Another expansion topic? (ND and UT Rumor)
Didn't see this posted.
Northwestern Rivals message board post
Yes, I am referencing a message board post from the NW Rivals site. Hence the RUMOR in the title, but this guy seems at least a little bit more credible than a random troll.
The gist of the article:
Earlier this evening, Notre Dame and Texas jointly presented the Big Ten Conference with their proposed terms of entry into the conference. These terms resulted from lengthy discussions among both schools and the Big Ten over the past several months.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:16 PM ^
Maybe in a cultural manner, but Yost is very slightly smaller than Disch-Falk (6637 to 6649) and has higher average attendance (6673 to 6571).
In the pros, the Rangers average 73% capacity for home games, Houston 63.4% (both in the middle 1/3 of the MLB). In hockey, Detroit averages 98.1%, also in the middle 1/3.
Also, remember that with the Chill last year (and more BTN exposure), hockey outearned basketball at Michigan, a feat that I'd imagine would be hard for Texas baseball to replicate.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
Looking beyond other sports here...
There are a lot of rumors that the PAC12 has been quietly talking with OU and OSU (T. Boone Pickens one). Assumning they come in as a package deal that's 14 for the PAC12. The SEC is looking at A&M and pillaging an ACC currently.
It could very well be in the current arms race everyone has decided 14 is a good size. If that's the case, Texas is suddenly looking at independence or the B10 (assuming they can't lure people like BYU into the B12).
There is also the possibilty that the PAC12 decided that if they take OU and OSU they're looking at: USC, Oregon and Oklahoma as established programs. Utah is getting better and assuming Stanford keeps it together you have a number of marque programs (also Cal and UCLA if they ever get their heads out of their rectums). The PAC may have decided that Fresno State and someone else is a better way to get to 16 than Texas and Texas Tech. They may feel they have enough big names and would rather further secure the Pacific coast markets than deal with the LHN and Texas sized ego.
Also keep in mind the failure of the LHN to get love from major cable providers may be weakening Texas's ability to say "Let us in and you automatically get the Texas markets". For example if you check ShaggyBevo, fans have been screaming at DirectTV and its response has been "meh".
Texas rejecting the PAC16 might come back to bite it in the ass in this round of expasion.
September 8th, 2011 at 8:32 PM ^
program and he relayed to me that both KU and K State are going to the Big East asap and that OU and Okie State are leaving as well and almost definitely headed to PAC 10.
So there's that.
September 8th, 2011 at 9:43 PM ^
And when the eastern Big East schools leave for the ACC and Big Ten, they'll be stuck in another unstable conference.
September 8th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^
The thing about inside info is that it can change at any moment. Once something becomes concrete, it typically becomes outside info. So reporting that it looks like a done deal can be tenuous at times, even if you are reporting the truth.
Just because he called Texas before, he shouldn't be discreditted for calling them again.
However, it is a random post on a message board, so there's that.
September 8th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^
Logistically from the rest of the B10.
From a travel perspective for the rest of the non-revenue sports to make ton of sense considering the best interest of the "Student Athletes" and their class schedules. Seems like there would be an unbalanced load of travel for whatever division they end up in. Does't make sense to me...
But what do I know we just drove vans to our away games... not football.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
September 8th, 2011 at 1:24 PM ^
Texas is at least in the same time zone as much of the conference, so no hardship there.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
would depend on what the Pac-10 does. If they add Texas they would more than likely add at least one other school, if not 3 other schools.
No matter how you'd divide the Big 10 divisions up with Texas and ND, Texas would have a ton of travel.
If the Pac-10 adds another school (or 3) from the Big 12, Texas would more than likely be in a division with Colorado, the Arizona schools and whatever other teams from the Big 12 that go to the Pac-10.
September 8th, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^
if you look at current schedules of Non Rev sports they are ALREADY traveling all around the country...FACT
September 8th, 2011 at 12:55 PM ^
With the movement toward "superconferences," it would make an undefeated season all the more special - if we will even see it at all.
