Is the Big Ten too late to the expansion party?

Submitted by CollegeFootball13 on

I know the Big Ten was the 'pioneer' conference as far as big time expansion goes, as they were in the talks about it last year, but it looks as if the Pac-10 has taken quite a few of the biggest programs in the running while the Big Ten is merely on the cusp of bringing in Missouri.

According to all the main sources on the topic, "Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Colorado" are all expected to join the Pac-10, leaving.. who exactly for the Big Ten?

It's looking like Missouri is a done deal, maybe Nebraska (but the Big Ten hasn't yet extended them an offer) (EDIT- Swap those teams), maybe Notre Dame, but no big name schools outside of South Bend look like they're heading our way in the near future. I suppose we could snag a team or two from the Big East, but the Big Ten will be nothing like the Pac-10 if the current predictions hold true.

Pac-10 has the traditional powerhouses of the West, and now adds Texas and Oklahoma?! Not to mention Tech and A&M and Oklahoma State.

I guess what I'm asking is, assuming what the sources say holds true, and the Pac-10 gets the better half of the Big 12.. what's the best possible outcome for the Big Ten?

Please don't tell me it's Notre Dame..

Michigan_Mike

June 10th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

We don't want Texas. Texas is going to rape the Pac 10 just like they did to the Big 8. Texas does not believe in other conference members being equal to them as the Big 10 values so much. They don't fit with us and would just take over the conference and destroy anyone in their way like they did to Nebraska.



If we pull Notre Dame and Missouri to round out to 14 I would consider that successful expansion. We would add two of the top 5 teams in all time wins.

CollegeFootball13

June 10th, 2010 at 12:01 PM ^

Your point is taken, but I'm kind of getting tired of this "Yeah, but look at how good we are ALL-TIME!" mentality. Nebraska is 24-15 over the last three years, and Notre Dame is 16-21. Missouri is 30-11, which is great, but I don't like the justification about how good the Big Ten will be because Nebraska and Notre Dame are top five in all time wins, when they're last few seasons have been mediocre at best..

CollegeFootball13

June 10th, 2010 at 12:12 PM ^

Is that really what you think I'm saying? Man, I know it's pretty unaccepted when someone goes against the grain on these boards, but all I'm saying is all-time record is great. I'm just saying because they're in the top five of all time wins doesn't mean they're the best fit for the Big Ten. Anyone that thinks they'd have the draw and positive impact on the Big Ten that a Texas or Oklahoma or Notre Dame would is crazy.

Beavis

June 10th, 2010 at 11:56 AM ^

What part of Missouri is a done deal?  Did you miss out on the "cold shoulder" evidence yesterday, or have you read something today that has you thinking this?

maizenbluenc

June 10th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^

I think the Big Ten is right in the middle of this. According to other posts, Texas and A&M are both deciding today whether Pac Ten, Big Ten or in A&M's case SEC. It will be interesting to see what they decide - the money (both sports and research) is better with the Big Ten. Pac Ten solves the "Tech" problem though. Plus Oklahoma goes with them to the Pac Ten, and the Pac Ten is being counched as a merger (which would go better on Texas' ego).

You have to believe the Pac Ten route puts the TV money in place. Question is how much does academics play into this.

oakapple

June 10th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^

Assuming the reports are correct, the Big Ten has snagged Nebraska, which was one of the three biggest fish available (ND and Texas being the other two). The Longhorns were never any more than a remote possibility, and the Irish remain available.

MichiganStudent

June 10th, 2010 at 11:59 AM ^

What are you talking about? Looks like Nebraska is a done deal and Missouri is on the outside looking in.

david from wyoming

June 10th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^

Please don't tell me it's Notre Dame..

Why would a conference NOT want Notre Dame? Huge alumni base, viewership around the nation and around the world, top tier academics, and more history and tradition than you can shake a stick at.

Texas may have been a slightly more wanted school, but if the second place prize is ND, the big ten wins and wins big.

