Northwestern Insider to B10 Offices/Delaney

Submitted by HAIL 2 VICTORS on June 13th, 2010 at 9:54 AM

For those of you that follow frank the tank http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/ this might not be news however it seems that a Poster on a Northwestern message board has a source close to JIm Delaney (perhaps similar to Chris Brown at orangebloods has inside Texas) that offers up some very interesting insights/possibilties.  Seems this Northwestern poster has been accurate in the past regarding the Huskers to the B10.

http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?fid=57&tid=143839427&mid=143839427&sid=901&style=2

Comments

Wolverine318

June 13th, 2010 at 10:04 AM ^

yeah, that is purplebookcat on the northwestern rivals boards. He recently got an email from the Big Ten telling him to stop posting information that is getting leaked to him from a friend in the Big Ten offices. He has also been moved to the premium boards after his initial post went over 100k views. He makes no promises of his credibility just that this is information passed onto him from a friend in the Big Ten Chicago office. PBC made a claim a few days ago that his counterpart Chip on the texas boards is being used by the Texas AD as a smoke screen. 

Sven_Da_M

June 13th, 2010 at 10:07 AM ^

... so I guess one answer is "we do and it isn't".

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/chicago-blackhawks-honorary-expansionpalooza-thread-and-one-more-super-death-star-conference-rumor/

The poster is PURPLE Book Cat.  He is perhaps blocked now on Rivals in some way...

http://northwestern.rivals.com/showmsg.asp?SID=901&fid=57&mid=143976865&tid=143976865

FYI, Frank the Tank's Twitter account isn't bad for the latest in the College Football Conference Carousel:

http://twitter.com/frankthetank111

dayooper63

June 13th, 2010 at 10:29 AM ^

It was a blast to follow.  There are some big inaccuracies in the Texas guys reports.  I don't know about the voracity of PBC's stuff, but he is more accurate on the ancillary stuff.  The Texas guy is flat out saying there has been no contact between UT an B10.  That is flat out wrong (The Tech Problem email from tOSU to UT gotten by the FOIA).  He also states that the monies will distributed equally between the schools like they are now (They are not right now in Pac10).  I think neither the B10 or Pac10 is a safe bet right now, but if I had to, I would put it on the Pac10.  Since the discussion went to premium, I can't follow it so I'm left out in the dark.  Right before it went premium, there was another UT poster who was saying "Dodd" (from UT) said everything is wide open right now.

 

I wish Osbourn would just shut up.

Blue Durham

June 13th, 2010 at 10:45 AM ^

insists on a 7 game conference schedule concerns me for a 16-team conference.  This essentially makes for 2 8-team conferences that are primarily affiliated by a championship game. 

This will weaken the ties between the teams of each "Division" and the conference as a whole.  Under this scenario, if Michigan and Texas are in separate divisions, they would play each other once every 8 years (assuming the teams must play every other team within their division,a pretty good assumption).

What if Minnesota is in the other division.  How often will the Little Brown Jug actually be played for?

I am liking this less and less.

NJWolverine

June 13th, 2010 at 11:00 AM ^

Because you can always schedule games based on matchups.  Michigan will still play Minnesota most years, but maybe only play A&M once every 10 years or so.  The problem wiht the Texas push is that you're pretty much isolating Texas and Texas A&M.  It makes more sense to have two divisions where there isn't much isolation.  Then, the eastern and western-most teams could have at least 3-4 local teams they could play all the time (lesser travel expenses).  That is why I don't think this story has any legs.  The more realistic option is to add ND, Rutgers, Syracuse and Maryland. 

Section 1

June 13th, 2010 at 1:09 PM ^

It would make the creation of "divisions" easier.  We could organize one ten-team division consisting of Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nothwestern, Iowa and Illinois, plus Indiana and Purdue, adding Ohio State, and also Michigan Agircultural College which would be re-named Michigan State College and then Michigan State University.  We'd call that ten-team unit, "The Big Ten Division of the Big Ten Conference."  It would set up some incredible rivalries among similar first-tier public universities from around the Great Lakes region.  In Michigan's particular favor (since we should always be looking for the angle that suits us best), we'd set up a season-ending rivalry game with Ohio State, which would very often determine the divisional champion of the Big Ten Division of the Big Ten Conference, and could annually be the defining game of the Big Ten Division of the Big Ten Conference.  Right before we head into the quarterfinal season of The College Football Playoff Season Brought To You By Dr. Pepper.

I've got ideas.  We should do lunch sometime.  Have your gal give my gal a jingle to set it up.

Blue Durham

June 13th, 2010 at 2:51 PM ^

I don't understand all of the buzz of excitement of Texas joining the conference.  We could schedule Texas now as an OOC game, but we don't.  There is probably a reason for that.

Why get all excited about Texas in the Big Ten, when it is highly likely they would be in the other division, and with 16 teams, we'd hardly ever play them?

We would also loose playing, say Minnesota regularly (assuming they are also in the opposite division).  What do we gain?  Assuming Indiana and Purdue are in our division, playing them both essentially every single year.  Oh, and the very occasional game against Texas.

