Lots of smoke coming from insiders at a ton of Big 10 schools, as well as Pitt. It seems WAY too early for this to be true but some people on a Michigan forum tied in to the AD offices seem to think it might happen very soon.

Dola, if this is true, it'd be effective in 2012 apparently.

insiders

I still can't see this being true, Pitt doesn't fit much of the criteria that the Big 10 seems to be looking for. They won't be expanding into a new market or any of that. That said, it would make sense if they decided to move to 14 teams which is something people have said could be a real possibility.

If this did happen though, the Big East would most assuredly be dead in the water.

I think it would be an excellent choice. Academically, it's a good fit, and that's an important factor. It strengthens existing geographic areas. Travel costs for minor sports were a concern with the other two schools under consideration (Missouri, Rutgers). They were never going to pull off adding Texas or Notre Dame.

I hope they can put it in place by the 2011 football season.

Seems way too soon for that. Internet smoke, much?

Seems way too soon for that. Internet smoke, much?

I'm assuming so as well but when two different guys who only post info they have a legit source on post it looks like it might happen it causes me to take pause. Now they have been wrong at times in the past but they usually will take the time to explain the situation.

But I agree it seems incredibly soon for this. Who knows though.

You guys think there's any chance the Big East's BCS slot might be taken away if they lost one of their stronger programs?

You guys think there's any chance the Big East's BCS slot might be taken away if they lost one of their stronger programs?

Maybe, maybe not.

Let's say this happens. The Pac 10 would then be the only "big time" conference without 12 teams and a championship game. There has been talk recently (with a new commish in place) that they might be more open to exploring that than they have in the past.

Why does that matter? Well, if the Big East loses its BCS slot, who gets that spot (assuming they don't just make at an at large)? The natural next choice would seem to be the Mountain West.

But if the Pac 10 now feels heavy pressure to expand, it's almost certain they're going to look at the Mountain West schools first, probably starting with BYU and/or Utah. If they do that, the MWC probably falls below the Big East, which will no doubt pick up a replacement from somewhere for Pitt, and the Big East would keep its BCS slot.

Or the BCS might just make it an at large regardless.

You guys think there's any chance the Big East's BCS slot might be taken away if they lost one of their stronger programs?

That was the worry after the exodus in 2004. So criteria was set up. So far, the Big East hasn't even come close to losing its slot. Louisville, Connecticut, Cincinnati and South Florida have been assets on the football field.

Eventually, though, they will have to expand and there might be that risk. After kicking Temple out, do they beg them to return? Can Memphis bring up its football program? Marshall? Central Florida? There aren't many candidates.

That was the worry after the exodus in 2004. So criteria was set up. So far, the Big East hasn't even come close to losing its slot. Louisville, Connecticut, Cincinnati and South Florida have been assets on the football field.

Eventually, though, they will have to expand and there might be that risk. After kicking Temple out, do they beg them to return? Can Memphis bring up its football program? Marshall? Central Florida? There aren't many candidates.

If this happened, the biggest worry is the domino effect on the other teams. I wouldn't be shocked if the ACC offered two of UConn, Rutgers, WVU and Syracuse. Hell I could see the SEC offered USF and WVU. The Big East losing Pitt can get by, the Big East losing Pitt and possibly two other teams means the death of Big East football.

I thnnik from a football POV East Carolina may be a nice fit for the Big East.

Even though Temple isn't all that great, it'd alleviate the MAC's problem of 13 teams and would be the easiest move to make, especially since they've committed themselves to upgrade their facilities, play at an NFL stadium and so forth.

I think, if a team did leave now -- and it seems unlikely Pitt would leave WVU -- the Big East football conference would probably split from the basketball league, but lease back the name, add 4 new teams to get to 12. Probably UCF, Temple another team from C-USA or the possibility that's been suggested here which might actually work -- poach the two new FCS programs coming online over the next few years from major southern markets. I'm talking Georgia State and UNC-Charlotte.

No, neither of them would be particularly good out of the gate, but both of those schools would never find a better deal, it'd spread the reach of the league a bit and while it'd weaken it somewhat, it might help programs like Louisville rebound faster and keep Cincy and Rutgers ascending, too.

I doubt a conference will lose a bid though, seems with the new process, they'll be assessing some nebulous criteria they won't release and adding a conference to shut folks up.

It would give Penn State a travel partner and an in-state rival, but...I still think the Big 10 stated their intentions a while ago and now they're just throwing up a bunch of smoke before revealing what they were planning to do all along.

If this happened, the biggest worry is the domino effect on the other teams. I wouldn't be shocked if the ACC offered two of UConn, Rutgers, WVU and Syracuse. Hell I could see the SEC offered USF and WVU. The Big East losing Pitt can get by, the Big East losing Pitt and possibly two other teams means the death of Big East football.

Or this. The conference just dissolves and the teams head elsewhere. That'd probably make the most sense. Merging with another conference or something and just effectively killing the whole deal off.

I imagine, no matter what, the Big East folks aren't going to be blindsided this time by a team leaving and that they've got contingency plans in place for whoever decides to bolt.

Even though Temple isn't all that great, it'd alleviate the MAC's problem of 13 teams and would be the easiest move to make, especially since they've committed themselves to upgrade their facilities, play at an NFL stadium and so forth.

I think, if a team did leave now -- and it seems unlikely Pitt would leave WVU -- the Big East football conference would probably split from the basketball league, but lease back the name, add 4 new teams to get to 12. Probably UCF, Temple another team from C-USA or the possibility that's been suggested here which might actually work -- poach the two new FCS programs coming online over the next few years from major southern markets. I'm talking Georgia State and UNC-Charlotte.

No, neither of them would be particularly good out of the gate, but both of those schools would never find a better deal, it'd spread the reach of the league a bit and while it'd weaken it somewhat, it might help programs like Louisville rebound faster and keep Cincy and Rutgers ascending, too.

I doubt a conference will lose a bid though, seems with the new process, they'll be assessing some nebulous criteria they won't release and adding a conference to shut folks up.

It would give Penn State a travel partner and an in-state rival, but...I still think the Big 10 stated their intentions a while ago and now they're just throwing up a bunch of smoke before revealing what they were planning to do all along.

I agree it's probably all smoke, but if this is true, then it lends credence to the fact that they were adamant on getting the best mix of academics and all around athletics rather then expansion.

I still wouldn't be shocked if Pitt joined the Big 10 that they still didn't keep an open mind to expanding to 14 teams and adding Rutgers and Syracuse or something like that.

Why would the Big 10 want another poor traveling, mediocre football team?

This is Sak's worst nightmare when Pitt beats Penn State. Even if it only happens twice a decade.

This is Sak's worst nightmare when Pitt beats Penn State. Even if it only happens twice a decade.

JoePa will find someway to get out of playing them the first 10 years of conference play.

This is Sak's worst nightmare when Pitt beats Penn State. Even if it only happens twice a decade.

Hah I still haven't heard the end of it. But once you bring up the fact that they have had 2 10 win seasons in 28 years and Paterno has 23 victories to their 7 of theirs over PSU, it shuts them up. However I am tired of hearing them say that they could be a top tier team in the Big Ten year in and year out. In basketball yes...in football...keep dreaming.

Pitt beat Penn State one time in their last 8 meetings and they beat arguably the worst Penn State team in Paterno's coaching career by a score of 12-0...not a huge feat by any means. But Pitt really doesn't have much to cheer about when it comes to football.

But if the Pac 10 now feels heavy pressure to expand, it's almost certain they're going to look at the Mountain West schools first, probably starting with BYU and/or Utah.
Utah is a possibility; BYU is not. It would take a monumental shift in conference priorities and attitudes before BYU would be considered for the conference - it's far more likely the Pac-10 will attempt to pry Colorado away from the Big-12 and grab Utah as the 12th team.

Pitt doesn't make any sense. They don't add a state where they can charge 1.10 for the BTN instead of .10, they don't add any kind of tv market. It gets them to twelve, but I doubt it adds more than the conference title game to the coffers, which makes it a net loss.

I'm not too worried about the Big East losing its automatic bid if it only loses one team. With Miami gone, there really isn't one team carrying the league. I am more worried about the Big 10 or ACC deciding that 14 schools is the way to go. That would kill the Big East and probably really kill WVU, as Rutgers, UConn, Syracuse, and Pitt would almost certainly find a home in that scenario.

I'm really hoping that the Big 10 just plucks away one Big 12 team and calls it a day. If the Big 10 grabs Missouri or Nebraska, it won't be a huge loss to the Big 12 (it will be a loss, but not a death blow, by any means) and they can just replace them and keep the 12-school status quo. If the Big 12 decides to go to 14 and only takes one Big East school, I think the ACC will do likewise. So, say the Big 10 goes to 14 and picks up Pitt, Mizzou, and Nebraska -- the ACC will probably go all out for Syracuse, UConn, and Rutgers or (I have heard, if they are willing to up the football program) Villanova. That would leave WVU, Louisville, Cincy, USF, and maybe Rutgers to pick up the pieces and that scenario doesn't sound too appealing.

I think the elephant in the room is what Texas does. The Big 10 could potentially cause a domino effect that would largely destroy both the Big East and Big 12 if it goes to 14 and grabs, say, Texas, Nebraska, and Missouri and then the ACC takes 2 of Pitt, Cuse, UConn, or Rutgers.

I think with all the animosity between Texas and Nebraska left over from the founding of the Big 12, I'd be surprised to see them both leave to the same conference.

Missouri would be potentially damaging to the Big XII's TV contracts. Kansas City and St. Louis are the two largest tv markets outside of Texas, I think.

Well, honestly, Texas probably brings enough to the table that they could probably, if not dictate, give a lot of input as to who else, if any, to bring.

BTW, I haven't heard much about this in the past few days, but last week I had heard that Pitt, along with Rutgers and Missouri had "applied" to the Big 10. Not sure what exactly that entails, but it is not too surprising.

I'm pretty doubtful of this as being anything more than an internet rumor. Pitt's rivals guy hasn't heard anything. I guess we'll know for sure by the end of the week.

Still, I'm split on this move for Pitt - obviously it would be a good move us $$ wise and football wise (better bowl tie ins) but the bball would take a hit. Dixon wasn't too keen on the move when it first was talked about a month or two ago. Pitt's entire recruiting base for Bball is in BE territory (Pa, NJ, NYC, MD/DC/VA) so that would take a hit.

Ideally, the B10 will either take ND or Mizzou and everything can stay status quo w/ the Big East. Still, if it has to be a BE team leaving, I'd hope it was Pitt because Syracuse would be a big loss. If it's Rutgers, then...meh...they can be replaced fairly easily.

Utah is a possibility; BYU is not. It would take a monumental shift in conference priorities and attitudes before BYU would be considered for the conference - it's far more likely the Pac-10 will attempt to pry Colorado away from the Big-12 and grab Utah as the 12th team.

Because BYU is a religious school? Or because it would put the conference in only one new (and not large TV market)? I'm familiar with the old arguments. It's why they haven't expanded yet in the past. My suggestion is that were the Big Ten to do this, there would be new pressure on the Pac 10 to adapt--and that means the old rules might be in for some adjusting.

So I'm not so ready to throw out BYU as a potential candidate. I'm not sure how much the old landscape would still be applicable.

I do think Colorado is a possibility, except it's not going to be easy to do that. Competively, Colorado might be for that, but on the books, they may not. With Utah and Colorado, the Pac 10 could negotiate better bowl and TV deals--but they need the better bowl and TV deals to lure Colorado from the Bid 12. Catch 22.

Ideally, the B10 will either take ND or Mizzou and everything can stay status quo w/ the Big East. Still, if it has to be a BE team leaving, I'd hope it was Pitt because Syracuse would be a big loss. If it's Rutgers, then...meh...they can be replaced fairly easily.

Notre Dame leaving the Big East for the Big 10, on good terms w/ the BE, would probably be the best move overall. It obviously would not hurt the football side of things and it would give the football members and 8 to 7 voting edge, so that the conference could add a 9th football member without having to split or make the conference any larger.

Of course, we all know that Notre Dame will never make that move.

Here are some links to some reports

Pitt to Big Ten? | Campus Corner (http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/681)

Big Ten Sets Sights on Pittsburgh - Jody DiPerna - Fan Overboard - True/Slant (http://trueslant.com/jodydiperna/2009/12/18/big-ten-sets-sights-on-pittsburgh/)


http://bleacherreport.com/articles/336734-and-pittsburgh-makes-12-the-big-ten-to-add-the-panthers

I can't see how Pitt would be a good choice for the Big 10 and I don't think the loss of them kills the Big East by any means. I don't think there's any one team that's holding the Big East together. It certainly hurts, but Pitt's fanbase isn't much better than some C-USA teams; which is why this is an odd choice for the Big 10.

As was mentioned earlier, the worry would be a potential domino effect. If some of the other schools see it as time to bail on the conference then there could be trouble.

For the Big East ECU or UCF probably makes the most sense followed by Memphis if they're serious about improving their facilities and marketing the football program, but Memphis isn't ready right now. I have a hard time seeing Temple coming back. Marshall is struggling to keep up with facilities/revenue in CUSA so they'd be a terrible pick for the Big East at this point.

In the end, if this is the only team leaving then the Big East is fine. They aren't losing their BCS bid over this as no non-BCS conference is really close to the Big East from top to bottom.

Because BYU is a religious school? Or because it would put the conference in only one new (and not large TV market)?
Both of those plus the academic argument - BYU is not a major research institution.

The Pac-10 is very traditional, and they will exhaust every resource before compromising their ideals, even if it means sticking with 10 teams.

That's true. After the Big Ten, which is obsessive about international research universities, the Pac Ten is the only conference that seems to care at all. So they would be careful about expansion.

Based on academics, Colorado, Colorado State, Utah and New Mexico are in the top 500 in the world. BYU is in the top 600 (as is Oregon State).

Purely from a football stadium size perspective (and size can usually be increased), there aren't too many BCS schools with stadiums smaller than 50,000. Those include... Big Ten (Northwestern 49), Big 12 (none), SEC (Vanderbilt 39), Pac Ten (Oregon State 45, Washington State 35), ACC (Boston College 44, Duke 33, Wake Forest 31), Big East (Louisville 42, Connecticut 40, Cincinnati 35).

Of the possible Pac Ten schools, Colorado State plays in a stadium with 34,000 capacity, BYU 65, Utah 45, New Mexico 38. For the Big East, UAB (71), Temple plays in the Eagles' stadium (68), Memphis (62), Central Florida (45), East Carolina (43), Marshall (38), Southern Miss (36).

