Big 10 really swinging for the fences

[cheezy321]

I hope they join the pac-10. That would be ballin'

 

[Zenmervolt]

Personally if it does include football, I would love to see the Big 10 pick up either Pitt or WVU or both. I think they would be great competitors and I do have respect for them as programs. I would love to restart up the Penn State-Pitt rivalry. Our rivalry with OSU/Mich has always felt half real because I think it basically came down to us being the 3 best in the conference. Pitt/Penn State and Penn State/WVU has history. One I would love to have back.

Signed.

Add my signature to this as well. As a Pitt alumnus and an OSU fan there is very little that would make me happier than seeing my Alma Matter as part of the Big 10.

ZV

 

[kb315]

Okay... I have only ever heard this talked about with basketball. I am assuming that is the case here?

I know other schools are in different conferences for different sports. Is that the case here?



Personally if it does include football, I would love to see the Big 10 pick up either Pitt or WVU or both. I think they would be great competitors and I do have respect for them as programs. I would love to restart up the Penn State-Pitt rivalry. Our rivalry with OSU/Mich has always felt half real because I think it basically came down to us being the 3 best in the conference. Pitt/Penn State and Penn State/WVU has history. One I would love to have back.

Pitt is unlikely and WVU would NEVER happen.

When you look at Big Ten expansion, think like a college president not a sports fan.

The Big Ten truly cares about academics, all the big ten schools are strong academically and they collaborate with each other often. Its called the CIC
http://www.cic.net/Home.aspx

The Big Ten would never let a lower tier school join. It would lower the academic profile of the CIC to allow a school without the research dollars to join.

On that basis WVU is eliminated. Pitt could join however they bring nothing in terms of tv revenue. Penn State already delivers the pittsburgh market. Thus Pitt seems redundant. I don't think Penn State really cares to play them that much either because if they did, they would schedule them non conf like Michigan does ND.

Thats why the real suitors seem to be Syracuse, Rutgers, Missouri, Notre Dame, and Texas.

Syrcause, Rutgers, Missouri all seem like decent pick ups that are all solid academically and would bring some new tv markets, but nothing earth shattering.

So the home run pick ups would be either Texas or ND.

ND is not coming, at least not yet.

Lets say the big ten took missouri, they would get a good academic school and two new tv markets (st. louis and kc). It would work out nicely but the big 12 would most likely collapse soon because the Pac 10 will expand as well and raid most likely colorado and texas.

The only problem with this is if in a couple years ND decides to join a conference because they see the writing on the wall and realize its much more profitable to join a conference, the big ten would be the logical choice. Unfortunately, the Big Ten just added a team and would have a great deal of buyers remorse. ND would have been a much better pick up all along, but now they're stuck with Missouri. So Big Ten would really like to avoid this situation by adding a team where if ND comes calling, the Big Ten can comfortably say "No Thanks."

On the Texas side of things, they know that the big ten and pac ten will expand soon. Most likely one of them taking a Big 12 team. So they know the long term stability of the conference isn't that great so they would like to get out early and get the best possibly deal they can. The Big Ten would provide that deal, the TV revenue that they would get by joining the Big Ten would be substantially higher than anything the Pac 10 or big 12 could offer because of the BTN.

Also, academically Texas would gain a lot from join the Big Ten and vice versa. Texas fits in perfectly with the Big Ten schools, a large public research institution with great academics. University Presidents care a great deal about this part of the equation. There are also some minor reasons Texas would pick the big ten over the pac ten other than money such as traveling and time zones. Travel distance would be slightly shorter in the Big Ten and half the big ten is on central time like Texas while IIRC no pac ten team is.

Texas joining the Big Ten would be the best solution for both parties, but they're are a lot of hurdles to clear for this to happen.

This is all discussed more in depth here
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2...-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

Most of these points are from that blog posting. Thanks for reading and its a big late so I apologize for any grammar mistakes.

 

[TheVrolok]

... snip ...

Good post.

 

[ElFenix]

This is all discussed more in depth here
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2...-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

Most of these points are from that blog posting. Thanks for reading and its a big late so I apologize for any grammar mistakes.

hey my cousin's blog is linked there

 

[MrPickins]

would be fun to play michigan and ohio state every year

I completely agree, but it won't happen.

 

[rcpratt]

Pitt is unlikely and WVU would NEVER happen.