It will also mean the demise of the mid-major teams and their no-talent ass-clown schedules.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:02 PM ^
Challenge flag. Total bullshit.
On the <1% chance this is legit - how does a Northwestern Rivals (free) board scoop it up? Has the mainstream media become THAT big of a failure?
September 8th, 2011 at 1:04 PM ^
Huge! Haha to all the domers who cry how they'll always be independent.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:08 PM ^
I always wondered what would make Pelini's head explode. I'd imagine UT joining with their LHN intact would do just that.
If UT wants in I think they should have to drop the LHN. I'm fine with them keeping it until their current contract is up, but it needs to be writing that the LHN will not be renewed. Same for ND's NBC contact. If UT and ND get special perks it makes complete sense for us and tOSU to go "Wait, why exactly do we treat Purdue as an equal?". That kind of thinking will rip the conference apart.
Also what kind of leverage does ND have anyways? Comcast is exiling their games to Versus and if superconferences go down they're screwed in terms of scheduling. We hold most of the the cards when dealing with them.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:11 PM ^
The guy who wrote this claims that the LHN will end up being the BTN2 or + or something along those lines. If they need to wait on their contracts (I'm sure they do) then I would be perfectly fine letting Texas/ND air LHN/NBC games...as long as M got 1/14 of that.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^
I'd be fine with that. No reason for ND or UT to have to pay early termination fees on their current deals and then buy into the BTN. I just want it in the admission agreement that their private deals are done when they expire.
Be awesome if we got some kind of unholy alliance with ESPN via UT and Foxsports our BTN. The yearly check off that deal would have us rolling in cash.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:33 PM ^
The LHN deal with ESPN is for 20 years. There's a big difference between giving special perks and accomodating existing contracts. The first is unacceptable and the second would be necessary.
I don't think what they're asking for in terms of scheduling is unfair. UT and ND do have some leverage now, much more than after they join. The B1G might be the best option for both schools but they would also obviously be at the top of any expansion wish list.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
Texas and Notre Dame would be great cultural fits for the B1G. I think that as long as they divide revenue equally then both of them in the B1G doesn't open up the issue of Texas favoritism that the BIG12 had. This would be a huge move for the conference and would put our conference back on top of the SEC, which I am all for.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
I agree that ND is a great fit for the B1G, but you're completely nuts if you think Texas is. Texas doesn't just need its own conference, it really needs its own country.
I don't believe this rumor for one second.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:26 PM ^
I dont get what you mean. Texas is a great academic institution with great tradition in football and other sports. If they sole the problem of revenue sharing then this would imo be a great addition. The B1G would really benefit from this.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^
Yeah but they are all darned tooting hicks from down in that wasteland! NO FIT!
/rolleyes
September 8th, 2011 at 2:05 PM ^
September 8th, 2011 at 2:11 PM ^
Texas looks out for Texas and that's about it. I'm sure all schools do that to a degree. I at least get the feeling from the Big Ten though that the schools sometimes put aside their best interests for what is best for the conference. The only reason Texas would come to the Big Ten is if they felt that was best for Texas right now.
September 8th, 2011 at 3:52 PM ^
I don't think you can compare Texas and Miami as schools. Texas is a very good school.
September 8th, 2011 at 5:12 PM ^
So is Miami. They're actually quite comparable.
September 8th, 2011 at 5:29 PM ^
Miami is a good school, and I have a lot of respect for some of its graduates (my favorite professor did his undergrad there) but as a research institution Texas is in another league.
