August 13th, 2011 at 10:17 AM ^
Mizzu would get SEC into St Louis market....ok Big Ten bring in Oklahoma...OklAhoma St...Kansas and Kansas St....makes the most sense. Don't be pussy footing around with Texas and ND!!
August 13th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
i want nd
August 13th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
i want nd
August 13th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Come on man, why the hell would we want k-state?
August 13th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
Very good basketball program, okay football.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
And that's it. No, thanks.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^
I would highly doubt the Big Ten gives a shit about any school's basketball program. Conference expansion is about football money and football money only.
<br>
<br>If the Big Ten expanded again, it would only likely be to add ND and another team. Without ND, I seriously doubt there will be any more expansion. Even for Texas, which seems to want too many financial advantages.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
I hate to have to do this everytime the subject comes up, but:
This is not only about football. Football brings tens of millions of dollars to universities, while research brings in billions of dollars. The Big Ten is first and foremost an academic conference, and as such controls billions of dollars of research. Conference expansion will not dilute the conference's standing among the elite power brokers of research finance.
Therefore the list probably includes:
Big 12: Iowa State, Kansas, Mizzou, Texas
Big East: Pittsburgh
ACC: Georgia Tech
Mizzou, Pittsburgh and Kansas all make sense from a "footprint" sense. Both Texas and Georgia Tech bring large markets (Texas would obviously be substantially larger, but would probably not play well as a collegial research team member...)
Georgia Tech may be difficult to pull from the ACC, in which case I think Notre Dame would be an OK substitute (although Georgia Tech definitely brings more research clout to the table.)
August 13th, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^
August 13th, 2011 at 5:52 PM ^
Well played, sir.
August 13th, 2011 at 6:21 PM ^
i like the way you think. Iowa State, Kansas, Mizzou and Pittsburgh would be great additions considering Notre Dame and Texas most likely would not join, and GT just seems too far away.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:21 PM ^
Totally agree, but then I'm not sure ND makes a huge amount of sense either. They have some research areas, but from that standpoint I'd much rather have Texas or GT. My guess is that if the B1G expands, you'll see Pittsburgh join (decent academic profile, some good research opportunities) and maybe the best academic school from what remains of the Big 12 (which may be Mizzou - I'm not sold they would want to move to the SEC).
August 13th, 2011 at 11:47 AM ^
that K-State belongs in the Big 10, is it? Their basketball program has been very good as of late, but for most of the 90's and 00's, it's been a drought. Their football program has had flashes, but "okay" is exactly the right evaluation: not bad, not good, but ok. Don't you think the B10 can get someone better than "okay" in that department?
Academics and TV market (plus other $$$) point to "needs improvement" as well. I know STL and KC have been talked about as the markets Mizzou might bring in...but I don't think K-State would grab much of either, especially not STL.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:58 AM ^
The problem is you probably don't get Kansas without Kansas State. Kansas is a FANTASTIC basketball program and would be a HUGE addition to the Big Ten. Plus, if you only take 1 team, you have to worry about the whole lopsided divisions issue.
To me you go after Oklahoma first and foremost, even though the rumor is they are demanding to bring Ok State with them as well. Then maybe look at getting Kansas, which would probably come with Kansas State as well
August 13th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
August 13th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
The only way to describe Kansas as huge is in terms of it's square mileage that it would add to the B1G. Great basketball? Yes. Great football? Absolutely not. Academically? USNWR rates them the same as Nebraska. There was some serious questioning if Nebraska belongs in the B1G because of their academic standing. UK would be a bottomfeeder tied with Nebraska. Don't agree with adding Kansas, especially if KSU comes as a package deal. I'd just as soon see Cincinnati or Toledo. At least then, OSU would have an in-state competitor in the B1G. (NOTE: I do NOT want Cincinati or Toledo in the B1G)
August 13th, 2011 at 10:36 AM ^
between revenue, tv ratings, brand management, academics and athletic prestige in both football and bball.... but if they were pressured to go to sixteen, I think the following would be their priority (assuming Tejas is off limits):
-ND
-New York market
-whatever elite big 12 powers they can grab ( i would prefer OU and KU for their status in their respective dominant sport)
August 13th, 2011 at 10:43 AM ^
Kansas would bring in the St. Louis market also, so I can understand this. My guess is Kansas State is likely a package deal with Kansas.
I would be surprised if Oklahoma and Oklahoma State end up in the Big Ten, I see them heading to the PAC 12.
With the ACC having lost two teams, allegedly, they will be looking for at least two more; I see South Florida and West Virginia fitting the bill to move to the ACC.
Keep in mind, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse are still available for the taking; right back where we were about a year ago.
Also keep in mind with whoever is in discussion to jump to the Big Ten - Academics. Nebraska was the lowest ranked academic college to join the Big Ten, and promptly lost status in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^
Nebraska did not get kicked out of the CIC. They got kicked out of the AAU. Hopefully, they will be able to regain their position in the AAU with the potential research money they could bring in as a result of partnerships with other Big Ten schools.
At any rate, the Big Ten does care a lot about academics and will not invite Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, or Kansas State for academic reasons.
