January 31st, 2010 at 12:10 PM ^
Why would Pitt want to leave the strongest basketball conference in the country?
Why would Pitt want to become the fourth or fith best football team in a conference when they are in the top two or three consideration every year.
What advantage does the Big Ten get from adding Pitt? They don't significantly add to TV revenue, they don't add a major metro population and they don't really expand the footprint of the Big Ten.
Since the conference looks at this from an academic and revenue standpoint, Pitt doesn't significantly add much. Pittsburgh is an NFL city and we already have the best school in Pennsylvania.
I'm still hoping for Texas. It's a pipe dream, but makes the most sense from every standpoint. Academically they are head and shoulders above all other considerations, sans ND. They are a tradition-laden school like Michigan and Wisconsin and they would add a HUGE amount of $$ to the conference in all sports. The additional revenue from the 90-million TV households in TX would more than make up for the added travel expenses the existing conference schools would have in adding Texas to the road schedule.
From a purely sports $$ viewpoint, adding Texas would put the Big Ten right behind if not ahead of the SEC for super conference star power. For BCS thoughts, how about a lineup of Texas, Michigan, PSU and OSU as your top four draws?
January 31st, 2010 at 12:19 PM ^
Why would Pitt go? Money, money, and more money. They would triple their tv revenue by switching from The Big East to the Big 10. They would be insane for not doing it. That's not even bringing in the academic side into it.
Why would the Big 10 bring Pitt in would be a better question.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:39 PM ^
Hooking the Horns is obviously a lnog-shot but their presence in the conference would make the BigTen the premier football conference in the country, with all that means in terms of BCS berths and national championship game berths.
Basically it would mean that the *default* national championship game would be Big Ten Champion vs SEC Champion and that this would be the case unless a Pac-10 team (or, perhaps Oklahoma) proved themselves obviously outstanding.
Texas also adds more on the academic side of things - which will be importan to the University presidents who will actually make the decision.
Unlikey? Sure. But every single BigTen team enjoys greater TV revenues than Texas. That's a powerful incentive for the Horns to join the Big Ten Network.
And remember that Texas thought about joing when the old SWC crumbled. The Big12 is only 15 years old: it's not as it Texas has a massive emotional or historic commitment to it...
January 31st, 2010 at 2:00 PM ^
But they do have a massive historical commitment to the schools of the Big 12 - ya know, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, etc. They're not leaving that stuff behind.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:26 PM ^
The only big rival they have is to Oklahoma. They can go back to an out of conference game like they did in the days of the SWC.
January 31st, 2010 at 2:46 PM ^
The school they play every Thanksgiving weekend might disagree with that.
January 31st, 2010 at 3:19 PM ^
You'd think someone who chooses to mock the instate rival with his avatar instead of the bigger national one would get the whole Texas-Texas A&M thing. Only multiply it by ten on account of the size of Texas and the crazier football fans there.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:15 PM ^
About a third of that, probably. Otherwise, good post.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:38 PM ^
I would love to see texas play in a snow game @ camp randel in late Nov.
January 31st, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
Maisel actually had an interesting argument about why a Big East team would not want to leave for the Big 10. With only seven conference games, a team can easily schedule itself into a bowl game every year and has much better odds of running the conference slate than say a Pac 10 team that must play nine games in conference.
Texas ain't never gonna happen, no matter what. They'd have to give up either Oklahoma or A&M as a rival, Texas's state government wouldn't let them hang the rest of the big state schools out to dry in a decimated Big 12, no one will want to pay for non-revenue sports teams to fly to and from Texas (on either side), Texas won't demote their national power baseball team, and they own the Big 12. Texas would probably be the single best school for any conference to pick up--but it ain't happening.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:19 PM ^
People, seriously, the Texas thing isn't happening. We are not adding a school that's 1,000 miles away from everyone, nor would they be interested in coming.
January 31st, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
First of all, if you look at situations like Hawaii playing in the WAC, or USF playing in the Big East, it becomes clear that it is more than possible for teams to do this.
Second of all, Texas originally wanted to join the Pac 10 (and the Big Ten for that matter) over the Big 12, despite the traveling issue. So I doubt that distance is the main factor here.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:15 PM ^
Those were small, desperate schools, and similarly desperate conferences. (In the case of Hawaii, there was literally no alternative to joining a far-flung conference.) Neither Texas nor the Big Ten falls into that category.
The issue is not just about cost, although that's part of it. Texas fans identify with the South/Southwest/Plains. The Midwest is alien to them. They'd be giving up a century of history with some of their rivals. And they'd definitely prefer not to have to fly to go to every conference athletic contest. Their fans will likewise protest should the school flirt with the Pac-10.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:35 PM ^
When you get a $10 million increase in television revenue, travel costs become irrelevant. My point about Hawaii and USF was that if they can afford the travel costs, a richer Texas definitely can.
The culture argument is more relevant. I doubt that joining the Big Ten (or, as they originally planned before joining the Big 12, the Pac 10) would necessarily preclude them from playing Oklahoma and Texas A&M every year. It would ensure a monster of a non-conference schedule, but from what I've heard from their Texas fans that I know, they're not afraid of the challenge. What they do seem to find concerning is playing up north in November, and having to play in the Big Ten culture (they seemed more comfortable with the Pac 10 in this regard). However, they were rather open to a move of some kind, and $10 million in revenue can be rather persuasive.
