OT: On PAC-10 Expansion

Submitted by Zone Left on March 4th, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Great article about Pac-10 expansion. It raises and implies a number of great questions that also apply to the Big-10. Examples:

1. With a conference split, will schools want to lose annual trips to Ohio/Pennsylvania?

2. Does the Big-10 want to continue to give a 1/12 split regardless? For example, if Texas were to be interested, would the Big-10 sweeten the pot? (It's hypothetical, Texas ain't coming).

3. Is the Big-10 willing to take a lower ranked academic school in exchange for better money?

The Pac-10 is in a different position, because their revenue sucks next to the SEC/Big-10, and their TV deal is awful. However, these are questions that I'm sure are at least asked by the Big-10 Presidents, even if they are immediately shot down.




March 4th, 2010 at 2:39 PM ^

Wasn't there something out the other day that basically says the Big Ten will actually expect the new incoming school to take a lesser share for like a trial period of some time? You don't just jump in and take a full share of the money on day one. So I think the answer here is clear, we don't need to bride someone to enter, even taking a less than equal share as it currently stands a team like Texas will still make more money.

On number 3: Not to low, honestly the Academics are very important.


March 4th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^

I lived in the Denver area for a couple of years, and met a large number of fellow migrants from Kansas, Nebraska and Missouri. Boulder is nestled up against the front range of the Rockies and looks out over the plains; they look East, not West. I'd be shocked, shocked, if Colorado joined the Pac-10.


March 4th, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^

I'd imagine that if the Pac 10 offers more money, then these sentiments will be quickly forgotten. Also, the superior academics in the Pac 10 have to be attractive to Colorado when they're currently rubbing shoulders with schools like Oklahoma and Oklahoma State.


March 4th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^

1. While Ohio and Pennsylvania are the biggest states for recruiting in the Big Ten, no school is dependent on the talent there like the Pac 10 depends on California. Furthermore, if you add another school with access to a big recruiting area, the problem is instantly solved. Besides, the biggest advantage the Pac 10 schools get out of playing teams like USC every year is that the game is automatically televised. And finally, it isn't exactly difficult to schedule a game in Pennsylvania or Ohio. Just schedule a home and home with Pitt or Cincy or some MAC school.

2. No way will the Big Ten sweeten the pot for any incoming school (especially since the said incoming school wouldn't have helped create the Big Ten network in the first place). Coming to the Big Ten automatically ensures that any school's revenue will increase. Besides, I doubt that Michigan or Ohio State will agree to any newcomer (even Texas) making more than them.

3. The Big Ten will take any school that can make meaningful contributions to the CIC. If they can't (and they're not Notre Dame), then they're out. Basically, this limits the pool to AAU universities. Also, the Big Ten does not care at all about rankings (like US News) because they don't follow the criteria that the Big Ten cares about (namely research combined with acceptable undergraduate programs).

Zone Left

March 4th, 2010 at 4:12 PM ^

I agree with you, but I think they are questions that have to be asked. It isn't responsible to ignore huge gains in revenue because everyone will probably be against it.

The article just struck me as very similar to what Big 10 Presidents must be dealing with. Pitt may be the best academic school of the bunch, but does it really add TV revenue? Does Rutgers really bring a useful number of New York TVs and ad dollars? Is Nebraska a good enough school to consider?

It's all hypothetical, but that they've hired a firm to gauge the revenue impacts certainly means they are serious.