Another expansion topic? (ND and UT Rumor)

Submitted by 1464 on September 8th, 2011 at 12:37 PM

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.

 

Comments

1464

September 8th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^

The link is in the post.  Even though it's not paywalled, I still felt I should let them get the page hits...

Terms seem reasonable.  There is a little tinhattery in regards to ESPN.  Juicy stuff though...

freernnur5

September 8th, 2011 at 12:41 PM ^

Texas coming to the B1G? That would be interesting. I always assumed they (along with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Texas Tech) were Pac 16 bound to start the dominoes of the super conferences.

neoavatara

September 8th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^

Not sure if this is a new rumor or old one, but I have seen it flying around.

The terms as the rumor states it is that totally equal sharing of profits.  Texas would maintain the Longhorn network, but the league would get equal sharing rights to that as well.  There would be some consideration for scheduling, etc early on because of the transition.

If those really are the terms, pretty reasonable.  Of course, I think this more rumor than anything else.  Believe it when you see it. 

WolvinLA2

September 8th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^

If those truly are the terms and ND and Texas are cool with it, the B1G should jump at it. We would immediately be the top conference in both football and basketball, not to mention ND would make big ten hockey even better and would increase the chances of Big Ten lacrosse. We could then add two of Mizzou, Maryland and Syracuse and be the super-set super conference.

WolvinLA2

September 8th, 2011 at 2:20 PM ^

So tell me how that really makes a difference. Does UM get different research money if they take Pitt instead of Maryland? Do Delany and the AD take research into account when voting on adding a school? People bring up this research issue a lot, but never explain why. I get that the CIC shares resources, but is it enough that it makes adding schools that much different?

The reason I say this is because Nebraska is not a big time academic school or a major researcher, at least relative to the other schools we'd consider. It just seems like the other factors make a much bigger difference, otherwise we'd be inviting Johns Hopkins or Carnegie Mellon or something.

M2NASA

September 8th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^

The large state schools tend to lobby more for federal research funding.  Since the AAU judges government funding rather than including private sector funding, this makes a state school like Maryland more attractive.

However, if you look at the overall research performed, that makes a school like Pitt or SU more attractive.

To me, it appears the CIC is interested in shared resources, which is all research being perfomed, whereas the AAU is focused on federally-funded research.  Then you have ND which isn't a big research school at all.

WolvinLA2

September 8th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^

I get that, but every school we're looking at fits that mold. My point is, since all of these schools research, does that really factor in to who we pick? When looking at Mizzou vs Pitt vs Maryland, etc does research play any role at all? It doesn't seem like it did with Nebraska.

NOLA Blue

September 8th, 2011 at 3:34 PM ^

Research dollars are distributed to those who are the most efficacious researchers.  A person proves their efficacy by developing a history of peer-reviewed success.  Peer reviewed success is driven both by having papers published, and by having one's prior papers cited.  The more times you are cited by your peers, the higher your standing in your field as an "expert."  Experts are going to get large blocks of grants approved more often than new researchers or "non-experts."  A single expert brings in tens of millions of dollars to universities through the labs they oversee.  Schools charge undergrads hundreds of millions of dollars to have access to those labs and expertise.  Those undergrads are more likely to go on to become "experts."  The cycle repeats.

"Peers" are the gatekeepers to respected journals.  I am sure that, being human, access is modified by personal standing and affiliations as much as quality of work.  Likewise, citations are generated through familiarity.  (Which is why having a grad-student rotating through another university's labs through the CIC is a good thing... it breeds familiarity with other universities' prior research and increases the likelihood of cross-citations.)

Thus, if the B1G were to include universities who already have a large presence among "experts" in the field, then B1G schools will be measurably more likely to have papers published over non-affiliated researchers, and in turn increase its pool of "experts."  Of course, the new universities' alum are also more likely to be published in the journals with B1G gatekeepers.  And as such, research dollars are further concentrated in the hands of the powerful and established.

