Big10 Expansion Possibilities
With the news that Texas was in talks with the Big10 about the possibility of joining, I started thinking about what the Big10 has in mind for the conference. There is no way that Texas would leave behind Oklahoma, not to mention any other in-state rivalries that exist. If the Big12 offered Michigan, we wouldn't leave our rivalry with OSU and probably not MSU either. That means the only way that we could get Texas into the Big10 is to bring Oklahoma and possibly A&M or Tech with them.
There has also been news that Missouri is listening to the Big10 and that Nebraska is interested. Imagine if Texas, Oklahoma, Tech/A&M, Missouri, and Nebraska were to join the Big10. We would be taking the best assets out of the Big12 and weaving them into the Big10 to make a 16-team super conference. If you throw Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota into that group, you have two very good divisions with two dominant powers to anchor either group.
This would also allow for 4 divisions of 4 and the possibility of a conference playoff, which would probably be the biggest draw for teams like Texas and Oklahoma to leave their current conference and become part of a much bigger, experimental conference. At this point, there is so much talk about the Big10 taking the next step in conference evolution, that I would be mildly disappointed if they were to merely add a single team to get the additional championship game at the end of the season.
Admittedly, this was brought up on WTKA Friday night. I had thought of making this post last week, but I thought it might be too much speculation. Once I realized that others were thinking of an almost identical situation, I thought I would post to see what other thought about it. Most seem to think that 14 is a bad idea and 16 is ludicrous, but I can't help but think that this is what the Big10 is looking to create and they might actually be on to something with it.
February 15th, 2010 at 10:42 AM ^
Going past the sports fan in me, the Big Ten will only ask schools to join that are up to the academic standards. Texas passes the muster but I am not sure about the others. Missouri possibly but I am having doubts about the other Texas teams or Oklahoma.
I don't think having 14 or even 16 is unthinkable but whatever the expansion is, it will fit the academic profile of the Big Ten. As sports fans, we tend to overlook this but I don't think the university presidents or the Big Ten officials are.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:13 AM ^
Academics are a lot more important than people understand. Academic prestige is worth literally billions of dollars. Our Athletic Department makes a nice profit and does a lot for Michigan, but graduate level research brings in a lot more.
As an example, at my research lab, we have 23 full time staff and faculty, a pack of graduate students (their numbers change) and we have about 20 million in grants right now (for multiyear studies, etc). Overall the Health System is a multibillion dollar enterprise, plus all the research money brought in by College of Engineering and LSA.
Athletics are the public face of the University, but graduate level research just blows it out of the water in terms of the money that it brings out. Our massive hospital wasn't built by football ticket revenue.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
Everyone is underestimating the academics on both sides.
Texas might very well leave Oklahoma behind (they'll still play OOC games) if it means membership in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC).
The importance of CIC membership cannot be overstated. It's like getting the biggest research grant on the planet.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:02 PM ^
And surely membership in the CIC would be attractive to any prospective member. However, in looking at the CIC site and the wikipedia entry, it appears to me that the primary advantages are in resource sharing and collaboration; I didn't come across any indication that membership automatically means a huge increase in research funds. I think individual schools still have to go after those themselves.
Getting back to the larger issue of academics, that's one reason I think Pitt is a real serious candidate. Of the three BEast schools being mentioned, it's generally ranked higher on a variety of measures than either Rutgers or Syracuse, and their medical school/research program is especially highly regarded. It's also considerably higher in ranking than Missouri or Nebraska, and is not far behind Texas, from what I read today. I know the issues of footprint and stadium issues are present for Pitt, but any school that's mentioned has at least one significant drawback.
