If Texas goes to the Pac-X, I don't see who the Big 10 could pick up that would be worthwhile besides Notre Dame. And without a second team to keep the divisions balanced, the Big Ten would be stupid to expand just for the sake of expansion.
OT: Pac 16 rumors. Implications for B1G?
They could pick up Navy to get two national teams.
Expansion targets... Univ of Toronto; Trinity and Balliol Colleges, Oxford; and the Sorbonne.
Trinity and Balliol to Legends, Toronto and the Sorbonne to Leaders.
extra funny because UT athletics is notoriously lower-tier in their conference. big-city school full of propeller-heads. U of Western Ontario in London would be a better target up here!
Hasn't Navy been to like 8 bowl games in a row?......
IMO, if A&M does indeed go to the SEC, FSU will likely go with. If what the OP says were to come to fruition, I would bet that we would take both ND and BC (rivals). Both quality schools.
I think they'd take Pitt before they would take BC. Both are good schools, neither gets you a new market (Boston is a pro sports town), neither has a national audience, and Pitt has a better program than BC.
That is not a Pro sports town? Have you heard of the Steelers? Are they worth the 5-10 non Penn Schhtate fans in PA?
Pitt is also as good of a team as you'll find in the BE (besides WVU, who will under no circumstances be invited). Academics are also a factor; the research that fuels the CIC? Pitt has that as a trump card compared to basically any available school.
Besides that, the ACC seems pretty stable to me in a way that the BXII and BE do not.
Throw ND in the legends division and BC in the leaders. ND still get's to play almost everyone they play now in the big ten, and they maintain that protected rivalry with BC. Plus that opens up a a nice chunk of the east coast market.
FSU won't be joint the SEC anytime soon. UF will block the move.
If it's best for the conference, they won't block the move. That assumption has been made, but if there's enough money involved, they will accept FSU with open arms.
but the SEC would need UF and three other schools block the move to stop it from happening.
The rumor is that Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have formed a pact to vote against admitting a competing school from their states. So they just need one more vote against.
They won't do it. Period. If they were even thinking about it they would have already. For fifteen years the B1G has been trying to get them. They're not interested. They don't want to share the wealth. They have their own TV deal, keep all their bowl money, why would they join a conference? And if everyone else is forming superconferences their position as independants is only given more value. If it turns into a 3 conference system and each has two BCS bids then ND is no worse off.
If the B1G expands I think they'll go after Syracuse, Pitt, Kansas, Missouri (or any combination of them). Think outside of just football. How much stronger would B1G basketball be with those four teams in the mix?
ND makes LESS money than INDIANA from TV rights fees and bowl payouts. Football game inventory is what ESPN pays for. Basketball: not so much. Kansas, Cuse and Pitt may be excellent B-ball clubs, but the additional money that would be brought into the league based on their BB programs are roughly equivalent to the improper benefits OSU players recevied in the last 18 months. A nice amount, but probably not worth the trouble.
First off I don't know where you got that stat about Indiana making more money off of their TV deal than Notre Dame but it's blatantly untrue and doesn't factor in that every single Notre Dame game is broadcast on national television coast to coast. That's a major koo for recruiting and program prestige.
Secondly, the B1G would make tons of money off of Kansas, Pitt, and Cuse basketball. Think about how much more exciting the B1G bball tourny would be. The Big East tourny is always sold out and brings in tons of revenue to the conference. Having those extra elite teams in the program would raise the national prominence of the conference and give the B1G more annual Sweet 16 teams and potentially more national championships which equate to $$$$$.
Florida will never allow FSU or Miami to join the SEC.
network - Texas should go independent.
Implications for B1G? None.
I don't understand what 16 brings that 12 doesn't...if the bowl system somehow changes to prefer the "16-team superconferences", does anyone seriously believe they would just tell the B1G to fly a kite because we only have 12 members. Maybe I'm not smart, I just don't get the whole reasoning for the B1G. No reason to add schools just for the sake of adding them, unless it's Notre Dame/Texas.
