Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[Hawk Spielman]

The problem is the uneven revenue sharing hasn't worked that I'm aware of. It was the reason Arkansas left the SWC (and basically killed it), and it was the reason UNL and Colorado left the B12. If your Baylor/Indiana your fine getting whatever peace of the pie you can get. However, if your an OSU, UM, Wiscy, UNL etc....you have a bit of a problem with Texas getting more money than you are.

An even bigger problem is the take over type of tactics that thy use in the Big 12 and are attempting to to an new conference. Texas and the voting block they will bring with them will attempt to control the direction of whatever conference they join.

Sorry they (or anyone else) just aren't worth that type of headache imo.

 

[ghost of tibor]

Equal sharing works because the teams realize their collective worth is much more than they would be as individuals. This is why Indiana gets more money than ND. If Texas wants more, tell them to F-off and make it as an independent. They dont deserve more than Indiana, because as a Big 10 member, their worth is mainly as a member of a Big 10, not because they are Texas.

 

[MaxBuck]

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.

There are plenty of CUSA teams who would be pleased to be members of the new (Big ) 12. Tulsa, Memphis, Houston, SMU are all potential members who would not countermand the apparent Texascentricity that the putative remaining members would insist upon. TCU might conceivably bolt from the MWC.

 

[MaxBuck]

6-5-2010 Director's Cup Standings

2. OSU
3. Virginia
8. PSU
10. Minn
13. A&M
14. Nebraska
15. Wisc
17. ND
18. Maryland
19. Texas
21. Mich
29. MSU
36. Ill
40. IU
46. NW
47. Pur
48. Ga Tech
52. Syracuse
54. Missouri
55. Iowa
61. UConn
88. Rutgers
93. Pitt
98. Kansas

In a nutshell, UVa's position on this list is the major reason that, absent any interest from either ND or Tejas, the University of Thomas Jefferson is the next one I'd like to see in the Big Ten. Their academics are first-rate as well. Add UVa and Duke or Maryland or Rutgers and call it a day (not that Duke would ever leave the ACC).

 

[Woody1968]

There are plenty of CUSA teams who would be pleased to be members of the new (Big ) 12. Tulsa, Memphis, Houston, SMU are all potential members who would not countermand the apparent Texascentricity that the putative remaining members would insist upon. TCU might conceivably bolt from the MWC.

Then you'd basically have the old SWC with Oklahoma replacing the role of Arkansas. Texas didn't have a problem with being in a conference with 2 other halfway decent teams (A&M and Arky) and a assload of glorified mid-majors (TCU, SMU, Baylor, Rice Houston). The old Big 8 had two football powerhouses in Oklahoma and Nebraska, plus one on the rise in Colorado (fail). Like some have noted, Colorado is around until 2012. BYU is their best bet to get to join in 2011, keep a conference championship game and find someone else to replace colorado with in 2012. Colorado State would even keep the smae footprint.

 

[Oh8ch]

Concessions to UT don't have to be in the form of uneven revenue sharing across the board.

Reportedly one of the sticking points is Texas desire to play fewer conference games so they could maintain traditional rivalries and still play a few weak sisters at home every year. There are ways to accommodate this. Even with a 16 team conference you could play as few as 7 conference games and yet make sure everybody played everyone else over a period of years by forming dynamic divisions based on prior year records.

We could also allow Texas - or any school that wanted to - to keep all of their TV revenue from a small number of non-conference games and not share in the Big Ten pot for those games. A school like Indiana would be hurt by that proposal for those specific games but would more than make up for it from the benefit of having Texas in the conference (the Tiger Woods syndrome).

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.

Well said, and I fully agree. Any enthusiasm I show for what is happening is based on a desire to see the Big Ten end up in a strong position in what is a fait accompli.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

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.

But those are the conditions of Big Ten membership in today's world. I wouldn't begrudge UT making an initial query about special treatment. When shot down, however, it's time to drop it!....not simply move onto the next Machiavellian scheme in their playbook. If Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State (the former two having largely built this conference into what it is today!) can all accept IU getting an equal share then Texas can god damn so as well

No Concessions! No [censored]ing Concessions!

 

[Woody1968]

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.

True to an extent, but you also have new rivalries developing, and that can build strength over time - PSU/MSU has been a wash, but look at PSU/Iowa. Other rivalries have disappeared despite the teams remaining in the same conference - Nebraska/Oklahoma is due to conference divisions, but Ohio State's second biggest rivalry was traditionally Illinois. That has lost luster on its own.

