Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[gracelhink]

Bleacher Report speaks the unspoken truth, boldly uncovers the facade, why Notre Dame fans are opposed to joining the Big Ten Conference! Buckeyephobia, Little Brother qualm, Anxiety, Fear, and Cowardice.

Bleacher Report

Is Notre Dame Afraid of Ohio State's Dominance?

. . . While we don't know for sure whether or not the Irish are considering joining a conference, their reluctance to do so is very surprising.
The driving force behind the expansion craze is revenue shares, and the Big Ten carries probably the most attractive bargaining chip in play: the Big Ten Network.
Schools in the Big Ten, with combined television contracts from the Big Ten Network and ESPN, make around $20 million annually in revenue.
The money makes declining an invite to the Big Ten a hard thing to do, especially with the popularity of the Nebraska football program all but in the fold. Yet that's the road the Irish seem to be going down.
But what if there is more to the Irish dipping only one toe in the expansion pool, while Nebraska has jumped in?
The lack of success for Notre Dame in the past three seasons hasn't been very reassuring to fans in South Bend, as the team went 6-6 in 2009 despite a weak schedule.
And when they look at the teams in the new Big Ten, it would give most teams cold feet.
In Dennis Dodd's post-spring top 25 , five teams represent the future Big Ten: Penn State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, and third-ranked Ohio State.
The Buckeyes are clearly the class of the Big Ten, and have been since 2006 when they have either tied for the conference title or won it outright. . .

 

[mross34]

I just leafed through the Big 12 Bylaws and here are the only two sections that apply:

Powers Reserved to the Board of Directors and Vote Required.
(a) The following actions may be taken only if approved by the affirmative vote of a majority of the Directors then in office:

(1) Development and revision of long-range plans for the Conference;
​

(2)Approval of any contract of the Conference that can be expected to involve more than ten percent (10%) of the income or expenditures for the Conference for a fiscal year;
​

(3) Hiring, termination, and the employment (including approval of the terms of any employment agreement) of the Commissioner of the Conference;
​

(4) Approval of the operating budget of the Conference for each fiscal year;
​

(5) Initiation or settlement of any litigation involving the Conference;
​

(6) Selection and discharge of the accounting and law firms for the Conference; and
​

(7) Selection of the location of the headquarters of the Conference, including the location of the real estate and approval of real estate leases.
​

(b) The following actions may be taken only if approved by the affirmative vote of seventy-five percent (75%) or more of the Directors then in office:

(1) Amendment or modifications to these Bylaws;
​

(2) Election of new member institutions to the Conference or suspension, expulsion or probation of current Member Institutions;
​

(3) Amendments or modifications to the role and authority of the Board of Directors and the Advisory Committees;
​

(4) Approval of contracts for the provision of teams to bowl games in intercollegiate football; and
​

(5) Approval of the policies and procedures relating to the revenue distribution to the Member Institutions.​

​

3.1 Membership. Each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference until July 1, 2006 (the ?Current Term?) and during any Additional Term (as defined below). Unless a Member Institution gives written notice that it will withdraw from the Conference at the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term to all other Member Institutions and the Conference (a ?Notice?) not less than two (2) years before the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be, each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference for an additional five-year period after the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be (each, an ?Additional Term?) unless such member is a Breaching Member. Each Member Institution agrees that in the event such Member desires to withdraw from the Conference, that it will in good faith give Notice not less than two (2) years before the end of the Current Term or any Additional Term, as the case may be. No Member Institution shall be entitled to distribution of the then-current revenues from the Conference after the effective date of its withdrawal, resignation, or the cessation of its participation in the Conference (the ?Effective Date?).

