OT: Pac 16 rumors. Implications for B1G?

Submitted by MGoJoe on September 1st, 2011 at 2:04 PM

Interesting article from Kirk Bohls on the possibility of OK, OKst, Texas, and TTech bolting for the Pac 12. Personally, I think this will happen as soon as A&M leaves the Big 12. It makes me wonder though whether the B1G will decide to keep up with the Jones' and expedite further expansion discussions or stand pat for the next 4-5 years.

http://www.statesman.com/sports/longhorns/one-more-move-and-big-12-is-over-1809134.html?cxtype=rss_longhorns

Comments

CRex

September 1st, 2011 at 2:28 PM ^

If anything I think the SEC goes to 14 to kind of test the water in the direction of what life would be like as a 16 team conference.  Depending on how it goes for them I think it will either encourage or discourage another around of expansion.

All we really need is for the B12 to absorb the parts of the MWC worthy of BCS consideration and the whole system can keep trucking right along.  The BCS is wildly profitable (for some) and has a lot of interia behind it so I think there is going to be a strong push to keep the status quo to some degree.  Super conferences don't happen until someone can definitively prove to the ADs "We can make an even larger pile of money with this arrangement".  

Jskohl88

September 1st, 2011 at 2:32 PM ^

In any and all cases, expansion is a two way street. While I personally believe the Pac-whatever-number-they-end-up-being would be beyond dumb to reject teams like OK and OKSt, in terms of the B1G it's not just about the conference wanting ND. ND has to want to be a part of the B1G, there are no hostile takeovers. With all the $$$ ND gets now with NBC and just in general from being independent, there are incredibly slim chances that they move to the B1G or any other conference in the near future.

Therefore, debating over B1G expansion that involve discussions about ND are essentially pointless, as much as I would love that idea.

ShockFX

September 1st, 2011 at 2:44 PM ^

 "Notre Dame reportedly makes around $9 million per year from NBC, which was a level that made it the top TV revenue school back in 1999. In contrast, ESPN’s Outside the Lines reported last week that the Big Ten is currently making $242 million per year in TV revenue which is split equally among the 11 schools, meaning that everyone from Michigan to Northwestern is taking in $22 million per year. Think about that for a second: the vaunted Notre Dame was the #1 TV revenue maker in the entire country up until just a few years ago, yet it’s now only #3 in its own home state behind Purdue and Indiana (and less than half as much of each, at that)."

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

It's not about money with ND. They'd make piles of money MORE in the B1G. It's about independence to them.

M-Dog

September 1st, 2011 at 9:22 PM ^

It would be an embarrasment to ND to be booted off broadcast TV, but it would indeed give a boost to Versus which does have some decent programming.

It's just a Network thinking like a Network.  It should by no means be interpreted as NBC demoting ND because they don't find them valuable anymore.

 

joeyb

September 1st, 2011 at 2:54 PM ^

This was discussed when that article came out and the $22 million number wasn't right. From memory, half of that goes to Fox and I don't think that takes into account costs of the network. IIRC, between ESPN and BTN, each school gets $11-12 million, which is still more than ND, but the $22 million was based off of incorrect assumptions.

WolvinLA2

September 1st, 2011 at 4:23 PM ^

Yes, that's correct.  Additionally, NBC could decide at any time that they want to go a different direction and not sign ND or simply sign them for less money.  Someone would pick them up, but that money's not guaranteed.  However, being a part of the Big Ten means you have the BTN working for your best interest, and they're not going anywhere. 

Not only that, but whatever the per school number is now would undoubtably be higher if ND joins as they would add a lot of viewership to the network.

BlueCE

September 1st, 2011 at 2:35 PM ^

Ha, so the PACIFIC conference will have teams with states bordering the Caribbean (same waters as the Atlantic)... They may make fun of us for being 12 teams and being called Big TEN, but that is better than having the name Pacific if that situation does happen.

Beavis

September 1st, 2011 at 2:36 PM ^

Not going to read the article, but I am pretty sure a similar one (or hundred) were written last year.

What conference is going to take Texas?  Not going to happen with The Longhorn Network and their ego.  

WolvinLA2

September 1st, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^

I don't know what Texas would gain by joining the Pac, and I don't know why the PAC would want them unless they agreed to revenue sharing which they likely wouldn't. Texas would have to play half their games on the west coast in shitty time slots with a ton more travel against opponents they have no history with. Plus, the Pac wouldn't want to take TTU just to get Texas I don't think.