If the Pac 10 is looking to upgrade its bowl ties (which are pretty mediocre after the Rose Bowl, IMO), then BYU probably has the best travelling fan base and brings the most TV viewers of the non-BCS teams.

Hmm. If it is Pittsburgh, what would be the split? East/West? North/South? An ACC-style "ignore geography" split?

East/West probably would split up the Indiana schools in some way with one school going east with Michigan, MSU, PSU, Pitt, and OSU.

North/South (if taken literally) would most likely split Northwestern from Illlinois to go north with Michigan, MSU, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

Crossover games could be used to keep Indiana/Purdue (in an east/west split), Michigan/OSU, or Illinois/Northwestern (both in a possible north/south split) together, but after them, it's hard to pick meaningful permanent crossover games.

If geography were put aside, an arrangement like the following could be done:
Division A: Michigan, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana
Division B: Michigan State, Illinois, Penn State, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue

The best crossover fits seem to be Michigan-MSU, OSU-Illinois, Pittsburgh-Penn State, Minnesota-Wisconsin, Indiana-Purdue, and Iowa-Northwestern. Depending on whether the Big 10 would like to keep Michigan-OSU as a possible rematch game after the regular season (and thus split them into separate divisions), this could be a good way to preserve as many rivalries and trophy games as possible.

Lots of NFL stadiums in the Big 10 footprint to hold a champioship game in: Heinz Field, Paul Brown Stadium, Browns Stadium, Lucas Oil Stadium, Ford Field, Soldier Field, Lambeau Field, and the Metrodome. Of these, probably Soldier Field and Lucas Oil Stadium, being centrally located and easily accessible, would host the championship more often than other places more to the edge of the conference footprint (and I doubt the Packers would put Lambeau up for bid).

Both of those plus the academic argument - BYU is not a major research institution.

The Pac-10 is very traditional, and they will exhaust every resource before compromising their ideals, even if it means sticking with 10 teams.

Like I said--new pressures. Nothing goes as far as money. If the Pac 10 thinks they're going to get squeezed out of any big time BCS money, they'll sacrifice whatever to get that 12th team.

If the Pac 10 is looking to upgrade its bowl ties (which are pretty mediocre after the Rose Bowl, IMO), then BYU probably has the best travelling fan base and brings the most TV viewers of the non-BCS teams.

They added the Alamo starting next year, so a second Jan 1st and later bowl game (finally). Didn't lose the bigger ones they already had (Holiday, Sun) or the next teir they have (Vegas, Emerald). So they are improving a little.

Still got room to get better there, though.

Missouri would be potentially damaging to the Big XII's TV contracts. Kansas City and St. Louis are the two largest tv markets outside of Texas, I think.

The only group interested in moving Missouri to the Big 10 is Missouri. They wouldn't add much to the Big 10 aside from St. Louis. KC is one of the Big 12's hub cities and a lot of that is because of Kansas, Missouri, KSU, Nebraska, etc. So if Missouri were to leave KC would still have a vested interest in the Big 12 because of the Kansas, Nebraska, Kansas State, etc fans in the area.

The thing that nobody talks about is that for all of Missouri's complaining about the Big 12 they were one of the key voters who voted a clown like Steve Hatchell to the Big 12 commissioner role in the first place. The guy sunk the Southwest Conference and yet some how he was nominated to be the Big 12 commissioner? It's been down hill since then. I'm hoping one day the Big 12 will actually hire a competent commissioner.

The only group interested in moving Missouri to the Big 10 is Missouri. They wouldn't add much to the Big 10 aside from St. Louis. KC is one of the Big 12's hub cities and a lot of that is because of Kansas, Missouri, KSU, Nebraska, etc. So if Missouri were to leave KC would still have a vested interest in the Big 12 because of the Kansas, Nebraska, Kansas State, etc fans in the area.

It would just be about gaining a foothold of some sort in Kansas City. Though, for reference, Kansas is almost a suburb, and Kansas State and Missouri are both almost two hours away.

It's hard to find schools that could be part of a major conference.

It would just be about gaining a foothold of some sort in Kansas City. Though, for reference, Kansas is almost a suburb, and Kansas State and Missouri are both almost two hours away.

It's hard to find schools that could be part of a major conference.

There are much better cities to get a foothold in than Kansas City. I love Kansas City as much as anybody, but I highly doubt that was one of their big reasons to expand, lol. Syracuse would make better sense if you're wanting a foothold in a major city. Texas would obviously make the best sense, but that wasn't likely to happen. I even saw rumors of the Big Ten looking to add three teams (Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri) to go to 14. That one made no sense at all IMHO. If you're going to add three then why not Texas, Texas A&M, and one more?

This is the second time where Missouri has all but begged to be let into the Big Ten and weren't invited. This instance was actually worse as they publically proclaimed their interest and criticized the Big 12. Not that the Big 12 shouldn't be criticized, but it's a bit false coming from Missouri given they have sided with the south schools from the beginning and thus they made their bed and should lie in it.

The Big 12 has a great opportunity in the very near future to put themselves into position to be one of the top three conferences in the country. Their next tv contract is going to be looked at very closely given the recent deals of the Big Ten and SEC. I honestly don't have a lot of faith in the current Big 12 leadership, but I'm hoping even they can't screw this up.

With a 12th team, what site would get the Big 10 Championship game? My guess is Indy, although it would suck to have both the basketball and football there.

With a 12th team, what site would get the Big 10 Championship game? My guess is Indy, although it would suck to have both the basketball and football there.

Why not Soldier Field? Or whatever they call the Spaceship Stadium now? Or maybe the new place the Lions play? There are a couple other spots I think they could go.

New Meadowlands Stadium when Rutgers joins, not Pitt. :)

I still don't understand the appeal of PIT...

This is the second time where Missouri has all but begged to be let into the Big Ten and weren't invited. This instance was actually worse as they publically proclaimed their interest and criticized the Big 12. Not that the Big 12 shouldn't be criticized, but it's a bit false coming from Missouri given they have sided with the south schools from the beginning and thus they made their bed and should lie in it.

The Big 12 has a great opportunity in the very near future to put themselves into position to be one of the top three conferences in the country. Their next tv contract is going to be looked at very closely given the recent deals of the Big Ten and SEC. I honestly don't have a lot of faith in the current Big 12 leadership, but I'm hoping even they can't screw this up.

1. Mizzou's board has NOT asked to be invited to the Big 10. That's simply false. The governor has openly said that he'd like to see Mizzou go to the B10, but the board and the AD are both against it.

2. Mizzou has actually benefitted from the current deal due to the structure that rewards TV appearances and results. Mizzou has received more over the last 5 years than they would have if all revenues were split equally over that same time.

3. The current Big 12 financial income is peanuts compared to the Big 10. The pot to be divided in the Big 12 is around $500M. The pot to be divided by the Big 10 schools is $2.6 billion. It's not even remotely close.

I did chat with a couple of people in the Mizzou AD and they mentioned that a Big 12 Network in some form is a strong possibility in the next TV deal. We'll see if that happens.

In doing some reading, the move to 12 makes sense for the Big 10 if they want to have a conference championship. If it brings in an extra $10-15M + some extra television sets, it will essentially pay for a new team. Adding 3 more teams doesn't do a whole lot for the Big 10 unless they swing for the fences and hit a home run (add Texas, Notre Dame, and someone else) or somehow get the BCS to begin permitting 3 teams per conference, as the Big 10 would already have a championship game w/ 12-teams and it already gets 2 BCS games almost every year.

I'm half wondering if this (the threat to move to 14, rather than 12) is the Big 10's final offer to Notre Dame -- essentially telling them that, if we take 2-3 Big East teams, that conference is going to split and you are going to be left looking for a new home for all sports and we won't have room for you at that point.

Just don't see the value Pitt adds.

I see it athletically, both football and basketball. I see it academically. I see it geographically/culturally.

I just don't see it financially. They have to add a big metro area cable system for this to make sense, no? And doesn't Penn St. already have the Big 10 network on the cable systems in Pittsburgh, a small tv market to begin with?

It brings a natural rival and an eastern partner to Penn State. If you are looking at TV market alone, really only Syracuse or Rutgers could bring in a new market there.

What I keep asking Pitt fans is how do they feel moving from probably the best (or top 2) basketball conference to the Big Ten?

It brings a natural rival and an eastern partner to Penn State. If you are looking at TV market alone, really only Syracuse or Rutgers could bring in a new market there.

Right, so you agree this does not make sense financially for the Big 10?

Right, so you agree this does not make sense financially for the Big 10?

Unless they head out west to get a team or somehow pull Texas/Notre Dame, I don't think any of the schools in the Big East make sense financially. But the Big Ten NEEDS that 12th team.

Unless they head out west to get a team or somehow pull Texas/Notre Dame, I don't think any of the schools in the Big East make sense financially. But the Big Ten NEEDS that 12th team.

Why? So each school gets less money?

And if they got any team that forced NYC cable systems to add the B10 network, that would make sense financially. Plus, Rutgers easily meets the other criteria you list as pluses for Pitt, and Syracuse stretches to them.

I am not entirely convinced that Rutgers or Syracuse forces the network on the basic cable tier - more likely on a sports tier. The only team that forces it to the main tier is Notre Dame.

But, a school that would have some tv interest in NYC has to make more sense than Pitt.

Considering that these same reports came out about a month ago with Syracuse as the selected target, I am skeptical as to this being a done deal.

Why? So each school gets less money?

While you can argue whether Pitt is the best choice, there's little question that having a conference championship game in football would benefit the Big 10 financially. I don't think it's a guarantee that the schools would see a drop in revenue.

While you can argue whether Pitt is the best choice, there's little question that having a conference championship game in football would benefit the Big 10 financially. I don't think it's a guarantee that the schools would see a drop in revenue.

Big 10 schools get 21 million paid out. A conference championship game would add 10-15. That's a net loss for the existing schools.

EDIT: Even if the championship game added 21 million, there's still no benefit to adding another team, just a break even. They really need to add subscriber fees.

If the Big 10 moves to 12-teams, pretty much regardless of who it is, they will be able to have a championship game and likely add close to enough money from that game to feed the extra mouth. I agree that Pitt doesn't make a ton of sense from a television standpoint, but they are probably the best academic fit (probably even moreso than Texas or Notre Dame) and that seems to matter to most of the B10 schools.

I don't buy for a minute that anyone in the Big 10, outside of State College, cares about giving Penn State a natural rival.

Big 10 schools get 21 million paid out. A conference championship game would add 10-15. That's a net loss for the existing schools.

EDIT: Even if the championship game added 21 million, there's still no benefit to adding another team, just a break even. They really need to add subscriber fees.

But you're not factoring in any revenue from the increase in number of basketball and football games during the regular season. These people aren't stupid. They're not going to add a team if it means a net loss for everyone else. There's plenty of revenue to be had and I have little doubt that all schools will end up making more rather than less.

1. Mizzou's board has NOT asked to be invited to the Big 10. That's simply false. The governor has openly said that he'd like to see Mizzou go to the B10, but the board and the AD are both against it.

2. Mizzou has actually benefitted from the current deal due to the structure that rewards TV appearances and results. Mizzou has received more over the last 5 years than they would have if all revenues were split equally over that same time.

3. The current Big 12 financial income is peanuts compared to the Big 10. The pot to be divided in the Big 12 is around $500M. The pot to be divided by the Big 10 schools is $2.6 billion. It's not even remotely close.

I did chat with a couple of people in the Mizzou AD and they mentioned that a Big 12 Network in some form is a strong possibility in the next TV deal. We'll see if that happens.

The MU chancellor has publicly stated they would listen to the Big Ten if an offer was made. That doesn't mean they would definitely go, but they certainly aren't against it as you are suggesting. I'd go far as to suggest Missouri would be stupid not to go if offered given the television contracts. Granted the Big 12 should get a nice little raise on their next contract, but they'll still be behind the Big Ten.

You're correct that Missouri is doing well in the Big 12 when it comes to football revenue currently, but that's not the problem as Mike Alden suggested. The problem is that you're making a lot less than other schools in the Big Ten and SEC. And the biggest reason for that is because the Big 12 as a whole can't get on the same page with regards to revenue sharing. If everyone could get on the same page then they'd be able to finally lock into a long term deal/plan (tv contract or Big 12 network). Everyone in the Big 12 is so afraid to commit to a long term deal right now because they're afraid that the have's will just get a bigger portion of the larger deal leaving the have nots left behind. Right now the disparity is only a few million. With a larger deal it could be a much bigger disparity unless they learn to share.

I do think we'll eventually see a Big 12 network unless some channel just throws out tons and tons of money. I've even heard it suggested we could go into network partnership with a conference such as the Pac 10 which would make some sense given the time zone difference. I don't know how feasible that is, but it's something they are looking at per the Big 12 commissioner.

But you're not factoring in any revenue from the increase in number of basketball and football games during the regular season. These people aren't stupid. They're not going to add a team if it means a net loss for everyone else. There's plenty of revenue to be had and I have little doubt that all schools will end up making more rather than less.

I don't think there would be an increase in revenue from having more football games. The extra game every Saturday would end up on the Big 10 network. The big money from that is subscriber revenues - which don't go up from having more games. The additional ad money from the 4th game on that network would be minimal. Plus, we've seen in the past that adding games itself does not increase revenue unless you increase the number viewers total watching the conferences games every week.

While Pitt will certainly add some viewers, it seems to me they will add the least of all of the rumored candidates. While the move may end up being a small net increase in revenue, it seems to me that it would be the smallest net increase they could have. It just does not make sense to me.

But, I suppose if it makes sense to them, that's what matters.

I would also think Rutgers is more attractive than Pitt for the potential revenues that the school could add. They would immediately bring in more money than Pitt and Cuse because of NYC, and that could really grow bigger if the program gets closer to top level. Immediately though, a Rutgers-Michigan matchup would put up a huge NYC number.

The MU chancellor has publicly stated they would listen to the Big Ten if an offer was made. That doesn't mean they would definitely go, but they certainly aren't against it as you are suggesting.

I can 100% GUARANTEE you that they are totally against it and are using it as little more than a playing card against the B12 South teams. It's as simple as that. I'd note that I don't think it's nearly as powerful a playing card as the higher-ups think it might be due to the transparency of the move (i.e a moron could figure out what they're doing). But it never hurts to try.

100% GUARANTEE


I don't think that means what you think it means.

I don't think that means what you think it means.

I'll clarify. There is no way that Mizzou will be filling that 12th spot in the Big 10. It's not going to happen. That mean what you thought it meant? :)

Probably bears noting somewhere here that the Big 10 Network already has clearance in NYC on Cablevision, Comcast, and Time Warner.

