• 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

Jump to latest Follow Reply

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
Sort by date Sort by votes
Buckeyefrankmp;1968384; said:
No way in hell Delany would do that deal.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't he?

If all UT B1G away games were on BTN, they would have to put it on basic tiers throughout Texas. The B1G would split even more money, while not having to share it with another member.

If ND and Texas joined, there's no way the BTN wouldn't be nation wide on basic.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
Upvote 0
BUCKYLE;1968420; said:
Why wouldn't he?

If all UT B1G away games were on BTN, they would have to put it on basic tiers throughout Texas. The B1G would split even more money, while not having to share it with another member.

If ND and Texas joined, there's no way the BTN wouldn't be nation wide on basic.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Click to expand...

"Texas wishes to join the Big Ten with its Longhorn Network, as a non-participant in the Big Ten Network". What does "non-participant" mean? Does that mean that there will be no Texas games on the BTN?
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyefrankmp;1968473; said:
"Texas wishes to join the Big Ten with its Longhorn Network, as a non-participant in the Big Ten Network". What does "non-participant" mean? Does that mean that there will be no Texas games on the BTN?
Click to expand...

I don't know how that would be possible. If it's at The 'Shoe, Texas ain't got shit to say about it I'd assume. But then again, what the fuck do I know?
 
Upvote 0
BUCKYLE;1968478; said:
I don't know how that would be possible. If it's at The 'Shoe, Texas ain't got shit to say about it I'd assume. But then again, what the fuck do I know?
Click to expand...

1. Ask the former Big XII what Texas can say about things.
2. What "Big" games like that have been on the BTN. Texas@OSU would be on ABC or ESPN. Texas@Indiana would have a chance of playing on the BTN.
 
Upvote 0
Tejas would be a huge get for the B1G, whether or not they choose to continue their LHN. I assume that being a "non-participant" in the BTN means simply that in a 14-team league, BTN revenues would be split 13 ways. Certainly there's no way Tejas could insist that their in-league games not be shown on BTN, nor would they want such a thing.
 
Upvote 0
BuckTwenty;1968413; said:
According to Purple Book Cat, who is on the inside and nailed things in the last go around, that's what has been proposed to Texas. And if Texas gets on board, ND would jump on as well to get us to 14. As of that post, Texas and ND had been given offers to join the Big Ten and Texas A&M hadn't, but was on the fast track to get an offer. Obviously the ship has sailed on Texas A&M.
Click to expand...

I followed PBC as much as anyone last time. I think he was being used (or maybe he didn't know he was being used) like Chip Brown.

To me when expansion reached the end of act one last year UT was using the Big 10's interest to leverage offers from Big 12 and Pac 10.
 
Upvote 0
Buckeyefrankmp;1968473; said:
"Texas wishes to join the Big Ten with its Longhorn Network, as a non-participant in the Big Ten Network". What does "non-participant" mean? Does that mean that there will be no Texas games on the BTN?
Click to expand...

When I read "non-participant" I read that as meaning they wouldn't become a part owner of the BTN while the LHN existed. Basically they wouldn't get a share of the BTN revenues and have no ownership in BTN.

Now whether they can run any Texas programs or any Texas games would be up for negotiation. Cuz I am sure ESPN/LHN wouldn't want Texas games on BTN, but then again that would limit LHN to non-conference games only, and in a 9 game conference schedule that would severly limit LHN's televistion opportunities.

So, I can see some negotiation like LHN would be allowed to televise ONE home conference game a season as long as BTN can televise one away conference game for football. The scary part... an agreement like this would help Texas since currently they are having severe problems in getting other Big XII teams to go along with it. Where as the big ten might be willing as long as they get something for BTN.

On the flip... I can see the PAC 12 network willing to go along with the same type of deal.
 
Upvote 0
Call me 'Economic Man', but having Texas joint the B10 doesn't do much for the league. The fan base increases not too much, as only Texans (and a small fraction at that) give a flip about UT. So Market share would remain minimal. Face it, who tunes into watch Texas play ?. Maybe Texas v. Oklahoma, but what else?