Texas five year total research: 2,126,324,000
Miami five year total research: 1,069,843,000
September 8th, 2011 at 1:14 PM ^
If Texas is able to retain the Longhorn Network, even if there is equal revenue sharing with the Big Ten, there will always be rumors that Texas may leave the Big 10, etc etc
September 8th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^
needs more original programming
I would be in favor of a BTN1 & BTN2
If the longhorns are producing quality programs then they should be allowed to air them on either network, puts the onus on the other schools to either step up and produce good shows or watch a Bevo reality show
September 8th, 2011 at 1:53 PM ^
The BTN has to have access to tons old video. We already see a lot of games but I would like to see behind the scenes video of Bo, Mo, Lloyd, ect.. I'm sure the University has this video for them to put something together.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
I agree that good programs should be produced, but by the BTN, not the Longhorns, IMHO. Who's to say the SEC or P12 won't whisper in UT"s ear to change conferences? If UT is producing all the content anyway, they would have very little difficulty jumping.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:23 PM ^
Good point but after reading the rumor I believe that the LHN would eventually merge with the BTN which would all but eliminate that issue. I dont have the numbers but if UT would be making the same amount of money in the B1G as they do right now then there is no motivation for them to leave the stability of the B1G conference even for independence.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:49 PM ^
If Texas HAS to share the revenues equally with a conference anyway, wouldn't they be better off sharing it with the B12? Great local fit, king of the conference with enough respectability to get the the BCS championship. And who knows, maybe in a few years Colorado/Nebraska may decide to return to an equal revenue B12, minus some of the deadweights(you know which schools I'm talking about).
September 8th, 2011 at 6:28 PM ^
I think the reason they arent behind this is becuase equal rev sharing in the Big12 adds up to a lot less per school than equal rev sharing would be in the B1G. Not sure of the exact numbers however.
September 8th, 2011 at 7:32 PM ^
Good point. I wonder if its worth it for their olympics team to travel north though.
September 9th, 2011 at 6:52 PM ^
Assuming that Penn State is their farthest travel option, an extra million dollars (and Texas would bring in much more than an extra million if it were in the Big Ten) would buy their softball team (18 girls) 100 three day trips all the way to State College (their farthest trip) using airline rates, hotel rates and bus charter rates available to the general public. Factor in that they're probably paying a significant percentage less than that, and it makes a good case that non revenue sports wouldn't be a concern.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:25 PM ^
That post talks about an 8 game conference schedule so ND and Texas can preserve rivalries outside of the B10.
For Texas, this means Oklahoma and A&M. Adding those 2 to a B10 conference schedule that includes a protected rivalry game every year with ND makes their schedule perpetually brutal. I don't see it happening.
ND's out of conference rivalry games they'd wanna keep are USC and BC, I'm guessing. Almost as tough as Ok/A&M, plus the game every year with Texas.
I also don't really want Texas. They'll eventually fuck things up in the B10 like they have every other conference. And ND just isn't appealing anymore.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^
ND probably wants to keep Navy as well.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:36 PM ^
The only reason either team is appealing is their national fanbases. What Delany really wants is the NYC market. if you have all the Texas and ND alums (plus current B1G alums) in NYC demanding it, odds are we get it. Actually with Texas and ND onboard it's possible we could become a basic network on most of the nationa's cable boxes. That means obscene money. ND football is like an underachieving Iowa but their fans are fanatically for it.
The big reason for Texas is grants. Academic grants benefit from having connections to Congress. Senators and Congressmen to pressure the CDC to hook your University hospital up with research grants and things like that. UT is their entire state's baby in terms of feeding it funding. Being able to toss UT on our grant applications gives us a huge increase in prestige and political power. The Presidents of every school involved in this have to be wetting themselves in anticapation of the joint grant writing options.
I think if we went to 14 we'd be okay. 11 of the 14 are really tight. Nebraska and ND are also pretty close to our way of thinking. If the Texas ego surfaces it wouldn't be people fleeing, it would be at least 11 of the 14 telling Texas to STFU or GTFO hopefully.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:42 PM ^
Exactly, Texas could not dominate this conference in the way it did the Big12. I think one think Delaney needs to look at also is that if we allow Texas, Oklahoma etc to go to the PAC 16 then, long term, we will be falling behind them in terms of prestige and power. In College football your conference needs to produce great teams (national champions) in order to stay on top. Adding 2 more traditional powers and a fertile recruiting base in Texas helps this.