Of the top 20 markets, the only one that doesn't have clearance on traditional cable (as opposed to Fios or U-Verse) appears to be Los Angeles. The next largest market where that's the case? #21 St. Louis
http://www.bigtennetwork.com/corporate/FAQ.asp#14

The war of rumors has gone to Twitter..........

Pitt Official Derides Internet Speculation on Pitt to Big Tent | Campus Corner (http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/681)

Why not Soldier Field? Or whatever they call the Spaceship Stadium now? Or maybe the new place the Lions play? There are a couple other spots I think they could go.
I'd love to have it in Chicago. I used to go to the Big 10 Tournament when it was at the United Center.

Few reasons why I doubt it would be at Soldier Field. It's outdoors and potentially cold as shit. The field is typically torn to shreds by that time of year thanks to high school games and concerts. Soldier Field is really not that easily accessible for the public and not a great gathering place. And finally, college sports doesn't generate a ton of buzz in the city and it would be well behind the Bears and perhaps Blackhawks and Bulls in coverage.

Only way I can see it happening is if they laid down some turf on the field (which a lot of people have been pushing for). Otherwise, I think they like the location of Indianapolis and the fact it'll be indoors. Detroit is an option but who the hell wants to go there for a weekend.

I'll clarify. There is no way that Mizzou will be filling that 12th spot in the Big 10. It's not going to happen. That mean what you thought it meant? :)

You must feel 100% certain that they will not be getting an invitation, then. There is no way that a school like Missouri is in a position to say no to the Big 10 or SEC, if they are offered.

The war of rumors has gone to Twitter..........

Pitt Official Derides Internet Speculation on Pitt to Big Tent | Campus Corner (http://campuscorner.kansascity.com/node/681)

I really don't see these rumors being true right now. Chris Peak of Pitt's rivals site is quite adamant that all of his sources point to this being bunk. Also, this guy sees it the same way: ZagsBlog.com – Pitt to Big 10 Rumors False (http://www.zagsblog.com/2010/02/01/pitt-to-big-10-rumors-false/)

Not saying it won't happen down the road, but it seems highly doubtful that anything goes down this week (or month). Wouldn't mind being wrong, but I doubt it.

EDIT: Pitt football's beat writer for the Post Gazette Paul Zeise chimed in as well (saying all the rumors aren't true): http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/collegesports/archive/2010/02/01/pitt-is-going-to-the-big-ten.aspx

Part of me feels like this whole B10 expansion thing has been in the works behind the scenes for a bit, that they already knew who they're adding and it's just a formality to announce the plans to consider studying expansion.

It'll seem homeresque of me, but it's not because of the Jersey thing with Rutgers, as much as it's understanding the mechanics of higher ed. Rutgers, even in the face of some significant budget cuts in other areas, didn't slow plans to grow their football program in recent years.

They've been consistent with their success, have given Schiano anything he's wanted to ensure he's not tempted to leave and the stadium capacity of 52k puts it in a respectable size nationally.

Anyway, the more this plays out -- and I thought this from the outset -- the more it seems to me that they knew this was going to happen and they've been doing the work behind the scenes to get prepared for the move to the B10 from the time it was first floated back a few years ago, than say, some sort of "thoughtful" process where a few schools do the show pony to determine who'll get tapped for B10 expansion.

That's all just random speculation in my head, not anything scientific, but...I just feel like if there wasn't some larger plan in mind beyond "being considered a respectable player on the Big East scene" that the school would've scaled back its plans at some point or caved to the considerable faculty (and some state) pressure to focus less on increase the football program's footprint.

I guess we'll see, though.

I also kind of wondered if the reason Schiano has been so adamant about staying at Rutgers is because he knew something was in the works to get them into the Big 10.

I guess one of the things that would turn me away from Rutgers being added is that it is a long trip for some of the smaller sports. Not a big deal for the football team but when Minnesota or Iowa have to send the Women's Field Hockey team out to New Jersey, that has a cost.

Adding to the Rutgers argument: the new WR coach has recruiting ties to Illinois and other midwest states...

You guys obviously didnt look at the links I posted. Most questions are answered.
What will the conference look like?
Eastern Division

* Michigan
* Michigan State
* Northwestern
* Ohio State
* Penn State
* 12th Member (Pitt, Syracuse, or Rutgers)

Western Division

* Illinois
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Minnesota
* Purdue
* Wisconsin

Where will the championship game be played?

Lucas Oil Stadium. Its new and indoors.

One of those divisions does not look like the other.

I also kind of wondered if the reason Schiano has been so adamant about staying at Rutgers is because he knew something was in the works to get them into the Big 10.

I guess one of the things that would turn me away from Rutgers being added is that it is a long trip for some of the smaller sports. Not a big deal for the football team but when Minnesota or Iowa have to send the Women's Field Hockey team out to New Jersey, that has a cost.

Meh. Google the UAA conference. It's a D3 conference that contains Wash U and a bunch of other big endowment D3 schools that could easily afford D1 if they wanted to, but don't want the sacrifice of academic standards to do it. If they can travel the way they do (NYU, Brandeis, Carnegie Mellon, U Chicago, et. al.) then having trips to Rutgers once or maybe twice a season is of no real consequence.

You guys obviously didnt look at the links I posted. Most questions are answered.

Not sure how links to the original posting of the rumors, that has questions answered with the author of the rumors suppositions, is supposed to convince everyone this is a done deal?

Meh. Google the UAA conference. It's a D3 conference that contains Wash U and a bunch of other big endowment D3 schools that could easily afford D1 if they wanted to, but don't want the sacrifice of academic standards to do it. If they can travel the way they do (NYU, Brandeis, Carnegie Mellon, U Chicago, et. al.) then having trips to Rutgers once or maybe twice a season is of no real consequence.

No one in the ACC complained about having to trek up to Boston College, or the Big East going all the way across to Louisville or down to USF (I know the remaining BE members had less room to be stingy, but still).

Not sure how links to the original posting of the rumors, that has questions answered with the author of the rumors suppositions, is supposed to convince everyone this is a done deal?

I guess I figure they know more then me. And the fact that Pitt student-athletes were twittering about it. This was reported on these sites. My main point was several statements were made and questions asked and this kind of answered them.

I am hearing rumblings of the Big 10 adding 3 teams. Pitt, Syracuse and Missouri top the list.

Heck, if student-athletes would be the absolutely LAST people to know. If they're talking about it, you know it's just rampant silliness and speculation, rather than actual facts. Coaches too. They'd find out JUST before the students.

No one in the ACC complained about having to trek up to Boston College

Umm ... I'd say that's always been somewhat unpopular with the core ACC fans & I've never gotten the impression it was particularly popular with the athletic departments either but since there wasn't jackshit they could do about it no real point in complaining.

It's a funny thing I guess, having FSU probably helped Miami integrate into the ACC somewhat & they at least now feel (to other schools/fans) a little bit like they're in the ACC but I don't know that BC will ever feel like they're actually part of the conference. They certainly never have to me & I don't know that I've ever run across anyone from any school that took particular interest in playing them. That's not BC's fault & I'm not knocking them about it, I doubt they/their fans get real excited about the marriage of convenience either.

I was talking about at the time of the movement, and I specifically remember the ADs/Presidents saying how travel costs didn't figure to be an issue when they were asked about it. But you're right, I know BC fans who weren't thrilled by the move at the onset even though they knew it would be better overall for the program because of the loss of natural rivals. Even more don't like it now.

No one in the ACC complained about having to trek up to Boston College, or the Big East going all the way across to Louisville or down to USF (I know the remaining BE members had less room to be stingy, but still).

Louisville is right by UC anyway? Next state over from Pitt and WVU? Why would they complain about that?

Louisville is right by UC anyway? Next state over from Pitt and WVU? Why would they complain about that?

Louisville came into the league with Cincy.

It looks like it's about 550 miles between Louisville and Morgantown which is a hell of a trip for the men's swimming team or whatever non-revenue sports you're talking about. It's 700+ miles between Louisville and New Brunswick, NJ.

Back to the original discussion, the point is you're going to have geographic outliers in these conferences just like Miami was in the Big East originally and people dealt with it fine.

I was talking about at the time of the movement, and I specifically remember the ADs/Presidents saying how travel costs didn't figure to be an issue when they were asked about it.

Different era though.

Here's one of several articles (ranging from sports business journals to NPR) that talks about the increasing concern over rising travel costs. More recently that report (Knight Foundation? Knight Commission? the name escapes me now that I'm typing) that tried to focus attention on the rise in coaching salaries also included mention of 60% of NCAA members supporting a look at mandating reduced schedules for non-revenue sports due to travel costs.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Assocation-wide/Increasing+travel+costs+concern+for+championships+-+09-17-08+-+NCAA+News

I can 100% GUARANTEE you that they are totally against it and are using it as little more than a playing card against the B12 South teams. It's as simple as that. I'd note that I don't think it's nearly as powerful a playing card as the higher-ups think it might be due to the transparency of the move (i.e a moron could figure out what they're doing). But it never hurts to try.

Better late than never I guess. I just wonder why Missouri took so long to re-join their Big 12 north brethren. Colorado and Missouri were the two Big 12 north schools who voted with the Big 12 south for the commissioner and other votes during the Big 12's early years. Glad to have Missouri finally back in the fold.

One of those divisions does not look like the other.

I'm with Abe. Those divisions look really lopsided. Northwestern has to be wondering what they did to anger the Big Ten gods.

You guys obviously didnt look at the links I posted. Most questions are answered.
What will the conference look like?
Eastern Division

* Michigan
* Michigan State
* Northwestern
* Ohio State
* Penn State
* 12th Member (Pitt, Syracuse, or Rutgers)

Western Division

* Illinois
* Indiana
* Iowa
* Minnesota
* Purdue
* Wisconsin

Where will the championship game be played?

Lucas Oil Stadium. Its new and indoors.No way in hell Michigan, OSU and PSU all end up on the same side of the conference.

I would swap Michigan and Michigan State with Indiana and Purdue.

I would swap Michigan and Michigan State with Indiana and Purdue.

But then Iowa wouldn't have a cakewalk to the conference championship game.

Different era though.

Here's one of several articles (ranging from sports business journals to NPR) that talks about the increasing concern over rising travel costs. More recently that report (Knight Foundation? Knight Commission? the name escapes me now that I'm typing) that tried to focus attention on the rise in coaching salaries also included mention of 60% of NCAA members supporting a look at mandating reduced schedules for non-revenue sports due to travel costs.
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/ncaahome?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/wps/wcm/connect/ncaa/NCAA/NCAA+News/NCAA+News+Online/2008/Assocation-wide/Increasing+travel+costs+concern+for+championships+-+09-17-08+-+NCAA+News

As soon as this is implemented, there will be a Title IX lawsuit somewhere.

As soon as this is implemented, there will be a Title IX lawsuit somewhere.

Not important. What is important is whether this will be implemented in TCY2.

You cant have the last game of the Big Ten season being Michigan/Ohio St. Then turn around and have them play again a week later in the championship game. That makes less sense then putting them in the same division.

And Iowa wouldnt have a cake walk. Wisconsin is routinely one of the better teams in the land.

And look at the Big 12. Seems OU and Texas are in the South together. I wouldnt think that would be possible.

were the insiders right or what

Feb 4th is the day it is to be announced

Feb 4th is the day it is to be announced

According to who?

IMO, you have to split up OSU and UM. And then hopefully get a team on par with PSU to come in and pair off. That way, you have a good shot of the traditional OSU vs. UM showdown for the conference title.

But Michigan and Ohio St wont give up a rivalry game that pours millions of dollars into each university. And it would be stupid for the Big Ten to expand and split those 2 up if they play a week before a conference championship game. That just makes the conference championship game redundant.

According to who?

The Interwebs. C'mon man, follow along will ya?


:D

But Michigan and Ohio St wont give up a rivalry game that pours millions of dollars into each university. And it would be stupid for the Big Ten to expand and split those 2 up if they play a week before a conference championship game. That just makes the conference championship game redundant.

They are not going to put Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan in the same side of the conference. Between the 3 of them they won 70% of the titles last decade, plus they are probably the 3 highest TV drawers in the conference.

Love the passion man...but get a reality grip.

I know geography tends to dictate divisions, but in the Big Ten's case, why bother? The conference is used to traveling to all the other teams already. Why not just split the teams up in as even a manner as possible and be done with it.

Kick Ass Division

OSU
Mich
Mich St.
Purdue
Iowa
Indiana

Take Names Division

Penn St
Pitt
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota
Illinois

You can switch around teams some if need be. The point is that geography shouldn't limit competitive balance when distances traveled aren't going to change from the status quo.

The Interwebs. C'mon man, follow along will ya?


:D

Heh.

Trashpress.

How else do you break it up? The only logical thing is to put PSU in the West. But then you have to put their travel partner in the West. So you have PSU and Pitt (or Syr or Rut) in the West with Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois.
This makes more sense?

I know geography tends to dictate divisions, but in the Big Ten's case, why bother? The conference is used to traveling to all the other teams already. Why not just split the teams up in as even a manner as possible and be done with it.

Kick Ass Division

OSU
Mich
Mich St.
Purdue
Iowa
Indiana

Take Names Division

Penn St
Pitt
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota
Illinois

You can switch around teams some if need be. The point is that geography shouldn't limit competitive balance when distances traveled aren't going to change from the status quo.

This makes sense to me. But I would love to see Iowa with Penn st. since we own them. :D

This makes sense to me. But I would love to see Iowa with Penn st. since we own them. :D

Iowa has a 7-5 advantage over Penn State since Penn State rejoined the Big Ten in 1993.

But, yeah, IOWA HAS SURE OWNED THEM!!!111!!

Iowa has a 7-5 advantage over Penn State since Penn State rejoined the Big Ten in 1993.

But, yeah, IOWA HAS SURE OWNED THEM!!!111!!

Since 1996 Iowa is 7-2 vs Penn State including 6 out of the last 7.

But, yeah, IOWA HAS SURE OWNED THEM!!!111!!

If you want to say you've owned us lately, that would be more correct.

But the overall head-to-head record and historical record disproves this idea that Iowa has a whopping advantage over Penn State.

But feel free to cherry pick the eras that you may want. I can do it too.

WE OWNED YOUR ASS IN 2007

If you want to say you've owned us lately, that would be more correct.

But the overall head-to-head record and historical record disproves this idea that Iowa has a whopping advantage over Penn State.

But feel free to cherry pick the eras that you may want. I can do it too.

WE OWNED YOUR ASS IN 2007


Everyone knows you have crooked refs in Happy Valley. ;)

So, yes we have owned PsU lately. Like for the last decade.

