Please just let the horse die in peace.
Can Big 10 Expand?
the aggies are voting today whether or not to pursue SEC membership
there have been rumors about FSU joining?
this horse is barely out of the starting gates
that the SEC has declined to extend them an invitation and will not be expanding.
Aggies did not ask b/c their chancellors did not vote yet
SEC could not offer b/c aggies did not ask
aggies did not apply for membership yet
the texas a&m board of regents meets today
What happened was the sec chancellors said no they will not give a invite to A&M at this time, they went on to say they would reconsider if another team shows serious intrest because they do not want a 13 team conf.
There is no shortage of schools that would like to join the SEC. I've heard that UGA, UF and USC have banded together to keep out Clemson, FSU and GT. That leaves VT as the most likely candidate to be #14.
"Slow day"?? It was just confirmed that the sky is falling!
I would have to put my top 4 as:
Minnesota - Duluth
University of Denver.
That would make us way stronger...
Or division 2 teams?
We are not expanding for the immediate future, give it a rest.
Incidentally, UNC is a decent football school as well, but there is no chance in hell we take Kansas.
Football is money.. think about ti this way. You average about 15 home games a season. If you take Syracuse , the biggest college bball crowd, at averageing about 23K/game thats 345 K fans.
8 home football games at michigan net almot 900K fans. Thats just ticket sales.
I don't see A&M as all that attractive. They add travel costs for everyone in their division and are a small fish in the Texas pond. I don't think having A&M in the conference helps much with recruiting in Texas (A&M already can't recruit against Texas). All they really give us are some more B10 network subscriptions from A&M alums. We could get the same from ND's extremely large fanbase without having to up conference travel costs.
I think if Comcast keeps exiling ND off to Versus and shows a lack of interest in renewing their lucrative deal when the time comes, then ND considers joining. At that point we pillage the B12 North for something to get us the Saint Louis TV market (Missouri or Kansas). It's a decent size market without expanding anyone's travel costs significantly. A 14 team B1G wouldn't be terrible if we're also playing 9 conference games a year (and not bad at all if we take it up to 10 confernence games). You'd have 4 years off teams in the other division at a time.
Of course the network executives still might have the "Rutgers gets us New York" dream. I think that's foolish. Having every single Michigan, ND, and tOSU alum in NYC demanding the BTN does a lot more to get it on basic cable than Rutgers does.
I think I prefer Kansas to Mizzou
I agree that Kansas is more attractive. The only issue is the rumor that KU can't leave KSU behind if it goes somewhere else (the state government knows that KSU could never get into a decent conference on its own). Missouri on the other hand comes without any strings attached.
Why is Kansas more attractive. If you get Missouri then you get a good football and basketball team with strong academics adding the KC market. Kansas only has a good basketball program and everything else sucks ass.
I really don't think ten conference games is possible. Maybe if you added an exhibition game in place of a 1-AA opponent or got the SEC and Pac to go along with it, but that's a really tall order either way.
unless the NCAA adds games. I think 3 OOC games is too few as it is.
1. University of Phoenix Phoenicians
2. DeVry University Falcons
3. Walsh College Fighting Suits
4. ITT Tech Technicians
just keep working hard toward that GED and you'll eventually get into one of those schools.
NTTS (National Tractor Trailer School)
My dream 4: Greendale Community College, City College, GRCC, and Muskegon Community College.
How bout Davenport? Real solid in rugby.
