Big Ten Expansion: Is Kansas In Play?
by Adam Jacobi on Feb 16, 2010 7:00 AM CST
in Iowa Hawkeyes News
Email
PrintAs BHGP readers know, we've spent plenty of time wondering whether the Missouri Tigers would soon be (among) the newest members of the Big Ten. It makes sense on its face; the Big XII doesn't accomplish what Missouri wants to accomplish nearly as well as the BXI does, it delivers at least the St. Louis market, etc. etc. We've been down this road before. Missouri won't say that they want to be in the Big Ten, of course; they're content to merely say they wish the Big XII were exactly like the Big Ten. Gotcha.
Next, we heard yesterday that Tom Osborne and Nebraska were flashing a little leg at the conference themselves; let's hear Spencer Hall's older brother Osborne one more time:
"We haven't entered into any formal talks with anybody right now," Osborne said. "We're focusing on the Big 12. But I don’t think that means if somebody wanted to pick up the phone and call us, that we'd hang up on them. You listen...."
"I would have to say the center of gravity has moved south. You’d have to say that trend to the south still continues to this day, which is a little concerning sometimes for people in the north part of the Big 12."
Now, what Big XII commissioner Dan Beebe should be doing is issuing public statements left and right that Nebraska is one of the most important members of the conference and blah blah blah. That is not what Beebe is doing, because Osborne is exactly right about the conference's priorities. Beebe is instead enjoying his plush new office in Texas, contemplating the Stetson as an "every day hat," and researching the best place to get a Longhorn tattoo. He's thinking tramp stamp, just so long as there's no bending over in public.
So. Given that Nebraska and Missouri would probably happily jump to the Big Ten together if given the opportunity, and keep in mind we are totally spitballing at this point... why not look at Kansas too?
Or, more appropriately--why the hell wouldn't Kansas want to come too?
First, the academic bona fides, because without them this conversation is an absolute non-starter. KU, like Mizzou and Nebraska, has been a member of the Association of American Universities for more than a century. All three are right around the #100 mark for academic rankings; not great but certainly not a blight on the conference. Further, one would probably imagine some sort of a boost when these schools join a consortium like the Big Ten.
Back to the original question, though. Kansas is a Big Eight/Big Twelve school through and through, and if the Big Ten approached the Jayhawks about becoming the 12th member of a 12-team conference, surely the Jayhawks would decline. All of their friends are still in the Big XII, after all.
But suppose KU's friends weren't still there; the triumverate of Kansas-Missouri-Nebraska is one of the most deliciously hateful three-way rivalries in all of college sport, and while it's possible to maintain it across two different conferences, it's certainly not preferable to do so. As for Kansas and Kansas State, well, Iowa and ISU do the whole "Big Ten team with only other in-state rival in a different conference" thing well enough.
Further, the move is a giant middle finger to the Texas-based Big XII, which would almost certainly collapse. Colorado would flee to the Pac-10 in a heartbeat, and KSU and ISU would likely explore other options rather than be Texas' playthings any longer. I bet ISU would dominate go at least .500 in the MAC, and the Mountain West would love K-State.
As for whether the Big Ten would do it, well, why not? St. Louis, Kansas City, and Omaha all come to play. The northern plains are basically redistricted as Big Ten Country. It is an epic power grab by Jim Delany, who isn't going to half-step on this one--not when he can effectively ruin what was supposed to be the Midwest's superconference in under 20 years of existence.
It's the first move on the table that would be a major plus in terms of basketball. Kansas is a top five all-time program in terms of history and current power, and Illinois would most certainly enjoy seeing Bill Self return to town. They would enjoy it so much Assembly Hall would need to install metal detectors and explosive-sniffing dogs. Missouri's basketball program isn't great, but they have three Elite Eight apperances in the last 20 seasons. As for Nebraska basketball... hey, how 'bout them Jayhawks!
Looking at football, yes, poaching half the Big XII North might seem, on its face, to be a little underwhelming. Perhaps. We'll just remind you that the Big 10's other alternative for expansion is the Big East, and Big East football makes the Big XII North look like the Bionic Steroid NFL. Moreover, who were the primary agents of suck in the XII North? Was it Nebraska, KU, and Mizzou? Or was it Iowa State, K-State, and Colorado? Mmmm-hmm.
Now, when it comes to expansion, 14 (and one might successfully argue 12) is probably the upper limit for the size of a football conference. What's the point of recruiting someone to the Big Ten, after all, if there's a chance they don't play, say, Michigan at all over their 4-year career? Even if the conference went to a nine-game slate, with 16 teams in a conference, that's still not a whole lot of games to go around. Thus, if the Big Ten were to pick up these three teams, that's probably it, and there's no eastward push made at all.
Still, there's no point in going east for the sake of going east, particularly when the best candidates don't grow the media market (and revenue) enough to offset the pie being split into smaller portions. The Big Ten can try to force its way into New York the way the NHL forced its way into Phoenix, or it can bring in three schools that fit into the conference's profile and grow its footprint in a far more amenable (see: destructive to a rival conference) fashion. Let's see what they do.
Also, if there's any KU fans out there: if the Big Ten swallows up MU and NU... do you want in?
183 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
A big shiny rec to anybody who spells this out
in vintage heart and pants satirical fashion.
"We just forgot our pants. Nothing against the team or anything like that." -- take a guess
Not unless DMACC and Southeast Community College are part of the deal.
Maharishil University might be an untapped market to consider, though.
by Pubes in Pink Urinals on Feb 16, 2010 7:24 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
What about the power house that is
Western Iowa Tech Community College?
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride." HST
What about
Hamilton Tech? As an alum, I gotta support the move. They could bring the lucrative Quad City Geek market into play. And academically the electronics program is very well respected.
They’d need to actually form some teams first but hey, I don’t think they can be ruled out.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Go North
Add NIACC to the list. It would bring in the ummm…coveted?…northern Iowa TV market
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Feb 16, 2010 5:40 PM CST up reply actions
It's clear to me
that the president of Mt. Mercy’s silence is a good indicator that the Big Ten has already made contact…
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 9:52 PM CST up reply actions
"The Big Ten can try to force its way into New York the way the NHL forced its way into Phoenix,"
Excellent work here.
by Internet Legend on Feb 16, 2010 7:35 AM CST reply actions
I'm not sure which is the worse hockey town:
Phoenix or Winnipeg, which may be like the Detroit of Canada.
"...there'll be some woman, maybe 45 or 50, she'll come up and give me a hug, and I'll give my wife a wink: See? I'm not that old." - Joe Paterno
by ReadingRambler on Feb 16, 2010 8:35 AM CST up reply actions
Winnipeg is NOT that bad.
I call it the Omaha of Canada. To me, that’s good. Maybe to others, that’s not.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
It's funny - I've lived in Phoenix for 2 years
and I at least look at the standings to see how the Coyotes are doing (I’m a Penguins fan), but it amazes me that even though they have one of the top three records in the west, no one cares about them at all.
If they would have just built the arena in Phoenix instead of Glendale, they would have drawn so many more people to the games…
by HeroPatriotStanzi on Feb 16, 2010 9:56 AM CST up reply actions
If the Big XI goes big why not,
Texas, Texas A&M, and Oklahoma. Going south and going big would turn college football on it’s ear. Convincing all three to defect would be tough, but could you imagine owing the Texas and Oklahoma markets. On a related note I have not seen any discussion involving OU coming to the BIg XI. Is there a reason? Are they that dedicated to Texas and the Big XII? They could care less about playing Nebraska anymore and the game with Texas was play years before they were in the same conference. Is it academics? Or is OU just not interested?
I learned a great many things in the Marines that helped me as a football coach. The Marines train men hard and to do things the right way, just as a football team must train. - Hayden Fry
by NileKinnickIronman on Feb 16, 2010 7:35 AM CST reply actions
I live in the OKC area and from what I can tell,
the Owho fans are not interested in joining the Big Ten. Although if Texas was to join, Owho would definately be interested. I think that’s the catch, if you go for Texas, you need to add Owho and A&M.
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride." HST
If you had ever actually been around Aggie fans you would rethink this position
These are not people you want coming to your stadium.
Texas is the Holy Grail of this particular expansion push, but I don’t think it’ll happen for political reasons. Oklahoma is a great program, obviously, but does add a lot in terms of television revenue or academics.