My alma mater, the Northern Illinois Huskies have owned the current BCS Champion Alabama Crimson Tide since 2002.

Man, I love the Big Ten, but this is really killing my interest in it.

Man, I love the Big Ten, but this is really killing my interest in it.

Internet rumors are killing your interest in something?

Internet rumors are killing your interest in something?

Sorry...this *would* kill my interest.

THIS IS NOT INTERNET RUMORS

THIS IS FROM INSIDERS

If they add a 12th team, Ohio State-Michigan will not be in the same division. You can book that.

Or I mean, I heard from some inside internet rumory trashpress. There.

Big Ten making overtures to … Texas / LJWorld.com (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/11/big-ten-making-overtures-texas/?sports)

Here's the response in the local Austin paper:

Texas Longhorns: Football, Basketball, Baseball and more | Statesman.com (http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2010/02/11/texasbig_ten_sp.html?cxntfid=blogs_bevo_beat)

But the Big Ten has already added Pitt, and divided into divisions, per Tarcone!

Big Ten making overtures to … Texas / LJWorld.com (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/11/big-ten-making-overtures-texas/?sports)

The article is from a Lawrence, KS newspaper. 'Nuff said.

That deafening silence you hear from the NYC metro area bodes well to my original theory in all of this. The collective shuffling of feet elsewhere should probably happen for another 8-10 months before the real story comes out. Maybe sooner, but seems unlikely given how it was less than three months ago they decided formally to announce they were going to look into expansion.

Meanwhile, the PAC-10 expansion talk is more interesting, since their most likely candidates aren't schools anyone thinks the PAC-10 would seriously add.

I think the deafening silence from the NYC metro area is reflective of the fact that they don't particularly give a wahoo about college sports.

Lots of talk around here the last couple days about he Pac 10 expanding to 12 by adding Colorado and Utah. I'm not even speculating here, just thought the talk has been interesting.

Lots of talk around here the last couple days about he Pac 10 expanding to 12 by adding Colorado and Utah. I'm not even speculating here, just thought the talk has been interesting.

Yeah it's been big among the MWC boards and it has circulated through various pubs.

Utah and Colorado to Pac-10 with BYU replacing Colorado in the Big 12 has been the talk/suggestion supposed implications which I find funny.

Sad thing is I think you would see TCU in the Big 12 before BYU.

Yeah sounds like the LDS angle with BYU scares off the Pac 10. Would be smart for a major conference to add them since they have a wide reaching fan base, given the religion stuff.

Sad thing is I think you would see TCU in the Big 12 before BYU.

There is a very strong historical tie between TCU and most of the Big 12 South, from the Southwest Conference days.

There is a very strong historical tie between TCU and most of the Big 12 South, from the Southwest Conference days.

Yeah I know...But if this shakeup happened BYU would kind of be the odd man out...although BYU would bring the bigger fanbase to the PAC 10 over the U of U. They always have and always will. The U of U fan base is one of the most fickle fans I have ever seen.

Yeah sounds like the LDS a.ngle with BYU scares off the Pac 10. Would be smart for a major conference to add them since they have a wide reaching fan base, given the religion stuff.

Yeah the no Sunday play is what has them not thinking BYU for the PAC 10

I wonder what would happen, division-wise, in the Big 12 if Missouri or Colorado left and TCU joined up. Would TCU play in the North or would there be some shifting with one of the Oklahoma schools.

It seems like it would be wise to put Oklahoma and Texas in different divisions to make the championship game into a marquee matchup (w/ Nebraska having been pretty pedestrian for nearly 10-years now, the Big 12 North is pretty lightweight compared to the South), but I'm not sure it is the wisest of moves to have Oklahoma or Texas have to beat each other twice per season to get to the BCS title game (and it could end up knocking one or the other out of BCS game contention).

Yeah the no Sunday play is what has them not thinking BYU for the PAC 10
It's more than just that. Nobody in positions of authority will say it directly, but the political stances of the LDS do not jibe well with the leadership of the Pac-10 Universities. In addition, the Pac-10 is very snobby about their status as a collection of upper-tier research institutions, and Utah fits that criteria much better than BYU.

There are a lot of hurdles to clear for the Pac-10 to expand:

- By expanding, can they add enough in terms of TV markets to increase the revenue to each school?
- Can they provide enough incentive to Colorado to leave the Big-12?
- Will the State of Utah allow Utah to join the Pac-10 if they don't also take BYU?
- How would the conference divide itself? Would the NW schools be OK with the likelihood that their annual visits to LA would probably become every other year at most, and the potential impact that could have on recruiting?
- Can the Pac-10 get over their happiness with having longtime rivals as natural pairs? Colorado & Utah do have a history together, but it's been decades since they used to play regularly.
- Can the Pac-10 get over losing their perfect round-robin scheduling for basketball and their current full 9 game in-conference slate in football?

Of course, the Pac-10 also has to ask themselves if they're prepared for the consequences of not doing anything - can they stay relevant as a top-end BCS conference without expanding? The $1B TV deal the SEC signed ups the stakes, and the Pac-10 is falling way behind in revenue to not just the SEC but the Big-12 and Big-10. There's already a national perception problem for the Pac-10, and that could get even worse if revenues continue to trail the rest of the country and the probable result that the conference would start slipping from battling the Big-12 for position as the 2nd best football conference to fighting to stay ahead of the ACC & Big-East.

Like it or not (and the Pac-10 does not like it), the college sports landscape continues to change. With their TV deal up in 2012, now is the time to start deciding if they're going to keep up or get left behind...

I don't think Utah state legislature is as pervasive a bloc as Texas is with the old Big 8 exiles and how they forced the Big 12 to take Baylor. If Utah wants to go, they'll let them go. They'll still schedule the Holy War as a non-conference game and I think in a way, they might see it as a good thing because it gives the state two chances to dominate two conferences rather than standing on top of each other to win. But more importantly, I just can't see them standing in the way of the move...because I think they'll see 1 major conference vs. zero as better than two teams on the way out with no real chance of ever having an opportunity like that again. Who knows, though.

CU is down on their luck right now, but maybe they'll feel like moving to a league that will make them competitive will make them more money in the long term anyway. Meanwhile, if that doesn't induce the MWC to steal Boise State, Nevada, Fresno State and a 4th & 5th team to try to do the 12-team thing, nothing will...

But the Big Ten has already added Pitt, and divided into divisions, per Tarcone!

Ii did? I did?

I don't think Utah state legislature is as pervasive a bloc as Texas is with the old Big 8 exiles and how they forced the Big 12 to take Baylor.

It really wasn't the legislature per se, as much as it was the sitting Governor (Ann Richards) and more importantly Lieutenant Governor (Bob Bullock) both being Baylor grads. Right now, Gov. Perry (aka Goodhair) is a massive A&M alumni and supporter, so I'd imagine in today's Texas political environment, if anything happens before the fall elections, then A&M would be the new Baylor in any realignment discussions. The current political regime wouldn't give two shits about Baylor or any other Texas school outside of UT-Austin or A&M.

It really wasn't the legislature per se, as much as it was the sitting Governor (Ann Richards) and more importantly Lieutenant Governor (Bob Bullock) both being Baylor grads. Right now, Gov. Perry (aka Goodhair) is a massive A&M alumni and supporter, so I'd imagine in today's Texas political environment, if anything happens before the fall elections, then A&M would be the new Baylor in any realignment discussions. The current political regime wouldn't give two shits about Baylor or any other Texas school outside of UT-Austin or A&M.

That makes way more sense.

That makes way more sense.

Yep. Most people don't realize, but in Texas, the Governor is an almost impotent position. The Lieutenant Governor wields a ton more power. They are the one that sets the course for the legislature, and pretty much every thing that happens during the biennial meetings runs through them. The Governor only wields as much power as their cult of personality allows.

As an aside, most of the stuff G.W. Bush claimed during his time as governor was actually the result of actions Bob Bullock took as Lt. Governor.

Yep. Most people don't realize, but in Texas, the Governor is an almost impotent position. The Lieutenant Governor wields a ton more power. They are the one that sets the course for the legislature, and pretty much every thing that happens during the biennial meetings runs through them. The Governor only wields as much power as their cult of personality allows.

As an aside, most of the stuff G.W. Bush claimed during his time as governor was actually the result of actions Bob Bullock took as Lt. Governor.

I knew about the weak Governor role of the state and the political quirks from my other work. I just didn't realize Ann Richards and the LtG were both Baylor grads. That sort of political pressure would be hard to beat, especially at that critical time. I'm sure the school was delighted too. I mean, that worked out well for them.

I knew about the weak Governor role of the state and the political quirks from my other work. I just didn't realize Ann Richards and the LtG were both Baylor grads. That sort of political pressure would be hard to beat, especially at that critical time. I'm sure the school was delighted too. I mean, that worked out well for them.

Yep, it did. A funny story that came out of that was when Baylor traveled to Rice while both were in the SWC, but the Big 12 announcement had been made. Rice handed out doormats to all of the Baylor fans that said "Welcome to the Big 12".

The article is from a Lawrence, KS newspaper. 'Nuff said.

Have to agree with MBBF here. The writer, Tom Keegan, is about as big a moron as you can get. He's the editor of the sports department and gets a lot of his information from sports forums. I don't doubt that the Big Ten has talked to Texas because they'd be crazy not to, but I just don't see it happening unless the Big Ten was looking to increase to 14 (add Texas A&M in the mix).

It seems like it would be wise to put Oklahoma and Texas in different divisions to make the championship game into a marquee matchup (w/ Nebraska having been pretty pedestrian for nearly 10-years now, the Big 12 North is pretty lightweight compared to the South), but I'm not sure it is the wisest of moves to have Oklahoma or Texas have to beat each other twice per season to get to the BCS title game (and it could end up knocking one or the other out of BCS game contention).

I know it won't happen, but I'd like to see the conferences either play a complete conference schedule where they play everyone (once in football and twice in basketball) or increase the size of the conference to 14 or 16 where you'd play within your division only until the championship.

I don't think Utah state legislature is as pervasive a bloc as Texas is with the old Big 8 exiles and how they forced the Big 12 to take Baylor. If Utah wants to go, they'll let them go. They'll still schedule the Holy War as a non-conference game and I think in a way, they might see it as a good thing because it gives the state two chances to dominate two conferences rather than standing on top of each other to win. But more importantly, I just can't see them standing in the way of the move...because I think they'll see 1 major conference vs. zero as better than two teams on the way out with no real chance of ever having an opportunity like that again. Who knows, though.
Well, given how vocal Orrin Hatch has been about the BCS, I suspect he might take issue with Utah getting an invite but not BYU.

Well, given how vocal Orrin Hatch has been about the BCS, I suspect he might take issue with Utah getting an invite but not BYU.

I have a feeling, given how vocal Orrin Hatch has been about the BCS, that he won't stand in the way of a Utah school joining a BCS conference, no matter what happens to other schools.

So, supposedly the Big 10 has hired a firm to research 15 possible targets, and Texas isn't one of them.

Big Ten hires firm to research potential expansion candidates - JSOnline (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/badgers/84822917.html)

First floated article from B10 country indicating that Rutgers is in the lead...

Rutgers, Big Ten look like a match - chicagotribune.com (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/college/chi-big-ten-expansion-side-mar02,0,4339535.story)

The consensus among Big Ten sources, officials from other conferences and TV executives is that Rutgers offers the best package. Missouri is second and Pittsburgh third.

I would love that. I was born an RU fan and went to many games with my dad during the really bad years. Nothing would thrill me more than taking my dad, now 80 years old, to a sold out RU- osu game at giant stadium.

Rutgers is a good choice for a lot of reasons, but I really don't think the NYC market angle is one of them. I don't think the NYC market cares that much about college football, and they're not going to gain huge support just because they move to the Big Ten. If anything, the tougher competition might keep them from a BCS bowl run. The NYC market isn't going to suddenly lose it's shit over 3-5 loss Rutgers teams.

Michigan and Ohio St. coming to town will be nice, but there has hardly been a blip on the local radar when prominent programs have come there over the years. And Rutgers has been bad historically, but not Temple bad.

We've been saying this forever. Rutgers will work, it makes the most sense for a billion reasons and there's no way the Big Ten went into this without a candidate.

When they first floated it a few years ago, that was Rutgers opportunity to get their shit together to make this move plausible. While I doubt they'll become a major player in the world of major sports outside say football and women's basketball, it's a long term decision that will stabilize sports there and so, I really hope it happens.

I'd hate for the Big East to lose any team, but if it is one of Rutgers, Pitt, or Syracuse -- I would rather it be Rutgers. As mentioned, I think the NYC market angle is overblown (otherwise, the Big East would have a television contract more in line w/ the other BCS conferences) and Rutgers athletics, overall, are not quite as good as those of Pitt or Syracuse, in my opinion. It would suck to lose the New Jersey market and a longtime rival.

Hopefully, the Big Ten votes to not expand or makes the entrance (combined w/ the exit fee from the Big East) so unattractive that a Big East school will consider sticking around, but I'm guessinng that won't happen b/c if a team like Rutgers passes it up, Pitt or Syracuse may accept.

I will say that they've done a good job publicizing their "resurgence", which was capped off by an appearance in the Texas Bowl followed by a series of 4 and 5 loss seasons in a weak conference.

I'd hate for the Big East to lose any team, but if it is one of Rutgers, Pitt, or Syracuse -- I would rather it be Rutgers. As mentioned, I think the NYC market angle is overblown (otherwise, the Big East would have a television contract more in line w/ the other BCS conferences) and Rutgers athletics, overall, are not quite as good as those of Pitt or Syracuse, in my opinion. It would suck to lose the New Jersey market and a longtime rival.

Hopefully, the Big Ten votes to not expand or makes the entrance (combined w/ the exit fee from the Big East) so unattractive that a Big East school will consider sticking around, but I'm guessinng that won't happen b/c if a team like Rutgers passes it up, Pitt or Syracuse may accept.

I feel like this is the best possible move for the Big East, if a team is going to leave. Rutgers isn't the weak link, but they're not so integral to the league's success that anyone will perceive them going as a net loss for the league in the long-term.

I mean, anyone they get to replace RU as an all sport member (Memphis? UCF?) will probably invest more, have lower academic standards and be generally more committed to succeeding in one of the two major revenue sports if not both and so...I just feel like it's not going to hurt the league in the grand scheme, whereas if Syracuse left or Pitt or a program like that, it'd be a much bigger problem for the league.