The only question is whether they contract to four or if there are enough "opponents" to fill out ninety teams in five conferences.
right now its all about the legaleese..TV conctracts, ESPN..law suits etc etc etc..Those have to be ironed out first..I read a very Intricate complicated set of legal issues as a result of ESPN TV contracts with the SEC and B12...conflict of interest, who asked who first? Is ESPN encouraging the SEC which it has a contract with to raid the BIG 12 which whom it has a contract with ,payout increases and decreases..trust me its Complicated.....This is just a STALL for time..Its happening Folks.....This will start the flood gates opening..I Hope the Big 10 is ready to pounce...I think they are...I would not be the least surprised for 2-4 teams to be added within the next 6 months....we shall See
oh yeah if it were me? I would add ND, Mizzou, Ga Tech and BC...if No ND..Syracuse or Pitt
assuming OK is not available
BC isn't in the AAU, but it really could open up the northeast market
they would have to leave hockey east for the Big 10
will be The Premier College Hockey League or close to the top...I doubt they would let that be a road block....right now SEC B10 and PAC 12 are the most secure and lucrative leagues..If your league is about to get downgraded again why wouldnt you want to go to the B10...Schools are going to have to make decisions Quickly in the immediate future...
The Big Ten will be a middling league at best. With MSU down the shitter, Wiscy and Minny struggling at the moment, OSU being a shit team in general, and PSU being a startup, what exactly do you expect out of the Big Ten? HE and likely enough the NCHC will be much better.
You know the conference expansion thing is out of hand when teams are dismissed as being "too regional." Conferences exist BECAUSE of regions, not despite them.
meant that pitt falls within the existing footprint
does not open up any new markets...otherwise a very good fit
I would not mind pitt in a 16 team conference, just not my first choice
And why should fans care about whether a new market is opened up? That's for the bean counters. As a fan I want easy travel to games, decent regional rivalries, good competition that raises the cachet of my own loyalties, and schools that fit with each other well enough to compete. If I'm going to realistically assess which teams might join, fine, but as a fan if I'm creating a wish list I couldn't care less what the damn Nielsen ratings are.
The fact that they fall within the existing footprint is 100% a positive, not a dealbreaking negative.
While Duke and UNC would be nice for only basketball rights, the big bucks are in football broadcasting rights. A lot of the basketball big money is tied to the NCAA tourney and outside of the money now there is not a huge amount to be made in terms of basketball. I am without a doubt one of those people who want Notre Dame and Texas in the conference but I am skeptical that they will make the move anytime soon, and while i am satisfied with our conference now i will humor myself:
(1) Virginia Tech - not AAU but great academics, believe they would be willing to make the move, and think they're strength on the football field would fit in quite nice in the big ten - adding a school who in any given year could play in a bcs game.
(2) Oklahoma - though not an AAU school and wanted badly by the SEC, i believe their tradition and style of play fit perfectly in the Big Ten. Would bring a solid team with good fans and excellent tradition.
(3) Ga Tech or Mizzouri - would be mainly for broadcasting rights in two huge markets but i dont think they add the tradition and power we like seeing in the big ten. Geourgia may be a little too much out of the region but if they are looking to expand markets this would be big. Mizzou would take the offer in a second and would love to join the big ten.
(4) Texas/Notre dame - both would be great additions to the conference in every aspect, but is iffy that they will go/stay independant or make moves. If the conferences go the way of super conferences than Notre Dame would probably join a conference or if they get low-balled in negotiations for their next TV broadcasting and realize that they could make more money by joining a conference since they are not the powerhouse they used to be, then maybe they join.
My dream four would obviously be Texas, Va. Tech, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame - I believe this would be a true super-conference that could compete with the SEC. While many believe Mizzouri is likely to be one of the few chosen if the conference does expand i believe it would be solely for broadcasting in the Kansas city/St. Louis market which is quite large in terms of broadcasting numbers - i do not believe they add anything to our conference. Their football is somewhat average, as is basketball and i believe they would be a lower tier team in the big team that could not contribute in terms of tradition or being a powerhouse like Nebraska does. As soon as Texas realizes that their conference is going to break unless they add lackluster football schools like UTEP, they should split rather than waiting a bit longer for the inevitable to happen.
(1) Virginia Tech - not AAU but great academics
As compared to what?