I guess I am, surprisingly, quite satisfied with just Nebraska (I preferred Notre Dame), the Big Ten at 12 teams, prefer 8 conference games (play all in division every year, half of the other division), and the conference championship. 

Add 4 more teams, and contact with the other division is essentially the extent of contact the Big Ten has had with the Pac Ten.

turd ferguson

June 13th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^

this is what we had before. we just called one of the "divisions" the big ten, the other "division" the pac-10, and played the "conference championship game" in pasadena on january 1st. still, i have no problem at all with a seven-game schedule. in fact, i think there are a lot of benefits:

first, it's basically like introducing a playoff in which the first round takes place within your conference. (almost) anything that gets us closer to a playoff is a good thing in my view.

second, you can choose which schools on the opposite side of the conference to play (as out-of-conference games), which will make for more intriguing matchups. this also makes splitting the divisions a little easier, since you don't really have to worry if, say, illinois and northwestern end up in opposite divisions. (they could just play every year anyway.)

third, and most importantly, a 7-game division-based schedule means that division champions will be determined after everyone has played everyone. the downside is that the champion is determined with a relatively small sample of games. i'd argue that the upside -- the fairest imaginable way of doing this -- easily outweighs that. if we're playing 9-game schedules and one school happens to draw ohio state and penn state while another draws indiana and northwestern, that's a major competitive disadvantage.

all in all, i'd prefer a 7-game schedule. if it leads to notre dame and texas joining, too, it's a no-brainer.

NJWolverine

June 13th, 2010 at 10:54 AM ^

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093756

Yesterday's update was informative.  Texas A&M appears committed to the SEC.  They are willing to abandon Texas and the Governor's hands are apparently out.  Therefore, even if the B10 offers, it won't matter.  There does not appear to be a firm committment to keep Texas and Texas A&M together.  That is the only chip the B10 has IMO.  The SEC is getting involved now with Oklahoma.  Furthermore, the whole B12 disintegrated because of disagreements between North and South.  I find it hard to believe that Texas will even think about linking up with Nebraska again.  Isn't that the reason why Nebraska left in the first place?  The only beneficiaries from this are the remaining B12 North schools who are hoping to link up with Texas.  They're only dreaming.

Also, it should be noted that ND will NOT join a conference with a lot of former B12 teams.  The demographics clearly favor the East.  The reason why ND plays Rutgers is not because it's a great matchup on the field, but because of heavy Catholic populations in NJ and the northeast generally.  To keep their connection with a main base of student recruiting and their fanbase, they will want teams in the Big East now, though for academic reasons they may have wanted to be the only ones to join (but that deadline has passed and the point is moot).  The B10 could proceed without ND and only go after Texas, but unfortunately I don' t think that has any chance of happening. 

Blue Durham

June 13th, 2010 at 11:02 AM ^

to free themselves from Texas, actually would end up, yet again, not only in the same conference, but the same division as Texas.

Now that Nebraska has been admitted into the Big Ten, do they now have a vote/say in future offers (I doubt it)?  But I would think that their opinion on things is sought by Delaney.

I also thought it was interesting that, on purplecatbook's posting, that the Big Ten expressed a desire for the Texas to help the other Big 12 teams left out find a place somewhere.

oakapple

June 13th, 2010 at 11:19 AM ^

What Notre Dame wants is a national schedule. It wouldn't accept a schedule of entirely old Big XII teams, but it doesn't mind playing them. Indeed, several sources reported that ND and Texas were talking, and that if both joined the Big Ten, they wanted assurances they would play each other every year.

Delaney has four more cards to play (assuming that 16 is the maximum). If he hooked Texas and Notre Dame, and the Irish needed a couple of more eastern schools on their schedule, he could add Rutgers and one more (Maryland, Syracuse, Pitt, etc.). Heck, I think he'd add Hawaii if that's what it took to nab the Irish.

Texas never minded being in a conference with Nebraska. It's Nebraska that minded Texas. However, if UT joins the Big Ten without any other Texas school, the Big Ten won't become a Taxas-centric league the way the Big XII did.

NJWolverine

June 13th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^

There aren't enough teams to go around to satisfy everyone.  Texas and Texas A&M would still be isolated and then you'd have to add 2 more eastern schools to mollify ND (and probably PSU).  If A&M goes to the SEC, Texas will be completely isolated.  In the end you have a hotchpot of teams from 3 different regions of the country.

The reason why the Pac16 makes sense is because Texas will be able to carry Oklahoma, Texas Tech and OK State with them.  Now, if Oklahoma decides to join the SEC (along with A&M), then you might see Texas go in that direction as well (and then they would still be with A&M).  Right now, the B10 is in a distant third in the race for Texas IMO.