The Southwest Conference, all Texas schools plus Arkansas, went defunct because no one cared to watch, and ergo no advertising revenue. Same with the B12. The two biggest TV markets in Texas, Dallas and Houston are not represented (I know that aTm is only 75 miles from Houston), but hey.

Academically, Texas fits. Nebraska excepting, there is no one else in the B12 that can 'enhance' the B10's reputation. Competitionwise, Texas will win the baseball crown every year, place in the top 1/3 basketball, and probably win the Western half of the B10 each year in football. Naw, let them go to the Pac12. Texas won't stand for the one school, one vote routine that works for the B10. They would chafe at having Northwestern (or Indiana) say, 'my vote cancels yours, big fella'....

If Texas is serious, and I truly believe they just want to stir the pot, then let them land elsewhere. The SEC isn't buying, and they have the most to gain academically (Texas has actual textbooks, not coloring books), and their piggish attitude has pretty much rendered the B12 moot (as they did the SWC). If ND is the actual prize if Texas joins, then I'm more confused than ever. ND won't stand to be a lesser player in the limelight, and ND and Texas would always be pushing each other out so they could take center stage. Forget who said it, but we don't need the drama. Eventually, ND will either join the B10, or the Big East, so let that play out as well.


:gobucks3::gobucks4::banger:
 
Upvote 0
OSU_D/;1968510; said:
I followed PBC as much as anyone last time. I think he was being used (or maybe he didn't know he was being used) like Chip Brown.

To me when expansion reached the end of act one last year UT was using the Big 10's interest to leverage offers from Big 12 and Pac 10.
Click to expand...

I don't think PBC was being used per say. I think his 'source' is maybe from Delaney's think tank. His info was good...the problem was it was not from a position of power. Texas has the power to decide, the power of the final say in the matter. Now what PBC's info was good for is to get inside the thinking of the Big Ten office in how they were proceeding, the ideas they were coming up with. Whether those ideas work and/or were the final ideas is the big question mark in PBC's info.
 
Upvote 0
calibuck;1968521; said:
If Texas is serious, and I truly believe they just want to stir the pot, then let them land elsewhere. The SEC isn't buying, and they have the most to gain academically (Texas has actual textbooks, not coloring books), and their piggish attitude has pretty much rendered the B12 moot (as they did the SWC). If ND is the actual prize if Texas joins, then I'm more confused than ever. ND won't stand to be a lesser player in the limelight, and ND and Texas would always be pushing each other out so they could take center stage. Forget who said it, but we don't need the drama. Eventually, ND will either join the B10, or the Big East, so let that play out as well.


:gobucks3::gobucks4::banger:
Click to expand...

I think how the Notre Dame plus Texas rumors are starting is the rumors that Texas and Notre Dame have been talking about something. I think they have agreed to a series in the future. And some people read the rumors that Texas might try to grab Notre Dame to be part of their new conference with all the leftovers after the Big XII blows up.

So where the Big Ten expansion crazies read into this is maybe Texas to the Big 10 brings Notre Dame into the Big 10.

And why Notre Dame would be interested... adding Texas to the Big 10 gives the Big 10 more of a national feel versus being pigeonholed as a Midwest conference.

Of course... this is all dreaming... but I'd rather be dreaming about this stuff than thinking about what happened in Indy today.
 
Upvote 0
Let ND play Texas. They need to beef up their schedule. Losing to the Michigan schools and USC annually ain't gonna put them in the BCS championship game, and if they lose to the military academies as well, they'll be in the Dust Bowl. I get your point, but I'm one for not having the B10 teams schedule ND. We're letting them have their cake and eat it too. Hurt them in the pocketbook and they'll whimper. Besides, the B10 is a Midwestern league. Always has and always will be (at least on my horizon). We don't need to be 'sea to sea' by any stretch of the imagination. 70% of the population in the USA is in the viewing area of B10 football. Why court the other 30% when the incremental profit is not worth the expenditure to bring it in. (or the marginal utility of expansion for you economists)

:gobucks3::gobucks4::banger:
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top