I would be totally okay with poaching the Big 12 North trio (if only to see ISU go to the MAC where they belong), but I don’t think the conference is going to invite Nebraska and KU over trying to push into the New York market with a team like Rutgers or Syracuse.
To quote jesse. at BSD:
I have no ill feeling toward Texas A&M Hell, I kind of like them. But if you told me that having sex with a sheep was a graduation requirement of that University I would totally believe you
.
"...there'll be some woman, maybe 45 or 50, she'll come up and give me a hug, and I'll give my wife a wink: See? I'm not that old." - Joe Paterno
by ReadingRambler on Feb 16, 2010 8:36 AM CST up reply actions
I thought that
was the entrance requirement
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Feb 16, 2010 5:41 PM CST up reply actions
No the entrance requirement
is that you push all the wool to the side before…oh, you were talking about entrance into the school.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 9:53 PM CST up reply actions
From my very die-hard KU relatives
I posed this question to them. The response:
From an academics standpoint – where do we sign?
From an athletics standpoint – eh…don’t really like the idea of having to go 1,000 miles northeast to play in-conference games, especially if the weather/roads sucks so bad you can’t even drive it. (I totally underestimated this point. Who’s going to drive through Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc to basketball games in January and February?)
From a money standpoint – can we sign twice?
That’s two out of three, and probably the more important two.
This sounds about right.
Although with regards to travel, it’s not like traveling from Lawrence to Lubbock or College Station is any great picnic, either.
KU football is obviously no huge prize for anyone, but the program is a lot more solid than people give it credit for. As far as the coveted TV demographic, the state population is a little misleading since you have to add the entire KC metro in there as well. Still nothing outstanding, but slightly better than on first appearance, plus KU has a significant alumni/fan presence in Dallas and the Oklahoma “cities.”
The Kansas Jayhawks brand is obviously basketball-centric, but they do have excellent national brand recognition and an understanding of how to continually increase brand equity, something that a lot of athletic departments around the country still don’t quite grasp. KU Athletics is also one of the most profitable/cash-rich athletic departments in the country, which helps things from a business perspective and gives KU the ability to compete with larger schools in facilities and recruiting budgets.
As far as academics, KU is by no means a bad school, but it would instantly be at the bottom of the Big Ten (along with Missouri/Nebraska, all three are basically interchangeable academically). That said, KU does command a significant amount of research dollars (again, comparable to Mizzou), which puts it ahead of other Big XII schools like Oklahoma. There is also a new, highly regarded Chancellor there who appears to have a good plan for increasing the academic reputation of the University.
So no, KU isn’t the most attractive candidate for the Big Ten, and certainly wouldn’t be a viable one-school addition, but it could work in conjunction with a three-team addition.
by PeteJayhawk on Feb 16, 2010 9:48 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
RE travelling
Big difference between driving from Lawrence to Lubbock or College Station in February and driving from Lawrence to Happy Valley or Ann Arbor in February. To quote said relative: “I can handle driving 600 miles when the roads don’t suck and it’s 50 degrees. I won’t drive 600 miles when it’s -20 and the roads are ice.”
But otherwise, yeah.
Iowa Lakes Community College
Has it’s down battery commercial. And that shit is national.
We need to consider them big time.
Saw that on TV the other day.
That happens to be the fine institution my father started his education in drunkalogy.
"The possibility of physical and mental collapse is now very real. No sympathy for the Devil, keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride." HST
I'd pitch Miami before any Big XII team other than Texas
Miami doesn’t care about how far they have to travel, their fans don’t travel anyway and the TV money pays for all travel costs. And Big Ten fans would love a trip to Miami each year. Bring in FL market for recruiting and TV. Miami would be willing to move conferences again and can still keep its regional rivalries non-con. Academics are ok, not great. Great football TV matchups. Let’s add 3: Miami, Syracuse/Rutgers & Mizzou/Nebraska.
by RodgersHasAHose on Feb 16, 2010 8:57 AM CST reply actions
No way
does Miami join the Big 10. Not with their perception of our football and our perceoptions of “thug U”. Neat idea though.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
It's all about $$$ and Rep for the school
Shalala is still Prez there. She and the faculty would love to be associated with the Big Ten academically. And the Big Ten TV contract brings in around $22 mil/team vs. ACC’s $5.6 mil/team. That difference is why any school in the country will listen to the Big Ten. Plus adding a school like Miami would mean the Big Ten could negotiate an even bigger TV contract next time. This whole expansion thing is Delany’s prep for a new, monster TV contract.
by RodgersHasAHose on Feb 16, 2010 9:39 AM CST up reply actions
A new TV contract
That, combined with the Big Ten Network, puts the OMGSEC!!!!-ESPN deal to shame. Which I would love, because sticking it to the SEC is always a good motive.
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
SEC
will never acknowledge that the Big 10 is better in anything. Heck, we already make more in TV revenue but their math majors can’t figure out that 22 is more than 17.6.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
SEC Math Majors?
I’m pretty sure Vanderbilt is the only school in the SEC that has math majors. Vanderbilt math majors don’t realize Vanderbilt has athletics programs, however.
by NoDak_jacket on Feb 16, 2010 3:54 PM CST up reply actions
Oh, what the hell?
Why not go for Texas, Miami, and…anyone, really, from the ESS EEE SEEEEE ?
My point: Grab a conference championship game for the Big T’Fourteen, and knock out ALL of the other conference championship games currently existing in the process!
Completely illogical, I know, but how fun would it be to slap the rest of the college football world in the face?
"Oh no, don't do that, don't do that. If you shoot him, you'll just make him mad." - The Waco Kid
by HawkOnRails on Feb 16, 2010 10:04 AM CST up reply actions
If the BigTen is able to successfully court Texas,
then I imagine most other conferences will do their best John L Smith self slapping impression. Especially if Notre Dame follows. A BigTen plus UT & ND is, without question, the premier conference in the country, and Delany would laugh all the way to the bank.
by The Mexican't on Feb 16, 2010 10:09 AM CST up reply actions
Population
Kansas – 2,818,747
Missouri – 5,987,580.
When you start talking “How do we get BTN onto the basic cable package of more people?” Who are you going to look at.? 2.8 mil or 6 mil? That’s not even a choice.
Let’s look at the Top 11 States
California – 36,961,664
Texas – 24,782,302
New York – 19,541,453
Florida – 18,537,969
Illinois – 12,910,409
Pennsylvania – 12,604,767
Ohio – 11,542,645
Michigan – 9,969,727
Georgia -9,829,211
North Carolina – 9,380,884
New Jersey – 8,707,739
Cali, Florida, Georgia, NC – Which school could even be convinced to move?
Rutgers and Syracuse are less than ideal but they provide leverage to get BTN onto basic cable packages, and that is big deal. They Big 10 may be willing to put up with some sub-par athletics as long as the academics and revenue stream is there. It could be a tough sell though.
Texas is the prize, everybody knows it. To me, the only question is how Texas views the future of the Big 12.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
The problem with all this is that people are looking at the landscape NOW
not in 10 years. In 10 years there WILL be a playoff. In 10 years TV will be twice as important as everyone will have every channel. In 10 years NBC will be a shell of its current self (See ND contract opportunities). In 10 years geogrpahy will mean very little. In 10 years some football schools now will not be football schools then, and vice versa.
I say ND is very attainable. Their model is antiquated and in 5 years they will be in panic mode unless they do something NOW. Independence in almost every capitalistic enterprise, does not work in America.
After that, I say go for Rutgers which could be a sleeping giant. But, to inlcude them would be investing in them. And while that seems more realistic to me, the Big Ten might want to only buy off the shelf. I agree with HS and OPS that three teams seems inevitable (assuming one or both said that).
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
I like the idea of a "wish list"...
I know it seems juvenile, but I get the feeling that this is likely what the Big Ten is trying to accomplish right now with the “preliminary research”. They are trying to put together a prioritized wish list that takes into consideration their wants and who’s interested. They’ll quietly move through the list when/if the time comes to expand and pray it doesn’t become a circus.
If it was me (and it’s not…I’m an idiot) my list would look like this:
1. Texas (duh)
2. Notre Dame (ND would have to be vetted, so as to make sure they don’t publicly slap the B10 in the face again)
3. Missouri (I think this is the easiest move. If all the big ideas fail and expansion is still imminent…it will be Missouri)
I completely agree with the west/east setup, and I know ND is an eastern outlier. I think that’s the one school that the B10 would grab from the east.