My hope is that it would convince them to get that alignment fixed and set the league up into 12 football schools, but even if they don't...I just feel like it's a net positive for Rutgers as an athletic program and a neutral move for the league and long-term, might end up being positive even. I'd love to see them convince UMass to move up. It won't happen, but...at least it'd be a school within the region since Villanova won't move up in football and Delaware won't consider it either.

I will say that they've done a good job publicizing their "resurgence", which was capped off by an appearance in the Texas Bowl followed by a series of 4 and 5 loss seasons in a weak conference.

When you factor in the previous 100 years it is a huge resurgence. Don't underestimate the large amount of RU fans in the NY/NJ market that will watch a relevant team. Not to mention the younger generation there now or recently graduated who have now actually grown up with a semblance of winning college football culture.

Trust me, 10-20 years ago you saw zero evidence they even played football at RU, now you see people everywhere in RU football gear, there is much more media coverage and people are excited and talking about gameday.

While they are not on par with traditional powers they are a commodity on the rise.

And, of course, that is a massive appeal of Rutgers: the huge potential there.

You Rutgers fans are insane. Your sports program is crap and it has leached off the Big East and contributed nothing for years. You don't do anything in the NY market while in the Big East, so I don't see the annual Rutgers Northwestern/Mich St/Iowa/Indiana football games drawing much either. The OSU/Mich games would be a novelty for a couple of years until your football program once again fades into oblivion for the next 75 years. The only thing NYC cares about Big East basketball, and only a couple of the good Big East teams at that. I want to see the Big East stay intact and frankly, would be happy to get rid of a leach program like Rutgers.

As a Cuse fan I understand a team accepting a Big11 invite for the $$$, but would it ever suck to be subject to Big11 basketball night in and night out. I respect the hell out of MSU in hoops, but they are boring as hell. OSU is the only program that plays anything that resembles real basketball. Losing the games against Pitt, UConn, G'town, WV, Villanova, etc. would be a nightmare.

When you factor in the previous 100 years it is a huge resurgence. Don't underestimate the large amount of RU fans in the NY/NJ market that will watch a relevant team. Not to mention the younger generation there now or recently graduated who have now actually grown up with a semblance of winning college football culture.

Trust me, 10-20 years ago you saw zero evidence they even played football at RU, now you see people everywhere in RU football gear, there is much more media coverage and people are excited and talking about gameday.

While they are not on par with traditional powers they are a commodity on the rise.

I would wonder if that "resurgence" would continue if they joined a stronger football conference though. Certainly it would allow them to have a larger budget, but they'd also be going toe to toe with schools that have had a larger budget for years. Would their recruiting improve enough to compete with Big Ten schools year in and year out? I think there are a lot of questions about Rutger's joining the Big Ten, but that's true of any team that joins an established conference like the Big Ten. It will be very interesting to see what the Big Ten finally chooses to do.

I would wonder if that "resurgence" would continue if they joined a stronger football conference though. Certainly it would allow them to have a larger budget, but they'd also be going toe to toe with schools that have had a larger budget for years. Would their recruiting improve enough to compete with Big Ten schools year in and year out? I think there are a lot of questions about Rutger's joining the Big Ten, but that's true of any team that joins an established conference like the Big Ten. It will be very interesting to see what the Big Ten finally chooses to do.

I think it would boost recruiting. NJ has a lot of talented football players that in the past have gone out of state to places like Penn St, Nebraska and BC. This would help keep even more players in NJ, plus RU has had a lot of NFL talent come out the past few years ( relatively speaking), so they are getting players, they aren't like a Navy where it is a gimmick.

I will say that they've done a good job publicizing their "resurgence", which was capped off by an appearance in the Texas Bowl followed by a series of 4 and 5 loss seasons in a weak conference.

If you were there when I was (94-98), then you would understand that 8 win seasons are quite a resurgence. We were a 1 or 2 win team every season and didn't even understand that bowl games were possible. And the first bowl they went to was a memorable Insight Bowl and have had fairly decent bowl success. It's not our fault that Big East tie-ins are pure shit for the most part.

Rutgers would get their asses handed to them if they played in one of the major football conferences.

Rutgers would get their asses handed to them if they played in one of the major football conferences.

Are you not considering the Big 10 to be a major football conference?

Where exactly are the mountain of losses coming from against Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State, and Purdue? Add in Michigan as they continue to struggle. Wisconsin and Iowa would be competitive games. Facing that schedule last year, Rutgers likely goes to their best bowl game ever because of the tie-ins.

But please continue and think that a team with Freshman All-Americans at QB and WR and one Top 10 pick and another probable 1st rounder on the roster would have had their asses handed to them against those juggernauts.

Posts like this and Marmel's are the reasons I've tried my best to stay out of threads like this, because I end up arguing with people who don't have a fucking clue.

Glad to see Missouri not on the top of the list.

The Frank the Tank Blog (http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/), which I think I first read linked from here, has a lot of logic about the information that was let out of the bag yesterday. Specifically, why something like this would be leaked and a closer look at the argument for Rutgers. I don't know if the Big Ten will follow his train of thought in their decision making, but there are a lot of well-reasoned thoughts in his post.

I think his closing paragraph says it best

Let’s think of it this way: the Big Ten has spent the last two decades waiting around for Notre Dame. During that process, they’ve actually looked at Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt several times and they were never deemed worthy of being invited before. They’ve also given up conference championship game revenue during that period of time as a result of waiting for the Irish. The Big Ten then took a massive risk of building its own TV network (which a lot of people ridiculed at the time), which has now paid off in spades in the form of TV revenues that far surpass what Notre Dame receives from NBC. This means that the Big Ten has never had more leverage in terms of adding schools in its entire history. So, after all of this time and at the height of its power, is the Big Ten really going to cash in all of its chips after all of that time on a potential project like Rutgers? A “safe but not glamorous” choice like Missouri? Is the Big Ten, with all of its financial advantages today, really going to add a school that doesn’t bring as much to the table as Penn State did to the conference or even Miami did to the ACC? While there might be some Big Ten ADs out there like Ron Guenther that think small, Jim Delany is a big-time visionary and I have full faith that he’s not going to push a move just for the sake of making a move. If the Big Ten doesn’t add Notre Dame, then it’s going to go after a school that’s even better (not secondary choices that are lower in terms of impact). Call me naive, crazy or one-track minded, but money has a way of making “pipe dreams” on paper in sports fan terms become much more realistic.

It's not even a question: If ND wanted in, they're the school. Also not questionable: they're not going to expand unless it pays financial dividends to the other members which is already calculable.

First time I had seen these numbers, but if anyone wonders why a school would want to join the Big 10, here ya go:

But according to tax forms the nonprofit conference is required to make public, it generated $217.7 million and paid each school about $18.8 million in 2007, the most recent year for which tax forms are available.

The next year, according to the Sports Business Journal, the new TV network added another $66 million to the pot. That pushed the per-team payout to about $22 million each, a figure officials from several Big Ten schools confirm remains accurate.

The next most prosperous conference, the SEC, paid its member schools about $11 million each in 2007, according to tax documents.

It's a resurgence by their standards, but I don't see how the improvement from terrible to just slightly above average makes them guarantee "The New York Market" for the Big Ten.

I looked for this stat before without success, but I wonder how many total viewers watch Pitt games (and games of other Big Ten candidates), as opposed to how many total viewers watch Rutgers games. Pitt is obviously in only a market a fraction of the size of NYC, but I wouldn't be surprised if they drew more total viewers than Rutgers.

I think the article Swaggs posted makes a lot of sense too - it's hard to see the Big 10 expanding without making a serious splash. Maybe that could be Rutgers if they got to some BCS Bowls had some success over a decade or more and established a national fan base and some history - but to invite them based on the solid achievements of one head coach there over a few years (whose overall record there is .500) seems a little premature.

It's a resurgence by their standards, but I don't see how the improvement from terrible to just slightly above average makes them guarantee "The New York Market" for the Big Ten.

I looked for this stat before without success, but I wonder how many total viewers watch Pitt games (and games of other Big Ten candidates), as opposed to how many total viewers watch Rutgers games. Pitt is obviously in only a market a fraction of the size of NYC, but I wouldn't be surprised if they drew more total viewers than Rutgers.

I think the article Swaggs posted makes a lot of sense too - it's hard to see the Big 10 expanding without making a serious splash. Maybe that could be Rutgers if the got to some BCS Bowls had some success over a decade or more and established a national fan base and some history - but to do it based on the solid achievements of one head coach there over a few years seems a little premature.

It has less to do with viewers that RU brings in as much as it has to do with the access they can give the Big 10. Remember that a ton of people in the NY area aren't fans of Syracuse or Rutgers, but instead Michigan and Penn State. Those people will be able to get access to the BTN now as well.

All that matters is how many homes they can get the BTN into and obviously here is a higher probability of reaching the maximum homes via Rutgers then there would via way of Pitt or Mizzou.

Texas and Notre Dame are obviously the big fish, but adding Rutgers could add another couple mil to each schools bottom line just from new BTN clearances, plus the additional bowl game revenue. Teams could get around 27 mil a season from that.

And don't forget that being in the Big 10 immediately raises Rutgers stock. It might not pay dividend right away as far as a new fan explosion, but for younger kids without a favorite team, it can't hurt Rutgers that every year they'll see a Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State in their home state.

And don't forget that being in the Big 10 immediately raises Rutgers stock. It might not pay dividend right away as far as a new fan explosion, but for younger kids without a favorite team, it can't hurt Rutgers that every year they'll see a Michigan, Ohio State or Penn State in their home state.

That's true, but that would be true of any Big 10 candidate.

The difference is the NYC market, goes the argument - but Rutgers has been in that market forever. Has a few wins really changed things that much? They have had good teams there before.

That's true, but that would be true of any Big 10 candidate.

The difference is the NYC market, goes the argument - but Rutgers has been in that market forever. Has a few wins really changed things that much? They have had good teams there before.

I think you underestimate just how bad they were. I mean, we're talking losses to 1AA teams, just overall embarrassment. I mean when I was there, we'd show up drunk in the 2nd quarter and leave by halftime. You could sit so close you could have conversations with the players (I remember an exchange we had with Warren Sapp). You go to games today, it's wall to wall people tailgating, piling in to see kickoff, and for the most part staying around. Ray Rice was 20 stories high in Times Square. They just had Britt go in the first, 6 players taken in the draft, and have 1 sure fire (though his combines sucked balls) and 1 possible other 1st round pick.

You can minimize it all you want and talk about how mediocre 8 wins is, but there has been a monster shift in people caring about college football (RU in particular) in that market. Don't forget RU also had a one-sided rivalry for a little while with PSU at Giants Stadium (I went the game where our coach took a shot at Paterno). Also, RU basketball, while pretty bad, had some decent seasons where they were 15+ game winners and a bubble team.

Are you not considering the Big 10 to be a major football conference?

Where exactly are the mountain of losses coming from against Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State, and Purdue? Add in Michigan as they continue to struggle. Wisconsin and Iowa would be competitive games. Facing that schedule last year, Rutgers likely goes to their best bowl game ever because of the tie-ins.

Yes, the Big Ten is a major football conference. Probably the weakest, most over-rated one, but much better than the Big East.

I mean Rutgers is losing 4 or 5 games in the Big East. 2006 (when they only lost 2 games) is the outlier. And even that year, they didn't even play a team all year that finished in the top 25 (I think, if my Google-fu is working).

But please continue and think that a team with Freshman All-Americans at QB and WR and one Top 10 pick and another probable 1st rounder on the roster would have had their asses handed to them against those juggernauts.

I doubt they would be Freshmen All Americans if they were playing against better competition.

Posts like this and Marmel's are the reasons I've tried my best to stay out of threads like this, because I end up arguing with people who don't have a fucking clue.

Dude, I think you're seeing things through Scarlet colored glasses.

I think you underestimate just how bad they were. I mean, we're talking losses to 1AA teams, just overall embarrassment. I mean when I was there, we'd show up drunk in the 2nd quarter and leave by halftime. You could sit so close you could have conversations with the players (I remember an exchange we had with Warren Sapp). You go to games today, it's wall to wall people tailgating, piling in to see kickoff, and for the most part staying around. Ray Rice was 20 stories high in Times Square. They just had Britt go in the first, 6 players taken in the draft, and have 1 sure fire (though his combines sucked balls) and 1 possible other 1st round pick.


I remember them as being horrible in the late 90s but just kind of bad in the early 90s.

But assuming your point, if the Rutgers football program was an embarassment until the last 4 years, is that really a great risk for the Big 10? I mean, they'd really stand out in that conference if it didn't work out.

And while people tailgating, staying around, having players taken in the draft, ect, is progress - it's only progress to the level that almost every other 1-A football program, particularly the other Big 10 candidates, have reached decades ago. And those schools have the history where that support is there, even when the team is bad. Will that be true with Rutgers? We have no idea.

NYC is like Boston, they're pro towns, who will get mildly interested in college sports when the teams are good. UMass was all over the Boston media when they were good, but now, it's like they don't exist. Even Boston College is pretty irrelevant in the local sports landscape when they're not a serious contender. (and I really think the upgrade to the ACC, while good for them financially, hurt their local popularity, since there's no connection to those ACC schools). NYC is a basketball town, but even St. Johns isn't that big a deal except when they're a championship contender, which hasn't been the case in two decades.

Maybe it would work out. There's obviously other, behind-the-scene considerations as well.

Maybe it would work out. There's obviously other, behind-the-scene considerations as well.

My guess is that getting the Big 10 Network onto basic cable in metro NYC is a significant consideration.

More subscribers = higher rates the B10 can charge for advertising (and possibly for the subscribers, though I'm not sure on that front) = more revenue

My guess is that getting the Big 10 Network onto basic cable in metro NYC is a significant consideration.



Do they need Rutgers to do that? We hear about all the Big 10 alum in the NYC metro area - why do they need Rutgers to acess them?

Folks are overrating the idea that performance matters in these leagues. Competitiveness matters to a degree, but it's largely about a good fit academically for some leagues and about the opportunities to maximize revenue.

These decisions aren't made by sports fans, so the fact that Rutgers was a doormat until a few minutes ago in football and still remains so in men's basketball just doesn't matter in regards to whether this deal gets consummated. (though I will point out that the basketball team is an overall winning record in a Big East where 14 of the 16 teams have them. That's just insane by any standard...and the women's program is solid and they do have strong non-revenue sports, if we're measuring "program quality.")

Big Ten officials want a school that fits academically. Penn State being the last school added should tell you about what they look for. Notre Dame notwithstanding (and their position being well elucidated..) it's not a surprise that Rutgers and Missouri rate high on the list. Both are flagship state schools. Pitt is an independent state school and they already have the flagship school for Pennsylvania in their league and Syracuse is private.