...

Thats why the real suitors seem to be Syracuse, Rutgers, Missouri, Notre Dame, and Texas.

Syrcause, Rutgers, Missouri all seem like decent pick ups that are all solid academically and would bring some new tv markets, but nothing earth shattering.

So the home run pick ups would be either Texas or ND.

ND is not coming, at least not yet.

Lets say the big ten took missouri, they would get a good academic school and two new tv markets (st. louis and kc). It would work out nicely but the big 12 would most likely collapse soon because the Pac 10 will expand as well and raid most likely colorado and texas.

...

Also, academically Texas would gain a lot from join the Big Ten and vice versa. Texas fits in perfectly with the Big Ten schools, a large public research institution with great academics. University Presidents care a great deal about this part of the equation. There are also some minor reasons Texas would pick the big ten over the pac ten other than money such as traveling and time zones. Travel distance would be slightly shorter in the Big Ten and half the big ten is on central time like Texas while IIRC no pac ten team is.

Texas joining the Big Ten would be the best solution for both parties, but they're are a lot of hurdles to clear for this to happen.

...

Agreed, WVU would never happen based on academics. I wouldn't rule out Pitt so easily, though. Yes, it's obviously not the Big Ten's first choice, but it's not a terrible choice.

Syracuse and Rutgers do tap the NY market, but they both have extremely lackluster football programs. Syracuse has a solid basketball history, at least. Rutgers obviously doesn't.

Missouri is a strong research institution, solid basketball program, and a quickly rising football program. New market, but yeah, still not earth shattering. Mizzou would be my "realistic" pick.

Notre Dame can suck my left nut. If we weren't good enough for them before, I don't want them now that they suck at everything. Plus I'm pretty sure JoePa would threaten Jim Delany with...something. And good for him.

The Big 12 would be fine if we took Mizzou, or even Texas. They wouldn't mind adding TCU. I can't see Texas leaving for the Pac-10. The only thing that would drive them to a new conference is money or Big Ten academics. The only conference with more money than the Big 12 is the Big Ten.

Texas does indeed fit in fantastically with the Big Ten in every way. Except location. Which isn't a big deal to me, but I'm not sure that the Texas alums and boosters would really be okay with it.

 

[kb315]

Agreed, WVU would never happen based on academics. I wouldn't rule out Pitt so easily, though. Yes, it's obviously not the Big Ten's first choice, but it's not a terrible choice.

Syracuse and Rutgers do tap the NY market, but they both have extremely lackluster football programs. Syracuse has a solid basketball history, at least. Rutgers obviously doesn't.

Missouri is a strong research institution, solid basketball program, and a quickly rising football program. New market, but yeah, still not earth shattering. Mizzou would be my "realistic" pick.

Notre Dame can suck my left nut. If we weren't good enough for them before, I don't want them now that they suck at everything. Plus I'm pretty sure JoePa would threaten Jim Delany with...something. And good for him.

The Big 12 would be fine if we took Mizzou, or even Texas. They wouldn't mind adding TCU. I can't see Texas leaving for the Pac-10. The only thing that would drive them to a new conference is money or Big Ten academics. The only conference with more money than the Big 12 is the Big Ten.

Texas does indeed fit in fantastically with the Big Ten in every way. Except location. Which isn't a big deal to me, but I'm not sure that the Texas alums and boosters would really be okay with it.

I agree that Missouri is the realistic pick but I really hoping for Texas.

I should have clarified my posting on the stability of the Big 12. In my example if the Big Ten did take Missouri. I am also assuming that immediately after the Big Ten, the Pac Ten expanded. Now the Pac Ten would need two teams. I can almost be sure that Colorado will be one of them. The other I said was Texas because the Big Ten already took Missouri and Texas would want to jump out of the Big 12 asap.

By taking Missouri and Colorado out, we make the Big 12's bad TV deal much much worse. So Texas would rather jump to the Pac 10 with Colorado and the Pac 10 would def take them. The Pac 10 would command a much better TV deal than it has now but not higher than the current SEC or Big 10 deals IMO.

It comes down to TV Markets
http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets

In the top 25:
The Big 12 has: Dallas/FW(5), Houston(10), Denver(18), St Louis(21),
Top 50:
Kansas City(31), San Antonio(37), Oklahoma City(45), Austin(49)

Big 10 has: Chicago(3), Philly(4), Detroit(11), Minneapolis(15), Cleveland(17), Pittsburgh(23), and Indianapolis(25), and I stopped counting.