Blue In NC

June 10th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^

Well I think ND + Neb is roughly equivalent to TX + Okla.  Then not getting CU, TAMU, OSU and Tech and replacing them with 3 other teams is probably a win.  So the Big 10 would have outdone or equalled the Pac10.  That is all assuming that ND joins.  If not, then I will agree that the Pac10 has outdone the Big10.

dahblue

June 10th, 2010 at 12:47 PM ^

One reason that ND isn't a good fit (if folks are being honest about conference roots and whatnot) is their religious affiliation.  Cal apparently vetoed Baylor because of religious affiliation in an otherwise non-religious conference.  The Big Ten (other than NW) is a public school conference without religious affiliation (NW has no affiliation).  Further, Notre Dame is not a member of the AAU.  How many times have we heard that all schools in the Big Ten must be AAU members?

Grabbing ND means grabbing a geographically close football power.  ND, as a school, is not at all like most of the Big Ten schools.  Texas is.

M2NASA

June 10th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^

ND in the past has avoided the AAU and CIC since they are secular education institutions.

The AAU would take ND in a second, but ND has been the one that has no been interested.

Ty Butterfield

June 10th, 2010 at 12:02 PM ^

Interesting points. I am not sure how this whole thing will end up. I have no problem with the Big 10 adding one team. Adding one team lets the Big 10 have a conference title game in football which I think is something that will benefit the conference as a whole. What I don't understand is making a 16 team superconference. It seems like the logistics would be too hard to handle. 16 teams seems like it would be unwieldy and take away some of the traditional games that we have grown accustomed to seeing. This situation is like a guy who is trying to convince himself that dating a stripper would be a good idea. He tells himself it will be okay, but deep down he knows that the whole thing will not end well. More does not necessarily equal better. I am sure that money is the motivating factor. However, as The Notorious BIG said: "the more money we come across the more problems we see".

MI Expat NY

June 10th, 2010 at 12:05 PM ^

If the Big Ten wanted to hit a Home Run, they had to have chaos.  The two home runs are obviously ND and Texas.  ND won't cave just to be part of a 12 team conference where the national landscape really doesn't change.  Texas couldn't break apart the Big 12 and screw Tech and Baylor.  To get either, the landscape (and specifically the Big 12) had to completely change. 

The Big Ten isn't late, it's right on schedule.  Not saying it will work in the long run, but if being the leader in the new era is going to happen, it has to happen in this way.

lhglrkwg

June 10th, 2010 at 12:08 PM ^

i think the fact that the big10 was there first is the only reason that the potential 6 team sweep is going to work. everyone thought nebraska/missouri was half out the door and i'm sure texas and some other big12 teams wanted to stay together. then comes the pac10 saying 'hey your conference is about to implode, how about all you sexy teams come stay at our place'. so we aren't late, the fact that we came in when we did is why we're looking at colorado, nebraska, and some others are already packing their bags

Wolverine96

June 10th, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^

Because, they didn't have to expand.  Without adding a team, the Big Ten already has 12 of the top 50 TV markets in their footprint.  The PAC-10 only has 7.  Without expanding they are not going to get a ton of TV money.  With the 6 teams from the Big 12 they will now have 13 or 14 of the top 50 markets, so they are just catching up to us.  Plus with the addition of Nebraska, the Big Ten could proabably make the arguement that St. Louis and Kansas City fall within their footprint.

 Also the Big Ten has a 5 year head start on a cable network. No startup costs to worry about, no growing pains, etc.  The Big Ten is still dealing from a position of strength and does not have to rush into the expansion game.  Sure it had to make a call as the Big 12 and PAC-10 pushed the issue, but it is not getting left behind or late in any way, shape or form.

Wolverine96

June 10th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^

Big Ten (Current): Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Columbus, Milwuakee, Harrisburg, Grand Rapids.

Big Ten w/ Nebraska:  St. Louis, Kansas City

PAC-10 (Current): Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Seattle, Sacramento, Portland, San Diego

PAC-16: Dallas, Houston, Denver, San Antonio, Oklahoma City, Austin and maybe Albequerque.

Source: http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp

Tacopants

June 10th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^

The Pac-10 schools can make a great football conference, however Oklahoma, OK State, and TTech are terrible academic schools.  The Big Ten has always made it clear that they wouldn't take on terrible academic schools.  We probably would have gladly taken Texas and A & M, but TTech was a dealbreaker.

