Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[matcar]

Yeah, I agree Texas isn't going to the SEC - I could see Oklahoma going there first.

Let me say this one last time, I am familiar with several faculty members at UT. Every single one of them has suggested a move to the Big Ten and they were talking about it with me 5 years ago. There is definitely interest, but things like this are never easy.

 

[Mike80]

This is the quote I initially responded to.

That's...ummm....great....

Prove they aren't....if you've got all the answers....

 

[jlb1705]

So are you saying that the Texas legislature and government would forbid the University from trying to use whatever means it has at its disposal to negotiate a deal where it would get more money? I have a hard time believing it.

In a manner, yes. The last time Texas had a choice to make about their affiliation, people in the Texas government who had ties to Baylor, Texas Tech and Texas A&M basically threatened to cut off UT's state funding if those other schools were not brought along or taken care of.

It has been discussed at length in this thread, but that past scenario has led to speculation that it would be a similar case this time. That's a reason to believe that they would be willing or able to make a move at all, or it can also be reason to believe that if they wanted to make a move, they would have to play it close to the vest or strike backroom deals before they could be as forward as schools like Nebraska and Missouri have been.

 

[BuckeyeNation27]

This is the quote I initially responded to.

At 10:21 you were asked to back up your statement that Texas is not interested. An hour later you finally did...with a link that's as official as any rumor that Pitt, Syracuse, or Nebraska have been offered.

I don't have much faith in Texas coming to the B10, but it isn't ruled out...despite how hard you want everybody else to stop thinking it's possible.

 

[jwinslow]

This is the quote I initially responded to.

Seriously? All of this because he gave one guess?

The burden of proof isn't on me, it is on the people who think that Texas is considering it.

How about a link where someone from the Texas camp actually says they have interest in the Big 10?

Sorry, that's garbage. Max doesn't have to provide a source to back up his guess, which was clearly stated as one.

When you declare things as done deals (when they are anything but, that responsibility falls to you.

Texas has a lot more bargaining power than missouri or nebraska. They have the ability to say whatever they want. The Big 12 will bend over backwards to keep them. It makes MORE sense for them to say that they are interested even if they aren't.

Exactly, except you have it backwards. Nebraska has to posture as much as possible, they aren't the pretty girl in the room. They're the girl you can land in 5 seconds after striking out on a few others.

"40 fucking minutes" later? I'm not the buckeyeplanet librarian. It isn't my duty to provide links to people who can google, when the first story that pops up quotes Dobbs.

Ridiculous, but unsurprising at this point. It's not our job to argue your points for you.

Max tossed out a flippant guess which clearly was an opinion.

You came in with bravado declaring how everything was, and then demanded that everyone else find the proof (or lack thereof) of your argument.

All the while accusing everyone else of being lazy for not doing it for you. That's rich.

I didn't say that proof was necessary. I said they aren't interested. They have made statemnts that they aren't interested.

Other schools are interested. They have said they have interest.

And Thad Matta is not leaving Xavier. You put way too much trust in media quotes, particularly ones which involve zero accountabilty. Very little is gained by honesty but much can be lost:

- lessen leverage for b10, p10, b12 negotiations
- burn bridges with b12 members/admins if you flirt then stay after all
- ratchet up the complications in politics if Texas was considering bolting without A&M

If I was Texas, I would say I was interested, if nothing else, to try and get more of the Big 12 pie.

That might make sense if:

a) There was much pie in the first place. Their revenue streams are garbage and they are not a stable conference long-term.

b) There is more pie to be given away safely. The other members are already upset at the inequality in revenue, if you guarantee an extra 5-10 million to texas, they'll be furious, plus what do you do with Oklahoma?

So are you saying that the Texas legislature and government would forbid the University from trying to use whatever means it has at its disposal to negotiate a deal where it would get more money? I have a hard time believing it.

This is a pretty well known and relevant topic. Try reading some Texas boards (hornfans.com is a good one) if you really are this naive about Texas politics.

The extent of the pressure, whether it would work and whether Texas would care is unknown, but it's a pretty common factor brought up in these discussions. What helps them and us is that Texas has grown politically since that time.

 

[jwinslow]

I'll give you a hint: There aren't any. There are tons of articles out there, however, where people in the Texas camp clearly state they are not interested.

I'll give you a hint, 99% of this (if not 100%) is blowing smoke.

The big ten is even floating out rumors to see what the responses are.

3. What incentive does Dobbs have to lie? Why is Texas trying to get their own television deal?

1) Who says he lied? Nothing official has happened in any capacity.

2) Who would care if he did lie? Almost everyone would understand that he couldn't be transparent during talks, especially if they weren't sure they were leaving.

I mean, it seems pretty clear to me.

No, that's your interpretation. It's far from clear what's happening here, especially when billions of dollars are involved.

At 10:21 you were asked to back up your statement that Texas is not interested. An hour later you finally did...with a link that's as official as any rumor that Pitt, Syracuse, or Nebraska have been offered.