Regarding Texas, one other factor that I think will prevent any move to the B10 is the fact that virtually all their recruits (in football, at least) are from the state of Texas. With the current configuration of the conference, the longest road trip is to Ames for Iowa State, which means that Texas parents wanting to see their kids compete can feasibly do so for the majority of conference games and meets. You move Texas to the B10 and all of a sudden it's only the OOC A&M and OK competitions that are remotely close, with Iowa being the next closest at over 800 miles away. Factor that in with the fact that Texas would be leaving one of the nation's premier baseball conferences to join a much weaker conference in that sport way up in the north, and you've got some powerful arguments from the athletic side against a move, regardless of the financial and academic arguments. It's really a balancing of different factors—athletic, academic, and financial— and the selected school is going to have to make sense in all areas, not just one or two. No school is going to be selected purely for academics just as no school is going to be chosen purely for athletics, and the money has to be there. There's not a school that's an obvious slam dunk on all accounts, IMHO.
February 15th, 2010 at 3:58 PM ^
This is akin to backing down from a fight/Not taking on all comers etc. but as we all just saw with their 12 commitments on junior day, incredible recruiting classes which come with ease since they rarely have to leave the state of Texas, I simply don't want any. Its hard enough in a state that simply does NOT produce enough talent such that the coaching staff has to go mining other states to get top tier talent. Its worse that we already have OSU that can primarily recruit their own state and be strong. To add Texas to the conference would, in my eyes, likely put an obstacle in the way that we likely would rarely overcome. I suspect OSU and Texas and sometimes Penn State would be slugging it out most years and we would likely be relegated to what Iowa and Purdue are used to, some years we make a run, some years we suck and once every decade or two the chips will fall right and we're contenders.
I know there are obviously exceptions to the whole notion of being a powerhouse just because the state you're in is a high school powerhouse (see Alabama, Oregon to some extent). That said, Texas is the absolute posterchild for this phenomenon and I'd sooner take my chances with only dealing with them when we get to a National Championship game and at least have a legitimate shot at our own conference championship each year.
IF we expanded (and I'm personally not in favor unless ND joined) I still vote for a Missouri, Syracuse, or just about anyone else BUT Texas.
February 20th, 2010 at 6:11 PM ^
Add Texas, Ga. Tech and Pitt
Fine Undergrad institutions - #47, #35 and #56, respectively
Great Medical Schools - #53, N/A and #13, respectively (research)
Great Engineering Schools - #10, #4 and #49, respectively
And in terms of sports:
Great TV Markets - 5+ top 100 in Texas, Atlanta is #9 and Pittsburgh is #22.
Football - Huge, Solid, Solid
Basketball - Huge, Solid, Huge
And the footprint? Well... geography is so yesterday.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
Indeed, there are only a handful of schools in each conference that would be a good match for the Big 10. The ACC is, interestingly, top-to-bottom more than a match.
If have any faith in the US News and World Report rankings, here are the candidates (in order of appearance, with at least some consideration given to geography but none to likelihood of a positive response to overtures from the Big 10):
* Duke (NW of the ACC)
* Rice (far away, but Texas is being discussed, so...)
* Vanderbilt (NW of the SEC)
* ND
* UVa (IMO one of the best matches)
* UNC (another good one)
* Wake Forest (with BC, ND-ish because of its religious angle)
* BC
* GTech (another ACC school that matches well)
* Texas
* Maryland
* Pitt
* Syracuse
* Texas A&M
Just beyond you're hitting the bottom of the Big 10. Beneath that point are Nebraska, Oklahoma, and (even farther) Texas Tech. If academics are the least bit important, I can't see adding any of those schools (mega-conference aside).
Notice I didn't touch the SEC (G0d's conference). Amazing but true, schools other than Vanderbilt (Florida and Georgia) are academic peers to the Big 10's center.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:27 AM ^
Texas, Texas A&M, Nebraska and Missouri are all AAU members.
February 20th, 2010 at 5:56 PM ^
Yes, ACC is interesting indeed... after cross referencing "school rankings" with television markets to assess the 2 most important qualifications (academics and TV footprint expansion) I found a list of 7 schools that should be courted by the Big 10, in this order:
First, the summary (Stats at bottom)- Texas, Ga. Tech, Pitt, Virginia AND Va Tech, Notre Dame, Boston College. (I think the Virginias really should only be considered in a package deal... just a gut feeling.)