I think the paranoia is based on the P16 successfully picking up a second BCS autobid. This scenario has B10/SEC hand-forcing potential.
Along those lines; I think the Big Ten would want a guaranteed second BCS auto bid to seriously consider further expansion.
16 vs 12 brings way more money and clout especially if it is Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, and OK State that you bring into the mix.
Texas and Oklahoma maybe, no way Texas Tech and OK State. You have to remember, for all the money they bring, they take out even more. It's like if you had a communist community, and everyone shares their wages equally, and then you bring in a bunch of migrant workers who make 1/10th of everyone else; sure , you'll have more net money in the system, but it actually drags everyone elses averages down.
You don't get OU without Okie State. There would be more money with the both of them then without, I would guess. TTU without Texas brings the Texas footprint to the PNC, not as much money as they would with Texas, but they would bring some.
But Texas Tech without Texas brings nothing. Nothing.
Also, nothing Texas Tech does will influence Texas. At all.
It would be like Ferris State's decision to leave the CCHA affecting Michigan in hockey.
I don't think Texas will leave the Big 12 behind, but if it crumbles, I think they'll just stay independent. If that's the case, it would be interesting to see who they would get for a fourth. Maybe they steal TCU from the Big East.
It'll be interesting to see what happens to UT after A&M leaves. UT is obviously king in Texas, but I could see A&M making up ground if/when they go to the SEC. If you're a college football fan in Texas, it could be appealing to follow Texas A&M's run through an SEC schedule every year rather than UT's run through Big 12 leftovers or whatever random collection of schools they find in an independent schedule.
Independence for Texas would be very difficult. They need a conference for their non revenue sports as being an indie in those sports would be hard to keep up a full schedule. If they decide to pick up some replacements (like SMU, Boise State, ect), that would not keep that league in the BCS. Do you think the other teams would put up with Texas every year in the BCS and walk right into the MNC game? Not a chance.
As for the Big 10? It will depend on how far the SEC goes. Do they pick up a 14th school to go along with TAMU or do they go full blown 16 teams to keep up with the new Pac 16? If they go 16, two west coast schools will be picked off and my guess is that FSU will be one (assuming Mizzou being the other western team brought in). They bring a national footprint. I know Frank the Tank is touting WVU as the most likely, but really don't bring anything to the table. If it's another ACC team, the whole conference may have to join in an unprofitable merger with the Big East. This may have some of the bigger names looking for greener pastures, thus affecting the Big 10.
But Texas could get a deal like ND has with the Big East: Texas would have access to bowl bids and non-football scheduling, while the Big East would get more games against texas and upgrade their bowl profile.
I think this is the more likely scenario than the Pac-16.
in which conference? the SEC or big12 (if it still exists in this scenario) aren't going to offer them that deal. they'll want all or nothing. and no way texas puts it's other sports in a lower tier conference.
Why would they give up a Bowl slot when they already have a BCS invite? They wouldn't split the Bowl money with Texas so they would be losing money. The partnership worked perfectly for The Big East when they were building their football resume from scratch. To take the next step, they need full football members, not to hang on bigger and more well known programs.
Or at least doing something different from their present positions in the short term. The Big Ten is conservative and will want to understand and measure the impact of Nebraska for at least a year and the biggest increment in revenue is the addition of the Championship Game. As the article that Brian linked to in the side bar discusses, going from 12 to 14 or 16 isn't doing as much as going to 12 and adding another game to the schedule adds. The Pac 12 and Big Ten have both just taken that big bite, but neither knows just how good it tastes yet.
Texas may allow the discussions to happen on just about any front, because, why wouldn't you consider your options? But the style and culture in Texas is "Texas first because we're best and biggest". This means Texas is not going to give up on their network just because someone else left the conference. In their minds they are the conference. Also they've already lost their championship game so dropping from 10 to 9 isn't a huge impact to the pain they already are doing nothing to solve. People in Texas are going to tune into the Long Horn Network. As long as the ratings are there and the ad revenue pays everyone's bills, Texas will just look around for other doormats to join to get back up to 12.
Texas does not want independence. Texas wants autonomy.