These decisions are political ones that have way more to do with the sort of pedantic things that folks in the academy care about and I assure very little of it has anything to do with win/loss records. Sure, they might let coaches into the conversations, but...no one wants to add a program to their league that they expect will dominate it. It's about other things and this decision will ultimately be made by that standard. What those standards are we can only guess, but don't be mistaken into believe it's going to be a competitive analysis, because it doesn't matter.

If W/L doesn't matter, why is Rutgers considered this upstart desirable revenue-generating football program for conferences only now, after a couple of good years on the field? Isn't NYC interest and popularity critical to this working out from a revenue perspective?

Do they need Rutgers to do that? We hear about all the Big 10 alum in the NYC metro area - why do they need Rutgers to acess them?

B10 network won't likely be on basic cable tier unless a team from that locality is in conference.

If W/L doesn't matter, why is Rutgers considered this upstart desirable revenue-generating football program for conferences only now, after a couple of good years on the field? Isn't NYC interest and popularity critical to this working out from a revenue perspective?

Because Rutgers is the only BCS program in the NYC metro area.

No, it's not critical to success. 12 teams = conference title game. If the Big Ten wanted to add Bowling Green, they could do it and it wouldn't matter. No buzz there, but this is about adding a 12th team for relevance.

If the revenue situation was what it is going to be anyway with a 12th team, having a "bad" Rutgers program isn't going to diminish the product. At worst, they become an afterthought and naysayers just show up and talk about how they were the wrong team for the league, how they were just a doormat and should've stayed where they were, etc, and how the Big Ten should've added Missouri or Texas or Simon Fraser, because that would've been better than f-ing Rutgers.

Inviting Rutgers to the Committee on Institutional Cooperation won't be about wins and losses or TV contracts. That's all I'm saying, despite all of the words.

Because Rutgers is the only BCS program in the NYC metro area.



That's been true since the BCS started. Why didn't the ACC consider Rutgers when it expanded? It seems like some conference should have snatched up this market by now, if it was going to be so beneficial.

It might be interesting to look at how the ACC has benefited from "access" to the Boston market with BC - that access had to be a major consideration there. Though I'm not sure if that's easily quantified.

The ACC doesn't have their own TV network to pimp in the biggest TV market.

Dude, I think you're seeing things through Scarlet colored glasses.

You'll notice that I didn't post anything about the team's prospects in the Big 10 until you claimed they would "get their asses handed to them." If you think the bottom half of the conference is that challenging, I'll continue to think you're crazy but that's fine. Pull the perennial teams out of both leagues (PSU/Mich/OSU and WVU) and anyone impartial would see that they're similar in strength.

You'll also notice that outside of posting the link to the latest article I've stayed out of the discussions others have had as to why Rutgers is a better candidate than Mizzou, Pitt, Cuse, etc. All that matters is money, and it's going to be something calculable by the Big 10 committee (or the firm they've engaged). If the only way it makes sense is with ND, it won't happen.

2006 (when they only lost 2 games) is the outlier. And even that year, they didn't even play a team all year that finished in the top 25 (I think, if my Google-fu is working).

Your Google-fu seriously sucks if you couldn't find their conference mates in the final ranking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings) (they beat Louisville - #6 final rank, and lost to WVU - in 3OTs - who finished 10th). Rutgers finished 12th.

B10 network won't likely be on basic cable tier unless a team from that locality is in conference.

Right, it's already on some networks in the area, but on the sports tier.

That's been true since the BCS started. Why didn't the ACC consider Rutgers when it expanded? It seems like some conference should have snatched up this market by now, if it was going to be so beneficial.

Because it's also damaging to the conference brand when their teams are playing in front of crowds of 10K. Not the case anymore.

Your Google-fu seriously sucks if you couldn't find their conference mates in the final ranking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NCAA_Division_I_FBS_football_rankings) (they beat Louisville - #6 final rank, and lost to WVU - in 3OTs - who finished 10th). Rutgers finished 12th.

Fair enough. I kind of thought it sounded wrong, which is why I made the comment. I was going by the ESPN schedule page, which has rankings of opponents posted. It must be screwed up though for previous years.

Anyway, carry on.

Because Rutgers is the only BCS program in the NYC metro area.What's considered the "NYC metro area" - aka would UConn get any consideration there? 2.5 hours away from NYC in the wrong half of the state, but they do have a lock on fans in that state. They'd also give you Hartford and maybe an in to Boston.The ACC doesn't have their own TV network to pimp in the biggest TV market.Boston's also a more fractured market with multiple other large colleges in city/state (as well as being a pro city like NYC outside BE tournament time), and I haven't noticed any particularly large presence from any other ACC school. I have seen multiple B10 pub crawls or events, but nothing from ACC people.Fair enough. I kind of thought it sounded wrong, which is why I made the comment. I was going by the ESPN schedule page, which has rankings of opponents posted. It must be screwed up though for previous years.

Anyway, carry on.When I was going through this past fall ESPN listed rankings, but they were from the date the game was played, not final iirc. Now they don't seem to list any before 2008.I think you underestimate just how bad they were. I mean, we're talking losses to 1AA teams, just overall embarrassment.I thought we were talking about potential B10 teams, not current ones like Michigan.

When I was going through this past fall ESPN listed rankings, but they were from the date the game was played, not final iirc. Now they don't seem to list any before 2008.

Yeah, but then they have rankings again for years 2002-2003. Like I say, it confused me. But it was a statistic that helped my justify my point, so who cares if it was accurate?

:)

More subscribers = higher rates the B10 can charge for advertising (and possibly for the subscribers, though I'm not sure on that front) = more revenue

I don't know of anyone that pays for TV advertising on a subscriber basis. It's how many of those subscribers you attract to your shows that matters.

Now even a 0.01 rating for the B10N in NYC adds to those viewers (if they weren't already in the mix) but adding X million people that have the network available won't move the needle in & of itself.

Best I can tell with a quick look (a NY resident could tell if there's a cable provider missing easier than I can) here's a map (http://www.nyinterconnect.com/system_map.html)that shows roughly what territory & how many subscribers they might add. This is the NYC Interconnect, covering NYC, Long Island, and parts of CT & NJ, basically it's a way to buy the various little systems all with one big buy. That's about 3.5m cable households.

I don't know of anyone that pays for TV advertising on a subscriber basis. It's how many of those subscribers you attract to your shows that matters.

Now even a 0.01 rating for the B10N in NYC adds to those viewers (if they weren't already in the mix) but adding X million people that have the network available won't move the needle in & of itself.

Best I can tell with a quick look (a NY resident could tell if there's a cable provider missing easier than I can) here's a map (http://www.nyinterconnect.com/system_map.html)that shows roughly what territory & how many subscribers they might add. This is the NYC Interconnect, covering NYC, Long Island, and parts of CT & NJ, basically it's a way to buy the various little systems all with one big buy. That's about 3.5m cable households.

I was under the impression that the rates are determined in part by pre-estimating GRP/TRP. B10 probably gets next to nothing now, since they are not on Basic Cable. If they can get on Basic, the B10 can make the argument that the GRPs will go from nothing to something (as meager as it would be) and may try to justify a rate increase that way.

What's considered the "NYC metro area" - aka would UConn get any consideration there? 2.5 hours away from NYC in the wrong half of the state, but they do have a lock on fans in that state. They'd also give you Hartford and maybe an in to Boston

The only part of CT that is considered part of Metro NYC is Fairfield County (SW CT). As a resident, I would say that support for UConn athletics is still there somewhat (usually from alums and lifers), but probably tepid compared to the rest of the state.

I was under the impression that the rates are determined in part by pre-estimating GRP/TRP. B10 probably gets next to nothing now, since they are not on Basic Cable. If they can get on Basic, the B10 can make the argument that the GRPs will go from nothing to something (as meager as it would be) and may try to justify a rate increase that way.

First there's an assumption that they would be moved to basic, which is at least a bit of a leap, even in St. Louis they weren't added to basic when an agreement was reached last year (or not according to the press release I found while looking for the NYC info). And in the NY DMA there are at least three separate agreements that would have to be reached, Cablevision + TW + Comcrap.

Next we don't know (or at least I don't) what the existing number of actual subscribing households is now versus what it would become. Basically the available households number wouldn't change even if they moved, it's available now, just presumably not widely bought. I did find this figure quoted on the B10N website: The network currently reaches approximately 40 million households nationwide and is available to up an estimated 73 million households in the United States and Canada. That leads me to believe that the likely difference in households "reached" with a shift to basic would be somewhere in the 3 million range, with extremely low ratings making the change in their actual total audience pretty small & not likely to be enough to justify any significant rate increase.

What you're talking about is more applicable to upfront sales and I'm not at all sure how much a niche network like B10N is doing at upfront versus more graduated buys and given the overall weakness of college sports in the northeast (TV-wise, not talking about teams/performance here) I just don't see even New York being the sort of boost we would normally associate with even a major shift there. The bigger hurdle was cleared when they got any sort of carriage at all.

I guess my point is that while the TV market is something everyone talks about, I suspect there are other factors actually more influential on the whatever decision the conference eventually makes.

First there's an assumption that they would be moved to basic, which is at least a bit of a leap, even in St. Louis they weren't added to basic when an agreement was reached last year (or not according to the press release I found while looking for the NYC info). And in the NY DMA there are at least three separate agreements that would have to be reached, Cablevision + TW + Comcrap.

Next we don't know (or at least I don't) what the existing number of actual subscribing households is now versus what it would become. Basically the available households number wouldn't change even if they moved, it's available now, just presumably not widely bought. I did find this figure quoted on the B10N website: The network currently reaches approximately 40 million households nationwide and is available to up an estimated 73 million households in the United States and Canada. That leads me to believe that the likely difference in households "reached" with a shift to basic would be somewhere in the 3 million range, with extremely low ratings making the change in their actual total audience pretty small & not likely to be enough to justify any significant rate increase.

What you're talking about is more applicable to upfront sales and I'm not at all sure how much a niche network like B10N is doing at upfront versus more graduated buys and given the overall weakness of college sports in the northeast (TV-wise, not talking about teams/performance here) I just don't see even New York being the sort of boost we would normally associate with even a major shift there. The bigger hurdle was cleared when they got any sort of carriage at all.

I guess my point is that while the TV market is something everyone talks about, I suspect there are other factors actually more influential on the whatever decision the conference eventually makes.

That makes sense. I am astounded by how much some of my clients have to spend on their sports special buys and sports local spot compared to general market TV, and sometimes the costs are not justified. To your point though, that may not be relevant to B10 in NYC, since there isn't a flagship program that matters.

That makes sense. I am astounded by how much some of my clients have to spend on their sports special buys and sports local spot compared to general market TV, and sometimes the costs are not justified.

Sometimes? Hell, my experience is more like "rarely" to "very rarely". At least not in terms of CPP/CPM or even ROI.

Sports, most of the time for my clients at least, is all about imaging (mostly internal and/or to some ostensible partner) or simply outright plain ol' vanity. That may have some value but it's difficult to quantify at best and almost always seems to be grossly overemphasized by the spender.

But hey, I once dropped nearly $30k on a couple of local market college football games in a horrible football market solely to target a single buyer for a big box retailer because we knew that his alma mater was being televised in those games.

There is some talk this morning that ND is about to announce they are joining the Big 10.

There is some talk this morning that ND is about to announce they are joining the Big 10.

but they just added Pitt a couple of weeks ago!

I'll believe it when I see it.

The Big 13 - it sounds great!

I wonder how long ago someone bought up all the domain names for stuff like the Big 13/Thirteen, Big 14/Fourteen, etc.? Or if the conferences had enough foresight to do it back when Al Gore invented it.

I wonder how long ago someone bought up all the domain names for stuff like the Big 13/Thirteen, Big 14/Fourteen, etc.? Or if the conferences had enough foresight to do it back when Al Gore invented it.

I don't know if it's rumor or not, but I have heard that the Big 12 made some sort of claim on the Big 14. I have nothing official to back me up on that, but it wouldn't surprise me. Though I always wonder how this whole "Big #" got started and why one of the two number conferences never locked down 8, 10, or 12 before.

Interesting comments from the Notre Dame AD. Could be planting a seed to the alumni base, could be a threat to NBC for when their contract is up for renegotiation...

Big Ten expansion could impact Notre Dame's independent status - NCAA Football - SI.com (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/football/ncaa/03/09/notre-dame-expansion/)

Accelerated timetable for Big Ten expansion - Chicago Breaking Sports (http://www.chicagobreakingsports.com/2010/04/big-ten-reps-to-talk-expansion-in-dc-on-sunday.html)


Accelerated timetable for Big Ten expansion
April 17, 2010 3:24 PM | 15 Comments

By Teddy Greenstein

Remember the talk that the Big Ten would take 12-18 months to decide whether to expand?

An accelerated timetable has emerged, according to sources familiar with the process.

High-ranking Big Ten representatives will meet Sunday afternoon in Washington D.C. to discuss expansion. The timing and location of the session make sense considering the Association of American Universities is holding its semi-annual meetings in D.C. from Sunday-Tuesday, and all 11 Big Ten schools are AAU members.

Among those attending will be Northwestern President Morton Schapiro, according to a university spokesman, and University of Illinois interim chancellor Robert Easter.

If the league can emerge from the D.C. meetings with a mandate to expand, commissioner Jim Delany could take a substantial step next week at the annual BCS meetings, outside Phoenix.

As laid out in the Big Ten's Dec. 15 statement, Delany would "notify" the commissioner(s) of the affected conference(s) before "engaging in formal expansion discussions with other institutions."

In other words, Big East commissioner John Marinatto would get a heads-up if the Big Ten wishes to contact schools such as Rutgers, Pittsburgh and Syracuse.

That would allow the Big Ten more than a month to negotiate with schools before conference presidents and chancellors meet in Chicago during the first weekend in June.

That timetable also makes sense from a financial standpoint. The fiscal years of universities end on the last day of June, "so if you go past July 1, then you have to wait an extra year," said one source.

Delany could not be reached for comment Saturday and has declined interview requests, saying he's in a "silent phase."

The thinking among those in touch with Big Ten officials is that the league is likely to add at least three schools -- to end up with a 14- or 16-team league.

"I don't think 16 is scaring anyone off, as long as you can find that many (five) that are a good enough fit," said one source who has been consulted during the conference's exploratory phase. "They're looking long-term, across the horizon. What gives them the best shot at keeping value at a high level?"

Notre Dame remains Option A, though observers are flummoxed about the school's intentions because of seemingly divergent statements made by Athletic Director Jack Swarbrick.

