• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

Which Teams Should the Big Ten Add? (please limit to four selections)

  • Boston College

    Votes: 32 10.2%
  • Cincinnati

    Votes: 19 6.1%
  • Connecticut

    Votes: 6 1.9%
  • Duke

    Votes: 21 6.7%
  • Georgia Tech

    Votes: 55 17.6%
  • Kansas

    Votes: 46 14.7%
  • Maryland

    Votes: 67 21.4%
  • Missouri

    Votes: 90 28.8%
  • North Carolina

    Votes: 39 12.5%
  • Notre Dame

    Votes: 209 66.8%
  • Oklahoma

    Votes: 78 24.9%
  • Pittsburgh

    Votes: 45 14.4%
  • Rutgers

    Votes: 40 12.8%
  • Syracuse

    Votes: 18 5.8%
  • Texas

    Votes: 121 38.7%
  • Vanderbilt

    Votes: 15 4.8%
  • Virginia

    Votes: 47 15.0%
  • Virginia Tech

    Votes: 62 19.8%
  • Stay at 12 teams and don't expand

    Votes: 27 8.6%
  • Add some other school(s) not listed

    Votes: 25 8.0%

  • Total voters
    313
Hawk Spielman;1716438; said:
Very good post OB....they've never had to be on equal footing with either the SWC or the Big 12, and it is/was the biggest reason that both dissolved. If they "take over" the PAC 10 the way it appears they are going to then I honestly believe it is a matter of time before they destroy that conference as well.

Texas is the pretty girl who everybody wants, but when she's finally your own you realize she's a sucubus. I have come to the opinion you tell UT you can come on as an equal partner (with no special treatment) or you can get the hell lost.

Piss on them. The Big 10 is going to be fine athletically, academically, and financially without them.

Agreed. Even if all the stuff on the NW board is true, and I have my doubts, We do not need Texas if they don't come as an equal. Let them go and cause the Pac-10 to implode. I give the new Pac 10 about 14 years, tops, before the California schools pitch a fit and Texas and the little lebowski academic underachievers that came with them get the boot. Nebraska was definately the best choice from the perspective of enhancing football reputation.

ND and expanding eastward is the next logical step. Missouri is still possible if there is a space left over, they'd bolt the MWC in a second.
 
Upvote 0
ORD_Buckeye;1716436; said:
BTW, BB. The harsh tone of my post is in response to the UT writer not you.

I realized that for the entire post. I had only put it out there for discussion, I hadn't even offered an opinion on it.

Here's the latest from Orangbloods as of a couple hours ago. Chip is saying that Texas is considering B12 commish Beebe's last-ditch plans to keep the Big 12 in existence. The abillity to control some of their own TV rights (Bevo TV) seems to be a key factor in this actually having a chance to occur. Or Chip could just be putting stuff out there that he's spoon-fed in order to improve Texas's negotiationg positions, as some have theorized for the past few days.

Orangebloods

Three different sources at Big 12 South schools being targeted by the Pac-10 told Orangebloods.com Sunday morning that Dan Beebe's attempts to secure a new TV deal on par with the SEC's $17 million/school payout for the 10 remaining schools in the Big 12 is in play.

The sources said they are proceeding cautiously with the new information provided by Beebe.

But the information might slow down the rocket-like pace of Big 12 schools seeking a new home and possibly draw all the divided parties back to the table.

Here's what Beebe has provided to the five Big 12 South schools who have been targeted by the Pac-10, including Texas A&M, who has been in deep conversation about joining the SEC, according to sources.

--Beebe has secured information that enough money could be inked in its next TV negotiation (in 2011) that revenues per school would jump from between $7 million and $10 million in the Big 12 currently to $17 million, which is what the SEC pays out.

--Individal institutions would be allowed to pursue their own networks, which has been a goal of Texas. If the Longhorns went to the Pac-10, they would have to forgo their own distribution platforms, including a network, because the Pac-16 would seek to have a conference network in which all inventory is shared.

(Consultants have put Texas' ability to generate revenue from its own network at between $3 million and $5 million after a start-up window of about three years.)

--The Big 12 would proceed with 10 teams. Everyone would play everyone in football, providing a nine-game conference schedule. And the option to save or dump the conference championship game would be determined by the institutions.

Cont'd ...

One note - current NCAA rules require 12 teams to have a CCG, so the bolded part would require a rule change to allow 10 schools to have one.
 
Upvote 0
JCOSU86;1716437; said:
Thanks, I honestly did not know. I knew their Women's bball team was good this last year but did not know any of the other pieces of information.
I didn't know some of that stuff either. I had to do a little research and was surprised at the level of success they've had as an athletic program overall. I think they'll be great for the conference across the board.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1716448; said:
I realized that for the entire post. I had only put it out there for discussion, I hadn't even offered an opinion on it.

Here's the latest from Orangbloods as of a couple hours ago. Chip is saying that Texas is considering B12 commish Beebe's last-ditch plans to keep the Big 12 in existence. The abillity to control some of their own TV rights (Bevo TV) seems to be a key factor in this actually having a chance to occur. Or Chip could just be putting stuff out there that he's spoon-fed in order to improve Texas's negotiationg positions, as some have theorized for the past few days.