August 13th, 2011 at 6:07 PM ^
Not only was it not the CIC, but Nebraska's issue with the AAU wasn't really academics. It had to do with the way the medical school was counted because it's not at the main campus in Lincoln, but at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
August 14th, 2011 at 12:07 AM ^
The medical school is actually its own campus: UNMC. It's in Omaha, but it's not part of UNO. The crux of your argument is spot on, though - the med school's research dollars didn't count in the AAU's eyes because it's technically a different campus within the state system.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
No Kansas or Kansas State...please
Let's pillage out east!
August 13th, 2011 at 10:20 AM ^
I would be very happy if Missouri went to the SEC. I don't want them in the Big 10.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:22 PM ^
according to USNWR rankings.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:21 AM ^
Link?
August 13th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
Front page of my ESPN mobile
August 13th, 2011 at 10:59 AM ^
Doug Gottlieb is the "reporter" on this story. I think I'd actually trust a random rivals site more.
August 13th, 2011 at 5:22 PM ^
Adding to this, the Times makes it seem like it's not a done deal... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/14/sports/sec-presidents-to-discuss-texas-ams-admission.html?_r=1&ref=sports
And the author of that piece, Pete Thamel, added later on twitter that he had another source denying the other three joining SEC. http://twitter.com/#!/PeteThamelNYT/status/102418662069256192
Add in that all the talk has come out of the A&M camp, and others have questioned what the SEC really gains out of this, and I'm doubtful they go to 16.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
the big12 is so done for. texas will probably be independent by this time next year
August 13th, 2011 at 10:33 AM ^
August 13th, 2011 at 10:47 AM ^
I have no idea what TCU would do, but all of the BE/ACC teams are in a bad spot. Duke/UNC/NC State all seem joined at the hip, as are UVA and VT which takes them from being desirable to much less so.
Miami, MD, Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse and WVU all seem like they should be okay when it's done, but that leaves a lot of teams without a home.
Edit: Probably add UConn as a school that should be alright, but their finances currently suck.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:03 PM ^
wholeheartedly disagree with UVA and VT being attached at the hip. theyve only been in the ACC together since '03 and before that I don't think they were ever in the same conference. plus, I seem to remember UVA being opposed to VT joining the ACC back in '03 so I doubt the hokies would feel too bad about leaving UVA in the dust
August 13th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
August 13th, 2011 at 10:58 AM ^
going independent, rather than join the Big Ten. I don't see them giving up their TV Network now and if they ever did to join a conference, they go to the Pac-12...they were close to joining them last time.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
We better rope up Texas soon.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
We better rope up Texas soon.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:24 AM ^
Big Ten does not want Texas after their selfishness has been revealed.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:32 AM ^
There's that, and the shameless self-promotion and attempt to start one's own media empire. Who really wants to be in the same conference with a prima donna?
August 13th, 2011 at 10:26 AM ^
The big problem with Texas is the Longhorn Network and ESPN. One of the proponents which is causing A&M to move to the SEC was the Longhorn Network because it's going to be playing at least two games per season on that channel. Now, we obviously have the BTN and since Delany and ESPN aren't the best of friends, there could be some things that might be hard to get around with these stubborn entities.
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/espn-texas-contract-for-longhorn-network.php
August 13th, 2011 at 10:39 AM ^
Would be to roll up the Longhorn network, the BTN and the ND network (if they get one) into a single cable package. It wouldn't be ideal but it would be a way to solve that problem.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:44 AM ^
I personally do not want teams with their own networks. Especially because OSU could probably support their own, and I don't think UM can. Don't want a precedent started in the Big Ten.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:54 AM ^
ND has a network, its NBC. They have owned it for the last 20yrs.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:05 AM ^
Seems like 200 years. The sex must be fantastic for the ND-NBC relationship to even work. I mean, Notre Dame? Really?
August 13th, 2011 at 12:07 PM ^
Unlike the Weis contract, though, the NBC TV contract has actually benefited Notre Dame.
NBC jumped into the contract with Notre Dame in 1991 when they were at their post-Parseghian peak. 1991 was the only year between 1988 and 1993 that they didn't finish in the top ten. This includes one national championship in 1988 and two other serious runs at it in 1989 and 1993.
NBC obviously didn't count on the decline Notre Dame suffered through in the late Holtz years and the mediocre coaches who succeeded him.
August 13th, 2011 at 8:10 PM ^
It's pretty much habitual at this point. God help any other network who tries to play "wrecking ball" against their co-dependence.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
Except even NBC is growing tired of waiting for the "Return to Glory"; hence their decision to air some games on Versus...sorry NBC Sports.
August 13th, 2011 at 2:02 PM ^
Somebody at NBC needs to get insurance and delivery confirmation on the "Return To Glory", as it obviously keeps getting lost in the bowels of some sorting center between New York City and South Bend.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
Here's the problem with that: all three networks are run by different companies. (B1G = Fox; LHN = ESPN; ND = Comcast/NBC)
August 13th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^
Mizzou wanted out of the Big 12 and into the Big Ten pretty badly. Makes sense I suppose.
August 13th, 2011 at 10:27 AM ^