Notre Dame & Rutgers
Do we really know how their Prez, AD and Trustees view ND in the world? Their fans are somewhat delusional, most of the boosters probably are too. But the fans don’t have a say and the boosters would probably bitch about the move, then go along. Any money lost in the short term would be made up for with Big 10 money flowing in.
The NBC contract is safe only as long as Dick Ebersol remains. After he is gone, if ND is drawing good ratings, it will probably get renewed, but I would be shocked if NBC didn’t try to score contracts with some conferences so they can air more just Irish home games. ND would still be on but not as special as they were before.
Rutgers may be a work in progress, but it could well be worth it. When their FB team woke up a few years ago, people noticed and if they can field a reliable product the potential is huge. New Jersey folks are pretty crazy for New Jersey, get them to embrace “their team” and that’s tough to beat.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Rutgers is
a school with no athletic following. The women’s basketball team (Hello, C. Vivian Stringer!) is the most successful program on campus, which is not much of feather in their cap. Almost a century of poor athletics has created a huge alumni base that at no point has ever been emotionally tied to their alma mater’s sports exploits. Ask yourself why the largest D-1 school in the NYC metro area has never been able to generate any success or interest in a college sport (basketball) that actually DOES draw ratings in that city. Since this is really a discussion about football, their “history” of success is a five-year period where their best season involved dropping 2 out of 7 conference games in what is by far the weakest BCS qualifying league. Furthermore, Rutgers “culture” is entirely tied to one man, Greg Schiano. While he has stated his intention to stay, seasons of mediocrity in a mediocre season can take their toll on a competitive man. Hell, Rich Rodriguez was an alumni of a school that was on better footing than Rutgers in the Big East and still found that job to be limiting. The NY/NJ buzz around the 11-2 ’06 season for the Scarlet Knights had more to do with the novelty of the new, not a long-haul devotion to what SMA has termed “a sleeping giant.” Rutgers football is more like a retarded giant; they are big and powerful but you can easily tie their shoelaces together or get them to do what you want with promises of meeting Barney. Had Rutgers been able to capitalize on ’06 with incrementally better seasons thereafter, I would be more interested. Rutgers is essentially on-par with Minnesota. How long before the NYC market loses interest entirely in a program that might make a bowl every few years in the Big Ten and consistantly lose to OSU, PSU, Iowa and Wisconsin? The more I think of it, “investing” in Rutgers seems an awful lot like “investing” in Temple.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:19 PM CST up reply actions
how do you figure?
What has given you any indication that NDs current structured TV deal with NBC is outdated or is unable to compete with the rest of the major networks? Not saying you’re wrong, just curious as to what would make you think that. To my knowledge their ratings continue to be steady even during their “dark ages.”
by mikjones24 on Feb 16, 2010 9:43 AM CST via mobile up reply actions
It's not just
is NBC happy with ND. That’s all about ratings. The problem is that ND is losing the money race and the gap is going to get a lot bigger. Right now they are relying on their boosters buying into the idea of ND Eliteism. I have to think that ideal is fading a little every year. Plus, as the old guys die off, who will replace them?
The next big expense will be assistant coaches. Kiffen started it at Tennessee, will continue it at USC and that is going to take big bites out of budgets. In 10 years nbody will blink at Coordinators making seven figures. Can ND keep up?
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
It's not
just “is NBC happy with ND”, that is just a matter of ratings.
ND gets about $9 mil a year. Big Ten schools each got about $22 mil last year, SEC weren’t far behind. Even with their boosters, ND will reach a point where they cannot compete.
The next big expense will be assistant coaches. In 10 years, Coordinators at top schools will probably be pulling 7 figures, or darn close to it. Can ND keep up?
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Additionally...
…Notre Dame just paid an $18 million buyout of Weis’s contract . NBC is in the process of being bought by Comcast. NBC is consistently losing out to ABC and CBS in terms of college football viewership and only a little bit ahead of ESPN.
Right now NBC is locked to ND through the 2015 season. ND is locked to Brian Kelly through the 2015 season. If Kelly doesn’t produce it means that ND would end up firing Kelly in the midst of negotiations with NBC (and their new corporate overlords) over a contract renewal. If that doesn’t spell the end of the contract between the two, it certainly wouldn’t look as lucrative as it does today.
If ND chooses to remain independent, fine. But it certainly ups the size of the wager that they’re making on Brian Kelly’s success if they risk losing their television contract in addition to ticket sales and merchandising opportunities if he doesn’t pan out.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 16, 2010 1:21 PM CST up reply actions
NBCs contract also only applies to home games. Let’s tiptoe through a smattering of the games they’ll have the rights to show (to be clear, I’m highlighting the most craptacular):
2010 – Western Michigan, Tulsa, Utah (ok, may be ok)
2011 – 2 TBA (wanna bet how great those will be?), Connecticut, S. Florida
2012 – 1 TBA, Army, Wake
I just don't see playoffs as a foregone conclusion
SMA, do you have some kind of insider info?
Is congressional intervention really going to turn the tide of NCAA presidential thinking?
In fact I could seriously see the NCAA actually banding together a bit (at least the Big 6 Conferences) and fending off a governmental push to control their territories. It still seems the REALLY BIG DOLLARS are keeping the current system of bowl tie ins. The one thing the big 6 presidents are beholden to are their exponentially increasing dollars. would playoff tv revenue really offset this?
Personally (and i know i am in the minority here) I do not foresee and DO NOT WANT any kind of playoff system. I’m not even that old but i am kind of stodgy when it comes to my CFB.
by HawkeyePapyrus on Feb 16, 2010 10:16 AM CST up reply actions
I see a plus one
but not a playoff until maybe, eventually, someday…. but a plus one with a tweaking of how the BCS invites get handed out will probably appease Orin Hatch, I mean the governement, for awhile.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Really all the government can do
At least at this point is disallow the NCAA from calling the winner of the mNCG a ‘National Champion’ to which the presidents will just call the winner ‘El Jefe de Futbol American’. A plus one might be a solution to appease the masses but i don’t even see the presidents caving into this demand.
I guess my biggest problem with the whole playoff thang is the vast majority of fans of each respective team are not going to be able to follow their teams to each respective game. How many Hawkeyes went to the OB this past year?
But how many would be able to follow the Hawkeyes to round two of the playoffs and then round three. It seems with a playoff we are going to lose A LOT more than we gain. I know i am probably in the minority but i honestly don’t mind a little ambiguity to keep the traditions of CFB.
by HawkeyePapyrus on Feb 16, 2010 10:41 AM CST up reply actions
Missouri vs. KU TV Ratings
Not a good comparison by comparing state population. KU is close to the KC metro area and would thus include those areas of Missouri. KU basketball will draw national ratings.
I check cheddar like a food inspector
by SpanishJohnny on Feb 16, 2010 12:35 PM CST up reply actions
I'm hoping we add Georgia Tech
because we kick there ass every time. Also, they are a great, great egghead school as was meticulously pointed out to us all.
"I’m sick of following my dreams. I’m just going to ask them where they’re going and hook up with them later." M.H.
I assume Adrian Clayborn being banished from the conference would be a non-negotiable term of them joining
Luck is probability taken personally, clutch is probability attributed to individuals.
by shake n bake on Feb 16, 2010 11:25 AM CST up reply actions
Added revenue from GT joining the Big Ten
Can I get that info in a pie graph?
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Paul Johnson
has an unbeatable system for joining new conferences.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:21 PM CST up reply actions
The question is...
adding three more teams is not appealing, but what if the price to play to land Texas is bringing along A&M? Is Texas worth going to 14 teams? And how does that conference manage that many teams and still play each other on a reasonable basis.
And lets just drop Kansas, Mizzou and Nebraska. The academics would be the worst in the conference. Each of those schools is a one trick pony when it comes to athletics. (Kansas was a flash in the pan in football), and none of those schools really add much to the TV viewership of the conference as Illinois gives some access to St. Louis.
If Texas or ND isn’t willing to join the conference, then just sit and wait. The TV world has become much more appealing for members of the Big Ten and worse for ND. They will give in eventually.
