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

Trebor

September 1st, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^

If Texas goes to the Pac-X, I don't see who the Big 10 could pick up that would be worthwhile besides Notre Dame. And without a second team to keep the divisions balanced, the Big Ten would be stupid to expand just for the sake of expansion.

justingoblue

September 1st, 2011 at 3:08 PM ^

Pitt is also as good of a team as you'll find in the BE (besides WVU, who will under no circumstances be invited). Academics are also a factor; the research that fuels the CIC? Pitt has that as a trump card compared to basically any available school.

Besides that, the ACC seems pretty stable to me in a way that the BXII and BE do not.

Shakespeare

September 1st, 2011 at 5:40 PM ^

They won't do it. Period. If they were even thinking about it they would have already. For fifteen years the B1G has been trying to get them. They're not interested.  They don't want to share the wealth. They have their own TV deal, keep all their bowl money, why would they join a conference? And if everyone else is forming superconferences their position as independants is only given more value. If it turns into a 3 conference system and each has two BCS bids then ND is no worse off.

If the B1G expands I think they'll go after Syracuse, Pitt, Kansas, Missouri (or any combination of them). Think outside of just football. How much stronger would B1G basketball be with those four teams in the mix? 

blueindy

September 1st, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^

ND makes LESS money than INDIANA from TV rights fees and bowl payouts. Football game inventory is what ESPN pays for. Basketball: not so much. Kansas, Cuse and Pitt may be excellent B-ball clubs, but the additional money that would be brought into the league based on their BB programs are roughly equivalent to the improper benefits OSU players recevied in the last 18 months. A nice amount, but probably not worth the trouble.

Shakespeare

September 2nd, 2011 at 11:21 AM ^

First off I don't know where you got that stat about Indiana making more money off of their TV deal than Notre Dame but it's blatantly untrue and doesn't factor in that every single Notre Dame game is broadcast on national television coast to coast. That's a major koo for recruiting and program prestige.

Secondly, the B1G would make tons of money off of Kansas, Pitt, and Cuse basketball. Think about how much more exciting the B1G bball tourny would be. The Big East tourny is always sold out and brings in tons of revenue to the conference. Having those extra elite teams in the program would raise the national prominence of the conference and give the B1G more annual Sweet 16 teams and potentially more national championships which equate to $$$$$.

uniqenam

September 1st, 2011 at 2:07 PM ^

Implications for B1G?  None.

 

I don't understand what 16 brings that 12 doesn't...if the bowl system somehow changes to prefer the "16-team superconferences", does anyone seriously believe they would just tell the B1G to fly a kite because we only have 12 members.  Maybe I'm not smart, I just don't get the whole reasoning for the B1G.  No reason to add schools just for the sake of adding them, unless it's Notre Dame/Texas.

uniqenam

September 1st, 2011 at 2:37 PM ^

Texas and Oklahoma maybe, no way Texas Tech and OK State.  You have to remember, for all the money they bring, they take out even more.  It's like if you had a communist community, and everyone shares their wages equally, and then you bring in a bunch of migrant workers who make 1/10th of everyone else; sure , you'll have more net money in the system, but it actually drags everyone elses averages down.

joeyb

September 1st, 2011 at 2:08 PM ^

I don't think Texas will leave the Big 12 behind, but if it crumbles, I think they'll just stay independent. If that's the case, it would be interesting to see who they would get for a fourth. Maybe they steal TCU from the Big East.

turd ferguson

September 1st, 2011 at 2:17 PM ^

It'll be interesting to see what happens to UT after A&M leaves.  UT is obviously king in Texas, but I could see A&M making up ground if/when they go to the SEC.  If you're a college football fan in Texas, it could be appealing to follow Texas A&M's run through an SEC schedule every year rather than UT's run through Big 12 leftovers or whatever random collection of schools they find in an independent schedule.

dayooper63

September 1st, 2011 at 2:29 PM ^

Independence for Texas would be very difficult.  They need a conference for their non revenue sports as being an indie in those sports would be hard to keep up a full schedule.  If they decide to pick up some replacements (like SMU, Boise State, ect), that would not keep that league in the BCS.  Do you think the other teams would put up with Texas every year in the BCS and walk right into the MNC game?  Not a chance.

As for the Big 10?  It will depend on how far the SEC goes.  Do they pick up a 14th school to go along with TAMU or do they go full blown 16 teams to keep up with the new Pac 16?  If they go 16, two west coast schools will be picked off and my guess is that FSU will be one (assuming Mizzou being the other western team brought in).  They bring a national footprint.  I know Frank the Tank is touting WVU as the most likely, but really don't bring anything to the table.  If it's another ACC team, the whole conference may have to join in an unprofitable merger with the Big East.  This may have some of the bigger names looking for greener pastures, thus affecting the Big 10.

dayooper63

September 1st, 2011 at 3:06 PM ^

Why would they give up a Bowl slot when they already have a BCS invite?  They wouldn't split the Bowl money with Texas so they would be losing money.  The partnership worked perfectly for The Big East when they were building their football resume from scratch.  To take the next step, they need full football members, not to hang on bigger and more well known programs.

Blue in Seattle

September 1st, 2011 at 3:57 PM ^

Or at least doing something different from their present positions in the short term.  The Big Ten is conservative and will want to understand and measure the impact of Nebraska for at least a year and the biggest increment in revenue is the addition of the Championship Game.  As the article that Brian linked to in the side bar discusses, going from 12 to 14 or 16 isn't doing as much as going to 12 and adding another game to the schedule adds.  The Pac 12 and Big Ten have both just taken that big bite, but neither knows just how good it tastes yet.