I don't have much faith in Texas coming to the B10, but it isn't ruled out...despite how hard you want everybody else to stop thinking it's possible.

exactly.

 

[BB73]

Pat Forde decides to look down on the Big Ten. And he manages to do it without getting his facts straight regarding the Big Ten's last national title in baseball. Ohio State won the College World Series in 1966.

ESPN

What the Big Ten should do is ?

Who's that behind the microphone, getting all that face time this week in Chicago? Why, it's none other than Jim Delany.

You're enjoying yourself this spring, Jim. I can see that. And understand it, too.

It's like old times. Your Big Ten Conference is in the spotlight, the subject of relentless conversation and speculation as you circumspectly explore expansion. The entire nation is watching, waiting, wondering what the Big Ten will do, and wondering what the ripple effect will be.

It's been awhile since you commanded this much attention and flexed this much muscle. Your league hasn't won a football national championship since 2002, a men's basketball national championship since 2000. Women's hoops? Last title was in 1999. We won't even talk about baseball. (OK, we will: Minnesota, 1964.)

Cont'd ...

 

[Mike80]

Forde is bitter because his alma mater or his love interest (depending on the time of the week) isn't the first and only team being discussed.

 

[cincibuck]

Sifting through the tea leaves: only two schools make any sense to me: Texas and Notre Dame. They add one certified top tier program, one potentially top tier program and two huge TV markets, one top to bottom academic giant and one "close to Ivy" undergrad program.

Given the collective responses I'd say it's time for Delaney to either state his ambitions or fold his tent. Granted he hasn't said "Texas/ Notre Dame" but by not saying who his intended targets are he has created a situation where those two become the target by default.

If he walks into the BMW showroom with a wad of cash and press clippings in his pocket and walks out with a Mini - Cooper he looks like a fool and the conference looks weak and that's where I'm afraid he's headed.

Rutgers, UConn and Syracuse are not going to bring the Big 10 the NY/East Coast TV market -- most of those foks still refer to Harvard - Yale as The Game. They are not going to intimidate ND because the Irish don't need them to hold onto the east coast market. Only ND solves that problem and Texas brings the Big 10 an opening to a TV market as big as the Chicago- Indy-Milwaukee-Detroit market.

Delaney needs one or both of those programs to make this exercise worthwhile. Nebraska and Missou are nice schools, nice folks, but they add a TV market based on St. Louis, KC and 1/3rd of the world's livestock -- in short, not much we don't already have.

 

[kinch]

Hey guys! What does anyone here think about Texas joining?

 

[sflbuck]

Hey guys! What does anyone here think about Texas joining?

Crap, now I have to clean up all the coffee I just spit on my keyboard and monitor.

Thanks

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Lots of discussion about Texas starting its own athletic TV network, thereby "negating" potential advantages to joining the B11. I think Texas is playing hard to get. They may be using us as leverage to get the Big Twelve to quit their whining about UT getting the lion's share of revenue from that conference.

The reality, as much as I like Texas, is that they are still just one, single public university. While they have a prominent alumni presence in major cities outside of Texas, it doesn't equal that of the combined 11 Big Ten schools by any stretch of the imagination. Whereas the BTN is quickly becoming a very successful national cable network, outside of Texas and the surrounding states, there will be very, very little interest in a UT Network. Maybe that's enough (with no split) to equal Big Ten money, but I doubt it.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Texas, Notre Dame and Boston College would be the dream. Then, we'd always have the option of adding two more, say one Western (Mizzou) and one Eastern (Pitt, Rutgers or Syracuse) down the line.

 

[muffler dragon]

Texas AD: Big 12 works, no talks with Big Ten - ESPN
Texas Not Interested in Big Ten

Both of these quote the Athletic Director/Department. I seriously trust them more than an anonymous source that the source in my second article directly refutes. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Texas has stated they aren't interested. They have stated it clearly.

And I did.

Missouri and Nebraska have had no problem saying that they would listen to an offer. Texas on the other hand, stated the opposite, and have taken steps to hold the big 12 together if any of the other teams decide to bolt. I don't think it can get much clearer than that.

Texas' AD and Nebraska's AD have both spoken regarding interest (having it or not). Missouri's brass has met on it. Please take note that only one school has had an administrator discuss the topic publically. Athletic Directors are NOT the ones who have a role in this process. It's the school Presidents, Board of Regents, and quite possibly other admin positions. Thus, you're presentation of what such-and-such AD has said is a red herring, because they aren't the ones making the decision.

 

[kinch]

I vote Texas, Notre Dame, Nebraska, Missouri, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, UConn and Boston College.

After four years the bottom six teams in overall athletics performance and revenue production (including my proprietary "Cheerleader Hotness Scale" (with such factors as jumping, public intoxication, boobs, and smile)) get relegated to the new MAC superleague. It will be a relegation system. The top two MAC teams move up to our conference. From that point on, every four years there is a new relegation, two teams at a time. We will then maintain a sixteen team league-- with incentives.