Oklahoma and OK St make sense though, since they'll need a home and don't have the ability to do it on their own like Texas can.

Mr Miggle

September 1st, 2011 at 3:11 PM ^

I think it would be a great move for the PAC-12. The LHN could actually fit in well with their business model. Aside from the major boost in conference strength and marquee names, what the PAC-16 would gain is a lot of exposure. They would be able to offer games in three different time zones. That adds a lot of value to their product nationally as well as regionally.

WolvinLA2

September 1st, 2011 at 4:10 PM ^

Well, all of those things you mention are all benefits, but they don't directly increase money.  In fact, if Texas isn't willing to revenue share, the conference would actually lose money every year Texas made a bowl, and a lot of money if Texas made a BCS bowl.  I don't know if exposure and marquee match ups is enough to warrant expansion. 

Mr Miggle

September 1st, 2011 at 6:22 PM ^

Adding significant value to your product is a good way to increase revenue. The PAC-12  isn't going to just go to 16 teams and hope they can renegotiate their contracts. They're going to go to Fox and ESPN and say this expansion is a possibility. Are you interested in making it worthwhile for us? I think that will be a no-brainer.

OU and OK St leaving would force Texas's hand. Staying in the Big XII would be a big risk. It's hard to imagine their recruiting not taking a hit when their main rivals go off to play in more prestigious conferences. The Texas meglomania has been overstated imo. While there may be no limit to what they want, if their best deal entails giving up some power I think they'll take it. They're going to have to make a choice between dominating a weak, unstable conference, going independent or getting a reliable piece of a bigger pie somewhere else . Going to the PAC-16 is likely to be their best option, since the LHN shouldn't be a stumbling block and they get to keep their biggest rivalry..

ChicagoB1GRed

September 1st, 2011 at 3:17 PM ^

1. High academics

2. Still get to play OU and maintain Red River Rivalry

3. Stoops is on record favoring it, gets to recruit in California

4. Travel wouldn't be as bad as you might think, playing 2 Arizonas, OU, OSU, Tx Tech, Colorado, Utah in "East" division".

5. Conceivable that LHN could be worked as a regional network as PAC is pretty creative

Don't discount how much Texas and OU want to stay together, their rivalry is one of the biggest in CFB.

ChicagoB1GRed

September 1st, 2011 at 7:15 PM ^

their game has been played mostly as non conference rivals and could still be maintained. Should have said "EASIER to play OU and maintain Red River Rivalry".

But I think in today's environment, if they end up in different conferences, especially if the superconference scenario happens, there's more of a chance that the game wouldn't happen every year.

Think of it this way, wile_e8, if superconferences happen, and Notre Dame isn't in the B1G, there's less chance that game will happen every year, even though its a traditional rivalry for both schools.

Thanks for your reply and thoughts

U of M in TX

September 1st, 2011 at 2:50 PM ^

I would love to have the ESS-EEE-CEE reject TAMU as their 13th member, forcing them to look elsewhere, at which point the B1G can swoop in an make offers to UT and TAMU making them B1G members 13 and 14.

This is mostly for personal reasons, due to my location here in Houston.  I would be able to see Michigan every year if that happened.

TrppWlbrnID

September 1st, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^

is there any situation where the SEC does not take another team and just stays at 13?

i know it unbalances the divisions, but the SEC always plays non-conf games during what we consider the conference season, so having one team with a non conference game is not a big deal. one division would play one less cross over game than the other, but i don't think that matters too much as each team would have their special rivalry and it would be a crap shoot for the remaining games.

Mr Miggle

September 1st, 2011 at 3:30 PM ^

The scheduling would be a problem.  Say you wanted to play 8 conferences games. The West teams would play 6 division games and 2 cross-division. That's a total of 14 cross-division games. The East teams would play 5 division games and 3 cross-division. That's 18 games.

4 ot the teams in the west could miss 1 division rival each year, but that's definitely a worse setup than they have now. 

TrppWlbrnID

September 1st, 2011 at 4:26 PM ^

but the way the schedules are set up does not really guarantee similar strenght of schedules, esp in division cross over games. its not like the teams get to pick their crossovers based on the opponents' strength, they just get to play another SEC team that is not in their division.

i guess i just don't see that there is a 100% need to add another team for the ACC. it might be a bit more complicated schedule wise, but as long as you are playing the same number of conference games as teams in the other division and the same number of division games as your division-mates, then i think its fine.