It's not Duke, UVA or UNC, but it's comparable to most Big Ten schools and as good, if not better than some other schools most often mentioned. It has strengths and weaknesses, but it has a top 20 engineering school.
It's.....ok. Good engineering, not a great deal else, at least as compared to what the Big Ten typically offers. Actually what I really thought was amusing was the idea that VT has "great" academics while Georgia Tech brings nothing but a TV market. Makes me question the grasp on quality academics; GT is a far superior school to VT.
VT- $1.6b academic research 2004-2008 (good for sixth in the ACC [10th in current CIC])
GT- $2.72b academic research 2004-2008 (good for third in the ACC [6th in current CIC])
OU isn't coming and probably will have to carry their little brother, OState, with them, who we don't want anyway. My guess is that OU will end up in the PACnn when the dust settles. For some reason, those in Oklahoma regardless of complaining prefers the west coast over the southeast. They recruit heavily in both texass and California.
I don't mind Mizzou.
Another state market, and a decent sized one at that.
A natural rival for Illinois.
Competitive teams. Not the best, but still a decent addition to the schedule.
Remember that. Football is king.
I'm not so sure. Football is king, but would ESPN have offered the Big East $11 million per team to broadcast Big East football? Basketball does matter.
Notre Dame and Mizzou/Syracuse would be my preference. ND for obvious reasons, Mizzou for similar reasons as Nebraska (though on a lesser scale), and Syracuse for the NYC market. BC could be an interesting choice as well.
BC? Has no one paid attention to what they've delivered to the ACC?
This goes here now.
UNC? Duke? They'll never leave the ACC - they run that conference and in no way whatsoever will the NC legislature let them leave NC State and Wake behind.
Kansas? Seriously? Shitty academics, shitty football tradition, delivers absolutely nothing market-wise.
Virginia Tech? I'm amazed not just that someone brought them up, but that they actually think VT is a good school academically.
I'm amazed at how many dumbass, illogical schools are thrown out there.
is in the AAU
top b-ball school
.....ahead of Iowa, Indiana and Michigan State in US News & World Report rankings. That's 25% of the Big Ten is you're into math or things like that.
I just don't see how the league will go for a school like Syracuse; it's just too far away, and a big leap even from the next closest school (PSU). And, anyway, it's not exactly a football or rating powerhouse. The B10 doesn't want a dozen or so midwestern-ish schools, plus one in northern NY. That's silly and impractical. If the league expands, I bet it will do so incrementally: ND, Mizzou, Pitt, Kansas or the like.
I'm not even arguing for SU in that post, I'm more amazed at the complete lack of logic in some of these names being thrown out there.
And if the Big Ten goes east, it's not going to be just Syracuse - they'll likely surround NY with SU, UConn, Rutgers, etc. With ~19 million in the tri-state market, bringing in three schools to deliver it, is very much a moneymaking proposition even with the additional mouths to feed.
Well, let's see: Syracuse is
1. A better academic school than most of the other schools named
2. Popular enough in New York to get the BTN on Cablevision, which is what really matters in the NYC mrket (plus, if you spend any time there you know Syracuse is the default home team and not Rutgers)
3. A basketball powerhouse
4. Closer than many other schools named, especially when you factor in Canada being a thing
and therefore is a much better pull than any other east coast school. Seriously, would you take Rutgers over Syracuse? At least Syracuse is a couple of hours from a Great Lake and keeps things roughly regional.
If the Big Ten expands we don't want a bunch of crappy football schools like Syracuse, Rutgers, Kansas, and Duke when we could add schools like Mizzou, VT, ND. Why add a bunch of crappy Big East schools for the sake of it.