3.2 Effect of Giving Notice. If a Member Institution gives proper Notice pursuant to Section 3.1 (a ?Withdrawing Member?), then the Members agree that such withdrawal would cause financial hardship to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore, in recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of each Member Institution to all other Member Institutions of the Conference, each Member Institution agrees that the amount of revenue that would have been otherwise distributable to a Withdrawing Member 14 pursuant to Section 2 herein for the final two (2) years of the Current Term or the then current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), with the remainder to be distributed to the other Member Institutions who are not Withdrawing Members or Breaching Members (as defined below) as additional Conference revenues in accordance with Section 2 herein. The Member Institutions agree that such reduction in the amount of revenues distributed to a Withdrawing Member is reasonable and shall be in the form of liquidated damages and not be construed as a penalty.

3.3 Effect of Withdrawal From Conference Other Than by Giving Proper Notice. If, other than by giving a proper Notice pursuant to Section 3.1, a Member Institution (a ?Breaching Member?) withdraws, resigns, or otherwise ceases to participate as a full Member Institution in full compliance with these Rules, or gives notice or otherwise states its intent to so withdraw, resign, or cease to participate in the future (a ?Breach?), then the Member Institutions agree that such Breach would cause financial hardship to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore, in recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of each Member Institution to all other Member Institutions of the Conference, each Member Institution agrees that after such Breach, the amount of Conference revenue that would otherwise have been distributed or distributable to the Breaching Member during the two (2) years prior to the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by an amount that equals the sum of the aggregate of such revenues times the following percentages (such sum being the ?Aggregate Reduction?); if Notice is received less than two years but on or before eighteen months prior to the Effective Date, 70%; if Notice is received less than eighteen months but on or before twelve months prior to the Effective Date, 80%; if Notice is received less than twelve months but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%; or if Notice is received less than six months prior to the Effective Date, 100%.

After such Breach, none of the revenues that otherwise would be distributable to a Breaching Member shall be paid to the Breaching Member until the aggregate amount so withheld (the ?Withheld Amounts?) equals the Aggregate Reduction; thereafter, all revenues that would otherwise have been distributable to the Breaching Member shall be so distributed. If the Withheld Amounts are less than the Aggregate Reduction, then the Member Institutions acknowledge and agree that the Conference shall assess such Breaching Member an amount that equals the difference of the Aggregate Reduction less the Withheld Amounts, and the Breaching Member agrees that on or prior to the Effective Date it shall repay to the Conference such amount from revenue that previously had been distributed to such Breaching Member. The Withheld Amounts and any such repayment of the difference of the Aggregate Reduction less the Withheld Amounts shall be distributed to the other Member Institutions who are not Withdrawing Members or Breaching Members as additional Conference revenues in accordance with Section 2 herein. The Member Institutions agree that such reduction in the distribution of revenues to a Breaching Member is reasonable and shall be in the form of liquidated damages and not be construed as a penalty.

I don't think there's a clearcut answer.

 

[OSU_D/]

Purple Book Cat's latest....

I do have somewhat of an update as of this morning. I say somewhat because it depends not on the Big Ten itself, but on a number of non-Big Ten schools. This whole process (the expansion strategies, not the message board banter) is absolutely fascinating.

So let me first say that the Big Ten is aware of the original message board thread and believes that it has played a role in bringing about the discussions to where they are now, for better or worse. My friend has kept me in the loop continuously, and as of this point there are some things, if disclosed, that can hurt the negotiation process for the Big Ten. There are others that can help. And I'm a low-risk outlet for information because I have no credibility (other than the 30,000 page views primarily from large southern and eastern states - to you I say thank you for giving Northwestern a moment to occupy the center of the college football world. I believe this will become more commonplace in the future as Pat Fitzgerald continues to build a program of excellence in Evanston.) (One other thing: Northwestern owns justIowa. Remember that.)

The "somewhat" update is two parts, as follows: First, some very interesting things are happening in the Big East right now. If I said anything more about that, it would jeopardize the position of the Big Ten, so suffice it to say that this depends on the status of that school in South Bend.

Second, after the hasty entry of Nebraska, the Big Ten presidents are less unified on letting schools of questionable academic merits into the conference. In fact, blocs of voting Big Ten members have emerged in support of and in opposition to certain schools becoming admitted into the conference. This relates to the first part in that disclosures of the schools in discussion would jeopardize the position of the Big Ten.