Best Case for 12th Team: Texas
Best Case for 14 Team: Texas, Ga Tech and Pitt
2nd Best 14 Team: Texas, Virginia and Va Tech
Best Case for 16 Team: Texas, Ga Tech, Pitt, Virginia and Va Tech
2nd Best 16 Team: Ga Tech, Pitt, Virginia and Va Tech, Notre Dame
NOTE: Texas, Ga. Tech and Pitt would be a great mix of football and basketball teams to acquire. In fact, this is now officially my favorite scenario: dominant academics, dominant TV exposure, dominant football acquisition, and dominant basketball acquisition... wow maybe the new conference can be named the Big Dominance.
-
Texas - 5+ top 100 TV; #47 Undergrad; #53 Medicine (Research); #10 Engineering; massive reach in Texas
-
Ga Tech - #9 TV in Atlanta; #35 Undergrad; #4 Engineering
-
Pitt - #22 TV in Pittsburgh; #56 Undergrad; #13 Medicine (Research); #49 Engineering; wraps up Pennsylvania
-
Virginia and Va Tech as a package - 4+ top 100 TV; #24 and #71 Undergrad; #24 Medicine (Research); #27 and #37 Engineering; wraps up Virginia plus access to D.C.
-
Finally: if absolutely needed, take Notre Dame (who would make a terrible contributor to research....) If Notre Dame is still as lame as they were when I woke up this morning, then take BC.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
16-team conferences have already been tried. The WAC couldn't make it work. Here's the problem. 1, you have a conference that big, you might as well have two conferences anyway, because there are only eight conference games and you'd skip seven other schools every year.
2, let's say you add Texas. You now have the entire Texas TV market. Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin, the works, and all the revenue that comes with it. You then invite Texas A&M, you don't get one single extra household, but you do have one more school you have to share the revenue with. And as a corollary to the revenue thing, even a 16-team BCS conference like the Big Ten probably isn't going to send enough teams bowling to offset the costs of revenue-sharing among so many teams.
3, this has been gone over before. Texas has already once upon a time had an OOC rivalry with Oklahoma and they'd do so again. That's not a consideration.
The only talk of a 14- or 16- team conference has been idle speculation by media and fans. At least when they talk about Texas (though it's still not happening) it's come from inside and not outside the process.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:32 AM ^
The talk has been to add an additional conference game. Even Brian did it in his 14 team setup.
The WAC won't succeed with a 16 team setup because none of those programs because none of those teams had anything that a national market is looking for.
The argument being made for A&M on the radio the other day was that the Texas legislature would never allow Texas to leave in-state rivalries behind which is why I included them. For all I care, they could leave A&M behind and bring in Pitt as the last team.
I know that most of the speculation of 14 or 16 teams has come from the media and fans, but, as I recall, they have said nothing is out of question at this point and they are looking to take the next step in conference evolution.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:54 AM ^
They've never said anything about taking the next step in conference evolution. About the only thing they've said to that effect is "anything is possible," which is a throwaway quote similar to "taking it one game at a time" and not code for "we want 16 teams."
And if you add a conference game, so what? You still skip six teams. I believe the way Brian put it was that you're not so much a conference any more as a loose confederation. Especially if you group up into divisions. That's not a conference, that's the AFL and NFL.
Plus, adding a conference game is a revenue disaster, especially for the bigger teams. You're taking away one non-conference game, which means the loss of a home game's worth of revenue as well as the opportunity to feed on a baby seal and get yourself bowl-eligible. That would exacerbate the problem of not sending enough extra teams to bowls to offset the extra revenue-sharing you have to do.