But this is a topic that really interests me. I am of the belief that there will be continued expansion and that there will be 4-5 conferences of 16-18 teams in the near future. As for the Big Ten, although there are a lot of options that exist. If I were to guess just for the fun of it as to who the 4 would be should the Big Ten go to 16 teams, these would be it:
Texas - They've already been told (or so that's what I've heard) that they could keep their Longhorn Network or whatever it's called if they joined the Big Ten. We also know that Texas was wanted by the Big Ten. Eventually, they'll move because the Big 12 is going to continue to get ransacked. There is one problem with them moving, and that is,
Texas Tech - The Texas State Legislature is not going to let Texas join another conference without their little brother coming along, therefore, I think they would be part of the expansion.
Notre Dame - I think they'll eventually have to join a conference, for a lot of reasons which have been listed on this thread. But, there's another reason that may develop as well. I don't know if this will ever be the case, but with superconferences, it might come to the point of a playoff and only conference winners would get in. This one's a longshot, but it could happen. We already know there's more money for ND to join the Big Ten with the BTN and profit sharing, so they may run out of excuses at some point.
Missouri/Rutgers - It could be Missouri, but by the looks of things, Missouri may get offered the SEC at some point. If not them, than I could see Rutgers, or actually even Pitt.
One of the more interesting things is trying to figure out where all of the pieces will fall. If Clemson, Missouri, Texas A&M and FSU all really did join the SEC, than the Big 10 and the Pac 12 would be forced to expand. Also, the Big East and the rest of the ACC would likely merge, leaving some remnants. The Big 12 wouldn't really exist anymore. Teams that could be struggling to find a conference could be: Kansas State, Louisville, Cincinatti, Iowa State. Who knows, but it could get really interesting.
After reading through all the diaries and posts of potential programs, if education, geographic footprint, existince of a legitimate football program and conference fit, and IF the B1G added 4 more teams, I would be surprised if it wasn't: ND, Pitt, Va Tech, and UVA.
Helps continue to push the footprint East while adding football progams which have the capability to compete and have some tradition. Unless you want to throw geographic footprint out the window, very few teams make any sense.
If you say that these will be the new Big Ten members, I believe you, because you can obviously see the future. ;-)
But really, until you can get someone to photoshop Hoke into that picture, it's Avatar fail. But if Chunkums or someone can fix it, it's complete win.
Jesus, please no teams that are in the south or Texas or whatever. Do you guys see what the SEC is doing? Expanding their TV footprint while never actually leaving their current region? They'll probably end up taking Texas Tech, NC State and Virginia Tech in addition to A&M.
3. Notre Dame
Adds New York State, thus gets us on NYC cable systems, but keeps the conference firmly in the Great Lakes region. Missouri is just a gret fit looking at a map.
Brian mentioned that none of the teams in New York are really good enough to capitalize on the market there, and I would have to agree with him. Syracuse and Rutgers are at best average, although I could see Mizzou or Pitt being added because they are respectable on the football field and are members of the AAU.
Syracuse has been down lately but they are a traditional power.
Syracuse went 8-5 and won a bowl last year. We got rid of Greg Robinson.
that assumes the idea is getting people in NYC excited about the local team... it's actually just an excuse to get the BTN on NYC cable systems to appeal to both alums in the city and locals who could potentially be Michigan, OSU, whatever fans.
Getting the best team possible isn't always the goal. Clay Travis, for example, says the SEC is considering Duke just to raise their academic profile. It's not about grabbing as many powerhouses as possible sometimes
I just don't think Syracuse brings enough pressure on the NYC cable providers to put the BTN on the digital tier. Syracuse and ND might, might do it, but Syracuse alone likely means BTN remains on the sports tier for Cablevision and Time Warner. Hell, both systems held out as long as possible on YES, and the Yankees carry infinitely more weight in NYC than college sports. Most people in NYC can get FIOS anyway if they want BTN on basic cable.
