Official Welcome to the Big Ten Nebraska thread

Submitted by Geaux_Blue on June 9th, 2010 at 5:35 PM

To avoid 90 different threads popping up with the equivalent of Bleacher Report verification, here is one thread to rule them all.

 

Per ESPN, Nebraska officials are looking at Friday as merely a formality and that the deal is done. 

An athletic director in the Big 12 told ESPN's Joe Schad that Nebraska has had discussion with the Big Ten and that there was a "good chance" Nebraska would join the Big Ten as early as Friday.

ESPN's Mortensen further reports that Nebraska AD Tom Osborne has specifically "informed staff that school will make move to Big Ten." (Twitter) The Dallas News does a report of a report confirmation. All Hell Breaks Loose.

Now, as Pat Forde notes, the ND waiting game begins as schools are expected to jump and looking to not be left in the cold/with the check/metaphors are fun. This is further increased by the fact that, per the aforementioned Dallas News article, "Big 12 sources have confirmed that Texas and Texas A&M boards will be meeting Thursday." That's, like, TOMORROW!

 

This post will be updated as information comes through.

Comments

pasadenablue

June 9th, 2010 at 6:38 PM ^

once again, all of you are forgetting the real reason why Rutgers is being targetted.  its is to capture the nyc market, but not to capture rutgers fans there.  the big ten doesnt give two shits about the rutgers fans in the nyc area (all 6 of them).  no, they care about getting all big ten alums living in the area to put pressure on local cable companies to add btn to their basic packages.  the big ten doesnt need rutgers to draw their own (by own i mean scarlet knight) fans.  the big ten needs rutgers so that it can leverage preexisting fans in the area.

the big 10 wants those four road games in the nyc area.  and since rutgers would be in the east division, that would mean they play penn state (for sure), and either michigan or osu (maybe both), at home, at least every other year.  at least one of the big tens biggest cash cows playing in the nyc area every year.  now that is what the big 10 wants.

pasadenablue

June 9th, 2010 at 6:56 PM ^

well, because texas doesnt want to join us.  if texas called up jim delaney, said they wanted to join, and that they also wanted a ton of unobtainium, there would be a ton of that shit outside texas' campus tomorrow morning, along with delaney and the big ten ADs waiting to kiss the ass of any texas reps present.

 

now nebraska is chosen because they have a large national fanbase.  they have a solid football program, great tradition, and are an AAU school.  after texas and ND, they're the best realistic choice.

 

and suggesting fordham is just pedantic hyperbole.  rutgers still somewhat fits in as a football school.  it fully qualified as an academic institution.  as far as trying to corner the nyc market, its the best regional choice.

 

but media share = money.  thats what all of this realignment is based off of.  a championship game would add maybe 5-10 million (very VERY generous) estimate to the conference pool.  increased media share would add far more than that.

dahblue

June 9th, 2010 at 7:04 PM ^

Again, Houston + Dallas are both top ten markets...and the market share per game would likely be higher than that in NYC (where a lot of folk don't care about college football).  I don't know where you get "Texas doesn't want to join us"...that seems to run counter to all previous reporting.  It appears that we're valuing a ND/Rutgers combo above Texas.  And yes, clearly Fordham was a joke...but, frankly, so is Rutgers.

pasadenablue

June 9th, 2010 at 7:12 PM ^

To quote Joeyb: "Texas is that cute chic at the bar you take home ... and then you notice she has 3 kids"

 

If we take Texas, we'd have to take at least A&M and Tech as well (maybe even Baylor, ugh).  To even things out we'd need another school.  That's three more mouths to feed.  The Big 10 expansion plan (not the ridiculous theories spouted by speculators - what the Big 10 itself has been trying to do) has been to find one school to round out to 12.  It simple math and economics - for each school we add, we need to grow our revenue by about $25 million per year.  Its far more feasible with adding one school and a championship game.  An increase to the footprint and and a champ game will easily add 25 million.  However, if you start adding 3 or even 5 schools, you need to find 75-125 million dollars more in revenue.  Good fucking luck.  The only way the Big 10 can make expanding to 14  profitable is if they get all of their top picks, i.e. ND, Texas, Nebraska, without the entourage.  Rutgers and Mizzou might help if we increase to 16, but really, they'd be dead weight.

 

So that's why Texas doesn't want us - because we can't afford to pay child support for its kids.

joeyb

June 9th, 2010 at 7:33 PM ^

The only thing that is split evenly is TV contracts. Brian showed BTN was around $6mil/team and other TV was around $7mil/team. 