Sorry for the "somewhat" update, but things will become clear soon enough. For now, keep your eyes on South Bend and Austin.

- PBC

P.S. Hey Lou, do I get a commission for driving all this traffic to your site?

Interesting points for two reasons....
1. The guy is holding hope for ND and Texas
2. It appears the B10 Presidents don't want any more Nebraska's. i.e. A name school or footprint school with academics and research which place it last in the Big 10 in academic rankings. Too bad he didn't say ACC!

 

[Dryden]

C-U later. Buffs to the Pac-10 a done deal, says the Boulder Daily Camera. Presser tomorrow at 11:00.

Done deal: Buffs to announce Pac-10 membership Friday - Boulder Daily Camera

Done deal: Buffs to announce Pac-10 membership Friday

It's a done deal.

The University of Colorado will announce at an 11 a.m. Friday press conference that the school will leave the Big 12 and join the Pac-10.

Multiple sources confirmed the deal to the Camera early Thursday, and league officials are scheduled to be in Boulder on Friday for the announcement.

The new league will have at least 12 teams, and likely 16. Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are also still on the Pac-10's docket, and most observers believe those schools are also ready to make the move to West Coast-based conference. The expanded conference would likely debut in time for the 2012 football season.


Cont'd ...

 

[OSU_D/]

University of Colorado Joins Pac-10 - PAC-10 OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE

University of Colorado Joins Pac-10 Buffaloes become 11th member of the Conference and first new member since 1987

 

[Dryden]

Good luck coach Hawk. It ain't intramurals brutha, it's Pac-10 football!

 

[Piney]

Purple Book Cat's latest....




Interesting points for two reasons....
1. The guy is holding hope for ND and Texas
2. It appears the B10 Presidents don't want any more Nebraska's. i.e. A name school or footprint school with academics and research which place it last in the Big 10 in academic rankings. Too bad he didn't say ACC!

This tells me a few things... Missouri... sorry guys, you aren't making it unless you are the 16th team, and that is iffy at best.

Interesting things coming from the Big East? That can mean MANY things. For instance it could be them telling Notre Dame to play football or not. OR, it could be the SEC is starting to sniff around for teams like West Virginia.

And regarding your ACC quip... remember, he doesn't want to hurt the Big 10 position in what he says. So since the ACC is SOOOO far off the radar at the moment. You don't want to get their ears up on anything happening to them at the moment.

Damn this is so freaking fun!!!!

 

[PlanetFrnd]

WildcatReport.com - Message Boards

Frank the Tank citing Purple Book Cat, as well:

Chicago Blackhawks Honorary Expansionpalooza Thread (and One More Super Death Star Conference Rumor) ? FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT

Now, as for the latest on expansion:
Reports all over are confirming that Nebraska has been invited to the Big Ten, including the Chicago Tribune. Most of the regular readers of this blog established fairly early on that Nebraska would be the most likely school to be invited to the Big Ten and I?ve been getting info for awhile supporting that.
It can?t be that simple, though, right? If you?ve been following my Twitter feed (@frankthetank111), I had a brief interaction with @FakeJimDelany where he asked me whether I had bugged his phone, to which I replied, ?I only get my info from Northwestern message boards.? Well, the

Northwestern message boards put up another doozy of a rumor tonight: in addition to Nebraska, the Big Ten will be offering invites to Texas, Texas A&M, Notre Dame and Missouri. The Missouri invite, however, is contingent upon either Texas or Notre Dame accepting. Who knows how this is going to play out and whether the Big Ten would truly hand out invites (or more specifically, asking the candidates to fill out the applications for invites) without knowing whether the answer is yes, but I do know that the poster (who had written the infamous post that reportedly sent Jim Delany flying off the handle, was removed for a couple of weeks and is now back online) has a legit and direct connection to the Big Ten office. So, if this offer is true, the choice for Texas is what I laid out in yesterday?s ?Double Chess? post: the comfortable Kia of the Pac-10 that won?t upset its Lone Star neighbors or the Rolls Royce of the new Big Ten.