Current region is a mostly nonsense, IMO. If we're going by regions, than BC makes little sense being in the mostly southern ACC and TCU doesn't make sense in the Big East. Most will agree on that, but South Carolina and Texas have very little in common with eachother, too. Arizona and Oregon don't have much in common. I'd rather have good football programs and academic institutions rather than put such a large emphasis on some tenuous concept of "regions". Pitt makes sense b/c it's a good football, basketball and academic school in a weak conference and it being close by with a rivalry with PSU is icing on the cake. I'd rather have an out-of-region school like VT than Syracuse. I think if we're going to get Missouri, we should try to get Kansas as well and have the Illinois-Kansas-Missouri rivalries preserved, not to mention they're flagship universities.
do you know what Massachusettes and North Carolina have in common? They're on the ATLANTIC COAST
Arizona and Oregon? THE PACIFIC REGION
South Carolina and Texas? THE SOUTH
Michigan and Virginia? FUCKING NOTHING
So, Massachusetts and Georgia border the Atlantic Ocean...who cares? What the heck kind of region is that? Bordering a large body of water is an arbitrary distinction that has no cultural bearing on things. And it's not "a great fit on the map." If you can get a high quality research institution with a great football program that can open up a new market for you, you take it.
And no thanks to Syracuse to the Big Ten. They weren't even a big football draw in NYC when they were good. Penn St., Michigan and Ohio State do about a good a job as I think we can expect.
The name of the conference is the Atlantic Coast Conference. That's the region they're choosing to target. So yeah, it all works fine from that perspective.
I don't care if you'd rather have a conference made up of a bunch of schools with nothing in common to make more money, but I'd be pretty depressed if the Big Ten decided it made more sense for them to have teams in the effing Carolinas instead of the region where every single member school is currently. What's the point of conferences otherwise? Let's just all be independents and play whoever the fuck we want.
I partially agree with you on the South thing. Plus, any team worth taking that far south would go west before north. However, this 'getting us the NY market' is a terrible talking point. I live in NY and there are like 15 bars out here where Michigan fans congregate on Gameday. I have the B1G on my DirecTv. So, essentially, all the alum out here have already got this market. We just don't recruit much out of here simply because this is primarily an area for good Basketball/Baseball. I wouldn't condone picking up Syracuse or Rutgers over Pitt. Pitt makes far more sense in every aspect of the word. I'd love to land OU but it just isn't going to happen without taking Ok St. If it went
that would be fine too but highly unlikely.
Why would basketball drive expansion? The most profitable basketball program (UNC) is 1/5th as valuable as the most profitable football program (Texas).
Football is where the money is at in this country and I doubt that we would expand unless it helps football.
Let's just end it all and add ND, Syracuse, Mizzou, and BC.
Those teams combined to go 33-19 last year in football and 98-41 in hoops. Nice adds.
Board of regents gives Texas A&M permission to leave Big 12
Maybe we can steal Eastern Michigan from the MAC......
Look, the Big East is making a fraction of what the others are...here is a link...
Because basketball does NOT matter.
Having lived in NYC, NOBODY cares about college football there, except people who migrated from other places. Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn...none of those is going to infiltrate the NYC market. They may be worthwhile for other reasons though.
The keys are two fold. One, increase national exposure. Two, increase regional exposure. Three, increase Big 10 prestige.
Obviously, Notre Dame and Texas are the big names. Texas is very, very unlikely. Notre Dame is highly likely IF major expansion happens. ND natural home is the Big 10, whether we or they like it or not.
Outside of those, however, no marriage is made in heaven. Everything else has weakness. Pitt makes a lot of sense, but adds nothing financially. Rutgers and Syracuse extend the footprint, but not by much. Missouri is of questionable worth. Oklahoma only comes with Okie State, which will never happen.
So I think the Big 10 stays put, until forced to make another move. They have 12, got the best addition by far with Nebraska, when considering the recent consolidation. Until others make a move, all is well.
again, you're making the mistake of assuming we want NYC because we think Rutgers or Syracuse have some huge fanbases we could tap. We want all the Midwesterners in New York City (there are probably twice as many of them as there are people in Nebraska) watching their teams on the BTN, that's it.