You can see why the Big 12's deal is so bad, they just don't have the households that the Big 10 has. So if the Big ten took Missouri and the Pac 10 took Colorado, the Big 12 would be left with only Dallas and Houston in the top 25 tv markets.

It would make their TV deal horrendous. Which is why I had Texas jumping with Colorado to the Pac 10 to negotiate a better deal.

With two teams leaving the Big 12(not including Texas), there really are no great alternatives teams to pick up that deliver a good tv market. There are some so-so teams like Utah out there.

The worst case scenario is if Texas stayed in the Big 12 while Missouri and Colorado left (assuming the Pac 10 picked up Utah as the second team). Then they're are carrying the Big 12 as the only top 50 tv market in the big 12 now would be Oka City at 45 outside of the Texas ones.

So I'd imagine that Texas would be proactive early rather than letting this play out and possibly being screwed. Thus the best situation would be to move to the Big Ten now.

 

[rcpratt]

Hmm, I guess looking at it that way does make sense. Another thing to consider would be that the Big Ten hasn't ruled out adding 3 teams, so even if Texas declined now and they just add Mizzou, causing Texas to want to bail, I think the conference would be open to taking Texas and somebody. Nebraska?

 

[ElFenix]

You can see why the Big 12's deal is so bad, they just don't have the households that the Big 10 has. So if the Big ten took Missouri and the Pac 10 took Colorado, the Big 12 would be left with only Dallas and Houston in the top 25 tv markets.

which would basically be the problem the southwest conference had.


i just don't see it happening with an aggie governor. maybe if hutchison wins the election next month it might happen, but she's well behind.

 

[Gibsons]

Most of the press in Tx seems to be very skeptical, thought not ruling it out completely.



Dallas Morning News
Plus there are all other kinds of issues, ranging from the loss of traditional rivalries to vastly increased travel and missed class time. Don't scoff. Universities take those two items seriously. If you think getting to Manhattan, Kan., is a beating, try Happy Valley for Penn State. Or Corvalis, Ore., for Oregon State.

Plus, Texas' departure would probably mean the beginning of the end of the Big 12. I don't know if Texas wants to set off that chain of dominos.
http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/02/why-should-texas-switch-conferences.html
--------------------------------------
Star Telegram
Among that group, Texas makes the least geographic sense. Texas also plays in a league where it has helped shape the current revenue-sharing policy, which allows a larger slice of the overall TV pie to schools that make the most TV appearances. That benefits schools like Texas.

Even with the Big Ten’s TV network, it’s hard to imagine Texas would be in a significantly better financial situation by moving to the Big Ten when you factor in the increased travel costs for non-revenue sports. Longer road trips for conference games also would mean more missed class days for athletes, which would not appease UT faculty members.

So I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for the Longhorns’ first double-header at Purdue to open the Big Ten baseball season any time soon.
http://startelegramsports.typepad.c...s-to-become-part-of-an-expanded-big-ten-.html
--------------------------------------
Austin American Statesman
The rumors of Texas moving to the Big Ten are just rumors at this point and while UT athletic director DeLoss Dodds is mum on the subject, the move just doesn’t make sense for more reasons than I care to count.
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/cont...10/02/11/why_texas_wont_fit_in_the_big_1.html
--------------------------------------
Houston Chronicle
The two concerns that might make UT hesitant about moving are travel and the rivalry factor.

More pivotal than added travel costs could be what to do about Texas A&M and Oklahoma. The Longhorns need to play their rivals in football every year, and two non-conference games of that magnitude could make for a gauntlet of a schedule. One solution would be persuading the Big Ten to add A&M (also an academic fit) as well.

The intriguing part of all this is that no program in college sports' current setup is better positioned to make money and win championships than the Longhorns are in the Big 12.

But realignment could change that in a hurry.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/college/texas/6863596.html

 

[ElFenix]

i think UT would definitely have to get a larger share of the pot than the rest of the big 11 to compensate for travel expenses, particularly for non-revenue sports.