They want to be able to do their own thing within a loose federation of weak members. They get this with the Big12. They get national access and exposure for football, and a place to park their non-football teams.
Look for the Big12 to keep replacing members as they leave with new subservient members who are just happy to be there. Texas will make sure it does just enough to keep Oklahoma content. Everyone else is replaceable.
The Big12 will live on because Texas wants it to live on.
I wouldn't think so. For the B1G to expand, it would have to make financial sense: that is, a new team will have to increase everyone's share despite creating a new one. Maybe Missouri and Kansas can deliver this, but even they are a stretch. The rest of the Big 12 would provide us with no gain.
As long as ND decides to stay independent, B1G expansion will not happen.
Whatevet it is. Second, the B1G will only expand when it wants to, and not because others are doing so. At this point, we'd only take another team if that team was ND or maybe even Texas, if the TV thing could be worked out. ND is the crown jewel in expansion, that's who we want.
It's hard to get excited about ND to be honest. What we want in expansion is a large alumni base that will have people screaming to their cable provider to carry the BTN (ideally in NYC). ND definitely has alumni in NYC, but a lot of their alums go to Chicago, a media market we already own. Also the B10 as a conference has a bit of a mixed history in terms of getting along with ND. I'm not sure if their alumni base is worth the possible bitch fest that might occur between a more conservative religious school and a bunch of public universities. Remeber athletics is a million dollar industry, research grants is a billion dollar one. Having Notre Dame in the CiC and bitching about stem cell or abortion research isn't worth the benefits of their athletic revenue stream.
Texas also has the national alumni base, but they don't play well with others. They're the crown jewel that has arms and likes to randomly slap you around (or attempt to).
I'd be more excited about finding one or two East Coast schools that send a lot of their alums to NYC. Some schools with good law, econ, and business programs. Gobble them up. Suddenly all their alums in NYC are screaming for the BTN and that will apply pressure to move it to basic. I'd rather let the SEC loot the ACC and then eyeball some decent basketball programs. That's the revenue sport the conference is the weakest in and there are some good options in the ACC that put alumni in NYC and fit in with the B10.
(Plus honestly we want to pad out our football schedule from a purely utiliarian point of view. A conference of 8 ranked football teams just means a massive melee in which everyone ends up a 3 loss team that is beat to hell by the end of the season.)
what are these magic east schools schools you speak of? and do you seriously think the big10 has any interest in adding teams to "pad out" the football schedule??? they want to add programs that draw attention, not yawns. look at nebraska. sure, they added a state of tv's, but it's a pretty small state, population-wise. what they did add, however, was a big name and quality competition. i don't expect the big10 to deviate from that model. they want to add tv's, but they want to add teams that can compete and improve the big10 brand as well.
ND fans are everywhere, especially everywhere there are Catholics. I bet there are as many ND fans in NYC as almost any east coast school. Los Angeles has a ton of ND fans, Boston has a ton of ND fans, DC has a ton of ND fans, etc. ND fans travel well and ND always fills their own stadium.
I hate Notre Dame, but they would be an awesome addition to the Big Ten and would put us on par with the SEC.
They'd like to think they are, and they'd like everyone else to think they are, but they're not. Without getting into politics too much, ND hired a head coach who is pro-choice something that the Catholic Church, and thus Catholics, vehemently fight. They invited a pro-choice figure (Obama) to campus to give a speech, and then they gave him a honorary degree. These things aren't something a religious, conservative university does. Hell, if you look at their students, most are neither deeply conservative nor deeply religious. (I know that because quite a few of my friends go to ND). Please, if that's too political just hid my post. I tried to keep any personal feelings, besides my hatred of ND, out of that.
Plus, I really want ND to go to join the B1G because I've been telling all my ND friends that it would happen and they just get mad and spout something about being independent. I find it hilarious how pissed they're going to get once the move actually happens.
Honestly, I don't really want Texas and I'm not sure if the B1G does either. I'm not sure who we'd grab along with ND, maybe Pitt?