In terms of basketball, it shouldn't drive anything. But if you're picking between Syracuse, perennial b-ball power, and Rutgers, perennial D-1 team from New Jersey, it should be obvious which is more valuable.
If we sit pat while the SEC adds teams and the Pac-12 takes the Oklahoma schools (and they will), we're going to lose out. Sitting back because we can't get big enough names is stupid... the SEC will take NC State and Texas Tech to make the numbers work, we can do the same. Notre Dame will have no choice but to join if this all goes ahead.
Yea, let's counter the Pac-12 taking OU and the SEC grabbing A&M by getting Rutgers and 'Cuse. That'll show 'em. And OU going to the Pac-12 would sort of mess up your "region" argument. And the SEC doesn't give a crap about Texas Tech, where are you getting this nonsense from? If it were as easy as going to the ACC to get schools, they'd poach programs like Clemson before bothering with Texas Tech.
If you want midwestern/Big Ten transplants so bad, there are a bunch of them all over the East Coast, Penn St. is a big draw throughout the Bos-Wash corridor, unlike Rutgers and Syracuse, so you'd probably be better off going after some going after the schools that matter in that corridor like Pitt, VT, UVA, U-MD and even UNC. And I'd take 'Cuse, but I think if geography isn't the biggest constraint in the world, there are better choices.
You do know that this is all about TV money, right? The only reason the SEC is even considering this is to get into the Houston market and get their network in Texas. If this was about quality or prestige or some shit like that, they'd grab Florida State and call it a day. But they're considering a school that's pretty bad athletically across the board just to claim the TV market. What's the Big Ten equivalent to Texas? New York. Whatever it takes to get the BTN on basic cable in NYC (and the rest of New York State for that matter) is worth it as far as the conference is concerned.
You clearly haven't been following this situation closely if you think Clemson is more likely than Texas Tech. You can catch up on the details here, Clay Travis is an SEC homer but he's got connections and he's been on this story like white on rice:
I don't care what the Pac-12 does, by the way, my concern here is for the Big Ten and the Big Ten only. I don't want to be some post-modern airplane conference... fuck, why not invite San Diego State while we're at it? Hey, bring in Hawaii, it'd be a fun trip for the team!
EDIT: and, by the way, what the fuck would UVA add that Syracuse couldn't? Academics are a factor, but they're not even close to the primary one. UVA is worse on the whole than Syracuse athletically and there's no market to even speak of there.
You don't just look at a map and assume you know everything. UVA is similar to Michigan in that they get a lot of north easterners/out-of-staters and the most populated region of Virginia is Northern Virginia, the suburbs of Washington, DC, where a lot of their in-state population are from and live after they graduate. UVA has a great foundation from which to build a quality football program, more than 'Cuse and Rutgers. They've sent a lot of guys to the pros and already recruit the northeast well. They have a fairly new football and basketball stadium. They have good lacrosse, soccer and baseball teams, great academics and a college town that fits in with the conference. I don't think they'd join the conference, btw.
But, you're so infatuated with NYC, you need to hear some facts. New York is not the Big Ten equivalent to Texas, I don't even know what that means. Chicago is the capital of the Big Ten, NYC is a market that a lot of Big Ten grads are from and work after they graduate. Penn St and Michigan are among the biggest alumni groups in the NYC area. Syracuse and Rutgers are not the draws that you think they are in the area. Rutgers being a flagship is about all it offers. Texas A&M's football significance and relationship with Texas are not like Syracuse or Rutgers. The SEC isn't going after the University of Houston, they're going after a legendary football program with a huge regional following in a populated area.
I don't care if the SEC goes after Texas Tech or Clemson, I'm just saying that Texas Tech offers nothing to the conference. Texas A&M makes a lot of sense, Texas Tech and Lubbock, TX don't.