Orangebloods



One note - current NCAA rules require 12 teams to have a CCG, so the bolded part would require a rule change to allow 10 schools to have one.

Or they could attempt to add 2 schools.
 
Upvote 0
If you look at it objectively Texas has a strong case for concessions. The Big Ten has evolved over time and the equal partner thing has come along with it.

But if Ohio State decided to move to the MAC none of us would have a problem with them objecting to an equal share. Indiana and UT getting the same share? Ludicrous if you are Longhorn fan.

This is a business decision. It is simple negotiating. You look at the cost and benefits of getting UT under certain conditions and do what makes sense. Emotions and blustering have no role. Same with ND.

This is one of the reasons why the more I hear about how certain the PAC 10 move is the more I doubt it. If UT is trying to leverage the PAC for their best deal they are doing a piss poor job. However, if they are using the PAC to leverage a deal in the Big Ten they are being pretty shrewd.

In the end if the bottom line (financially, academically and otherwise) for Texas without any concessions is best in the Big Ten then they would be foolish to go anywhere else. They would be equally foolish not to go for everything they can get.
 
Upvote 0
Woody1968;1716451; said:
Or they could attempt to add 2 schools.

Such as?

There aren't a lot of options out there. I suppose they could look at TCU but it seems the Mountain West is gaining leverage while the Big XII is losing it.
 
Upvote 0
BB73;1716448; said:
One note - current NCAA rules require 12 teams to have a CCG, so the bolded part would require a rule change to allow 10 schools to have one.
And this is important, because Colorado and the Pac-10 were caught off-guard by the Big 10's timeline to have Nebraska fully on-board for the 2011 season, when Colorado will not participate in Pac-10 play until 2012.

The Big XII, as things currently stand, will have 11 members in the 2011 season. No CCG for you!
 
Upvote 0
BigJim;1716352; said:
The idea is to sponsor the Conference that would take Memphis, not Memphis specifically.

I fine line if you ask me. The idea is still for a corporation to pour money into college football on behalf of a specific team for the ultimate benefit of that corporation. This is different than what is happening at Oregon or OkSt where alums are pouring in tons of money for the greater glory of the good old alma mater.
 
Upvote 0
Jake;1716457; said:
Such as?

There aren't a lot of options out there. I suppose they could look at TCU but it seems the Mountain West is gaining leverage while the Big XII is losing it.

Not so sure about that, especially if the Pac-11 takes Utah to go to 12 if the Big 12 stays together. TCU and BYU are good fits for them, I would think. Maybe Colorado State. Nobody is going to replace Nebraska, but any of those teams would improve on football compared to Colorado. And Texas would still be top dog in the conference.
 
Upvote 0
Oh8ch;1716456; said:
If you look at it objectively Texas has a strong case for concessions. The Big Ten has evolved over time and the equal partner thing has come along with it.

But if Ohio State decided to move to the MAC none of us would have a problem with them objecting to an equal share. Indiana and UT getting the same share? Ludicrous if you are Longhorn fan.

This is a business decision. It is simple negotiating. You look at the cost and benefits of getting UT under certain conditions and do what makes sense. Emotions and blustering have no role. Same with ND.

This is one of the reasons why the more I hear about how certain the PAC 10 move is the more I doubt it. If UT is trying to leverage the PAC for their best deal they are doing a [censored] poor job. However, if they are using the PAC to leverage a deal in the Big Ten they are being pretty shrewd.

In the end if the bottom line (financially, academically and otherwise) for Texas without any concessions is best in the Big Ten then they would be foolish to go anywhere else. They would be equally foolish not to go for everything they can get.

Agreed. You're looking at this as a business proposition instead if a liberal arts major. Refreshing.
 
Upvote 0
You could make an argument based purely on Ws/Ls over the past six or seven years that a Big XII north with BYU, Utah & a Bill Snyder coached KSU is more competitive than a Big XII north with Colorado, Nebraska, & a Ron Prince coached KSU.

Historically it's completely laughable. Recent play suggests it's 100% true. For a league living on four-year contracts, there is no reason not to try and make it work.
 
Upvote 0
Woody1968;1716451; said:
Or they could attempt to add 2 schools.

Obviously, but I was pointing out that Chip's statement was in a paragraph that stated "The Big 12 would proceed with 10 schools", so it was incorrect in that context.
 
Upvote 0
It could fail..

If you think of the billion dollar spectator sensation of D1 college sports as happenstance, then one must consider the consequences of [censored]ing with it. I wonder how football fans across Texas and Ok feel right about now?

While their 'mega' conference is collapsing, we are all giddy about the prospect of our new and improved 'mega' conference.

If the success of college sports is - as some suggest - 80% tradition and 20% competition, then trying to manufacture new 'rivalries' could simply fail and ultimately dilute tradition, and cost the colleges who are betting the farm on expansion.

While I admit that PSU's big ten membership worked out well, it was a modest tweak compared to the 16 team scenarios that are popping up.

So I understand the vortex created by potential millions of additional revenue, but maybe the current revenue only exists because of the alchemy that formed the 100 year old traditions that make up college rivalry. The final result could be a big yawn when sports fans reject the mega conference hype.
 
Upvote 0
Back
Top