Rutgers - I could still live with that.

p.s. - If this strategy works for either Texas or ND, Mr. Delany, just pay me whatever the Big East ends up paying Tagliabue.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Obviously, Texas and ND are the big prizes out there. They have both indicated publicly that they'd prefer the status quo. But they also both realize that if dominoes start falling, they may have to make a move.

If I were Delany, I'd be doing this:

Decide that the league is going to 16. Accept 3 of these teams: Rutgers/Syracuse/Mizzou/Nebraska, and announce it publicly, but say that the Big Ten isn't yet done expanding. Tell Texas and ND that there are 2 spots left, but that they have 30 days to decide if they want to be a part of the new Big-16 (and trademark that name now, before it gets grabbed). Otherwise the last 2 spots will go to Pitt and the other team from the 4 mentioned above.

From ND's perspective, they're looking at a Big East that would be down to 5 football teams if ND doesn't join the Big 10/16. And the ACC/SEC/Big 12-remnants would be looking to pick off what was left in order to help themselves survive and grow. The Big East could be doomed, and ND's other sports need to go somewhere.

From Texas's standpoint, if they turn it down, they'd be in a Big 12 that's lost Nebraska and Mizzou, and may well lose Colorado to the Pac 10. So Texas can decide to either join the Pac 10 (more travel and everything is 2 time zones apart), join the SEC (academics and culture differences make this somewhat of a problem), or try to stay in the Big 12 and salvage it by adding TCU, Houston, SMU, etc.

I think the eventual expansion to 16 is bound to happen. Why not make it happen right away, and use the timing as the best chance to try to sway Texas and ND into the fold?

And if the Big 16 ends up with Mizzou/Nebraska/Pitt/Syracuse/Rutgers - I could still live with that.

p.s. - If this strategy works for either Texas or ND, Mr. Delany, just pay me whatever the Big East ends up paying Tagliabue.

I like this approach. a lot

My take would be to find out if, in fact, Texas will be forced to take A&M with them wherever they go. If this is true, target Texas first. Take Nebraska and Missouri and tell Texas they can have the next two spots for themselves and A&M. If they take them, then tell ND they can stay where they are and watch the reaction of the SEC and the ACC swallow the Big East, or they can join the Big XVI.

 

[Piney]

Lots of fun this week. Reading boards left and right to get a feel what is going on.

I hate to say this, but I don't see Notre Dame or Texas coming to the Big 10 (well, don't hate saying Notre Dame ain't coming)

Reading some Texas boards some 'insiders' there are saying behind closed doors Texas is talking to the Pac 10 and seem to prefer them over the Big 10 (The SEC is a non-starter). The reason? They prefer the power they can have in the Pac-10 versus the Big10. Power meaning they can force the Pac10 into a Big12 type revenue splitting deal and certain concessions regarding scheduling so they don't have late night starts and such. Plus the possibility of a Pac Ten Network and/or being able to start their own network.

Now on the flip side, the guys that seem to have knowledge of the big ten process all point to Texas not coming. Is it a 100% certainty? Nope, but they are planning like it won't happen.

With all I have seen/read, my guess is there is a list of 6, with 5 getting in. Nebraska & Rutgers is the top of their list. Missouri is #3, then it will be some combination of Kansas, Syracuse or Pitt.

Looks like expansion is coming, there is no turning back. The money is going to be HUGE. We are talking $30 million per team within a couple of years (maybe sooner) once the BTN integrates them and that is worst case scenarios. The likely figure seems to be pushing past $40 million for each 16 schools. And that is WITHOUT Notre Dame and/or Texas.

But are we selling our soul to the devil for the all mighty dollar? Does a 5 team expanion including Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, Kansas & Syracuse dilute the product too much? Are we adding too many mediocre football teams to water down the brand of the Big Ten???

 

[Piney]

I like this approach. a lot

My take would be to find out if, in fact, Texas will be forced to take A&M with them wherever they go. If this is true, target Texas first. Take Nebraska and Missouri and tell Texas they can have the next two spots for themselves and A&M. If they take them, then tell ND they can stay where they are and watch the reaction of the SEC and the ACC swallow the Big East, or they can join the Big XVI.

I did too, I just don't see Texas budging (read my previous post). But you HAVE to take that shot, don't you?

All I know is I just cannot get enough of this topic and for this whole week that is all I have done, reading anything & everything I can find to digest.

 

[Buckeye86]

The reason? They prefer the power they can have in the Pac-10 versus the Big10. Power meaning they can force the Pac10 into a Big12 type revenue splitting deal and certain concessions regarding scheduling so they don't have late night starts and such. Plus the possibility of a Pac Ten Network and/or being able to start their own network.

Even if they are able to get some ridiculous sharing deal out of the Pac 10 I find it highly unlikely that they will even come close to the money that they would be able to generate with the Big 10.

Academics is also an issue that the Big 10 is superior to the Pac 10.

If they want certain scheduling concessions, I am sure the Big 10 would be willing to accommodate.

Please, please do everything you can to make it happen Delany.

 

[zincfinger]

If I were Delany, I'd be doing this:

Decide that the league is going to 16...And if the Big 16 ends up with Mizzou/Nebraska/Pitt/Syracuse/Rutgers - I could still live with that.

So could I, but there's a difference between being able to live with it and actually preferring it over the current alignment. To me, the conference expansion discussion goes hand-in-hand with the playoff discussion, in the sense that both involve tranforming a largely regional sport into a largely national sport devoid of region-specific interest. And to someone for whom the regional nature of the game, and the traditional rivalries that are part-and-parcel of that, holds no particular interest, I can understand saying "let's institute an expansive playoff", or "let's expand the conference by 50% without undue emphasis on geography or tradition". But if the regional nature of the game, the traditional rivalries that are part-and-parcel of that, and in fact the signficance of the regular season itself, are somewhat important to you, I think it's worthwhile to pause before saying "let's expand to 16 come hell or high water", and to instead make sure you're getting value for what you're sacrificing prior to pulling the trigger on that.