With the renewed coaching staff in Lawrence I would not count KU football dead. Turner Gill and Chuck Long spell trouble for everyone by NU in the north in the next couple of years. And after that it may start spelling trouble south of the Mason-Dixon line in the BIG XII.
I learned a great many things in the Marines that helped me as a football coach. The Marines train men hard and to do things the right way, just as a football team must train. - Hayden Fry
by NileKinnickIronman on Feb 16, 2010 12:11 PM CST up reply actions
For me
the Texas schools are such a huge get/game-changer, that the Big Ten could afford to take a 14th school that works better for their heart than their head i.e. no-profit Pitt.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:23 PM CST up reply actions
How about Texas, A & M and Nebraska?
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
Big Ten shouldn't wait, everyone wants in on that BTN $
The Big Ten Network put the fear of God into the other conferences. That thing is a money-making machine and will only continue to grow. PAC 10’s TV rev is nearly 1/4 of Big Ten’s. It’s going to continue to stratify the market.
by RodgersHasAHose on Feb 16, 2010 9:50 AM CST reply actions
I doubt
it’s a coincidence that expansion talk came after BTN was established. Nor do I think it’s a coincidence that the PAC 10 is looking at adding two teams. Haven’t heard talk of a network but with CA, & AZ it has a strong market. That’s not counting OR, WA and whatever new states come into play. . Talk of an SEC network died down after the CBS contract, and I could see somebody starting a station dedicated to say the ACC and Big East and an eastern mid major. There’s a lot of money at stake.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Landing a Big East school used to make sense...
now I don’t see that happening. The best of the lot — UConn and Pitt — are basketball schools. They’re good schools which have thrown their weight into hoops. It’s easier to see them going to the ACC.
It makes sense to me that if Texas joined up, A&M would want in on the action. It’s a politics and money thing.
And I still like Mizzou. And I still think the Notre Dame decision makers are delusional. Kansas? Maybe.
Can we expand to 16 and still make everyone happy? A 16-team football conference would likely have to be laid out in NFL still groups.
We’re not adding just one team. We’re talking TV sets, City Boyz Inc. stacks of Benjamins and Ro-Tel in as many grocery stores as is possible. Delaney and Co. will want to go big, or not at all.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 10:31 AM CST reply actions
I'd like to see you say "Pitt is a basketball school" to Mike Ditka's face
Seriously, though, there’s one thing I wonder about. How do high school/college kids feel about the chance to play in an NFL stadium? (And I mean a real NFL stadium. The Metrodome isn’t even a real football stadium.) It doesn’t seem that Pitt gets the greatest recruiting classes, so maybe it’s not a big deal, but it seems to me that it would be a selling point for a Big Ten team to be able to mention to a recruit that they’d get to play at Heinz Field once or twice during their career.
Ditka was there what, 20-30 years ago?
Pitt is a basketball school. Their AD wouldn’t say that aloud, but it’s what they’ve been aiming for.
"...there'll be some woman, maybe 45 or 50, she'll come up and give me a hug, and I'll give my wife a wink: See? I'm not that old." - Joe Paterno
by ReadingRambler on Feb 16, 2010 1:24 PM CST up reply actions
Yeah, it's just fun to add Mike Ditka to any coversation
I’m betting most Pitt fans would even agree. I went to the Iowa @ Pitt game last year, and there were some Pitt fans (or at least non-Iowa fans) wearing Steelers jerseys to the game. You’d think if they took their football team seriously, they’d think twice before wearing essentially the opposing team’s jerseys to the game.
As long as it's new.
"...there'll be some woman, maybe 45 or 50, she'll come up and give me a hug, and I'll give my wife a wink: See? I'm not that old." - Joe Paterno
by ReadingRambler on Feb 17, 2010 8:57 AM CST up reply actions
Mini-Ditka...
Has chunks of guys like the Wannstache floating in his stool.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 1:40 PM CST up reply actions
Heinz Field holds 65,000 fans.
Most of the stadia in the Big Televen hold far more than that. I’m not sure the draw of Heinz Field is greater than the draw of playing in many of the greatest cathedrals in the church of college football.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 16, 2010 1:25 PM CST up reply actions
That's true
But still, I imagine the locker rooms and other stuff the team sees are nicer than in a college stadium that’s 100 years old.
Maybe.
But I’m pretty sure that all of the stadiums in the Big Televen have undergone a major renovation in the last ten years. I’m not sure about MSU or Penn State, but I’m positive about the other nine. I know that many of those also involved major locker room renovations.
Also, I’m not sure if you heard but Minnesota’s new stadium has a huge FIGHT WIN TRY GOPHER locker room that Brewster is very PROUD DOMINATE MOTIVATE of. It’s shaped like a football! Get it? It’s because they play football there!
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 16, 2010 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
And it smells like victory...
at least it will when we show up next November.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 1:50 PM CST up reply actions
It's not the sharing the Field that draws recruits,
It’s sharing the practice facilities with the an NFL team, especially one with a pedigree like the Steelers.
Successful or not, Wanny knows the business of pro football and Pitt grads leave well prepared.
I'm sure.
But if the point is that adding Pitt to the Big XI is attractive because other schools can recruit on the basis of kids getting to play every other year at an NFL stadium, the practice facilities don’t matter much.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 17, 2010 8:21 AM CST up reply actions
You're right
That sales pitch works well in the Big East, but doesn’t isn’t that impressive against Big Ten facilities like PSU and OSU.
If Pitt is offered an invitation, it would be strictly an academic decision, specifically medical research dollars. Football and Basketball would compete, but neither offer a national name-brand spash. Other sports would have to have expanded facilities. But Pittsburgh does not bring any new TV territory, so they aren’t getting an invite unless the expansion is to 14 or 16.
If I were 18 and good at tackle football...
…I’d be much more amped about playing at OSU, Michigan, PSU, Iowa, and Wisconsin than some jackoff NFL stadium with 30,000 semi-conscious Pitt fans in it.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
The only guy I asked
said playing at Michigan was pretty cool. Right up to the point he blew his knee out and ended his career.
And that was in the mid 70’s when Iowa stunk.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Three Rivers had soul, man.
"...there'll be some woman, maybe 45 or 50, she'll come up and give me a hug, and I'll give my wife a wink: See? I'm not that old." - Joe Paterno
by ReadingRambler on Feb 16, 2010 2:04 PM CST up reply actions
So did Ebbets Field.
Which is similarly relevant to the topic at hand.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
I guess I should have clarified or something.
You mentioned a “jackoff NFL stadium”, by which you meant Heinz, but it could also mean most NFL stadiums. I guess I just miss old dumps like Three Rivers – places that were actually loud.
And no, it’s not on topic, just venting.
"...there'll be some woman, maybe 45 or 50, she'll come up and give me a hug, and I'll give my wife a wink: See? I'm not that old." - Joe Paterno
by ReadingRambler on Feb 16, 2010 3:51 PM CST up reply actions
I remember when
I used to be able to say Iowa is a football AND basketball school…(sigh)
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:25 PM CST up reply actions
A couple of thoughts...
1. From a map perspective, Missouri-Kansas-Nebraska makes a hell of a lot more sense than Texas-TAMU-Oklahoma.
2. This would almost certainly kill the Iowa-ISU rivalry and immediately start up a Iowa-Nebraska rivalry. I am 100% OK with this.
3. I think before most were thinking that the Big 10 West would become the new Big 12 North. Not exactly dispelling that thought by adding a handful of B12 North teams.
In re 3
That much is readily apparent. But what are you going to do, force Penn State to relocate in the Quad Cities? UM, OSU, and PSU are all out east. That’s a pretty inescapable fact.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Feb 16, 2010 10:49 AM CST up reply actions
Who gives a shit about the geographics..
……This is about the benjamins. If Texas is a possibility so is OU and A&M. Throw the map away. Hell if were gonna add three let’s go for USC, Miami, and Texas.
I learned a great many things in the Marines that helped me as a football coach. The Marines train men hard and to do things the right way, just as a football team must train. - Hayden Fry
by NileKinnickIronman on Feb 16, 2010 12:14 PM CST up reply actions
Barbasol on every sink.
And rotel in every kitchen.
by HawkeyePapyrus on Feb 16, 2010 10:43 AM CST reply actions
Pancakes.
Don’t forget the pancakes.