February 1st, 2010 at 8:07 AM ^
I don't believe Texas ever planned on joining the Pac-10. I'm pretty sure it was the other way around: the Pac-10 wanted them but they weren't sold.
February 1st, 2010 at 9:42 AM ^
Here's an article that points out how Texas tried to join the Pac-10. The conference required unanimous approval and Stanford objected, though.
It goes on to point out that the Big XII was Texas' third choice after the Big Ten also shot them down.
February 1st, 2010 at 11:38 AM ^
Why would the Pac 10 vote no on admitting Texas if Texas didn't want to come anyway. It doesn't make sense.
Texas joined the Big 12 because of a relative lack of options. They refused to join the SEC for academic reasons (something I still laugh about) and couldn't gain admittance to the Pac 10 (Stanford vetoed idiotically) or Big Ten (expansion moratorium after Penn State) and went to the Big 12 due to a lack of any decent alternatives (although, to be fair they picked the Big 12 over independence, which they could've probably done alright at for awhile).
January 31st, 2010 at 1:32 PM ^
Here's what's actually going to happen:
The Big Ten will add Syracuse, Rutgers, UConn, Pitt, Notre Dame, and the entire Big XII, thus becoming the "Big 28," though the hard-bargaining Kansans will insist that the new league's name be spelled "Big XXVIII." The league will be divided into four 7-team divisions, and play a 2-tier conference championship at the end of each football season. Despite the newfound dominance of the Big XXVIII, television analysts will still insist that the SEC is the best conference, prompting new a round of expansion studies in 2013...
January 31st, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
Grumble Grumble I hate the Internet Grumble Grumble
January 31st, 2010 at 2:07 PM ^
I vote for Missouri, they'd be a great addition in football and basketball, plus they'd add two TV markets. Seems like the logical choice to me, and I'm pretty sure that they'd jump for the instant boost in academics and the revenue sharing in the Big Ten where they would not feel like they are being discriminated against by the Texas schools and Oklahoma.
Make it happen.
January 31st, 2010 at 3:14 PM ^
This poster has legit insider status. He was the main source for Brian's reporting on the RR hiring. He says it's just a rumor, but that's what has been passed along to him.
http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=159&f=2508&t=5519275&p=1
Here's EERholes mgoblog cred
http://mgoblog.com/search/node/eerhole
January 31st, 2010 at 3:18 PM ^
The only thing I like more about adding a school to the conference is the thought that maybe, just maybe, the Big 10 will change its name to something that actually make sense, and accounts for all of its members. And I'm not talking about keeping the same name and sneaking in the number 2 within the logo.
I trust that mgobloggers are up to the challenge of coming up with such a name.
January 31st, 2010 at 6:05 PM ^
Big Ten.
I happen to like it. The Atlantic 10 hasn't seen fit to change their name despite being a conference of 14 members (and having several schools that don't have anything to do with the Atlantic.) The Big East hasn't changed despite having two schools west of a school called Northwestern, which itself hasn't changed just because it's no longer in the northwest. I could go on, but the Big Ten ain't changing the name. Big 12 is taken.
January 31st, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^
The A-10 isn't on the same level as the Big Ten, but I agree with your point as a whole.
It will most likely stay the Big Ten.
January 31st, 2010 at 4:10 PM ^
If Pitt does end up being the Big Ten's 12th team does this help lure Notre Dame in a continued expansion ? The combination of the slight weakening of the Big East in basketball and the strengthening of the Big Ten's basketball , not to mention building further more the tremendous academics of the Big Ten !
January 31st, 2010 at 5:08 PM ^
No, Notre Dame isn't coming. The academic angle is worthless because their student body does not want the university to become more research oriented.
If anything, it would push them closer to the Big East.
January 31st, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^
You know what I think of Notre Dame?
Fuck Notre Dame!
January 31st, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^
Notre Dame Stanks and I hate em!
January 31st, 2010 at 11:08 PM ^
I thought I heard that Jim Delaney said that he was interested in looking into 12-14 teams? So who's to say that if Pitt is added that they still won't go after Mizzou and maybe another team such as Rutgers or Syracuse.
I live in St. Louis and drive to Ann Arbor for half the home games every year (7 1/2 hours) and I would kill to see a game every few years that I don't have to drive a minimum of 3 1/2 hours to see them play. You'd be every suprsied how many Michigan fans are here in St. Louis and I could only think that it would help there recruiting with the bigger Missouri and Illinios schools in the area. I want to say that two East STL kids were in the upper 75 of rivals last year.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:43 PM ^
Um... wanna carpool? :)
I'm spending way too much on airplane flights. When you can accurately predict both the arrival gate and airline rep working the gate, you know you're making the STL->DTW roundtrip a little too much.
January 31st, 2010 at 11:50 PM ^
The only way Pitt is added is if Mizzou turns the B10 down, and based on comments from the Gov of Mizzou and the Mizzou U president, I don't think they'd say no.
February 1st, 2010 at 6:03 AM ^
consider the source. Not the most reliable board to bet on.