The schools you're talking about (good law, business, and econs whose alums go overwhelmingly to NYC) are the Ivies. It's why NYC isn't the same kind of college football town as is Chicago and it's going to make it very hard to get the BTN on basic cable in New York.
I have heard that Texas will have to go independent if they leave the Big 12, based on the terms and conditions of the TV deal they made. I could be wrong, but I thought that's what I had been hearing. Interesting to see what will happen if other teams bolt.
Texas won't be joining any network... I mean conference.
There will be no B1G expansion until talks for the new BCS contracts get closer. Number of bids per conference and the independent contacts will determine alignment. The B1G will bide its time.
If anything I think the SEC goes to 14 to kind of test the water in the direction of what life would be like as a 16 team conference. Depending on how it goes for them I think it will either encourage or discourage another around of expansion.
All we really need is for the B12 to absorb the parts of the MWC worthy of BCS consideration and the whole system can keep trucking right along. The BCS is wildly profitable (for some) and has a lot of interia behind it so I think there is going to be a strong push to keep the status quo to some degree. Super conferences don't happen until someone can definitively prove to the ADs "We can make an even larger pile of money with this arrangement".
In any and all cases, expansion is a two way street. While I personally believe the Pac-whatever-number-they-end-up-being would be beyond dumb to reject teams like OK and OKSt, in terms of the B1G it's not just about the conference wanting ND. ND has to want to be a part of the B1G, there are no hostile takeovers. With all the $$$ ND gets now with NBC and just in general from being independent, there are incredibly slim chances that they move to the B1G or any other conference in the near future.
Therefore, debating over B1G expansion that involve discussions about ND are essentially pointless, as much as I would love that idea.
"Notre Dame reportedly makes around $9 million per year from NBC, which was a level that made it the top TV revenue school back in 1999. In contrast, ESPN’s Outside the Lines reported last week that the Big Ten is currently making $242 million per year in TV revenue which is split equally among the 11 schools, meaning that everyone from Michigan to Northwestern is taking in $22 million per year. Think about that for a second: the vaunted Notre Dame was the #1 TV revenue maker in the entire country up until just a few years ago, yet it’s now only #3 in its own home state behind Purdue and Indiana (and less than half as much of each, at that)."
It's not about money with ND. They'd make piles of money MORE in the B1G. It's about independence to them.
Also the new Comcast owned NBC appears to want to exile ND over to versus and off the primetime broadcast channel. Whereas the BTN network is more profitable and is expanding its footprint.
Someone made a good point a while back that ND might be exiled on Versus but rather Comcast is going to use ND to improve the programming on Versus. Thus, hopefully making Versus a more marketable channel.
It would be an embarrasment to ND to be booted off broadcast TV, but it would indeed give a boost to Versus which does have some decent programming.
It's just a Network thinking like a Network. It should by no means be interpreted as NBC demoting ND because they don't find them valuable anymore.
This was discussed when that article came out and the $22 million number wasn't right. From memory, half of that goes to Fox and I don't think that takes into account costs of the network. IIRC, between ESPN and BTN, each school gets $11-12 million, which is still more than ND, but the $22 million was based off of incorrect assumptions.
Yes, that's correct. Additionally, NBC could decide at any time that they want to go a different direction and not sign ND or simply sign them for less money. Someone would pick them up, but that money's not guaranteed. However, being a part of the Big Ten means you have the BTN working for your best interest, and they're not going anywhere.
Not only that, but whatever the per school number is now would undoubtably be higher if ND joins as they would add a lot of viewership to the network.
Take a look at what B1G schools make from the BTN and you'll see the money isn't that different.
Ha, so the PACIFIC conference will have teams with states bordering the Caribbean (same waters as the Atlantic)... They may make fun of us for being 12 teams and being called Big TEN, but that is better than having the name Pacific if that situation does happen.
I don't know what Texas would gain by joining the Pac, and I don't know why the PAC would want them unless they agreed to revenue sharing which they likely wouldn't. Texas would have to play half their games on the west coast in shitty time slots with a ton more travel against opponents they have no history with. Plus, the Pac wouldn't want to take TTU just to get Texas I don't think.