"...there'll be some woman, maybe 45 or 50, she'll come up and give me a hug, and I'll give my wife a wink: See? I'm not that old." - Joe Paterno
by ReadingRambler on Feb 16, 2010 11:47 AM CST up reply actions
When i get that feelin'.....
I need sexual pancakes!!!!!!
by HawkeyePapyrus on Feb 16, 2010 1:31 PM CST up reply actions
Rotel in every sink and Barbasol in every kitchen!
by HawkeyeRecon on Feb 16, 2010 1:26 PM CST up reply actions
Little Known Fact
Ro-Tel and Aunt Jemima work in to a fine lather that is also very soothing to the skin.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
That
is highly, highly disturbing
It never gets to be easy
by chitownhawkeye on Feb 16, 2010 6:29 PM CST up reply actions
What does it take...
To kick somebody out of the Big XI? Can it be done? Nothing any school in particular, just taking the coversation in a new direction.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 10:52 AM CST reply actions
Or, to put this another way...
We’ve talked a lot about who would join us. Does any of the current membership want out of our queso and bratwurst flavored sexy party?
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 10:56 AM CST up reply actions
There is no chance of anyone leaving.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Seconded. The only school that makes sense to kick out can’t be forced out, and they’d give up $20+ million per for the pleasure of getting screwed.
Of course they wouldn't leave
Armani suits don’t come cheap after all
I ate the blue ones ... they taste like burning.
Good question
I wonder if the charter even allows for booting anybody, not that it would happen.
It would be funny to let ND in, then kick ther ass right back out.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Re: 'good question'
Ross & Tx seem to think it’s not. Do you still think so?
"We just forgot our pants. Nothing against the team or anything like that." -- take a guess
I'm not saying it would or even should happen.
I just think it’s an interesting academic sort of question as to if it were possible.
I apologize for not conforming to the groupthink.In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
We have to be prepared for the unexpected...
“What If?” has led to some very big events.
For the record, I don’t think any school wants to leave. But “what if?”
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 11:14 AM CST up reply actions
What if they want to leave?
Or what if they the BXI needed to “kick them out”?
If they wanted to leave, I suspect they’d be allowed (although they may or may not have to pay a penalty of some sort)… and they would be really, really stupid.
I can’t even fathom what sort of circumstances would dictate “kicking out” a conference member. And, as none of us have access to the BXI’s membership agreements, it seems even more pointless to speculate.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Cosigned.
It was take such a radical departure from custom for any school to end up leaving the BXI that speculation would lend the possibility a false air of plausibility. It’s just not going to happen.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Feb 16, 2010 11:38 AM CST up reply actions
Wasn't IOWA actually kicked out
of the Western conference between 1907 & 1911? I know it’s a completely different era, but it’s kind of fascinating. And I would further endorse the idea that something cataclysmic in the thinking of Big Ten member schools would have to occur in order for expulsion to be considered. At the beginning AND end of the day, the Big Ten exists as an academic alliance that happens to support highly competitive athletic departments. Unless standards at a member institution were to reach a level where it stained the reputation of the collective, a move to that effect is inconceivable. Inconceivable I say! Never bluff a Sicilian!
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:33 PM CST up reply actions
Nope
Iowa was strangely in both the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Association and the Western conference in those years. I have no idea what that scheduling looked like.
Michigan actually “quit” the Western conference from 1907 to 1916, though.
Huh, that makes the line
“Champions of the West” kinda funny, no?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 17, 2010 3:19 AM CST up reply actions
Looks like I'm not the only one
who needs some attitude adjustment.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
What voting support, then ...
does a school need to join the party nobody wants to leave? Majority? Unanimous?
I’m looking for the unforseen consequence, because there will be one. Maybe School X witholds its vote in some kind of power play. Maybe School Y says, “fuck it, we’re done with this.”
The Big Televen as a whole will propsper from expansion. Does every school administration feel the same way?
I’m not trying to be the turd in the punch bowl. A little speculative due dilligence never hurts, though.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 12:09 PM CST reply actions
Eight Votes
of the eleven members to get in.
Also, you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
I've had a rough day and i really hate the fucking eagles!
by HawkeyePapyrus on Feb 16, 2010 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
No, uh, the police chief of Malibu...
a real reactionary…
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:36 PM CST up reply actions
I suspect
that if a prospective new member invoked real feelings of rage in one member, the invitation would not get sent out. With the exception of Penn State, there are over 50 years of relations (MSU) and over 100 (everybody else) to be considered. They all know the value of getting along.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
True
Delaney and Co. want 11 to say yes. There will be a lot of politicking behind the scenes. I don’t doubt that at all.
Maybe I’m suspicious of human nature, but my gut tells me at least one party is going to misbehave.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 12:35 PM CST up reply actions
But this sounds like a super majority. In the Pac 10 it has to be unanimous. I think the Tank said UT wanted to join at the time of the SWC demise and Stanford was the lone “no”.
But this:
Maybe School Y says, "fuck it, we’re done with this."
Is. Not. Going. To. Happen.
No one is going to leave unless there is a better alternative — and no such alternative exists or is likely to exist anytime soon. They are not going to turn away from the $22M (and growing, most likely) TV deals or the long-standing and fruitful academic relationships or (and this is last on the totem pole, but still slightly relevant) the long-standing history and tradition they share with at least some of their fellow B10 schools. No amount of hurt feelings or exasperation or whatever is going to be powerful enough to overcome the massive advantages reaped by the school for staying in the B10.
It would be just as fruitful to talk about “what if Iowa and Iowa State merge” or “what if jetpacks are legalized for use in football” or “what if we let schools give scholarships to talking gorillas.”
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
Really?
Say Texas joins. Do you really think Northwestern is looking forward to getting curb stomped almost every year by yet another school is every sport that matters?
I know I sound like the village idiot, but we can’t assume that expansion within the conference will be nearly as easy as everyone thinks it is.
Almost none of the schools we’ve mentioned have dismissed these rumors. As far as we know, Texas, Nebraska, Pitt, Mizzou, Kansas, UConn, Rutgers, A&M and all the others are keeping their options open. That’s smart business. It’s dumb business to think there will be no hurdles within the family.
Oh, and by the way, if Andy Katezenmoyer wasn’t a talking gorilla, I don’t know who is.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 12:46 PM CST up reply actions
You have still failed to provide any viable reason why they would leave.
Say Texas joins. Do you really think Northwestern is looking forward to getting curb stomped almost every year by yet another school is every sport that matters?
And this differs from Ohio State doing this to them every year how?
I repeat: where are they going to go? To leave, they absolutely must have a viable alternative. There are other major conferences, sure, but none that would compensate them as well as the B10 and none that provide the academic fit that the B10 does. Losing and hurt feelings are not viable reasons to walk away from WE’RE RICH BITCH money or the long-standing partnerships on the academic side. Do you think the NW faculty would give two shits about losing 60-3 to Texas every other year in football compared to the increase in revenue and prestige the move would bring for the university?
I know I sound like the village idiot, but we can’t assume that expansion within the conference will be nearly as easy as everyone thinks it is.
It probably won’t be, but the difficulties will be from different reasons than what you’re suggesting.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
I don't think
he meant to imply that as a scenario that would make NW so mad they would want to leave. It seemed more like a very plausible example of how “best case for all” won’t really be the best case for all. Ruffled feathers and all that.
We all know nobody is leaving and nobody is getting kicked out. Heck, M, OSU & PSU are the only schools that could possibly muscle their way into another conference on their own terms anway., the rest of us could find a home somewhere but we’d lose so much in the process its ridiculous.
So short of the conference decreeing that opposing coaches get to give Ferentz a wet willy on the 50 yard line at halftime, I don’t see us or anybody else leaving.
BTW, I understand that they actually offered up KOK for this purpose but the other schools found it demeaning.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
This seems like just step one...
of a process where we end up with 16 or more team superconferences, or the development of an additional tier of conferences for the have-not schools. Northwestern might be unique because they have great wealth, but while there are now occasional crumbs for the Indianas of the world to pick up in football, an occasional bowl here and there, having no shot, no way, in a superconference might lead teams that don’t have occasional success to re-form on a different level. Sure, the television money is huge, but will the alumni still contribute? Television money I’m sure helped, but it was either the state or the alumni that updated all the stadiums.