I mean, yeah, ok. We could grab UVA and hope that's enough to get us off the sports tier on DC/Hampton Roads cable systems. And I guess they could go back to being a middle of the road BCS school at some point. You still didn't answer my question about why they're a better fit than Syracuse, who have been better both historically and recently and play in a state more than twice the population of Virginia (even if you take out NYC, Long Island and Westchester, New York has more people than Virginia by several million). There's so much more at stake here than getting the best teams or the nicest cultural fit and I still think people need to realize that. Maryland does mostly the same thing but keeps us contiguous at least.
Is it that hard for you to grasp the comparison? The SEC is after a large market that's right outside of their borders where they have a large alumni base. The Big Ten equivalent of such a market is... New York City. I never claimed that Syracuse and Rutgers were a) the equivalent of Texas A&M or b) huge draws in New York City. What they are, though, are local teams that would allow the Big Ten to argue that the BTN needs to be moved to the basic tier on cable systems in the area. The argument would likely include the number of alums plus the number of local team fans being a huge un-served market. It's all about maximizing the number of BTN subscribers, which is why these debates always come back to New York.
You're massively overstating Texas A&M's history. They're a middle of the road BCS school that once had some success several decades ago. They're like Michigan State, in more ways than one. Only without the basketball. The only thing that makes A&M appealing is the Houston market. Comparing them to the University of Houston is like comparing Northern Illinois to Northwestern, by the way... one is a commuter school that has no fanbase to speak of while the other is a mediocre but large school in a big market with a big fanbase.
On Texas Tech... it's all about cable, remember? Having Texas A&M gets you in the door in Houston, but we're talking about 25 million potential SEC Network subscribers in the state. Doubling down allows you to sell your product statewide, particularly in Dallas which is the Big 12 version of our Chicago or the SEC's Atlanta.
You want to have it both ways and talk about geographic continuity while at the same time saying we don't need a cultural fit b/c we want TV revenue. I could honestly care less if continuity is broken if the Big Ten were to take a southern school like UVA (and south=bad to a lot of people), that otherwise offers a lot. I wouldn't take Maryland over UVA just b/c it looks better on a map, it would have to be more than that.
If you want the NYC market so bad, add Notre Dame and then Pitt. With Notre Dame, Penn St, Michigan, and Ohio St, the Big Ten Network would have all the schools that it needs to make it worthwhile in the NYC area. Syracuse doesn't add as much as you think, which has been alluded to a number of times. And I'm not just speaking out of my ass, I'm one of the NYC natives who went to Michigan. Basketball is the only benefit of having 'Cuse and it's not as profitable and Boeheim would vehemently oppose going to the Big Ten.
Hardly anyone cares about Texas Tech football. It's good enough to add A&M and maybe try to have Dallas Stadium host the SEC championship game or SEC teams on a fairly routine basis. College Station is almost equidistant between Dallas and Houston, you're not just going after Houston w/ Texas A&M. Adding TT will be a marginal TV improvement while at the same time adding a non-player in athletics and academics.
How long can Delany resist B1G expansion, with all the possibilities of naming stuff it would create?
Aside from ND's obvious natural fit, the B10 is looking for
1) A+ additions to football compeditiveness. Not middle of the road teams, nor crappy teams.
2) Big time national or new market regional appeal.
3) Flagship Public school with significant reseach dollars. The more I think on this, I don't think USNews and similar rankings and AAU membership are that big of a deal. Neb is a fairly low ranking U but they fit the flagship U profile. The existing B10 members are not looking to be snobish but they do want a cultural fit from a university perspective.
They don't care about other sports. I think they are looking for a geographic fit, at least sharing a border, but that's a moot point b/c any other flagship Us not sharing a border are not realistic (ex; UF, UG, Texas, WVU, etc).
OU, I could see happening unless they need to bring OkSt. Pitt, probably not. Cuse no. UConn, Rutgers, no. Any BEast or ACC school is out of the question since they are all crappy or mediocre at football or crappy at academics and don't fit geographically.