The whole problem with this notion of a superconference is that it's borne of the same fallacious thinking that leads to impractical gumdrop rainbow playoff proposals. You're starting with the goal of a superconference and trying to twist the realities to make it work. Remember the equation proposed by whatever that blog was that broke down the expansion possibilities: 11 + 1 = 13, or expansion is a no-go. Trying to go the 16-team route, you end up with 11 + 5 = 14. Not gonna happen. There's only one thing you've proposed that would make 11 + 5 = greater than 16, and that's the idea of a conference playoff; intriguing, but I don't think the NCAA's rules allow it.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Just to clarify, I am not saying that this is the way that it should be or I think that it will actually end this way. I think it would be fun to see how it plays out and I am merely putting several bits of information together. If the Big10 wanted this, I am sure they would find a solution with teams that fit. If it helps makes things easier, what if the teams being added were Texas, Missouri, Pitt, BC, ND. Then the money academic issues go away, each team (aside from Pitt) brings a new market, etc. I only chose the Big12 teams because all except A&M have been mentioned as the extra team. Combining the Big10 and Big 12 seemed like it was a decent way to bring up the topic.
As for the rules, they are easily altered. If the Big10 went to the NCAA with the proposition of a 16 team conference which required an additional week for playoffs, I think the NCAA would at least be willing to listen to their proposal.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:05 PM ^
No, the money issues don't go away at all. A 16-team conference has all the same revenue sharing problems whether the 16th team is Oklahoma, Pitt, or Florida Atlantic. The only one you take away is the one about overlapping markets. The CCG will only bring in a finite amount of revenue, which decreases per team the more teams you add. The loss of a home game is still an issue, as is the loss of bowling opportunities.
As for the rules, they are easily altered.This is exactly the kind of thinking that I'm talking about, that results in these impractical ideas. You have a pet idea and want to twist the rules into shape to make it work. That's backwards thinking. "The rules are easily altered," is a copout that lets people come up with whatever fairyland they want college football to turn into, whether it be a national title playoff, a 15-game season (which your conference playoff idea requires), or a free Mercedes for every player. Try making it work within the framework of existing realities rather than altering whatever you like to suit your purposes.
February 15th, 2010 at 1:42 PM ^
Championship week didn't exist until they added a rule stating that 12 teams are necessary to have a championship and this is the weekend it will be on.
Booth review didn't exist until rules were changed to support it.
The BCS did not exist before someone came up with the idea of putting number 1 and 2 against each other. The formula to decide 1 & 2 has changed almost every year since the BCS started.
If there is enough support, enough demand, and enough money to be brought in to try something new, then it will get done.
Adding 2 additional playoff games to get the CCG adds more revenue to split amongst schools and adding more games for the Big10 each week adds more games that BTN can pick up. Also, by adding markets, each game becomes more valuable to advertisers.
If Texas were to leave the Big 12 for the Big10, the Big 12 is essentially done. If we pull any one team from the Big East, especially one of their main market schools, it is essentially done. The other teams in those conferences will be looking for a new home.
I understand the idea is extremely far-fetched, but it would not be impossible to pull it off.
February 15th, 2010 at 2:21 PM ^
And how many games are we going to play in a season? Are we going to go to the conference playoff format so as to add a 15th game, and then go to an eight team national title playoff to add a 16th, 17th, and 18th game? Sometimes we have the rules for a reason, you know. Again: you can't just treat them as temporary. The inertia that had to be overcome for all those changes you mention was incredible. It didn't just happen. And for every change to the rule book, there are a million bright ideas that didn't happen.
And your premise that these other conferences are toast if we grab someone from them is unbelievably inaccurate. The Big East didn't fold up and die when it lost BC, VT, and Miami. It just added three more teams. Why would it fold up and die if it loses another? It'll just go get Memphis. And you can forget what would happen if Texas departs the Big 12, because it's not happening. You might as well envision the Big Ten minus Michigan.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:14 AM ^
Why stop there.
Why not add Florida and Southern Cal to make the ultimate super conference (the USC). The USC could have 18 teams and own all the other conferences.