I think the BXI goes to 14. The concept of adding Neb., Mo. and KU is hilarious if for nothing more than neatly cutting around some school in Ames. I still don’t think this is what the BXI is after, however. I think they want the television markets in New York and, if they could somehow get them, Houston and Dallas. Pull that off and from a television revenue standpoint, the ESS EEE CEE is as cut off as Australia in the old board game, Risk.
I'm just not sold on the Super Conference concept.
What would be the actual advantage (meaning how would we make more money) with what a purported end result of 4 16-team conferences be? It seems a law of diminishing returns would take effect at some point (and i’m inclined to believe it starts right after 12).
I personally don’t like the idea of adding more than one team and think splitting the pie up more than that would lead to pretty small pieces of pie.
by HawkeyePapyrus on Feb 16, 2010 1:38 PM CST up reply actions
I'm just not sold on the New York television market.
Yes, there are a lot of people that live in New York. I’m just not that sure that many of them actually watch college football. Or that they’re more likely to watch Big Ten football because of the addition of Rutgers or Syracuse. If Rutgers was consistently wedging 90,000 into their stadium every week and had legions of alums clamoring to watch their games on TV then I’d buy it. But they don’t. So I just don’t see how geography necessarily delivers television sets.
Texas, OTOH, would have that kind of impact in terms of delivering Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and Houston. The BXI Network would pop up on millions more basic cable subscriptions by adding the ‘Horns. What I don’t see is the lucre for Texas to leave the Big XII and its already defined rivalries.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 16, 2010 1:56 PM CST up reply actions
The only ones
they care about are OK and A&M, and they were ready to ditch A&M to join the PAC or Big 10 before the Big 12 came to be. OK would just go to being non-conf. A&M I wouldn’t even want to guess.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
I think you're right about Texas
What I think Syracuse or Rutgers would bring, and I think someone already mentioned this earlier, would be reason for BTN to force it’s way onto the basic cable lineup in New York. It probably wouldn’t be a huge difference for ratings, but being in more households = more money.
(I have to pay $5 a month for the sports package to get BTN here in DC. So I’m kinda pulling for the Big Ten to add Maryland, Georgtown, and George Mason, just so that BTN will be on basic cable and I can save $5 a month.)
The argument there is this:
Even if the BTN is on basic cable in New York, are people there going to watch it? Generally speaking, New Yorkers care about professional sports, don’t give a rats ass about college. So…just because it’s IN the market doesn’t necessarily mean people will watch it.
I think efforts are better concentrated on raiding the Big XII. It looks more and more like it will be either 3 or 5 schools that are invited to become members of the Big 10. If it’s three, chances are it’s Mizzou/KU/Nebraska. If it’s five, those three plus UT and probably TAMU…or whatever other state school the Texas Legislature saddles the Big 10 with to get UT.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Feb 16, 2010 2:16 PM CST up reply actions
Careful
What are you basing “more and more” on? A bunch of bloggers and sports writers who don’t know shit?
The only rumor I have heard of that seems to have any credibility is that the Big Ten and Texas had at least a short discussion of the issue. Delany and UT both denied it of course, but it seems reasonable that it happened.
Everything else has been writers filling column inches or people like me making guesses.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Living in the heart of Big XII territory.
This is the feeling among people around here. Sure, a lot of it is conjecture, but the feeling among Big XII fans seems to be what I laid out above.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Feb 16, 2010 4:36 PM CST up reply actions
I'm not for expanding east just for the sake of going after the NY market, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
To some extent, does it matter if people in New York watch BTN? If local carriers feel they have to have BTN on basic cable for the sake of those who do care about the “local” team, then the carrier has to pay a certain amount to BTN per household, right? Which, even if the ratings didn’t go up at all, would mean more money than BTN currently gets from a few people in New York who do get BTN by subscribing to the sports package.
On the other hand, I have no idea what I’m talking about, and this may not be even remotely close to how compensation for carrying cable stations actually works.
But there's the rub.
If local carriers feel they have to have BTN on basic cable for the sake of those who do care about the "local" team, then the carrier has to pay a certain amount to BTN per household, right?
That’s if NYC cable carriers feel compelled to air the BTN. Who’s going to pressure them to do it? Do you think there’s any way the BXI can ask for even half the per-subscriber rate in New York as they did in, say, Ohio? Do you think they can get off of the extended sports tier and onto basic just by adding Rutgers? Because I’ll bet they don’t.
New York is a pro sports town. Telling them they’re all paying another dollar a month so Rutgers-Illinois can be on everyone’s TV isn’t going to fly there.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
It might fly
in Jersey though. And it could be enough to get them onto a better tier in the NYC area.
That’s a big pile of “maybe”, but it’s a lot more than most other teams have going for them.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
I'm pretty much with OPS.
IIRC, the BTN wasn’t available on basic cable in Iowa City for over a year. If the Big Ten can’t force Mediacom to put the BTN on basic cable for one of the original members of the conference and a television market that basically revolves around the University of Iowa, how do we think they’re going to force the Youse Guys Cable Company to put it on in NYC?
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 16, 2010 2:55 PM CST up reply actions
It sounds like
it’s on the basic package now though, which means BTN won. Just not bay as much Mediacom is no dummy, they played hardball. Basic Cable is premium real estate, they wanted the best deal they could possibly get.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
The BTN won because the thought of no Iowa games on TV in Iowa was unacceptable.
What on earth makes you think the BTN has anywhere near that leverage in NYC if they add Rutgers and Syracuse? NYC doesn’t care about Rutgers and Syracuse. They just don’t.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
It's by no means a sure thing
but I assume it would be easier now that BTN is an established brand. At the time they were trying to get on basical cable in current Big Ten Country, they were a brand new network, and nobody really knew what they were going to have. (IIRC, they had hardly any live sporting events that first year.) Now, we know we’re going to get some second-tier Big Ten matchups, amateurish sports shows featuring Mike Hall, and RoTel and Barbasol commercials.
I tell you what, though.
The BTN and its parade of amateurish sports shows and Ro-Tel and Barbasol commercials is one of the top five reasons I still keep cable. Because for all the crap, I still get to watch Iowa hoopyball and the occasional wrestling meet from the comfort of the Chicago ‘Burbs. I also appreciate the Big Ten-centric football coverage in the fall (some of which I find to be incredibly insightful, honestly). And frankly I think some of the BTN football announcers are vastly superior to what the WWL has to offer.
Chicago is the great BXI melting pot, so there are plenty of alums from other schools that feel the same way (i.e. Penn State alums that love that the BTN carries Penn State women’s volleyball). I am not sure that there would be many Rutgers alums living on the Upper East Side just wishing that Time Warner would pick up BTN on basic cable if Rutgers joined the conference.
That said, if Texas’s first home game as a member of the BXI was on BTN (and you know it would be) and the cable company in Dallas refused to pick it up, there would likely be riots in the streets.
I’m not saying Rutgers is a bad decision unless the only reason we’d add Rutgers is to gain the NYC television market.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 16, 2010 4:10 PM CST up reply actions
I think they've given up on 'capturing' NYC
but have realized that New Jersey and Upstate New York are desirable television expansions in their own rights: both are more populous than the state of Missouri. Any Big East school would have to leave for the financial and academic benefits, no question.
Both are less than landing the great whale that is the state of Texas, however.
I didn't mean to imply they did
I was just pointing out that Medicom may have fought a delaying action, but BTN won in the end.
As I said elsewhere, Rutgers and BTN is a big pile of maybe.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
This it precisely wrong.
It doesn’t really matter if people watch the Big Ten Network regularly. This is the way ESPN is rolling in cash; because it’s on a standard cable everywhere, every single person is sending a portion of their cable bill to Bristol, Connecticut whether they’re religious Sportscenter fans or they only watch Law & Order reruns on A&E and everyone in-between. Delaney wants the Big Ten to be a must-have basic cable station for the largest demographic areas possible. Ratings are nice and drive up the revenue from ads on the channel, but the real money comes from expanding the footprint.
I think the point is...
that the easiest way to get a cable channel on basic cable is with strong viewer interest. Back in the mid-90’s the WWL regularly ran commercials on the flagship network telling viewers to call their cable providers and tell them they want ESPN2 added to basic. In IC you couldn’t get ESPN2 when it first came out.
IIRC, when Iowa played at Penn State in 1996 (the Tim Dwight game) you had to go to a bar with a satellite to watch it because you coudln’t get it on cable. But there was enough groundswell of support that they added it to the basic cable lineup. I know I personally called to ask for it to be added.