1329 S. University

June 10th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^

from the Big East to make ND think about joining up. Texas would have been good for publicity but they'd never fit into the Big Ten culture for many many reasons.

If we can get Pitt and ND and make 14 it would be perfect IMO.

a2bluefan

June 10th, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^

This is far more about money than about which teams join which conferences, who's a powerhouse, etc.  I mean Rutgers??? Come on! The only reason Rutgers has come up is that they'd be the B10's foray into the NYC television market, coupled with apparently being an academic fit.

It appears that Notre Dame is about to realize that there's a risk of being left on the outside looking in, and there could be a significant financial advantage to joining the B10. However, because of how this has played out thus far, the B10 is in a position of not needing Notre Dame, because there are other big time programs interested, and one of them...Nebraska... is apparently already a done deal.  The B10 could stop right there, and things would work out just fine. Huge fan base added. BTN footprint expanded. Shitloads more money. And all of it could be made even bigger if ND joins, but I do think they'd then want to add a 14th team to keep it an even number if they split the conference into divisions.

IMO, It's about money first, academics second, geographic consideration third.  Football team "powerhouse" history is farther down the list somewhere, if on the list at all.

So no, the B10 is not late to the party. I'm pretty sure (and other reports have said as much) that Delaney has played this exactly as intended.

sharkhunter

June 10th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^

its 5 compadres to Pac10.  It would be a knee-jerk reaction without much contemplation.  The Pac10 will have to make perhaps triple in revenues to spread among its 16 members.  That is what makes Jim Delaney's  B10 apparent notion of slow expansion more feasible, careful and thoughtful.    Texas, TAMU, OU, OSU and Tech will bring lots of fans to the party but what will the Pac10 bring in terms of audience?  It has the lowest revenues among the top 4 conferences and is almost tied with the ACC and Big East.   And, now with USC post season ban, the Pac10 is crippled for at least 2 years and will make even less $$.  Listening to the Pac10 coaches interviews on the possible Pac16, most seem to think that it could be exciting but it is a departure from the traditional rivalries. 

Sven_Da_M

June 10th, 2010 at 12:54 PM ^

... nice analysis.



Unless you get more championship slots by having 16 teams, it's better to have 12 (or even 14) good ones.

I fail to believe in the Pac-16 scenario that Texas wants to have the same rev share as Washington State.  Texas has a priority share in the Big 12, or so I've heard.  That's one thing that's pissed off Nebraska ever since the Big 12 was formed.

I am beginning to think that Big Ten director Jim Delany is one hell of an evil genius.

 

 

sharkhunter

June 10th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^

Here is an old businessweek article I came across that was published pre BTN.  Comcast hadn't picked it up and it was considered a gamble to allow the BTN to be added on cable service.  Obviously Delany won Comcast over.  If Nebraska joins and ND and a couple of other "powerhouse" programs, the BTN will become a part of the regular cable package a la espn, fsn, etc, then the revenues would go through the roof if there is a proverbial roof to go through.

MikeUM85

June 10th, 2010 at 1:25 PM ^

The article Jedi links is indeed interesting. It posits Jim Delaney as a machiavellian mastermind, playing chess while his opponents played checkers. It suggests that his opposition to the Plus One playoffs was intended to starve the B12 of the revenues it needed to survive, forcing its disollution and the resultant conference realignment. 

It begs the question: once the realignment has happened and Delaney has his spoils, will he switch his view of playoffs?

ShockFX

June 10th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^

Late to the party?  The Big Ten is the one hosting the entire party.  Delany has directed this entire process in concert with the Pac-10(now Pac-11)

ShockFX

June 10th, 2010 at 2:18 PM ^

Not anymore, they are in separate rooms with cigars now.  But this has been planned for years.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/jun/06/meetings-end-with-leagu…

Two significant factors give the Pac-10 report some juice: The Pac-10 is already aligned with Fox Cable Networks, and with the Big Ten Network as a model — News Corporation, which operates the Fox networks, owns 49 percent of the BTN — an expanded Pac-10 could strike gold with a Fox network of its own. Also, Scott’s deputy commissioner is Kevin Weiberg, who not only has strong ties to the Big 12 from his time as the league commissioner but also helped launch the Big Ten Network during its early stages.