By joining the Big Ten, the Irish could increase their annual TV revenue from roughly $12 million to $22 million per year, get a national TV platform (the Big Ten Network) for its top-notch Olympic sports and decrease travel costs for its teams.

Tribune reporter Jodi S. Cohen contributed to this report.

Sixteen seems awfully big. I'd rather see 12 teams.

I really hope it is just Mizzouri or Notre Dame.

I might get seriously depressed if the Big East gets seriously hobbled again or completely destroyed.

Louisville's AD (I believe he is now the BE Commish but I am too lazy to look) said he they want Notre Dame #1, and then Pitt & Rutgers.

I really see no way we expand past 12 teams without adding 2 + Big East teams.

I guess with 16 teams, you play the other 7 in your division in football. Then, what, three from the other division? And a couple OOC games? That's five teams a year from your own conference that you would not play. Seems like a lot.

I really hope it is just Mizzouri or Notre Dame.

I might get seriously depressed if the Big East gets seriously hobbled again or completely destroyed.

I think we've talked about this before, but it seems like the breakup of the BE is inevitable, whether it comes now with this Big 10 expansion or down the road when the dollars migrate even further to the other conferences and we all get left in the dust.

While I'm on record as being for Rutgers joining the Big 10 if invited (the increased revenue is too much to pass up and the school desperately needs it, and playing more traditional powers will allow us to further expand the stadium quicker), I do really enjoy matching up against most of our current opponents. I just wish there was a couple more teams that we could add to the conference without seriously diluting it, either in terms of revenue or strength of the program. My ideal situation would be if we saw a more widespread realignment where the SEC would add schools that would replace ones that the ACC could pick up, which would allow BC and Maryland to join the Big East. It would be a strong conference, top to bottom, with mostly eastern rivalries.

Louisville's AD (I believe he is now the BE Commish but I am too lazy to look) said he they want Notre Dame #1, and then Pitt & Rutgers.

I really see no way we expand past 12 teams without adding 2 + Big East teams.

The Big East elected another Providence (re: basketball school pawn) guy to become the new commisioner. Louisville's AD, Tom Jurich, seems to have taken the role of the point man for the football schools. He seems like a pretty progressive administrator, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him become the commish if the football and basketball schools split.

I think there are a few reasonable scenarios for less than 2 Big East football schools. Missouri, Nebraska + Rutgers, Pitt, or Syracuse. If Notre Dame joins, I think they move East (and forget the Big 12 schools) and grab two of Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, and B.C.

The Big East elected another Providence (re: basketball school pawn) guy to become the new commisioner. Louisville's AD, Tom Jurich, seems to have taken the role of the point man for the football schools. He seems like a pretty progressive administrator, so it wouldn't surprise me to see him become the commish if the football and basketball schools split.

I think there are a few reasonable scenarios for less than 2 Big East football schools. Missouri, Nebraska + Rutgers, Pitt, or Syracuse. If Notre Dame joins, I think they move East (and forget the Big 12 schools) and grab two of Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, and B.C.

If the B10 adds three or more schools, it's hard to find a scenario where they don't at least offer Mizzou a spot. Whether they want to take it is another deal.

My sources indicate that Mizzou will only accept the B10's offer if the B10 agrees to change its name to the Mike Anderson Pwn'd Conference.

LOL.

If the B10 adds three or more schools, it's hard to find a scenario where they don't at least offer Mizzou a spot. Whether they want to take it is another deal.

Not really -- it just depends on their strategy and two of the more likely "strategies" out there are for the Big Ten to try to get into the New York market or for the Big Ten to try to force Notre Dame in (by destroying the Big East). Missouri's inclusion would not help them in either case.

I think Missouri's best scenarios are if the Big Ten is "just" out to add more households to the Big Ten network (adding Missouri, Rutgers, and just about anyone else that is not redundant does the trick here) or if they try to force Texas in (by adding, say Mizzou, Nebraska, and Colorado) by leaving the Big 12 weakened. I think the Big 12 can obviously stand without those schools (as long as it has Texas and/or Oklahoma), but it becomes much more regionalized from a media point of view.

My sources indicate that Mizzou will only accept the B10's offer if the B10 agrees to change its name to the Mike Anderson Pwn'd Conference.

They might have to considering the quality of basketball (or lack thereof) currently in that conference.

It would be genuinely amusing to see someone like Missouri turn down the Big Ten and then have a conference-mate take the cash and jump ship.

I think Missouri's best scenarios are if the Big Ten is "just" out to add more households to the Big Ten network (adding Missouri, Rutgers, and just about anyone else that is not redundant does the trick here) or if they try to force Texas in (by adding, say Mizzou, Nebraska, and Colorado) by leaving the Big 12 weakened. I think the Big 12 can obviously stand without those schools (as long as it has Texas and/or Oklahoma), but it becomes much more regionalized from a media point of view.

Everything I've heard is that Texas to the B10 wasn't a real option.

for the Big Ten to try to force Notre Dame in (by destroying the Big East).

This is actually what the Big 10 tries to make happen. I figure the B10 will do just that although, strangely enough, most of what I've been reading lately says that it makes MORE economic sense this time around for ND to join then Big 10 then it has in the past, where ND would actually take a loss. So that'll be the interesting one to watch. Ultimately, I still think ND stays independent, even if it means they have to go that way for all sports.

It would be genuinely amusing to see someone like Missouri turn down the Big Ten and then have a conference-mate take the cash and jump ship.

Who else do you think would jump? Nebraska might be the only other option, and I would think they like the current setup.

Not really -- it just depends on their strategy and two of the more likely "strategies" out there are for the Big Ten to try to get into the New York market or for the Big Ten to try to force Notre Dame in (by destroying the Big East). Missouri's inclusion would not help them in either case.
I think the idea that the Big Ten is out to try and get into the New York market is fan-based or media-based speculation. There is no New York market for college sports. New York is a melting pot for fan bases and there is no school that you bring in that "gets" you the New York market. In addition, New York is more of a college basketball market than a football market. But as much as we love college basketball, the money in conferences comes from football.

Notre Dame is a natural fit but quite honestly doesn't have the cache it once did. Even Notre Dame's contract with NBC is now a market-rate contract, and Notre Dame would probably make money going to the Big Ten while giving up some of its treasured independence.

The Big Ten needs to decide what it wants to be. If it wants to be a "national" conference then it needs to do something like expand to 14 teams and snare Notre Dame, Texas and maybe a Syracuse. If it wants be the SEC of the Midwest, it needs to look at Notre Dame, Missouri and maybe Nebraska.

I think the idea that the Big Ten is out to try and get into the New York market is fan-based or media-based speculation. There is no New York market for college sports. New York is a melting pot for fan bases and there is no school that you bring in that "gets" you the New York market. In addition, New York is more of a college basketball market than a football market. But as much as we love college basketball, the money in conferences comes from football.



Definitely. And the Big Ten should know this based on Chicago. Anyone thinking that Northwestern is what delivers that market for them is an idiot.

Definitely. And the Big Ten should know this based on Chicago. Anyone thinking that Northwestern is what delivers that market for them is an idiot.

The goal wouldn't be to dominate the New York market, but to get a decent share of it. If they added Rutgers, it wouldn't simply be for the New York market but portions of the NYC and Philly markets, as well as those portions located in New Jersey.

Also, some of the Big Ten schools have big alumni bases in this area and would be interested in seeing a Rutgers-Michigan or Rutgers-Penn State at the Meadowlands. TV ratings wouldn't be bad.

To gain a ton of revenue wouldn't require the Big Ten to dominate the market, but to get a share of it, which I think is doable.

I think the idea that the Big Ten is out to try and get into the New York market is fan-based or media-based speculation. There is no New York market for college sports. New York is a melting pot for fan bases and there is no school that you bring in that "gets" you the New York market. In addition, New York is more of a college basketball market than a football market. But as much as we love college basketball, the money in conferences comes from football.


+1. I've tried to make this point in these threads but I've never been able to do it as well as this.

I don't think it has much to do with getting fans as it does getting the Big 10 network into the NY market since that is the mecca and would be a huge financial windfall.

I think the idea that the Big Ten is out to try and get into the New York market is fan-based or media-based speculation. There is no New York market for college sports. New York is a melting pot for fan bases and there is no school that you bring in that "gets" you the New York market. In addition, New York is more of a college basketball market than a football market. But as much as we love college basketball, the money in conferences comes from football.

Three things:

1. True, no one team is going to deliver the New York market, even if Rutgers or Syracuse was currently a major college football power. But that doesn't mean the conference won't benefit at all by having one of those teams. Rutgers' ESPN games have done big NYC ratings numbers...that extra viewership will make its way to the conference's bottom line, even moreso if there's additional premier matchups to sell in the area.

2. You're forgetting the carrier rates for the Big Ten Network. Doesn't it jump from like $0.30 per household to $1.10 per house if the Big Ten has an in-state presence? I'm not caught up on the full particulars of how the NYC area would be treated (Rutgers is closer to NYC than Syracuse, but of course Syracuse is located within NY State), but there's an added benefit there.

3. If this wasn't about grabbing the NY market, why would these schools be in consideration at all? We already know (at least based on assumptions/projections that the researchers have performed) that the analysis has shown that expansion will be profitable for the current members of the Big 10 in that the added revenues from one (or two or three) of these schools will be greater than what the 11 teams will sacrifice in splitting the pie up even further.

I think the idea that the Big Ten is out to try and get into the New York market is fan-based or media-based speculation. There is no New York market for college sports. New York is a melting pot for fan bases and there is no school that you bring in that "gets" you the New York market. In addition, New York is more of a college basketball market than a football market. But as much as we love college basketball, the money in conferences comes from football.

Notre Dame is a natural fit but quite honestly doesn't have the cache it once did. Even Notre Dame's contract with NBC is now a market-rate contract, and Notre Dame would probably make money going to the Big Ten while giving up some of its treasured independence.

The Big Ten needs to decide what it wants to be. If it wants to be a "national" conference then it needs to do something like expand to 14 teams and snare Notre Dame, Texas and maybe a Syracuse. If it wants be the SEC of the Midwest, it needs to look at Notre Dame, Missouri and maybe Nebraska.

Excellent summary of the situation.

I'm too slow.

I don't think it has much to do with getting fans as it does getting the Big 10 network into the NY market since that is the mecca and would be a huge financial windfall.

Isn't the Big 10 network already in the NY market? I've assumed it wasn't but the network's website seems to indicate that it is. They're pretty much everywhere now, including Canada.

And I haven't ever found these numbers, but I'd still bet that Pittsburgh gets more viewers in PA, and Missouri gets more viewers in Missouri, than Rutgers does in NYC.

Rutgers might get a bump when the team is good, but they don't have the built-in guaranteed viewership of other college programs.

Anyone thinking that Northwestern is what delivers that market for them is an idiot.

No kidding. I think Northwestern is 10 out of 11 in the Big 10 for the number of alums in Chicagoland.

Isn't the Big 10 network already in the NY market?

Yep.

It's available in plenty of states, plus Canada. As I said, not only does the revenue stream change when there's a conference team in the state, but you know there will be a fight for the BTN to be moved from the most expanded tier where it currently is, to the lower expanded tier, to the basic tier, all of which carry higher rates.

Here is a really good entry, that gives us a much better picture of the television side of things, from the Frank the Tank blog: The Value of Expansion Candidates to the Big Ten Network « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT (http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/)

Checked out Time Warner Cable which covers both NYC and Kansas City. In both cities the Big Ten Network is only carried on the digital sports tier, which has a very small subscriber base. Interestingly, in NYC TWC only carries the Big Ten HD, not the SD version. That means even fewer subscribers.

If you add a Missouri to the Big Ten, I will guarantee you that the BTN moves from the digital sports to the digital tier. I don't think it matters who you add to the Big Ten, in the NYC market the BTN is staying on the digital sports tier. In that single market comparison, the BTN probably makes more money adding Missouri (or Pitt or UConn or West Virginia) than adding a NY area team.

Checked out Time Warner Cable which covers both NYC and Kansas City. In both cities the Big Ten Network is only carried on the digital sports tier, which has a very small subscriber base. Interestingly, in NYC TWC only carries the Big Ten HD, not the SD version. That means even fewer subscribers.

If you add a Missouri to the Big Ten, I will guarantee you that the BTN moves from the digital sports to the digital tier. I don't think it matters who you add to the Big Ten, in the NYC market the BTN is staying on the digital sports tier. In that single market comparison, the BTN probably makes more money adding Missouri (or Pitt or UConn or West Virginia) than adding a NY area team.

Is it just me realizing it now or is this the point at which FOFC "analysis" of the Big 10 expansion options has officially jumped the shark?

Looking at that link that I posted above, it seems like a lot of us (me, included) have been looking at this the wrong way. Here is the important part:

The 60/40 Rule – This might be the most important piece of information regarding Big Ten expansion that I’ve seen to date: the Big Ten Network makes 60% of its revenue from advertising and 40% 0f its revenue from carriage fees.

So, while entering new markets is a key -- it is not the key. A big (or bigger, even) aspect is increasing advertising revenue. They do that by 1.) bringing in teams that have large followings who will watch games and 2.) just adding teams increases the amount of content on the network, giving them more games to televise. And, since the Big Ten already has fixed deals with ESPN/ABC and CBS, any added games (provided by additional teams) just gives more televised games to the Big Ten Network.

This explains why Nebraska has become a little more prominent in these discussions -- they apparently have very good national ratings. As does Notre Dame, obviously.

This guy speculates that a 14-team league would add Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers. And a 16-team league would add the above three w/ Notre Dame and Pitt or Syracuse (but probably Pitt due to the geographic and academic fit).

Here is a really good entry, that gives us a much better picture of the television side of things, from the Frank the Tank blog: The Value of Expansion Candidates to the Big Ten Network « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT (http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-candidates-to-the-big-ten-network/)

Frank's slant is significantly better than the average layman but there's a couple of things there which don't really match any reality I've ever witnessed.

He's notably overestimating the value of "live sports" on what is essentially a regional sports network. Truth is, ratings tend to vary surprisingly little on regional sports nets for most live events versus random taped programs (coaches shows or whatever). For some quirky reason or another, what holds pretty true for national networks like ESPN is less true on those regional nets & even less impact for college events vs pro ones. {shrug} I've never quite figured that one out myself but I've seen it happen consistently for a number of years.

The other thing that doesn't really add up to me is the 60/40 math split & the reported profits. It'd take more math than I have the interest to do but the figures being reported simply sound too flippin' high to make sense, at least not from spot revenue. Maybe they're making it up on premium packaging (i.e. stuff like title sponsorships for halftime shows, around the conference score tickers, internet revenue, etc) but it still sounds high to me, to the point where I suspect we're all overlooking some revenue stream somewhere.