There doesn’t seem to be that sort of support in NYC for college sports generally. So it seems unlikely that there will be viewer support to add BTN to basic. Even with Rutgers in the conference, it will likely be a sports package add instead.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 17, 2010 8:17 AM CST up reply actions
Like I said above
I think they’ve given up on ‘capturing’ NYC. You’re right; it’s a pro sports town.
However, New Jersey and Upstate New York are each more populous than the state of Missouri even if you ignore NYC itself.
Focusing on Rutgers; I think you’re under-selling the fanbase a bit and not taking into account the number of Big Ten grads in New Jersey. They’d feel entitled to the Big Ten Network, if Rutgers would join. New Jersey is mostly two giant suburbs for NYC and Philly and the Big Ten alumni will make up the difference for Rutger’s smaller, but still substantial fanbase.
The state (tv) and university (academics) of Texas are still the ultimate prize, but may be politically out of reach. Rutgers has superior academics and a larger population base compared to Missouri. They’d have to qualms or hesitation about leaving the Big East, too.
I still feel like...
…Using Rutgers as a way to get NJ into the BTN is like if the conference added the Billikens to get at St. Louis.
…and also that using Rutgers as a way to get NYC into the BTN is like if the conference added Wash U to get at St. Louis.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
The only schools with pull in NYC
already play in the Big Ten. Penn St., Michigan and Northwestern have large alumni bases there that were actually reared in a culture of college football. Notre Dame is the exception, but they are too delusional to join.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:39 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think anybody is going to leave...
I have no info on grudges or longstanding disagreements or anything like that. I think the powers-that-be want this to happen and I also think they will be methodical in the way expansion is approached.
I think that overall, expansion will get done and will be done well. So up to this point, I am ethusiastically on board, the same as about everybody else in these here parts.
But I’m also a journalist by trade. If people didn’t get greedy, act out of spite, act against their own best interests, behave irrationally and do stupid crap, I’d be out of a job.
We’re talking college sports, where the greedy and stupid hook up and make babies. So until the ink dries on our conquest of the college sports landscape, I reserve the right to wait for the other shoe to fall.
I’m on your side, guys. I’m just sayin…
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 1:36 PM CST reply actions
The worst case scenario is the status quo.
That’s it.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
And on that, we agree.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 1:41 PM CST up reply actions
We've already extended the season by a week.
Is it really better to add some crap team than stay at televen?
by HawkeyePapyrus on Feb 16, 2010 1:44 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think the master plan...
Calls for just one more team. That’s just my gut feeling.
Excuse me for my bellicosity. And spelling. Bellicosity and spelling.
by Blackheartnopants on Feb 16, 2010 1:48 PM CST up reply actions
I don't think the Big Ten is adding "some crap team."
Just a guess.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
Agreed. I noted on the other thread, which you respectfully disagreed with, that it’s either UT, ND, or no one. I’m prepared to be proven wrong, but don’t think they’re doing this unless they add a >= PSU. That is Delany’s benchmark, and he’s not going for any school lesser than the most recent new member. None of any combination of Pitt, Rutgers, Mizzou, NU or KU remotely approaches PSU. The first 2? Now we’re talking.
+ 100
on all counts. This or nothing.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:40 PM CST up reply actions
Why the NU hate
NU sells out its 70K+ stadium every week and has since the mid 60’s. They were ranked in the top 5 in most valuable NCAA football teams by Forbes. They are in the top 5 most football wins all time. 5 National Championships and 3 Hiesman winners. They have a huge road following at every game and have been in something like 40 bowl games in the last 40 years. I would say that is a tradition that the Big 10 could use.
Now I agree that they dont have the money and the draw or the market that UT has, but they are easily the 2nd most attractive team in the Big 12 and would be a huge coup for a grab. I am a die hard Cornhusker fan, but also a huge Hawkeye fan, I would love to see a rivalry start there.
Two reasons
Smallish fan base
Lackluster academics.
If it were just about adding a solid football program, they be a hell of a contender. Unfortunately for the Huskers, it’s about much, much more than that.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
You missed the most important reason
They don’t add $$$ to the equation, or at least not more than their share. I guarantee there won’t be any sort of expansion that is dilutive to the Big Televen’s current members. Either the expansion equals MORE money per school, or it doesn’t happen.
Missouri and KU are in that category of “might” make money. UT and ND are in the “absolutely WILL” make money. The approach of all three (NU, KU, and Missouri) is a “probably” in my mind, just because of sheer market area, but even that isn’t certain.
I think the most likely scenario is UT and TAMU, and then the first one to jump of the other 3 I mentioned, will join the Big 10, right after Colorado jumps to the Pac 10.
But they do add money
NU had 4 pay per view games last season, and while I dont have the numbers I know they brought in a lot of cash. Every on of those pay per view buyers would pay for the big Ten network all over the country. Plus it is addition by subtraction, if the Big Ten has Nebraska, thats another confrence that doesnt. Thats more marquee match ups, more ratings for big games, more rivalries and that = more money for everyone.
But not much
Nebraska fans are passionate, there just aren’t very many of them outside of Nebraska, which is already a small market. Western Iowa is already covered, and where are the rest? Minnesota, covered. The Dakotas? I’d guess Direct TV already has a lot of them covered leaving 3 cows and a bored missle crew to demand BTN.
They would help fill seats in Minnesota, Illinois & NW where help is needed, but that is small potato money not shared by the conference.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
They don't add 22 million
That’s the point. It’s a long explanation, but ultimately, it’s about population. Adding UT adds several million TV sets to the pile that aren’t currently there (don’t already get BTN). Adding Nebraska adds less than a million TV sets to the pile, and lots of them are already there (do already get BTN).
From a pure football standpoint, of course the B10 would take Nebraska. However, there’s a lot more to be considered than just football.
I agree about UT
If the Big 10 is only going for 1 team to get to 12 total, I agree NU cant bring what UT or ND brings in terms of market, money and fans. What I am saying as any kind of group of 3 teams, NU would be a hell of an addition.
Am I missing something here?
As an Iowa fan, why would I want expansion—of any sort, one or three schools? It seems to me that adding another top-notch program (football/basketball) would just make it harder for Iowa to compete for championships. I look at the Big East superconference (basketball), the ACC, and the Big XII—all who’ve poached/expanded fairly recently—and I don’t see more compelling sports. I see teams cemented in tiers. And I see “championship” games (football) that rarely match the two best teams.
So, as fans, why do you guys want to see UT, Mizz, and KU in our conference?
Simple: for the championship game.
In 2002, Iowa and Ohio State both went 8-0 in the conference, and could not play each other for the conference title. That’s because the Big Ten is the only conference without either a true round robin schedule or a conference championship game. Frankly, it cost Iowa a shot at the national title, and it robs the conference of legitimacy (to say nothing of the extra income for a championship game).
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
by Adam Jacobi on Feb 16, 2010 10:35 PM CST up reply actions
I'd prefer a round-robin, then.
(I’d write a longer explanation, but, hell, I’m tired.) Round-robin just seems old-school pure. And if that had been the case in 2002, we would have had our shot at OSU and the national title. I’m just not thrilled by the idea of a conference championship game.
Go ahead.
Try to sell the conference on a 10-game RR schedule in a 12-game sport.
See what happens.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
If I were a Minnesota or Illinois fan
I would absolutely be voicing this sentiment. But as an Iowa fan, I know in my heart that this school can compete with any program (Texas included). Not on the yearly annual basis that Ohio State can, but every few years for sure. If you truly believe in this program, why would you not want them to compete against the best?
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 16, 2010 10:43 PM CST up reply actions
Once Mack Brown Leaves
I’ll agree with that. Until then, we’ll see.
Depending on where Penn State ends up, I can see Iowa – Texas becoming a bitter rivalry. We’d be fighting each other for the division most years, with Wisconsin poking their head in a few times a decade. Minnesota would still try, fight, suck though.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Excuse me.
It’s TRY FIGHT SUCK. Motivational tourettes can’t be done half-heartedly.
by Abbas_Cincinnatus on Feb 17, 2010 8:19 AM CST up reply actions
Why do I want Texas, Nebraska, and Syracuse/Pitt in our super 14 team conference?
Because Texas and Nebraska are Texas and Nebraska, and because I’d like to have another eastern team.