Oklahoma and OK St make sense though, since they'll need a home and don't have the ability to do it on their own like Texas can.
I think it would be a great move for the PAC-12. The LHN could actually fit in well with their business model. Aside from the major boost in conference strength and marquee names, what the PAC-16 would gain is a lot of exposure. They would be able to offer games in three different time zones. That adds a lot of value to their product nationally as well as regionally.
Well, all of those things you mention are all benefits, but they don't directly increase money. In fact, if Texas isn't willing to revenue share, the conference would actually lose money every year Texas made a bowl, and a lot of money if Texas made a BCS bowl. I don't know if exposure and marquee match ups is enough to warrant expansion.
Adding significant value to your product is a good way to increase revenue. The PAC-12 isn't going to just go to 16 teams and hope they can renegotiate their contracts. They're going to go to Fox and ESPN and say this expansion is a possibility. Are you interested in making it worthwhile for us? I think that will be a no-brainer.
OU and OK St leaving would force Texas's hand. Staying in the Big XII would be a big risk. It's hard to imagine their recruiting not taking a hit when their main rivals go off to play in more prestigious conferences. The Texas meglomania has been overstated imo. While there may be no limit to what they want, if their best deal entails giving up some power I think they'll take it. They're going to have to make a choice between dominating a weak, unstable conference, going independent or getting a reliable piece of a bigger pie somewhere else . Going to the PAC-16 is likely to be their best option, since the LHN shouldn't be a stumbling block and they get to keep their biggest rivalry..
1. High academics
2. Still get to play OU and maintain Red River Rivalry
3. Stoops is on record favoring it, gets to recruit in California
4. Travel wouldn't be as bad as you might think, playing 2 Arizonas, OU, OSU, Tx Tech, Colorado, Utah in "East" division".
5. Conceivable that LHN could be worked as a regional network as PAC is pretty creative
Don't discount how much Texas and OU want to stay together, their rivalry is one of the biggest in CFB.
Lots of rivalries are maintained outside of conferences. UM-ND and USC-ND are big ones, Florida-Florida St. is another.
Iowa-Iowa St play each other every year, Illinois and Missouri do almost every year as well. That wouldn't be a huge deal.
Also: Texas-Oklahoma prior to the creation of the Big XII
their game has been played mostly as non conference rivals and could still be maintained. Should have said "EASIER to play OU and maintain Red River Rivalry".
But I think in today's environment, if they end up in different conferences, especially if the superconference scenario happens, there's more of a chance that the game wouldn't happen every year.
Think of it this way, wile_e8, if superconferences happen, and Notre Dame isn't in the B1G, there's less chance that game will happen every year, even though its a traditional rivalry for both schools.
Thanks for your reply and thoughts
I would love to have the ESS-EEE-CEE reject TAMU as their 13th member, forcing them to look elsewhere, at which point the B1G can swoop in an make offers to UT and TAMU making them B1G members 13 and 14.
This is mostly for personal reasons, due to my location here in Houston. I would be able to see Michigan every year if that happened.
Texas has apparently already said that they can't move without Tech, and possibly Baylor. Remember the emails from Bill Powers to Gee last offseason? And there has been a lot of speculation about Texas needing to find Baylor a home as well.
is there any situation where the SEC does not take another team and just stays at 13?
i know it unbalances the divisions, but the SEC always plays non-conf games during what we consider the conference season, so having one team with a non conference game is not a big deal. one division would play one less cross over game than the other, but i don't think that matters too much as each team would have their special rivalry and it would be a crap shoot for the remaining games.
The scheduling would be a problem. Say you wanted to play 8 conferences games. The West teams would play 6 division games and 2 cross-division. That's a total of 14 cross-division games. The East teams would play 5 division games and 3 cross-division. That's 18 games.