The goal wouldn't be to dominate the New York market, but to get a decent share of it. If they added Rutgers, it wouldn't simply be for the New York market but portions of the NYC and Philly markets, as well as those portions located in New Jersey.

Also, some of the Big Ten schools have big alumni bases in this area and would be interested in seeing a Rutgers-Michigan or Rutgers-Penn State at the Meadowlands. TV ratings wouldn't be bad.

To gain a ton of revenue wouldn't require the Big Ten to dominate the market, but to get a share of it, which I think is doable.
Any big football game wouln't be on the BTN. That's the thing with the BTN, they usually have shitty games and only alumni or diehards watch it. ESPN/ABC have first dibs on what they want to carry from that conference.

So even if Rutgers gets added, I don't think it makes the BTN a mandatory buy for people in NY. It's already an option for a higher tier package and I'm sure they'll get some more customers who are alumni and fans. But Rutgers doesn't have the kind of pull in the region to make BTN a must on the basic packages. For BTN to accomplish that, they need a team that has more national pull and stronger following that goes outside of just alumni. It's why schools like Notre Dame and even Texas to an extent would make expansion worth it.

No kidding. I think Northwestern is 10 out of 11 in the Big 10 for the number of alums in Chicagoland.
I might even go 11. Living in the city, each bar sort of has an allegience and fills up on Saturday afternoon. They fly a flag for the school. I've never seen a Northwestern one but seen tons for every other Big 10 school. When I used to go to the Big 10 tournament, they probably had one of the quietest bases. This city is filled with Big 10 grads and while there are Northwestern ones, they aren't the big sports people.

That doesn't surprise me. Northwestern has about one-half the students of the next-smallest Big Ten university (Iowa, which has 30,000) and less than one-third the largest (Ohio State, with 52,600). Half of Northwestern's students are in graduate school, the highest ratio in the conference.

Then, it's the only private school in the conference, which means a higher percentage of students have no roots in the state (in-state tuition is much lower at public schools, and admissions requirements are lower, except for athletes).

Somewhere, there must be a magic number of fans it takes to gain a "presence" in a market. What the BTN wants is that presence, so it's placed on the basic tier. Maybe Rutgers provides just enough to pressure New York City (and Northern New Jersey, which is also a significant market) cable systems.

The jump to 14 or 16 is troubling. That means you don't see opponents outside your division very often. Which might mean lower ratings for games not involving in-division rivals.

The Big Ten can well afford to be in react mode if other major conferences go to 14 and it works. Because it will be a buyer's market for those schools. The Big East cannot survive that kind of expansion. Either the ACC or the Big XII will be seriously threatened (they would probably combine in some manner, depending on which direction the SEC goes).

Let's say the Big Ten takes Pittsburgh, probably the first choice among the more academically minded. What will the SEC do? It could either go after the ACC (Florida State, Virginia, among others) or the Big XII (Texas and Texas A&M). That decision would break the affected conference, leaving the Big Ten easily able to scoop up excellent candidates (Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, etc) in whichever direction the SEC goes. There is only room for four super-conferences and the Big Ten is in the catbird's seat.

I do wonder if the SEC would react at all. I am very dubious about going from 12 to 14. Though if you have only four super-conferences, you might as well end the season with a playoff amongst the champions.

I do wonder if the SEC would react at all. I am very dubious about going from 12 to 14. Though if you have only four super-conferences, you might as well end the season with a playoff amongst the champions.

The speculation I've see is if the Big 10 goes to 14 or 16 then the SEC will likely follow up by taking a couple from the ACC. The ACC would then pick off the strongest schools left in the Big East.

If something happens and some current BCS schools are suddenly left outside the BCS then the NCAA is opening the door for a lot of shit to come their way. They've been trying to show that they're becoming more and more inclusive, but a major conference reshuffle that makes them even more exclusive will bring heat from government.

Most around the WVU program are expecting something big to happen, but they're also confident that there's a plan in place to make sure WVU is in a BCS conference one way or another.

Let's say the Big Ten takes Pittsburgh, probably the first choice among the more academically minded. What will the SEC do? It could either go after the ACC (Florida State, Virginia, among others) or the Big XII (Texas and Texas A&M).

I couldn't see Virginia being remotely interested jumping to the ACC (nor could I imagine the SEC would have the slightest interest in them). Did you mean Va Tech maybe?

The perfect fit for the SEC among ACC members, which I've said for years, would be Clemson (I've wished them & Vandy would just swap places for a long time). With either FSU or Miami a seemingly likely target as well.

Of course if you do that then the traditionally stronger SEC East gets even more loaded & I'm not sure that you'd get the votes within the conference to add anyone that's perceived as being too much of a threat.

Kevin Harlan was just on local radio here in Kansas City. He said that Notre Dame, UConn, and Pitt have received official offers. He also said that Mizzou and Rutgers both have indicated that they are interested in moving to the Big Ten, but no firm offer for either of them. They will be offered if the Big Ten decides to go to 16 teams (haven't decided yet if they want 14 or 16) or if one of the three schools that were offered turns it down.

I don't see how UConn makes any sense at all. They have an off campus stadium, no reach into either Boston or NYC, and aren't an AAU member.

Kevin Harlan was just on local radio here in Kansas City. He said that Notre Dame, UConn, and Pitt have received official offers. He also said that Mizzou and Rutgers both have indicated that they are interested in moving to the Big Ten, but no firm offer for either of them. They will be offered if the Big Ten decides to go to 16 teams (haven't decided yet if they want 14 or 16) or if one of the three schools that were offered turns it down.

I know for a fact Pitt doesn't have an offer. It may be contingent on something else happening but if Pitt had an offer to join on the spot they would join.

BTW, Harlan is also Twittering on the topic. Not quite as detailed as his radio discussion, but provides some info.

http://twitter.com/Kevinharlan

The perfect fit for the SEC among ACC members, which I've said for years, would be Clemson (I've wished them & Vandy would just swap places for a long time). With either FSU or Miami a seemingly likely target as well.

I think that a Clemson/Vandy swap makes a ton of sense in terms of geography and conference culture.

I could also see a Kentucky/Fla. St. swap which I think would make a lot of fans happy--though I don't know if Kentucky would want to do it.

I could also see a Kentucky/Fla. St. swap which I think would make a lot of fans happy--though I don't know if Kentucky would want to do it.

Yeah, don't see that one happening.

Several folks are saying UCONN is #12.

Several folks are saying UCONN is #12.

Linky?

It's been mentioned a few times on ESPN Radio

It's been mentioned a few times on ESPN Radio

Great. Thanks.

If it expands, the SEC will lose their sticktogetherness that it currently enjoys. Right now the SEC schools all love each other. I wouldn't be surprised if Tennessee fans rooted for Alabama over Texas. Other conferences don't share that love. To be honest, I don't really care how many of the other Big 12 schools do. I rooted against Kansas against UNI in the Ford Center in OKC. I root against Texas all the time and against Oklahoma State unless they're playing Texas. I don't really like half of the teams and I don't care what it means for the conference. I'm an OU fan and my allegiances don't spread much further than that. SEC fans are team first, conference second, personal biases third.

I'm trying to stop paying attention to the individual team rumors, because I think they're all nonsense until we here something, but this is kind of an interesting bigger picture article from the NYTimes today:

College Conferences Ponder Expansion and Extinction - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/sports/20colleges.html?ref=sports)

I always thought something like this would make sense:

"Eventually, Crouthamel (former Syracuse AD) said he saw the Big Ten, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference and the Pacific-10 forming four 16-team superconferences and leaving the umbrella of the N.C.A.A. (Just imagine the fight between the SEC and the Pac-10 for Texas.) He said that those leagues would form their own basketball tournament to rival the N.C.A.A. tournament."

If the Big 10 goes to 16 teams, it's all over for college sports as we know it.

The BCS schools don't need the smaller schools. It's not like a professional league. They can still play them in non-conference games and such, but they don't need to invite them to the party. It makes sense for the BCS schools, who are just in a different world than everyone else, to have their own, seperate, college sports mega-conference, where they can crown their own champions, and run their own product, as they see fit.

I'm kind of sad to see all these conferences turn into big mega-conferences. While the Big East may be the best basketball conference out there, I think it's lost a lot of its identity by bringing in so many schools from different regions.

I wouldn't be surprised if Tennessee fans rooted for Alabama over Texas.

I'd say that's probably true for the majority of fans in that specific case.
But I don't know if that's as much conference related as it is geographically related. I mean, absent that you'll still hear SEC fans rooting for ACC teams that they share geography with and vice versa over teams from other regions.

SEC fans are team first, conference second, personal biases third.

Eh, it's not quite that absolute. For example, no amount of conference ties (via UT) get me to pull for LSU or UGA over anybody. Not Notre Dame, not USC, not North Korea.

When the ACC expanded, it lost a lot of its identity, lost its status as the best basketball conference in the country, and didn't really see the gains in football that motivated the whole expansion.

So, yeah, I understand that the big $$ is in football motivated expansion into mega-conferences. But it does come at a price.

All that said, it will probably be easier once the Big 10 goes to 16 teams. The other conferences will follow suit very quickly (eat or be eaten). And we can get on with the new landscape.

I'm trying to stop paying attention to the individual team rumors, because I think they're all nonsense until we here something, but this is kind of an interesting bigger picture article from the NYTimes today:

College Conferences Ponder Expansion and Extinction - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/sports/20colleges.html?ref=sports)

I always thought something like this would make sense:

"Eventually, Crouthamel (former Syracuse AD) said he saw the Big Ten, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference and the Pacific-10 forming four 16-team superconferences and leaving the umbrella of the N.C.A.A. (Just imagine the fight between the SEC and the Pac-10 for Texas.) He said that those leagues would form their own basketball tournament to rival the N.C.A.A. tournament."

If the Big 10 goes to 16 teams, it's all over for college sports as we know it.

The BCS schools don't need the smaller schools. It's not like a professional league. They can still play them in non-conference games and such, but they don't need to invite them to the party. It makes sense for the BCS schools, who are just in a different world than everyone else, to have their own, seperate, college sports mega-conference, where they can crown their own champions, and run their own product, as they see fit.

The KU athletic director, Lew Perkins, stated the same thing last week during a Q&A session. He suggested that college presidents in BCS conferences have been openly discussing creating their own entity to rival the NCAA and he believes it will happen in some form. So it's definitely an idea that seems to be picking up steam.

Kevin Harlan was just on local radio here in Kansas City. He said that Notre Dame, UConn, and Pitt have received official offers. He also said that Mizzou and Rutgers both have indicated that they are interested in moving to the Big Ten, but no firm offer for either of them. They will be offered if the Big Ten decides to go to 16 teams (haven't decided yet if they want 14 or 16) or if one of the three schools that were offered turns it down.

I don't get UConn at all. Why not Boston College if you think you have a shot at Notre Dame and want to go into New England? I'm skeptical.

Any question of raiding the Big East v. the ACC?

I'm kind of sad to see all these conferences turn into big mega-conferences. While the Big East may be the best basketball conference out there, I think it's lost a lot of its identity by bringing in so many schools from different regions.

Its going to lose more of its identity when it ceases to exist.

I think the BE will continue after this round, but will almost certainly be without a football component, so it will lose Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, UConn & Rutgers to the 64 team megaconference setup.

I think that Providence, Villanova, Georgetown, Marquette, St. John's, DePaul, Seton Hall would continue as a basketball conference, and he the best conference in now irrelevant NCAA basketball, but Notre Dame will find it very difficult to continue as a member.

This poses some interesting questions, not the least among them being which 64 teams get brought, and which four conferences continue. Obviously, the Big East is toast. But, there are 11, 12, 12, 12 and 10 members of the other conferences, 8 Big East teams, and Notre Dame. That's 66 schools. Plus, its conceivable some of the Mountain West teams (Utah, BYU) might bring more to the table than some of those 66 (Northwestern, Connecticut, maybe even a Syracuse, Mississippi St., Baylor).

Checked out Time Warner Cable which covers both NYC and Kansas City. In both cities the Big Ten Network is only carried on the digital sports tier, which has a very small subscriber base. Interestingly, in NYC TWC only carries the Big Ten HD, not the SD version. That means even fewer subscribers.

If you add a Missouri to the Big Ten, I will guarantee you that the BTN moves from the digital sports to the digital tier. I don't think it matters who you add to the Big Ten, in the NYC market the BTN is staying on the digital sports tier. In that single market comparison, the BTN probably makes more money adding Missouri (or Pitt or UConn or West Virginia) than adding a NY area team.


But Time Warner is not the only cable provider in the area. New Jersey itself would be a very large TV market, and the state has both comcast and cablevision-which carry the Big Ten network.

This would seem to be very low on the totem pole, but I read that one of the attractions of UConn was that it already has a DI ice hockey team and that is one of the sports that the Big Ten (do they already have hockey as a Big Ten league?) and the BTNetwork want to feature prominently.

Seems a little shaky, as I'm sure Syracuse or Pitt or any one of a number of other schools could get a hockey program up and running, relatively quickly, if they have the Big Ten's media money to assist.

I'm kind of sad to see all these conferences turn into big mega-conferences. While the Big East may be the best basketball conference out there, I think it's lost a lot of its identity by bringing in so many schools from different regions.

Blame Notre Dame.

This would seem to be very low on the totem pole, but I read that one of the attractions of UConn was that it already has a DI ice hockey team and that is one of the sports that the Big Ten (do they already have hockey as a Big Ten league?) and the BTNetwork want to feature prominently.

Seems a little shaky, as I'm sure Syracuse or Pitt or any one of a number of other schools could get a hockey program up and running, relatively quickly, if they have the Big Ten's media money to assist.

Looks like most of the B10 schools (that have hockey) play in the CCHA.
2009-2010 Men's D-I Standings :: USCHO.com :: U.S. College Hockey Online (http://www.uscho.com/standings/)

That's Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State.
Minnesota & Wisconsin are part of the WCHA.

Doesn't look like any of the other B10 schools play D1 hockey currently.

edit to add: Of the 5, only 2 finished in the top half of their respective league last year, while UConn was 7-27-3 playing in Atlantic Hockey. Maybe they're looking at a B10 conference playing as a conference & wanted a non-startup that wasn't really any better than what they already have playing?

Yeah Swaggs, I've already heard talk that Rutgers would upgrade their club level hockey team immediately and the basketball arena expansion/renovation plans could be changed to making it a mixed-use arena for hockey too(especially with Big 10 money coming to the rescue).