OU and Mizzouri are the most likely, IME. Mizzou doesn't fit the national appeal and the regional market is smaller (I guess) but as a package with OU, yes... I could see the following scenario playing out:
- TAMU SECeeds. SEC brings 1 or a few others as well. FSU, TTech, Clemson, VT, w/e. I think the SEC would be making a bad move to get TTech or a Clemson, since they don't bring much to football, but IDK what the SEC is thinking.
- Texas goes a head with the LN, obvs.
- OU, being the last team in the B12 with any kind of a decent program (aside from Tex) looks elsewhere knowing that the league is now Tex and everyone else. They want stability and compeditive equity and the B12 simply doesn't have that. They approach the B10 and the B10 says they would approve, but need even numbers. Ok St, nope... but Mizzou is acceptable, given as a package with OU. People talk about ND, and maybe the B10 makes a call... but ND does what they always do and Mizzou and OU are added the B10 1-2 years later.
Of course, this all hinges on OkSt not tagging along.
OU isn't going anywhere without OSU, they're a package deal just like the Texas schools were last year (A&M's break might change that, who can tell). I think the Pac-12 would be the only conference willing to take both of them.
I think quality takes a back seat to adding new markets in this go-round. It's really all about TV... in last year's scenario we took a gamble that Nebraska's brand power was worth more than just adding Missouri or treading old ground in Pittsburgh. Let's not forget that the Pac-10 took a terrible Colorado team and a non-BCS school just to claim the last remaining big markets in the southwest. And both conferences were hot to get some piece of the Texas pie before UT leveraged both for enormous gains in TV money. The SEC is about to nab a team that wasn't that much better than Syracuse last season just for the TV market, after all.
Ideally you're getting a Texas or a Notre Dame that bring both money and prestige, but if push comes to shove you take what you can get as long as it means money is pouring in. That might mean we go hard after North Carolina and Duke, it might mean we settle with couple of mediocre schools in the northeast.
why not just expand the Big Ten network without adding teams. Why couldn't they spread it across the country on cable television like espn or versus or whatever.
Local teams become leverage to get the BTN onto the basic digital cable tier, rather than on the sports tier where it exists in most non-Big 10 markets. The Big Ten can't just say 'Hey, put us on basic cable," there needs to be some kind of demand
with the amount of big ten alums living on the east coast i don't see why they don't already have demand.
because they're not large enough in number to make a dent in the general population for one
but also, and this is being overlooked, sometimes a cable company will make a move like that in anticipation of demand. It's why OLN/Versus became immediately available on most Detroit area cable systems after the NHL landed there... they all saw the demand coming and made the move preemptively to prevent any potential losses.
Top two. ND and Pitt. Both tradition rich, regionally sound. AAU members. Pitt has NINE national titles and adds also a natural rival in Penn St. ND for obvious reasons. The argument about 'regional footprint' is ridiculous. Illinois/Northwestern. Michigan/MI State. Indiana/Purdue. Need I say more? Pitt is a great fit and they are reportedly interested too. Plus..great basketball. Beyond that, Mizzou and GT. Simple for simple reasons. IMHO
Do not add Pitt they're a a middle level Big Ten football school at best. They don't open up a new state a new footprint for the Big Ten. Nobody on the east coast cares about football expand west
I'd love Pitt to join. I agree that them and ND are the most obvious choices. My concern with Pitt is their football stadium being Heinz Field. People take shuttles from campus to get to the stadium, it's very different from what we're used to seeing in the Big Ten. I don't know if a football stadium for their team makes sense, but that would make it a slam dunk, IMO. A lot of Pitt fans don't want to leave the Big East for basketball reasons primarily, but I think financially, it would make sense. They have a lot of bball rivalries that hopefully could be preserved, but WVU is their only football one in-conference right now worth keeping.
Regarding the stadium, not too different, since Minnesota had the same arrangement until very recently.