Check out justingoblue's excellent analysis of just how much $$ is at stake.  If Michigan is able to increase its growth of research-dollar-grabbing, there is a direct benefit of approx. $8 million/% increase per year.  Of course, there is also the indirect benefit of further justifiying the cost of attendance by increasing its academic talent pool, which is essentially what undergrads are purchasing access to.

justingoblue

September 8th, 2011 at 3:50 PM ^

I think Nebraska was a bit of a special case (going to twelve for the championship, great football school sitting there ripe for picking) but even Nebraska holds serious pull un agri-science which is a big, big deal for Illinois, Iowa and MSU. Also, I think Nebraska is about as low academically as the Big Ten would go. If Oklahoma was looking for an exit instead of Nebraska, the story might have been very different.

M-Wolverine

September 8th, 2011 at 12:43 PM ^

Than the chance Hoke becomes the next head coach of Michigan, and it's the rumoriest of rumors....but it's kinda fun.  Not sure how two teams with tv network contracts would work that out, but in wishful thinking, it would be wild.

ryebreadboy

September 8th, 2011 at 1:18 PM ^

Temporarily, I'd be fine with that so long as the plan was to group everyone at some point when their individual contracts are up. They are joining our CONFERENCE, where many teams are good. It's no longer the UT/ND show, and I think letting them maintain their individual TV contracts long-term devalues that team mentality as well as detracting from increased BTN revenue bargaining power.

Blue in Seattle

September 8th, 2011 at 2:04 PM ^

...is backed by Fox Sports correct?  so this rumor is going to make two other TV networks very unhappy.  It definitely increases the power of negotiation though, I completely agree with that, and if this is true, it's both a "tip of the hat" and a "wag of the finger" to Texas A&M.

This really makes the ACC and Big East have to consider merging, or the big East just finally giving up on being a football conference.  They have like 17 Universities, with only 8 (9 next year with TCU) in football.  If Big Ten really poaches Maryland, then the ACC needs 5 teams to catch up.

These scenarios are really going to make the Non-BCS teams hate the BCS conferences.

I'll believe it when I see it.

blacknblue

September 8th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^

either team is really in a position to dictate their terms of entrance. If they're not willing to come in and be held to the same regulations and requirements I don't think the B1G needs to bend over for them.

CRex

September 8th, 2011 at 1:13 PM ^

Yes.  We're a conference where out of Michigan, tOSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, Penn State and Nebraska you're going to have at least 3 in the hunt for a BCS bowl and 3 to 5 ranked at the end of the year.  We have minimal reasons to bend over and accept two national programs that are prima donas (and one of which underachieves like a mofo).

Seattle Maize

September 8th, 2011 at 1:17 PM ^

This would give us at least 5 elite teams every year.  This puts us right with/ahead of the SEC who has LSU, Alabama, Florida, Auburn, Georgia and Tennesee competing every year.  Plus, Texas and Notre Dame add two of the most profitable schools in the country to an already wealthy conference. 

coldnjl

September 8th, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

I wouldn't put too much into this as a poster on the Northwestern board has been claiming forever that UT wants to join the Big Ten. Didn't happen that time, and most likely not happening this time

Alton

September 8th, 2011 at 12:59 PM ^

Texas' baseball program is completely meaningless even within the Texas athletic department.  6,000 fans paying $10 each per weekend game (and 2,000 fans paying $6 each per weekday game) is a drop in a bucket in the ocean compared to positioning the football program to make money.  Texas will not spend one millisecond of thought on their baseball program when deciding what conference to join.

(Note:  If you were kidding about the baseball thing, never mind...)

Alton

September 8th, 2011 at 1:28 PM ^

"We considered accepting the Big Ten's invitation.  It would clearly benefit our academic reputation, our football team, our basketball team, and just about every other program in our athletic department, but since it would hurt the baseball team, we have decided not to join the Big Ten conference."

Note:  The President of the University of Texas will never say that.

I understand baseball is big in Texas.  Maybe as big as hockey is here.  I also understand that baseball will not be even a tiny consideration in making a decision this big.  It's about academics, it's about football, it's about money.  It's not about anything else, even though other sports are affected.

 

cp4three2

September 8th, 2011 at 1:38 PM ^

Its not a choice between football or baseball, it's a choice between making more money from football and possibly destroying baseball.  Texas' academics will most likely go up a little being in the Big Ten, unless they water the academics down more by adding Oklahoma or Missouri. 

 

Brandon would almost surely consider the ramifications of hockey when considering expansion.  It's not a deal breaker, but the rest of the deal has to overcome hurting decades of baseball tradition.