Where is the BigTen with all of this realignment?!

Submitted by 7NK7 on September 17th, 2011 at 10:12 PM
So I have to say it: but where is the BigTen while all of this new realignment talk is happening?! Are they really going to sit by on the sidelines while all these schools look for new homes? First it was Texas A&M this year; now Texas and Oklahoma are meeting monday to look into finding a new conference; since that news Baylor and Iowa State have contacted the Big East...and now Syracuse and Pitt have officially applied to the ACC. Does anyone else think that the BigTen needs to jump in here and get some more schools? I am hoping that Delany is doing this very quietly and behind closed doors, but I can't help but we worry whether we will be leaders or simply leftovers.



September 17th, 2011 at 11:26 PM ^

trying like hell to get Nebraska to join the B1G.

Wait, what's that? We did get Nebraska to join the B1G? You say we also did it in a classier fashion than the Pac-megatron and the other schools whoring themselves out to whomever will have them? You're saying we actually started this whole conference realignment business and aren't standing idly by? 


/fake conversation between TheLastHoke and 7nk7


September 18th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^

For all of Jim Delaney's faults, the Big Ten did exactly what it should have done: it looked to see if there was anyone out there who would improve the Big Ten. There was, and we got that team. Teams and conferences are scrambling right now to figure out what they 'need' to do. For some of them (the Big 12 in particular) it really is a need, because the conference is probably about to fall apart, but it also seems like people are saying everyone should be scrambling around just because people are freaking out, not because it would be helpful.

The Big Ten is stable and happy--there's no existential question, not one team would choose to leave. As a result, we only need to change if we want to. I haven't seen any names in this discussion that would add much to the Big Ten. I also completely buy the argument that there's really  no advantage (and probably a strong disadvantage) to going past 12 teams.

The one interesting case we may see is, with changes to the Big East, whether it will still be a good home for Notre Dame. If not, then joining the Big Ten may make a lot of sense for both parties. With a couple of Big 12 schools trying to join the Big East, however, that looks less likely today than it did yesterday.


September 18th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^

A guy that goes by the name of Purple Book Cat on NW message Boards reported that Texas and Notre Dame had a joint presentation with the Big Ten on joining together in 2014.  He gets his credibility by being ahead of the media on Nebraska joining the Big Ten and Texas' name coming up last year.  He claims he knows an inside-source to the Big Ten and that is how he gets his info.



September 17th, 2011 at 10:18 PM ^

I think Big Ten is already very healthy with Nebraska added.

While others are scrambling to get more teams - Big Ten already has 4-5 teams which will be ranked in the top 20 year after year.

While we should be open to adding new teams in strategic markets I don't think we need to panic and woo teams. If they approach the Big Ten we should consider them. Also no prima donnas who want a bigger share of revenue or all that BS.

Notre Dame would be one obvious one - apart from that, Pitt maybe (academnically sound plus Penn State would get a rival)


September 18th, 2011 at 1:27 AM ^

the obvious choice, they're only "independant" in football NEways and have their own short-lived tv deal, Mizzou makes academic and geographic sense, but doesn't really add to the football value like PSU and Nebraska did. Oklahoma is the other obvious choice imo. They're looking to step away from the Big Texas Conference/Network and get their fair share and are nearer to the B1G than the Pac-Whatever too. If we add Mizzou to Nebraska then Oklahoma/ND look pretty attractive.

Zone Left

September 17th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^

More isn't necessarily better.

The Big 10 needs to add schools that will add more value than the share of revenue they take from the Big 10. There's only a few schools out there that will do that. Texas would be perfect, but they aren't willing to be a team player. Notre Dame isn't going to move until the BCS is going to consolidate again. The SEC, PAC X, and ACC schools have no reason to go anywhere. I don't know that any other school adds enough revenue to be worthwhile.

Mr Miggle

September 17th, 2011 at 10:50 PM ^

I'm not sure what's going on there, maybe they've been told the SEC will take them, maybe they really are looking around.

I agree with you. There are very few teams the B1G should consider adding. Getting to 12 was a good idea. There's really no advantage going further unless it's a home run for revenue.



September 17th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^

I'm fairly certain that Delany as well as the University Presidents and ADs know where any of the schools they would be interested in adding to the Big 10 stand.  We just added Nebraska.  I'm sure they know where ND stands on this issue.  Mizzou basically begged us to add them.  Any other schools they may be interested in (Texas, Rutgers, Pitt, etc...) Have most likely made their position known.  It is wise to let the rest of the leagues make headlines and wait to see what actually happens.  If the other leagues start to disolve, I'm sure we have a plan in place.


September 18th, 2011 at 2:06 AM ^

I thought this was interesting--it's a chart of board scores for incoming freshman at each B1G school. OSU consistently splits the difference between Michigan and MSU, which I guess is sort of what you'd expect since Ohio only has one true state school and it has to provide the functions of both.




September 17th, 2011 at 10:23 PM ^

Pitt going to the ACC suprised me a bit, there was talk of them going to the B10 at one point.  Would have re-kindled the PSU / PItt rivalry.

Maybe ND will finally join?  I don't really get why they don't , esp. considering they've got rivalries with three B10 schools.

Honestly I would prefer midwestern schools but outside of ND I don't know who else would join.

Iowa State?  Missouri?  Kentucky?



September 17th, 2011 at 10:26 PM ^

I know the Big Ten is caught up on the academic standing of each university but we need to make a move on Oklahoma. Instant rivalry renewal with Nebraska. It also looks like the Big East may fall also. I can't believe TCU will keep their word if Pitt and the Cuse leave for the ACC. If the Big East starts falling apart you may see Notre Dame finally wake up. Bring Oklahoma and ND into Big Ten that's quite a conference. Total speculation but fun to talk about.