September 8th, 2011 at 5:02 PM ^
You've convinced me.
I still don't think it will bring us the NYC market though. Seems like people in NYC just don't care about college sports, period.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:41 PM ^
Notre Dame will keep the Navy and USC games. BC is less important. I'm not sure why you think Texas and A&M are going to play every year. Given how they broke up it seems unlikely to me that they meet anytime soon.
I do like that we would get to replace ND as our marquee OOC game.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:03 PM ^
Once A&M is in the SEC, I don't see them scheduling Texas in the non-conference slate.
September 8th, 2011 at 1:30 PM ^
This will not happen. If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:00 PM ^
If Texas and ND want to join (and strengthen) the Big Ten and on top of that maintain their non-conference rivalries mid-season then by all means let them do it. I am sure the BCS bids would eventually adapt to the new super conference landscape, but those schools would be setting themselves up for one hell of schedule if they're going to supplement whatever annual combination of Michigan, MSU, OSU, Penn State, Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin they draw with a midseason game against Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Stanford or USC plus a championship game.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^
if we g0t ND and texas
i'd go after Pitt and Boston College
Pitt would strangle hold pennsylvania for the big ten along with penn state
and then we tap the boston market with BC
plus with BC and ND, thats 8 teams for the Big Ten Hockey Conference
i'll admit though i don't want Texas in the conference for their arrogent selfishness.
I'd go after BC , PiTT , and syracuse , then let ND and Texas truly fight it out for the 16th team
September 8th, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^
A pod with Penn State, Syracuse, Pitt, and BC would be hot.
September 8th, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^
Maybe the BTN could shift from a ESPN model--national programming, to a Fox Sports Net model--primarily local stuff, with a few national programs. They probably don't have enough resources or demand right now, but I think the LHN could fit within that kind of BTN. Imagine if the Michigan version of BTN was only M and MSU stuff all day, they could have one for Nebraska/Iowa/Minnesota, Wisco/Northwestern/Illinois, all the Indiana schools, and OSU/PSU. Personally, I don't care much about the BTN visits to Indiana for preseason practice, but if they focused more on Michigan stuff, I would love it. They could still have several hours a day of conference-wide shows.
I don't know if that is in the BTN long-term plans, but I think it could work. Maybe that is what they are thinking when they say that the BTN and LHN could be merged and work together cooperatively.
September 8th, 2011 at 5:04 PM ^
That's an awesome idea.
Basically have BTN like it is, and BTN 2 with a focus on programming specific to the schools in your region. I like it.
September 8th, 2011 at 11:34 PM ^
Yeah, that's why I feel like fixation on NYC is kind of stupid in one sense. We're never going to make every person in NYC a fan.
The deal is if say 2 million out of 8 million people in NYC watch CFB and care about the B1G, they'll pressure their TV provider to put the BTN on an easy to access network. 2 million people can make it so 8 million people have it included in their package, even though 6 million will never watch it. Just like how I never watched half the channels on basic cable. It's all about getting your channel included in the package most people have. Become as prevelant as ESPN or FSN.
However we get a cut for each cable box capable of watching the the BTN. So if we force 6 million extra people to get it (but never watch it), we get say 20 cents * 6 million people.
It's basically a way to get free money, force the TV provider into a lower tier package that more people buy, get X cents from those people and your profits go up without you actually having to reach those people in an meaningful way.
Ideally of course you have people channel surfing, stumble across your network and get hooked as well. Delany can talk about making the produce accessible and shit like that, but that was the main goal, we'd just stream everything or have contracts to ensure everything was on broadcast.
I realize we can make insane money by just invading cable packages, but sometimes I wonder long term if it isn't better to keep our regional footprint intact. Focus more on complete regional monopoly and 100% of the cash here as opposed to twenty cents from a bunch of random people across America. End of the day do we make more having 6 millon New Yorkers ignore our network or completely locking down the Saint Louis market until the end of the time.