 

[fustercluck]

Texas certainly doesn't belong in the Pac-10. That's for sure. Pac-10 could add Utah and BYU though. Hopefully not Boise St. since I don't want my team to play them in football every year

 

[Train]

Here is a ESPN OTL report with tv revenue per conference
http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=4757335

o Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school)
o SEC: $205 million ($17.08 million per school)
o Big 12: $78 million ($6.5 million per school) Uneven Distribution
o ACC: $67 million ($5.58 million per school)
o Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school)
o Big East: $13 million for football/$20 million for basketball ($2.8 million per football school)

The Big Ten makes more money than any other football conference and dwarfs everyone but the SEC. Texas leaving to the big ten would make these numbers even higher because of the agreements the cable providers have with the BTN. The inclusion of Texas would add all the households in Texas to the BTN footprint and make the TV deal even more lucrative. Considering Texas's population, the deal could add as much as 8 million more per school.

Its a huge step up from the 12 million Texas currently gets from the uneven Big 12 tv deal.

Most of these points and others are discussed at great length here:

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2...reasons-why-texas-to-the-big-ten-makes-sense/

Its an interesting read. Will it happen? Probably not but its far more likely than people on here think.

And to think the BigTen makes that much money WITHOUT a Conference Championship game in Football. And they WANT one. If the BigTen poaches Mizzou like everyone is predicting, either the Big 12 has to hurry up and add another team, or lose its right to a CCG, which will kill thier revenue even more. It does make sense for Texas to be proactive here and seriously consider a BigTen bid

 

[Elbryn]

And to think the BigTen makes that much money WITHOUT a Conference Championship game in Football. And they WANT one. If the BigTen poaches Mizzou like everyone is predicting, either the Big 12 has to hurry up and add another team, or lose its right to a CCG, which will kill thier revenue even more. It does make sense for Texas to be proactive here and seriously consider a BigTen bid

a conference game would add something like 15 mil to the big ten coffers. That doesnt even come close to the money the big ten network would add in new market presence from adding texas. my guess is that alone would be at least another 3-5 million per team in the big ten now. i think it's viable that UT stands to gain another 15 million a year in shared revenue above and beyond the maxed out 12 mil they currently get for being on top of the big 12. if they have a bad year, they would get less.

academically, joining other institutions with broad research funds would be fit. Another place for students to travel and learn as fellows and the like.

footballwise, it's almost a lock for the big ten to place 2 bcs teams a year with the conference winner being talked about for national champ game every year. everyone gains another nationally televised game with osu, michigan, and psu games going for sale to abc/nbc and a good chance that iowa, wisc, mich state as well.

the television rights is where the money is going to be. look at where tv rights started at and where they are now. the future revenue stream is going to be ridiculous, especially as the big ten network adds market power.

seems like a good fit academically, financially, and in growing conference power. distance is a factor however.

 

[Mani]

There's some talk about the B10 possibly going to a 16-team power conference which would make the A&M thing a possibility, in addition to possible programs like Syracuse, Mizzou, and Pitt.

Texas to the B10 would be a great match aside from geography and Texas would have a lot more to gain than lose assuming they can preserve their Oklahoma rivalry OOC.

 

[kb315]

a conference game would add something like 15 mil to the big ten coffers. That doesnt even come close to the money the big ten network would add in new market presence from adding texas. my guess is that alone would be at least another 3-5 million per team in the big ten now. i think it's viable that UT stands to gain another 15 million a year in shared revenue above and beyond the maxed out 12 mil they currently get for being on top of the big 12. if they have a bad year, they would get less.

academically, joining other institutions with broad research funds would be fit. Another place for students to travel and learn as fellows and the like.

footballwise, it's almost a lock for the big ten to place 2 bcs teams a year with the conference winner being talked about for national champ game every year. everyone gains another nationally televised game with osu, michigan, and psu games going for sale to abc/nbc and a good chance that iowa, wisc, mich state as well.

the television rights is where the money is going to be. look at where tv rights started at and where they are now. the future revenue stream is going to be ridiculous, especially as the big ten network adds market power.

seems like a good fit academically, financially, and in growing conference power. distance is a factor however.

I agree with most of your points and I justed wanted to add that travel is a far overblown issue.

The midwest has a great deal of hubs that make flights relatively fast and in some cases cheaper.