NJWolverine

June 13th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^

Is Vanderbilt hurt by the fact that they're in the SEC?  Come on, we all know academics has nothing to do with re-alignment.  It's all about the money.  If academics mattered, Nebraska would have never been admitted and Pitt would be high on the list.  Let's be honest, most BCS schools are open admissions schools at the undergraduate level (and that's true or pretty much true for all B10 teams except Northwestern and us).  Sure the Pac-10 has Stanford, Cal, USC and UCLA, but they also have Washington St., Oregon St, Arizona St. and if Texas joins them they will also have Texas Tech, Oklahoma and O.K. State.  There really isn't much of a difference. 

lhglrkwg

June 13th, 2010 at 1:38 PM ^

if academics didn't matter we'd just round up texas, texas a&m, and texas tech. heck maybe oklahoma too. and then we'd all just sit on our pile of money and have a good laugh. ever wonder why regional schools with decent athletics were never considered? WVU, louisville, cincinnati? and why we have a 'tech' problem? it's because they are terrible schools

that's not to say money isn't a big factor, but nebraska is still a pretty good school that matches up pretty well with the rest of the big10 with regard to research and academics

Zone Left

June 13th, 2010 at 11:21 AM ^

A&M to the SEC is probably the best possible move for the school.  The athletic department has a gaping budgetary whole that SEC money would help to fill and College Station is a better cultural fit with academic hubs like Baton Rouge and Starkville.  It's also great for the SEC because A&M guarantees them viewers and attention in Dallas.

Unfortunately, I can't see Texas leaving both Oklahoma and A&M, so I think the Big 10's dream of adding Texas and becoming easily the most powerful college sports league while permanently cementing its place as the most powerful academic consortium outside of Boston is probably dead.  We'll have to settle for the richest league that might someday be rivaled academically by the PAC __.

lhglrkwg

June 13th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^

the 2 things cited in that rivals article that a&m is apparently concerned with is money problems and academic issues. if that's the case then the big10 is obviously the best choice for them.

they'd make the most money in the big10 and they'd be aligning with a whole conference of elite research schools. they'd immediately raise their academic profile. the SEC will just drag them down

formerlyanonymous

June 13th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^

FWIW, Texas Governor is one of the weakest governor positions in the US. He wouldn't have the power to block anything. The only real power he really has is line item veto.

In the end, it comes down to the legislature and what they do. I've heard a few state representatives say they want to stay out of conference realignment as well. That's my hope.

Tater

June 13th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^

I usually don't like song parodies much, but I think the NW poster's "Sorry, sorry Iowa Hawkeyes" to the tune of Battle Hymn of the Repubilc is really funny.  Of course, this is coming from a school whose best cheer is "That's alright, that's OK, you'll all work for us someday," so I guess I should expect some pretty high "humor IQ's" there.

HAIL 2 VICTORS

June 13th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^

The Texas Conundrum

  1. Can’t go to the SEC due to unacceptable academics
  2. If they go Pac 16 they will never make the $$$ they would one day in the B10 (at best they can equal TODAYS B10 payout once the P16 signs a long term deal with Fox similar to the SEC-12 years- however the B10 network is only in it’s second year of what was originally a 5 year ROI model and it is not unreasonable to imagine $40 million dollars per school in 5 years) and will also lose out on the kind of research money Penn State is making since joining the B10 ($200 million),
  3. If they go B10 they must play Oklahoma and TT OOC, deal with the eastern time zone, cold weather (some of that in P10 but not as drastic),  and  a fan base that will whine about travel destinations.
  4. Rally what remains of the B12 and try to maintain the status quo but be second tier athletically behind the P10, B12 and SEC with a Mizzou that will jump to the B10 at a moments notice and Oklahoma thinking SEC fallback plan the entire time.

I can’t imagine going through such times in those shoes.

Don

June 13th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

Just three weeks ago, or even less, the conventional wisdom was that the B10 was going to gobble up one to three Big East schools, which would effectively decimate that conference, weakening it so much that the ACC would pick the remaining carcass clean of any remaining valuable shreds of collegiate flesh. Very few people envisioned what has happened since then, which is that it's the Big 12 that's being savaged, with the Big East still intact. That's not to say that the Big East is out of the woods yet, but with the speculation currently centering on some combination of Texas, A&M, ND, and Missouri coming in to make a Big 10/14/16 conference, the Big East might emerge unscathed. I guess they'd lose Notre Dame in non-football sports, but I don't get the impression the Big East would be horribly damaged by that.

NJWolverine

June 13th, 2010 at 7:55 PM ^

http://texas.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1093803

The orangebloods.com stories should probably be posted in a new section, but there's a new article out about a last minute attempt to save the B12.  Apparently, current B12 commissoner is offering the remaining 10 schools tv revenue on par with the SEC (how he has done that is not specified) and allow institutions to pursue their own network (which is what Texas wants).  If the B12 can be saved, the Pac 10 will invite one more school and then stop there.  That would probably stop the formation for mega-conferences and allow all the other conferences to survive and ND to remain independent.  

In principle, the plan does have a shot because it would minimize travel costs.  But with just 10 teams, I can't imagine how the B12 commissioner can all the sudden assure the remaining schools that they will earn tv revenue on par with the SEC.  The story says the schools currently earn between 7-10 million.  The have that double with two fewer teams is kind of optimistic if you'd ask me.  The B12 could add some more Texas schools like TCU, SMU or Houston to really clamp down that market, but I find the proposal untenable absent specific information to the contrary.