Missouri would actually get us the markets around them. Between Kansas City and St. Louis, that's about 4.8 million people. Let's say 4 people per household, and 5 out of every 6 households have a basic cable package or better. That's 1 million subscriptions or $8.8 million extra dollars for the BTN. Add in the extra money from ABC for broadcasting 8 or so games/ year in that market and I am sure we can get up to $13 million.

joeyb

June 9th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^

Well, look at a map. Even with adding Nebraska, you have to pass through at least two states before reaching Texas. Adding Missouri or Kansas gets you down to one. Then, you consider that Texas won't come without A&M, probably Tech, and maybe Baylor, that's 2-4 teams that to bring you the Texas market. Now consider the teams you have to add to make them even remotely close to the Big10 and you are looking at another 2 at the minimum. It's just not worth the hassle or the extra teams to get the market.

dahblue

June 9th, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^

Delaney said that they want to expand into the south (and we know they aren't going to SEC country) where the population is shifting.  That's not Missouri or Kansas.  We don't have to touch foot in every state toward the south to add a southern (or Texan) team.  I'm not sure why you're so opposed to Texas?  I'd much rather "have to" add Texas A&M than choose to add Rutgers or anyone from the Big East.

joeyb

June 9th, 2010 at 6:24 PM ^

I'm not opposed to them, I am just being realistic about it. flying in a plane to get to 4+ conference games each year is a huge hassle.

Did he say "expand into the south" or "expand south"? According to this

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_map-The_South_Modern_.png

Missouri and Maryland are technically in the south. I know it's arbitrary, but so is pretty much every other definition.

joeyb

June 9th, 2010 at 6:48 PM ^

Fair enough about the sun belt, but he also says "gaining a foothold" not conquering it. Plus, like I was pointing out and the other commenter pointed out, the other schools that we would need to take along with Texas just aren't worth it.

dahblue

June 9th, 2010 at 7:00 PM ^

Well, to "gain a foothold" we'd have to actually go to the sunbelt (which doesn't include Nebraska...although I'm thrilled with that addition).  I'd agree that I'd skip on Texas if TTU and Baylor were required, but it seems that the most political would require A&M to stay with Texas and maybe not the others.  We shall see, but I don't see Rutgers/UConn/Maryland as being any better than TTU.

joeyb

June 9th, 2010 at 7:09 PM ^

I would say Missouri or any on-the-border school (on the south side) gets us a foothold. You get Texas and you have stranglehold.

Like I said it's all arbitrary and who knows what he was thinking when he said that. He could have been throwing a stone into the woods for the media while they tried to massage ND into joining.

dahblue

June 9th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^

Missouri is no more Sunbelt than Nebraska is west coast.  Indeed we'll likely never know the thought behind the statement, but the statement was indeed about the sunbelt.  Alas, I just want Texas and cringe....absolutely cringe at the thought of Rutgers instead.

psychomatt

June 9th, 2010 at 6:26 PM ^

TX looks great on paper, but they are going to wreak havoc on the poor P10. They would do the same to the B10. I wanted TX initially too, but the more I thought about it we are better off with them in P10. Also, do u really want to take A&M, TTU, OK, Okla St and Baylor? Because that appears to be the price.

dahblue

June 9th, 2010 at 6:34 PM ^

If that's the price, agreed...I don't want Baylor, TTU or OKSt.  I'd love Oklahoma though.

Anyway, we've been willing to tolerate years of ND's garbage with regard to expansion, so if we'd take the time to sort out those headaches, we should have the financial muscle and political knowhow to give Texas a go.  If it doesn't work...so be it...but going from "maybe Texas" to "maybe Rutgers" is like going from a BMW to a Beetle.

psychomatt

June 9th, 2010 at 6:50 PM ^

but TX and her five ugly sisters, NFW.  Here is what is going to happen.  They are effectively taking the entire B12 South (unless Baylor gets dropped for CO). TX will dominate that division and will constantly try to bully the conference and threaten to take its marbles and go home if it does not get its own way. We do not need that headache in the B10, especially if it means we have to split the money with the 5 other teams they insist we take to get them. ND is a pain in the ass, but it will be very hard for them to bully anyone.

Geaux_Blue

June 9th, 2010 at 5:47 PM ^

can someone explain to me when this would go into effect for scheduling/games?

would Michigan be playing Nebraska as early as September or would they wait a season?

gum-bercules

June 9th, 2010 at 6:54 PM ^

Penn State robbed Nebraska of a perfect season in 1982 with the help of a terrible officiating call, then went on to win the national championship; in 1994, Nebraska claimed both national titles despite Penn State's 11-0 (8-0) undefeated season, their second in the Big Ten.

ish

June 9th, 2010 at 5:52 PM ^

maryland?  that's a new name.  fits the profile though.  big research institution, academics comparable to some BT schools.  location's a bit off though.

Pea-Tear Gryphon

June 9th, 2010 at 5:53 PM ^

Welcome (if this is true) to the B10 Nebraska. I think this is a great get for the conference. I still would like to see 14, but if this is our 12 I'm cool with it. I wouldn't mind still adding Texas and Mizzou for 14 though.

In the words of an icon, "To hell with Notre Dame."

The FannMan

June 9th, 2010 at 6:53 PM ^

On the ND part, especially.

I would love it if the Big Ten stiffed ND.  They spent years looking down their nose at the Big Ten and declining to join, while scheduling 3 or 4 Big Ten teams.  I would love it if they missed the money train that is the BTN and had to take years of crappy records to try to re-up with NBC - who may not want them.  Delaney should just play the clip of Bo saying "To hell with Notre Dame."