For example:
Austin to Manhattan, KS -> http://www.kayak.com/r/Te18UZ
$415

Austin to Lubbock, TX -> http://www.kayak.com/r/TlZBHJ
$198

Austin to State College, PA -> http://www.kayak.com/r/SkQpAz
$321

Austin to Ann Arbor, MI via DTW -> http://www.kayak.com/r/Sv4YSE
$278

Austin to Columbus, OH -> http://www.kayak.com/r/TihZUK
$231

I assuming most of the trips texas makes are flights due to the distance. Lubbock is a 7 hour car ride. You could fly to and from Detroit in that time from Austin. These prices do have stops in them.

Imagine if Texas would have to buy 5000 airline tickets for all the sports team in the course of an academic year with an additional premium of $200 per ticket to travel to the further locations in the midwest.

Now even with these inflated figures, this situation would only cost Texas an additional 1 million in added travel costs. Texas stands to gain an additional 15 million by joining the Big Ten. Travel costs really aren't an issue.

 

[angry hampster]

Anyone else HATE the Big 10 Network?

 

[ElFenix]

Imagine if Texas would have to buy 5000 airline tickets for all the sports team in the course of an academic year with an additional premium of $200 per ticket to travel to the further locations in the midwest.

Now even with these inflated figures, this situation would only cost Texas an additional 1 million in added travel costs. Texas stands to gain an additional 15 million by joining the Big Ten. Travel costs really aren't an issue.

UT flies charters. football games require 2 (one for the team, the other for the band).


the only way it happens is if A&M comes too (i guarantee the legislature and governor will shoot it down without A&M) and they pick syracuse from the big east. that way OU can go back to being an OOC game and the A&M game can continue being in conference.

 

[rcpratt]

Anyone else HATE the Big 10 Network?

Not really. It's obviously not an ESPN level of production, but I think they do a pretty good job.

 

[Gibsons]

I agree with most of your points and I justed wanted to add that travel is a far overblown issue.

The midwest has a great deal of hubs that make flights relatively fast and in some cases cheaper.

For example:
Austin to Manhattan, KS -> http://www.kayak.com/r/Te18UZ
$415

Austin to Lubbock, TX -> http://www.kayak.com/r/TlZBHJ
$198

Austin to State College, PA -> http://www.kayak.com/r/SkQpAz
$321

Austin to Ann Arbor, MI via DTW -> http://www.kayak.com/r/Sv4YSE
$278

Austin to Columbus, OH -> http://www.kayak.com/r/TihZUK
$231

I assuming most of the trips texas makes are flights due to the distance. Lubbock is a 7 hour car ride. You could fly to and from Detroit in that time from Austin. These prices do have stops in them.

Imagine if Texas would have to buy 5000 airline tickets for all the sports team in the course of an academic year with an additional premium of $200 per ticket to travel to the further locations in the midwest.

Now even with these inflated figures, this situation would only cost Texas an additional 1 million in added travel costs. Texas stands to gain an additional 15 million by joining the Big Ten. Travel costs really aren't an issue.

You're forgetting the non-revenue sports. Even for football and basketball, you have to consider the ability of alumni and other fans to travel to the game.

 

[Train]

There's some talk about the B10 possibly going to a 16-team power conference which would make the A&M thing a possibility, in addition to possible programs like Syracuse, Mizzou, and Pitt.

Texas to the B10 would be a great match aside from geography and Texas would have a lot more to gain than lose assuming they can preserve their Oklahoma rivalry OOC.

If thats the case it would make sense to go to geography based divisions, either East & West, or North & South, to ease the travel costs.

 

[Train]

Anyone else HATE the Big 10 Network?

Why would you hate it? For watching live sports its a great way to see A LOT of stuff you would never see on another channel, or is blacked out in your area. I've seen dozens of soccer, baseball, wrestling, and even track and field that would hardly ever get air time on on any of the ESPN's or even Fox Regional sports channels. If this would have been out when I was playing sports in college, I would have been stoked.

The non sports programming is usually done by each school's Broadcast Journalism depts, so its a good way for the students to get some practice at a real broadcasting beyond the typical campus closed circuit network that no one watches.

 

[Train]

...I guarantee the legislature and governor will shoot it down without A&M...

I keep hearing something along these lines... does the Texas State legislature/Governor have control/veto power over UT & A&M's athletic depts?

 

[Mani]

I keep hearing something along these lines... does the Texas State legislature/Governor have control/veto power over UT & A&M's athletic depts?

Not directly, but they do have the ability to restrict state funding to the institution. So basically, yes they do have control.