4 ot the teams in the west could miss 1 division rival each year, but that's definitely a worse setup than they have now.
but the way the schedules are set up does not really guarantee similar strenght of schedules, esp in division cross over games. its not like the teams get to pick their crossovers based on the opponents' strength, they just get to play another SEC team that is not in their division.
i guess i just don't see that there is a 100% need to add another team for the ACC. it might be a bit more complicated schedule wise, but as long as you are playing the same number of conference games as teams in the other division and the same number of division games as your division-mates, then i think its fine.
I didn't write very clearly. The teams in the West would not all play the same number of division games. The math simply doesn't work.
you are right. there is something with the 4th dimension that doesn't work for my brain on this. i still think tougher things have been scheduled than a 13 team conference though.
Why does the big ten have to do anything? I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this question. The only time we might consider pouncing is if ND feels like they have to give it up (because everyone else is doing it) or if Texas decides to stop acting all high maintenance. There is severely negative value in any conference that's bigger than 12. Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pitt, and the rest of them can stay the hell away from our conference, as it stands.
As stated above, they must go larger if the other conferences expand, push for, and get two autobids to the BCS money pit. They will also expand if they think it's in the Big 10's best interest to do so.
I guess they don't HAVE to, but they would be leaving money on the table if they didn't.
That's the thing though; why do we need two autobids? We basically always get two bids as is, and if the Big 12 dissolves, it's a net push (that autobid goes to the Pac-16). There just are very few teams that are better than the average big ten team (in terms of revenue, academics, location) that can just be snatched up.
I'm also just not convinced that we are going to get enough money to make it worthwhile from dubious schools (moneywise) like Missouri. Without the bonus of the championship game, the new school needs to be really good.
An additional autobid would be big. It would promise that we get 2 bids even on years where our teams beat each other up, but more importantly it would allow us to get 3 bids total, since each conference is only allowed 1 at-large bid. If we added two good teams, it's possible that both division champs and the top non-champ from one division are BCS worthy. It wouldn't happen often, but if it happened once every 5 years it would be a lot of money.
I'd venture to say that a lot of the reason the B1G was consistently (moreso than the vaunted SEC) getting two BCS berths is because we didn't have a championship game. If we had divisional play last year, OSU wouldn't have made the championship game and the BCS would be stuck about whether to take an MSU team that just got slapped around by a Wisconsin team they beat earlier in the year or, alternatively, whether they take an OSU team that couldn't win their division.
I am more concerned with how expansion would affect Michigan.
I'd rather Michigan be back on top of the B1G before all this breaks because it will be an even tougher road with the addition of other elite programs.
I don't think Texas is going anywhere. Especially since they are probably the catalyst for what has split from the Big 12 already. Nor do I think Oklahoma is going anywhere without Texas.
Texas will never join the pac12 or any other conference and i think it's rather stupid to even entertain the idea. They've shown zero willingness to truly work with other conference members as equal partners and the only reason the Big12 has existed as long as it has is because it's basically the Texas conference with okie tacked on. They run the show, and when the big12 is kaput they will go independent because no deal as sweet as the one they now got is out there, so they go indie and will work out a deal with the BCS much akin to Notre Dames.
I guess I missed this last November, but while I was looking at the Big East teams on Wikipedia I noticed the footprint map included the state of Texas, and lo and behold, TCU will be playing in the Big East in 2012!
Maybe Texas A&M is thinking of joining TCU in 2012? TCU gives them 9 Football Schools.
Let's say that after this next round of moves we end up with three super-conferences - SEC, PAC and B1G. It seems like this scenario would lend itself to a 4-team playoff -- take three champs plus the best team from another conference. Whether through the BCS or another mechanism, we would be one small step away from a playoff.
This could get even more interesting very quick. Thank you for the post.
I live in Oklahoma City, so it's hard to get away from the issues of the B12 conference. Since all of this Texas A&M crap started, the NewsOK has been discussing the whole re-alignment thing daily. One school that comes up in nearly every article is Notre Dame, as if they have a shot at nabbing them. It seems that they realize how important Notre Dame's independence means to them and that their chances are very slim, but I just have to laugh every time I read about them salivating over the thought of Notre Dame joining their conference. Pretty sure if they were forced to join a conference, it wouldn't be the B12...