September 17th, 2011 at 10:29 PM ^

With the current crop of schools we have. I am not suggesting the BT adds WMU or even schools like Kansas or anything. I do however think a school like Mizzou would be a decent fit.

Ideally I would choose to get to 14-16 with Notre Dame of course and any other high caliber schools That fit our footprint


September 18th, 2011 at 1:22 AM ^

Sorry, I don’t want to be a troll but….  Every Big Ten forum looks at the University of Kansas like it is some big 12 bottom feeder, with bad academics, and nothing to offer the great Big 10 conference.  KU’s atheletic department has grossed in the top 26 schools for the last five years (at least).   Yes, most of it is due to basketball, which you might not care about, but our b-ball program makes more than a lot of football programs.  We are an AAU school, unlike NE (who we make roughly the same amount of money as with our sports every year) and our media market is much bigger than Nebraska’s.  KU Basketball is a national brand.  The fing Jayhawk is one of the top 5 most recognizable mascots in college sports.  We gross more than 20 million dollars a year for our sports programs than Missouri does.  Further, although we are down in football at the moment, we won a BCS bowl game just four years ago.

Last point, Delany was one of the ones who started this 16 team realignment thing, by carrying on with MU last year.  The Big 10 is not above the fray in any of this and the fact that it may stay put at 12 teams once the East and the 12 implode is deplorable.  Delany made it clear last year ,when he was in talks with MU, that 16 team conferences were coming and the Big 10 was being proactive.  Further, he gave every indication that the BIG was likely expanding to 16.  When NE left, and MU was left begging for the invite, Delany changed his tune and claimed the a 12 league conference was enough.  However, he (along with UT, NE, the PAC,  Atm and others) destroyed the big 12.

 In truth 16 league conferences are a bad idea.  Certain teams, enter Minnesota, don’t make crap in a division and bring revenue down.  Yet, Delany and the Pac comiss sold the idea of the 16 team conference last year and every college in an unstable conference is making it happen because Delany and others have said it’s the future, its only about football, and media markets.  That is obviously not true.  The big 12 discovered that losing CO actually would increase our revenue when we signed, the now doomed, deal with fox.  Co is the Denver market.  The 2ndlargest media market in the Big 12 and they were costing us money.  ISU brought more to the table than that program.  Media markets don’t matter if no one is watching or cares.  If football is the only real potential revenue why do Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas make more or as much in sports revenue as Illinois or Nebraska?

I’m sure some smart guy is going to point out that this is all about football and KU, despite its recent BCS win, is not a good football program.  If that is the criteria for the big 10 there are only 3 programs out there for you.  UT, OK, and  Norte Dame.  UT and OK are not headed your way.  Pitt and Syracuse are gone as well.  You can grab Rutgers who will suck of the teat of the conference or you could grab a team that will bring actual value and revenue to your conference once b=ball season comes around or not.  Sadly, if reversed, a case could be made that, besides OSU, MI, Penn and maybe MI state/ ILL / Iowa, every other school in your conference should go to a dying big east when your conference dissolved. 


September 18th, 2011 at 2:11 AM ^

First of all, not every Big Ten forum looks down on Kansas as a bottom feeder. However, in a conference where football is the first, second, and third most important sport, Kansas' football history is not an asset. Furthermore, while the Big Ten wouldn't dismiss Kansas out of hand for academic reasons (unlike, say, Oklahoma), it's not like the Big Ten schools are salivating over the possibility of an academic affiliation with Kansas.

Now, let's take a look at what you list as Kansas' assets:

1. High-Grossing AD - This is irrelevant. The financial question how much money can Kansas bring into the Big Ten, not how much money Kansas can bring in to their own AD. When the Big Ten renegotiates its first tier rights contract in 2016, every school will be making over $30 million at the minimum. Unless Kansas can deliver an additional $30+ million (minimum), Kansas would be a net drag on the Big Ten.

2. Strong Basketball Program - This is Kansas' greatest asset. However, as a rule, basketball is a less financially valuable sport than football, and from a cultural standpoint, the Big Ten is a football-first conference. At any rate, even if we grant that Kansas' basketball program makes Kansas athletically acceptable to the Big Ten (which I personally agree with), Kansas still needs to be financially acceptable, which does not appear to be the case.

3. AAU School - This means you are academically acceptable to the Big Ten, not desirable.

4. The Jayhawk Mascot - Honestly, this is worth about as much as one of the marijuana stickers that Ohio State likes to put on its football helmets.

5. Won BCS Game Recently - That doesn't make Kansas a strong program. Program strength is measured through sustained success and national profile. By these metrics, Kansas football is not a particularly strong program.

Also, your note about the Big 12 schools increasing revenue in the wake of Colorado's departure fails to acknowledge that the only reason this happened was because ESPN decided to honor its contract with the Big 12 in the hopes of keeping the conference together, and because sports TV contracts in general are increasing rapidly.

Finally, no matter what anyone says, expanding to 16 teams is not essential for the Big Ten. The only interest the Big Ten has in expanding is in order to strengthen the conference in such a way that every school in the conference will benefit. So yes, that likely means that the Big Ten will not expand without either Notre Dame or Texas. Otherwise, the BIg Ten has no pressing reason not to remain at 12 teams.


September 17th, 2011 at 10:30 PM ^

I know I keep saying the same damn thing, but I don't thing the B1G will make a move until we get closer to the new BCS contract negotiations.  The B1G won't go to a super conference unless they need to, in order to retain auto-bids.  16 team conferences are going to push for 2 autobids.  The B1G can make a play, and has a good chance of succeding because of the fanbases, at getting 2 autobidsbut with only 12 teams.  If that happens, I just don't see expansion happening.  Having 6 teams compete per BCS bid is much better than having 8 compete.