Florida would join because Michigan is the pipeline for their assistant coaches, and Southern Cal would join because the USC would give free SUVs to its members.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^
This might not work, as the B10 is trying to increase revenue, and adding 5 more teams would only mean that they are dividing the pie 5 more times instead of just 1. Texas looks so great because they add the entire southwest region. Adding A&M, Tech, OK and others would be counterproductive as they all have the same market, and now you have to divide the extra revenue from that market between all of those teams. So, if B10 teams are currently making $18+ mil per year, and Texas would increase this to an additional 8 mil per team, give or take based on early estimates, you take the horns and run. But if all other teams come with them, and you have to divide revenue equally, The only other significant market is Mizzou, and as has already been discussed on here, that market is divided between Mizzou, Kansas, ILL and others. I don't see that much of an increase in revenue when all of these teams are added. However, going the way of only adding Pitt, you won't see a large increase in revenue either. So I guess it is something to look at, but while adding another team would be to generate more revenue, adding 5 just be spreading the money too thin, therefore making expansion pointless. As the WAC may have already showed us, 16 teams may just be too many for one conference.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:24 AM ^
A 16 team "super" conference would never work in the BCS era. Let's just say the Big 10 adds Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, Tech, and Nebraska. You then have those 5 schools along with the rest of the Big 10 fighting for 1 BCS automatic birth. Too much for each school to loose.
I wouldn't want to see this happen just for the sake of parody. Besides the SEC, the rest of the college football world would be boring.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:42 AM ^
The talk on the radio the other day was that a BCS conference is going to eventually do this and when it works out, the others will follow. They were speculating that 4 16-team conferences would emerge and the BCS would be gone. I think that would be fantastic, but I don't necessarily think it will happen exactly like that.
February 15th, 2010 at 4:25 PM ^
I wouldn't want to see this happen just for the sake of parody
Agree - it's not worth a laugh.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:29 AM ^
This has been mentioned before, but I think some people forget they have only been in the same conference for about 15 years. They played nonconference games for ~80 years before that, but the real problem is the rivalry with A&M. Scheduling both Oklahoma and A&M as nonconference games would be tough, but other than those 2 teams Texas doesn't care much about the rest of the Big 12
February 15th, 2010 at 11:49 AM ^
They can and will leave it at some point. The smart conference will pick them up. I hope it's the Big Ten.
And we don't need no stinking "Super Conference"--that is fan wishful thinking to the nth degree, and it's silly.
We saw how careful the Big Ten was in adding an 11th member, and it's taken nearly twenty years for them to really decide on a 12th team.**Edit: Other than Notre Dame.
Now people think they're gonna go all will-nilly, katy bar the door, and invite just about anybody wth a pulse?
It will be ONE team. Either Texas, Notre Dame, or Nebraska/Missouri and that will be the end of it.
February 15th, 2010 at 11:41 AM ^
for the reasons offered above by Barwis and Wahoo. It will be one team only, whoever it is. Unless ND does an about-face in attitude, my money is still on one of the teams from the Big East.
February 15th, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
and let's be honest, when isn't it?
You make the most by adding:
1) Texas (you get the huge Texas market--Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, etc...)
2) Notre Dame (doesn't pick up regional TV markets, but rather huge nationally)
3) Syracuse (dominates NY market--far more popular than Rutgers in NYC)
4) Mizzou (Kansas City & St. Louis markets)
You take them in that order...if any of the top 3 declines, you move on to Mizzou.
Pitt doesn't add any $$, since BTN already has PA.
A&M doesn't add any $$, since you'd already have UT
Oklahoma adds little...who cares about Tulsa and OKC?
Nebraska adds little...who cares about Omaha, Lincoln, or anything in the Dakotas?
February 15th, 2010 at 12:21 PM ^
Would you take A&M if it was a package deal with Texas?
February 15th, 2010 at 12:40 PM ^
From "Frank The Tank's Blog":
"Even more importantly, there are diminishing financial returns for each school that is added after number 12. The magic of school #12 is that the Big Ten is able to stage a conference championship game at that point, where if it’s worth something close to the SEC version, such game would bring in about $15 million per year. That’s an instant $15 million pop from that 12th school without even taking into account new regular season TV revenue. The conference won’t see that type of pop from any additional schools and, in fact, it’s likely that the value of that championship game won’t change with additional members – it’s going to be worth $15 million whether the Big Ten has 12 teams or 14 teams, so each school is obviously going to take in less from that game if the conference goes up to 14 teams."
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/big-ten-expansion-index-fo…