 

[broken24]

Here is a great post from a Texas fan (daddylew) on the NW board.

Q: Why in the world would the Big Ten agree to add OU?

A: A number of reasons.

First, I think it?s important to look at the combination of Texas and OU. Are Texas and OU as a package similar in academic quality to the average school in the Big Ten? My answer: definitely. As a package, I do not believe that Texas + OU would dilute the academic quality of the conference. I also agree that one option would be to exclude OU from the CIC until they obtain AAU membership (at a minimum).

Secondly, it is important to remember that without OU or A&M, the Big Ten will almost certainly be unable to land Texas. Others have noted that some Big Ten schools held their nose a bit in order to admit Nebraska, but at the end of the day Nebraska was admitted. The conference essentially decided that the benefit of adding Nebraska was worth the cost of a minor dilution in academic quality. The same logic applies here: does the benefit of adding OU and Texas outweigh the costs? From an athletic standpoint and a revenue maximization standpoint, I don?t think there is any question that OU + Texas would be a huge benefit to the Big Ten. Is there an academic cost? Yes. However, as noted above, the academic package of Texas plus OU would not be a huge net loss to the conference.

Finally, as a number of people have mentioned, the addition of OU and Nebraska will force both schools to place a higher emphasis on academics. OU would probably be thrilled to obtain membership in the Big Ten, and the other schools in the conference will be incentivized to collaborate with OU and help them to raise their academic profile. This will be ultimately beneficial to both schools and to the economies of both states. No one is asking the Big Ten to be benevolent, but I do think this would be nice.

I tend to agree with his take that Texas's positives outweigh OU's negatives. Or at the very least balance them out. My view is that while OU's academics is a complete strike out their athletics is a HR and couple that with Texas as a HR in academics and athletics thats 3 for 4 with three HRs. Not that bad.

Hopefully OU, with the Big Ten's academic resources, would be able to improve rather quickly.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Agreed. You're looking at this as a business proposition instead if a liberal arts major. Refreshing.

Bullshit! The Big Ten model of equitable partnership is what has made this conference the model of stability and prosperity that it is today--while allowing us to maintain our academic standards. The Texas model of carving out special financial and other considerations for themselves has imploded two conferences in less than 20 years. If that's good long term business strategy, I want NO part of it.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

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

I understand fully with what you're saying, which is why I strongly believe that if it is to succeed, we need to stick with what brung us--the Big Ten way of doing things. The Texas way has already been tried twice--with the SWC and Big 12, and it destroyed both those conferences.

 

[Oh8ch]

But those are the conditions of Big Ten membership in today's world. I wouldn't begrudge UT making an initial query about special treatment. When shot down, however, it's time to drop it!....not simply move onto the next Machiavellian scheme in your playbook. If Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State (the former two having largely built this conference into what it is today!) can all accept IU getting an equal share then Texas can god damn well do so also.

But we don't have the same leverage over Texas as the existing members. And while those are the "conditions of Big Ten membership in today's world" they don't have to be so in tomorrow's world.

I want Texas. And if you have ever cut your hair or thrown out that black velvet nude in your apartment living room in order to get laid you know exactly how concessions work.

If you think it is a better idea to get Rutgers instead so that everyone can have the same size slice of pie - even though that slice is smaller than the slice each school would get after giving Texas concessions - you and I have a different business sense.

Chest thumping and football comes later. This is business.

 

[Class'13]

With Nebraska and PSU, the Women's Volleyball Title may never leave the Big 10 again.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

If you think it is a better idea to get Rutgers instead so that everyone can have the same size slice of pie - even though that slice is smaller than the slice each school would get after giving Texas concessions - you and I have a different business sense.

I absolutely would prefer Rutgers under Big Ten terms over Texas under Texas terms. Texas terms have proven twice in the last twenty years to destroy a conference.

The Big Ten and SEC both treat all members completely equally. Both, coincidentally, happen to be the most stable and profitable conferences in the land. All others are scrambling to, at best, catch up financially and, at worst, survive. Perhaps there is something to be said for the long term business sense of those two over the get rich quick scheme that was the Big XII.

 

[jwinslow]

I want Texas. And if you have ever cut your hair or thrown out that black velvet nude in your apartment living room in order to get laid you know exactly how concessions work.

Until you marry her and she blackmails you with threats of divorce every year.