Tha Stunna

September 1st, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^

Why does the big ten have to do anything?  I have yet to see a satisfactory answer to this question.  The only time we might consider pouncing is if ND feels like they have to give it up (because everyone else is doing it) or if Texas decides to stop acting all high maintenance.  There is severely negative value in any conference that's bigger than 12.  Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pitt, and the rest of them can stay the hell away from our conference, as it stands.

dayooper63

September 1st, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^

As stated above, they must go larger if the other conferences expand, push for, and get two autobids to the BCS money pit.  They will also expand if they think it's in the Big 10's best interest to do so.

I guess they don't HAVE to, but they would be leaving money on the table if they didn't.

Tha Stunna

September 1st, 2011 at 3:51 PM ^

That's the thing though; why do we need two autobids?  We basically always get two bids as is, and if the Big 12 dissolves, it's a net push (that autobid goes to the Pac-16).  There just are very few teams that are better than the average big ten team (in terms of revenue, academics, location) that can just be snatched up.

I'm also just not convinced that we are going to get enough money to make it worthwhile from dubious schools (moneywise) like Missouri.  Without the bonus of the championship game, the new school needs to be really good.

WolvinLA2

September 1st, 2011 at 4:14 PM ^

An additional autobid would be big.  It would promise that we get 2 bids even on years where our teams beat each other up, but more importantly it would allow us to get 3 bids total, since each conference is only allowed 1 at-large bid.  If we added two good teams, it's possible that both division champs and the top non-champ from one division are BCS worthy.  It wouldn't happen often, but if it happened once every 5 years it would be a lot of money. 

justingoblue

September 2nd, 2011 at 9:49 AM ^

I'd venture to say that a lot of the reason the B1G was consistently (moreso than the vaunted SEC) getting two BCS berths is because we didn't have a championship game. If we had divisional play last year, OSU wouldn't have made the championship game and the BCS would be stuck about whether to take an MSU team that just got slapped around by a Wisconsin team they beat earlier in the year or, alternatively, whether they take an OSU team that couldn't win their division.

This is Michigan

September 1st, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^

I am more concerned with how expansion would affect Michigan.

I'd rather Michigan be back on top of the B1G before all this breaks because it will be an even tougher road with the addition of other elite programs.

 

mikoyan

September 1st, 2011 at 3:29 PM ^

I don't think Texas is going anywhere.  Especially since they are probably the catalyst for what has split from the Big 12 already.  Nor do I think Oklahoma is going anywhere without Texas.

Summoner10

September 1st, 2011 at 3:39 PM ^

Texas will never join the pac12 or any other conference and i think it's rather stupid to even entertain the idea.  They've shown zero willingness to truly work with other conference members as equal partners and the only reason the Big12 has existed as long as it has is because it's basically the Texas conference with okie tacked on.  They run the show, and when the big12 is kaput they will go independent because no deal as sweet as the one they now got is out there, so they go indie and will work out a deal with the BCS much akin to Notre Dames.

Blue in Seattle

September 1st, 2011 at 4:20 PM ^

I guess I missed this last November, but while I was looking at the Big East teams on Wikipedia I noticed the footprint map included the state of Texas, and lo and behold, TCU will be playing in the Big East in 2012!

Maybe Texas A&M is thinking of joining TCU in 2012?  TCU gives them 9 Football Schools.

 

 

 

 

George Patton

September 1st, 2011 at 4:30 PM ^

Let's say that after this next round of moves we end up with three super-conferences - SEC, PAC and B1G.  It seems like this scenario would lend itself to a 4-team playoff -- take three champs plus the best team from another conference.  Whether through the BCS or another mechanism, we would be one small step away from a playoff.

CorkyCole

September 1st, 2011 at 10:11 PM ^

I live in Oklahoma City, so it's hard to get away from the issues of the B12 conference. Since all of this Texas A&M crap started, the NewsOK has been discussing the whole re-alignment thing daily. One school that comes up in nearly every article is Notre Dame, as if they have a shot at nabbing them. It seems that they realize how important Notre Dame's independence means to them and that their chances are very slim, but I just have to laugh every time I read about them salivating over the thought of Notre Dame joining their conference. Pretty sure if they were forced to join a conference, it wouldn't be the B12...