Regardless, Chicago is the center of the sports world on multiple levels for the next few days. The Blackhawks are bringing the Cup home. Let?s see who Jim Delany ends up bringing over to Park Ridge

 

[Rookie]

I've honestly just been refreshing this page for the past hour and a half. My boss even came over and we had an argument about the state of Texas. He thinks the SEC has a fair shot at Texas and I think the Big Ten still has a shot. Are we fooling ourselves with this Texas talk? Or is there acceptance a possibility?

 

[PlanetFrnd]

I've honestly just been refreshing this page for the past hour and a half. My boss even came over and we had an argument about the state of Texas. He thinks the SEC has a fair shot at Texas and I think the Big Ten still has a shot. Are we fooling ourselves with this Texas talk? Or is there acceptance a possibility?

Based on ALL reports related to the matter thus far, SEC has no shot at Texas.

 

[BrutusBobcat]

Is it premature to dub any expansion/realignment that sends Texas to the Pac-10 and Missouri plus ND to the Big Ten the "Missouri Compromise"?

 

[bkochmc]

[quote='BusNative;171452;1]Based on ALL reports related to the matter thus far, SEC has no shot at Texas.[/quote]
+infinity

Texas will either go to the PAC-10, Big10 or stay home. It is interesting we haven't heard a lot about SEC expansion though, besides A&M talking to them. Maybe because the SEC and the Big10 (soon to be CNA) aren't fighting over the same teams.

 

[Dryden]

I've honestly just been refreshing this page for the past hour and a half. My boss even came over and we had an argument about the state of Texas. He thinks the SEC has a fair shot at Texas and I think the Big Ten still has a shot. Are we fooling ourselves with this Texas talk? Or is there acceptance a possibility?

The SEC will not land Texas. They have to make a play for A&M now or will be frozen out of westward expansion.

If the SEC can step in and untangle the Texas foursome, which could happen with the Texas Governor's blessing since he covets the idea of A&M in the SEC, then that frees Texas to go where they want without Tech and Baylor, presumably. It is worth noting that Gee's emails contained the admission from Texas officials that they had a "Tech" problem, but never said anything about an "A&M" problem. This begs the question of whether or not they knew A&M could fend for themselves and the state would latch Tech onto UT's back, or if it was in the original discussion that A&M had a gentleman's agreement with the Big Ten?

Either way, I think this means it's an anxious time for Delany and Scott, as they both stand on either side of Texas and shout, "Pick me!!! Pick me!!!"

 

[BrutusBobcat]

+infinity

Texas will either go to the PAC-10, Big10 or stay home. It is interesting we haven't heard a lot about SEC expansion though, besides A&M talking to them. Maybe because the SEC and the Big10 (soon to be CNA) aren't fighting over the same teams.

From what I am reading, the SEC has already locked down their television deal, so any expansion would dilute their revenue rather than expand it.

The Big Ten has the ability to grow their revenue with the BTN, and the Pac-10 is up for renegotiation, I think.

 

[OSU_D/]

The SEC will not land Texas. They have to make a play for A&M now or will be frozen out of westward expansion.

If the SEC can step in and untangle the Texas foursome, which could happen with the Texas Governor's blessing since he covets the idea of A&M in the SEC, then that frees Texas to go where they want without Tech and Baylor, presumably. It is worth noting that Gee's emails contained the admission from Texas officials that they had a "Tech" problem, but never said anything about an "A&M" problem. This begs the question of whether or not they knew A&M could fend for themselves and the state would latch Tech onto UT's back, or if it was in the original discussion that A&M had a gentleman's agreement with the Big Ten?

Either way, I think this means it's an anxious time for Delany and Scott, as they both stand on either side of Texas and shout, "Pick me!!! Pick me!!!"

Latest Twitter from Rittenberg... actually a retweet

ESPN_BigTen

RT @REIDLAYMANCE: Mizzou chancellor Brady Deaton says ?Anything Could Happen? after talking w/ Texas pres. Bill Powers http://bit.ly/cT3Fux