Also, $$$$$$$$$.
"...there'll be some woman, maybe 45 or 50, she'll come up and give me a hug, and I'll give my wife a wink: See? I'm not that old." - Joe Paterno
by ReadingRambler on Feb 16, 2010 11:15 PM CST up reply actions
Because
In order to be the best, you have to play (and beat) the best. We’ve discussed ad nauseum that we are on the cusp of being a top tier program. Top tier programs don’t look at playing teams like Texas and other top tier programs as a bad thing: it’s a chance to beat a top tier program.
As exciting as expansion will be if it happens,
and while a fourteen-team Big North making the SEC, Big XII and Pac-10 its bitches is very appealing, I’m still with Captain Kirk on this: keep the teams we have and play a round robin. Every team, every year, raking in our TV cash, and the super conferences can go screw themselves.
by Third Generation Hawk on Feb 16, 2010 11:04 PM CST reply actions
14 is too many
I do not want to see more than 12 teams. Why go to 12? Partly for the money, partly for the prestige of the conference. Partly to get to watch 1 more high stakes game every year, that Iowa has a fighting shot of getting into.
If we do a true round robin, then it’s the Big 10, Iowa State and some Div 2 scrub every year. Frankly, I love that we play an Arizona or Pitt for variety, It gives us a chance to see how we compete with the outside world. Even our annual Mid-Major can be fun, and some of those teams can be pretty darn good.
In 100 years, we'll all be dead.
Kansas fan here.
‘If the Big 10 offers, do you want in?’
In short: YES, YES, YES, YES, YES. And twice on Sunday. It’s such a slam dunk academically and athletically, that it isn’t worth discussing. But, I will.
Required reading:
http://barkingcarnival.fantake.com/2010/02/15/being-bill-powers/
http://www.bringonthecats.com/2010/2/14/1306997/big-12-under-siege
http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2010/2/15/1311391/dont-panic-nebraska-isnt-coming-to
Of the responses I’ve read, benvious is the most on point. MU, NU & KU don’t fit the ‘11+1=13’ criteria. The Big 10 powers that be will NOT add a University that doesn’t increase their profitability. This is going to be a very deliberate and careful decision.
Out of the Big 12, Texas is a home run, A&M is a double and Colorado is a single. To get more info on why, I’d suggest reading the barkingcarnival article. If the Big 10 offers Texas, A&M is sure to follow. That puts you at 13 very strong teams academically and athletically. Not to mention you essentially steal the Texas market out from under both the Big 12 and the SEC.
So now the Big 10 (now 13) has a question to ask itself. Do I add more from the Big 12, look East or stop here? There are pros and cons to each (travel, natural rivalries, unity, etc.), but I think they look East. Let’s look at each scenario:
If you’re going to add another team from the Big 12, you have three options (let’s assume Colorado continues their course of apathy towards the athletics arms race): NU, KU and MU. As has been outlined previously, you have three schools that are essentially identical academically and would be dead last if added to the Big 10. Ideologically and geographically, all three consider themselves to be Midwest states, as well.
To simplify things: Mizzou is in the discussion because they have tv sets (allegedly), KU is in the discussion because of their basketball brand and NU is in the discussion because of their football brand. There are more nuances to this, I know. Out of the three, NU’s is the most valuable in my opinion. But is it the best option available?
Option 2: look East. It’s inherently a better option, because you’re not limiting yourself to second tier Big 12 teams. Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers seem to be popular suggestions (I’ll exclude Notre Dame, because it’s a no-brainer).
Pittsburgh is the best selection on paper (high endowment, reasonably competitive revenue programs and great academics), but it shares a state with Penn State, which could be a deal breaker.
Rutgers has been thrown around because of the possible New York City market, but it doesn’t pass the sniff test with me. You’re telling me that New Yorkers give a crap about Rutgers’ football? Bullchit.
Syracuse passes the test for me. It opens up Buffalo and upstate New York, has great academics and a great basketball brand name. It’s football isn’t strong, but it has an historic rivalry with Penn State.
Option 3: Stop there. There’s no rule that you have to have an even number. 13 isn’t the most attractive, but you don’t have to appease OCDers at the risk of adding the wrong school.
So, which is the best option? 2 or 3, depending on what the Big 10 big wigs decide. Adding more Big 12 teams means diluting both the quality of the conference and the influence of the original members (unlikely to happen).
So to conclude, as a KU fan I am flattered, but realistically I don’t see it happening.* The only way would be a 16 team barkingcarnival scenario, where they decide to do a land grab on viewers and Senators.
*I would love to get a chance to embarrass Bruce Weber every year, though.
"I would love to get a chance to embarrass Bruce Weber every year, though."
Why, when he already embarrasses himself just through speaking out loud in his hoarse shout-voice.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 17, 2010 5:18 PM CST up reply actions
Coach McSqueaky
Ain’t no schadenfreude like Weber schadenfreude.
Sir, you apparently
are not familiar with Tim Brewster.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 17, 2010 6:53 PM CST up reply actions
Or Zookenfreude.
"I want to be a cowboy. I don't want to be a panda. Pandas are boring, stupid and boring. Bad panda!"
OSU fans are lucky
because they have been able to indulge in a decade of SchadenLloyd and Rodenfreude.
Less memorable than Sam Okey's Hawkeye career.
by Kyle McCann't on Feb 17, 2010 7:47 PM CST up reply actions
+1
Only because most people don’t realize that “schadenfreude” and “Rodenfreude” rhyme.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
KU Fan:
I posted this over at Maize and Blue as well:
KU being a charter member of the Missouri Valley conference, the Big 6, Big 8, and Big XII it would be a significant hit to our psyche and identity. I’m not sure how I would feel about that. Maybe if Brasky pants and Miss-Sue came over to the B11 I would feel better about it. As far as people go, I think the people of Kansas have a lot more in common with the people of Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin than Colorado, Oklahoma, or Texas.
Lastly, I’ll weigh in with some thoughts on Texas,
1) I don’t think they’re leaving the Big XII. The original BIg 8’rs knew that inviting the Texas schools in was letting the fox in the hen house. It was only a matter of time before the headquarters was relocated from KC to Dallas and the Texas big boy mentality would take over. We all knew it would happen, and it did. Texas has their own pet conference, they don’t have to answer to anyone (where in the Big 11 they would) they call their own shots, they’re not going anywhere.
2) Does the Big11 really want Texas? See above. Once you let Texas in, it takes over, they’re bullies – it’s just they way they operate.
Me no likey T2.
One Jayhawk's Opinion
I can only speak for myself, but I really don’t feel like KU fans have the inferiority complex about the Big XII South that other schools seem to have.
Kansas hasn’t been passed over for bowls- they got the Orange Bowl when a lot of people didn’t feel like they “deserved” it. Kansas gets its games on TV. This may change now that we no longer have one of the most exciting players in the country in Todd Reesing, but I live in New York, and haven’t had any trouble watching every football game and every basketball game the last two years-usually in HD.
To me, even if Mizzou and Braskeypants left, I wouldn’t want KU to jump. One, because I’m really uncomfortable with the direction that the conference alignments seem to be going- we created the “haves and have-nots” with the BCS, and now we seem to be in the process of trying to shrink the “haves” and centralizing the money/power. I understand why you guys don’t really have an issue with this right now, but what happens if Michigan/Ohio State/Penn State run off some day to form Super Awesome Conference with the biggest programs nationwide? I don’t like that idea at all.
Also, and I apologize in advance if this offends you guys, but as you know, basketball will always be King in Lawrence. And I just don’t think the Big Integer would prepare the Jayhawks for the NCAA tournament as well as the Big XII does. You may take pride in the Greco-Roman style of play that predominates the conference, but the variety of the Big XII makes a team much more versatile come tournament time. Wisconsin will never win a shootout.
In the Big XII, you can play against Mizzou’s 40 minutes of hell one night, be in a shootout with Baylor a couple nights later, then be in a war of attrition with KState after that. In my view, that best prepares you for anything that might be thrown your way in the Tournament.
"Here are our top priorities: recruit, beat Missouri, recruit, win the North, recruit, win the Big 12, and in most cases if you win the Big 12 then you're playing for a National Championship. And then we're going to recruit."
by KennyGregoryRockThaCradle on Feb 20, 2010 2:38 AM CST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