Texas may allow the discussions to happen on just about any front, because, why wouldn't you consider your options?  But the style and culture in Texas is "Texas first because we're best and biggest".  This means Texas is not going to give up on their network just because someone else left the conference.  In their minds they are the conference.  Also they've already lost their championship game so dropping from 10 to 9 isn't a huge impact to the pain they already are doing nothing to solve.  People in Texas are going to tune into the Long Horn Network.  As long as the ratings are there and the ad revenue pays everyone's bills, Texas will just look around for other doormats to join to get back up to 12.

 

M-Dog

September 1st, 2011 at 9:35 PM ^

Texas does not want independence.  Texas wants autonomy. 

They want to be able to do their own thing within a loose federation of weak members.  They get this with the Big12.  They get national access and exposure for football, and a place to park their non-football teams.

Look for the Big12 to keep replacing members as they leave with new subservient members who are just happy to be there.  Texas will make sure it does just enough to keep Oklahoma content.  Everyone else is replaceable.

The Big12 will live on because Texas wants it to live on.

  

 

jcgold

September 1st, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^

I wouldn't think so.  For the B1G to expand, it would have to make financial sense:  that is, a new team will have to increase everyone's share despite creating a new one.  Maybe Missouri and Kansas can deliver this, but even they are a stretch.  The rest of the Big 12 would provide us with no gain.

As long as ND decides to stay independent, B1G expansion will not happen.

hart20

September 1st, 2011 at 2:10 PM ^

Whatevet it is. Second, the B1G will only expand when it wants to, and not because others are doing so. At this point, we'd only take another team if that team was ND or maybe even Texas, if the TV thing could be worked out. ND is the crown jewel in expansion, that's who we want.

CRex

September 1st, 2011 at 2:45 PM ^

It's hard to get excited about ND to be honest.  What we want in expansion is a large alumni base that will have people screaming to their cable provider to carry the BTN (ideally in NYC).  ND definitely has alumni in NYC, but a lot of their alums go to Chicago, a media market we already own.   Also the B10 as a conference has a bit of a mixed history in terms of getting along with ND.  I'm not sure if their alumni base is worth the possible bitch fest that might occur between a more conservative religious school and a bunch of public universities.  Remeber athletics is a million dollar industry, research grants is a billion dollar one.  Having Notre Dame in the CiC and bitching about stem cell or abortion research isn't worth the benefits of their athletic revenue stream.  

Texas also has the national alumni base, but they don't play well with others.  They're the crown jewel that has arms and likes to randomly slap you around (or attempt to).  

I'd be more excited about finding one or two East Coast schools that send a lot of their alums to NYC.  Some schools with good law, econ, and business programs.  Gobble them up.  Suddenly all their alums in NYC are screaming for the BTN and that will apply pressure to move it to basic.  I'd rather let the SEC loot the ACC and then eyeball some decent basketball programs.  That's the revenue sport the conference is the weakest in and there are some good options in the ACC that put alumni in NYC and fit in with the B10.  

(Plus honestly we want to pad out our football schedule from a purely utiliarian point of view.  A conference of 8 ranked football teams just means a massive melee in which everyone ends up a 3 loss team that is beat to hell by the end of the season.)

andrewG

September 1st, 2011 at 3:05 PM ^

what are these magic east schools schools you speak of? and do you seriously think the big10 has any interest in adding teams to "pad out" the football schedule??? they want to add programs that draw attention, not yawns. look at nebraska. sure, they added a state of tv's, but  it's a pretty small state, population-wise. what they did add, however, was a big name and quality competition. i don't expect the big10 to deviate from that model. they want to add tv's, but they want to add teams that can compete and improve the big10 brand as well.

WolvinLA2

September 1st, 2011 at 3:12 PM ^

ND fans are everywhere, especially everywhere there are Catholics. I bet there are as many ND fans in NYC as almost any east coast school. Los Angeles has a ton of ND fans, Boston has a ton of ND fans, DC has a ton of ND fans, etc. ND fans travel well and ND always fills their own stadium.

I hate Notre Dame, but they would be an awesome addition to the Big Ten and would put us on par with the SEC.

hart20

September 1st, 2011 at 3:43 PM ^

They'd like to think they are, and they'd like everyone else to think they are, but they're not. Without getting into politics too much, ND hired a head coach who is pro-choice something that the Catholic Church, and thus Catholics, vehemently fight. They invited a pro-choice figure (Obama) to campus to give a speech, and then they gave him a honorary degree. These things aren't something a religious, conservative university does. Hell, if you look at their students, most are neither deeply conservative nor deeply religious. (I know that because quite a few of my friends go to ND). Please, if that's too political just hid my post. I tried to keep any personal feelings, besides my hatred of ND, out of that. 

Plus, I really want ND to go to join the B1G because I've been telling all my ND friends that it would happen and they just get mad and spout something about being independent. I find it hilarious how pissed they're going to get once the move actually happens. 

Honestly, I don't really want Texas and I'm not sure if the B1G does either. I'm not sure who we'd grab along with ND, maybe Pitt?

Needs

September 1st, 2011 at 5:46 PM ^

The schools you're talking about (good law, business, and econs whose alums go overwhelmingly to NYC) are the Ivies. It's why NYC isn't the same kind of college football town as is Chicago and it's going to make it very hard to get the BTN on basic cable in New York.

sULLY

September 1st, 2011 at 2:12 PM ^

I have heard that Texas will have to go independent if they leave the Big 12, based on the terms and conditions of the TV deal they made.  I could be wrong, but I thought that's what I had been hearing.  Interesting to see what will happen if other teams bolt.

FreddieMercuryHayes

September 1st, 2011 at 2:22 PM ^

There will be no B1G expansion until talks for the new BCS contracts get closer. Number of bids per conference and the independent contacts will determine alignment. The B1G will bide its time.