Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Regardless of past history, once A&M and Mizzou left, did anyone realistically think the Big-12 had a shot at surviving? They are being turned down by replacements. This does not "legitimize" Mizzou's move, it's a natural result of the conference not holding it together. Now, the flirtations last year with the Pac-12 were certainly reason enough for A&M and Mizzou to consider the moves they made this year, agreed, but don't use what happened AFTER they signed up to leave as any sort of backing for them having made the right move, because if they stuck around this may well not have happened.

Texas was looking two years before Mizzou left. It's not like that's a secret in any way. It has nothing to do with whether Mizzou/A&M stays and everything to do with Texas.

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Who knows if it is enforceable, but it is my understanding that the remaining members of the Big 12 signed away their television rights to the conference for the next six seasons. That, in essence, means that if anyone leaves, the money from any home, televised game would go to the Big 12. The Big Ten has a similar deal in place through something like 2028. It is my guess that the current ten members of the Big 12 stick together for at least the next six years.

You're going to learn this the hard way now that you have joined the Big 12.

1. Those clauses are never fully enforced. The amount that these schools end up paying to leave the conference is never close to the contractual amount. NU and CU paid far less than their clauses. Mizzou and A&M won't pay their full amount either.

2. Texas/OU have the money and donors to easily cover those rights fees if they decide to leave. That clause hurts the schools that really should be looking to have more options/flexibility. Instead, they're hitching themselves to two schools (OU/Texas) who have already demonstrated more than once that they're ready to leave the conference if they don't get what they want. Not smart.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Who knows if it is enforceable, but it is my understanding that the remaining members of the Big 12 signed away their television rights to the conference for the next six seasons. That, in essence, means that if anyone leaves, the money from any home, televised game would go to the Big 12. The Big Ten has a similar deal in place through something like 2028. It is my guess that the current ten members of the Big 12 stick together for at least the next six years.

I think the next move will be to add Louisville and Rutgers or Cincinnati (or see if they can get BYU for football only and Notre Dame for other sports). If the Notre Dame thing happens, I think that will be the next source of contention, as Texas may want to try something similar.

As for the Big East, I think they could have UCF, SMU, and Houston in the fold at any time, but the Western conference initiatives have failed (no BYU, probably no Boise State or Air Force). If they hold Pitt, Syracuse, and possibly WVU (although our guys think we play in the Big 12 next season) and add those three, that gives them a 10 or 11 team conference for 2012 and will let them re-assess when the future of the BCS becomes more clear. If Louisville and another team leave, it will be hard to keep the football conference together and you might end up seeing UConn and Cincy or Rutgers in the MAC for football and Big East for other sports and USF to CUSA.

I thought the Big 12 tv rights thing was "agreed to" but not signed off on?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Instead, they're hitching themselves to two schools (OU/Texas) who have already demonstrated more than once that they're ready to leave the conference if they don't get what they want.

You mean like Missouri?

[Young Drachma]

Big East commish is worse than David Stern. No way those teams end up in the MAC, though. It's not like they're horrily undesirable. Just no natural fits that would want to share a piece of the pie with them and not knowing what the BCS will do re: autobids causes some issues too which I suspect cooled the movement of sillyleagues.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I thought the Big 12 tv rights thing was "agreed to" but not signed off on?

Pretty sure that's correct. No official agreement has been signed at this point.

Originally Posted by Chubby

You mean like Missouri?

Three teams left the conference and four more were all but gone (Texas sabotaged that Pac-XX move at the last minute). There isn't a school amongst the remaining members that wouldn't have jumped at that option. The fact that Mizzou even bothered to present an option where they'd consider staying was surprising to say the least.

[cartman]

So a single sourced rumor, not discussed anywhere else, on a rival school's board is "legitimizing" to you? Man you are desperate for validation.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Man you are desperate for validation.

This is a surprise?

[Swaggs]

Even if the Texahoma four leave, WVU is in a better place in the Big 12. If Pitt and Syracuse weren't leaving for the ACC and TCU hadn't picked the Big 12, it would be debatable But no doubt that the Mountaineers will be better off short term in the Big 12 and under Texas' rule than in the Big East and under Notre Dame and Providence.

If the Pac 12 makes the move to 16 and starts those dominoes falling, I like our chances of landing in the SEC or ACC if the Big 12 doesn't work out.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Man you are desperate for validation.

Coming from a Longhorn fan, that's rich.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

This is a surprise?

Not really, just pathetic.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by cartman

Not really, just pathetic.

Most of us can see right through MBBF but keep fucking that chicken Cartman if you think Texas is completely innocent here.

[MJ4H]

I'm sending this thread to PETA soon.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by MJ4H

I'm sending this thread to PETA soon.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by panerd

Most of us can see right through MBBF but keep fucking that chicken Cartman if you think Texas is completely innocent here.

In regards to the content of an anonymous posting of a non corroborated rumor on the message board of a rival, I feel quite comfortable claiming innocence in the matter. I'm not the one trying to make the claim that such a statement is a grand validation of the discussions over the previous months.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

In regards to the content of an anonymous posting of a non corroborated rumor on the message board of a rival, I feel quite comfortable claiming innocence in the matter. I'm not the one trying to make the claim that such a statement is a grand validation of the discussions over the previous months.

Nor am I, but I salute you for making a mountain out of a mole hill (and for coming clean with your love of chickens).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Never dreamed that Mizzou's move would be legitimized this soon. New post from TTRaider on Tigerboard.

Originally Posted by cartman

I'm not the one trying to make the claim that such a statement is a grand validation of the discussions over the previous months.

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Nor am I, but I salute you for making a mountain out of a mole hill (and for coming clean with your love of chickens).

You are one of the most obtuse individuals I have ever had to the displeasure of running across.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

You are one of the most obtuse individuals I have ever had to the displeasure of running across.

You're no different than I in that regard. That's one of the most amusing parts of your need to minimize anything I post. I think you're the only person on this board that hasn't figured that out at this point. But it makes for amusing entertainment for the rest of us. The quicker you realize that I don't take myself nearly as seriously as you think I do, the better off your blood pressure will be.

[cartman]

So you admit that you are trolling?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

So you admit that you are trolling?

No, I just don't take this nearly as seriously as you do.

[cartman]

Interesting, considering you have nearly 100 more posts in this thread than the #2 and #3 posters combined, a great deal of them defending your stance from a lot more posters than just me.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Interesting, considering you have nearly 100 more posts in this thread than the #2 and #3 posters combined, a great deal of them defending your stance from a lot more posters than just me.

It's a diversion from normal life. That's what this board is about. If you want to debate my points, great. If your sole intent is to attack others, you're probably better off using your energy in more productive ways. I've noticed myself occasionally using terse rebuttals, mainly after being attacked personally after posting information that wasn't attacking anyone. I've decided not to do that anymore to the best of my ability. It doesn't do anything but further irritate the initial attacker. You can feel free to continue, but I'd prefer to have discussions with you that don't involve personal attacks.

[cartman]

I call out bullshit when I see it, you just seem to provide a constant stream compared to 99% of the others on this board. There is a reason you are one of the most ignored posters on this board. If you think my sole intent is to attack others, you must only read posts you make and the replies to them.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by cartman

I call out bullshit when I see it, you just seem to provide a constant stream compared to 99% of the others on this board. There is a reason you are one of the most ignored posters on this board. If you think my sole intent is to attack others, you must only read posts you make and the replies to them.

"One of the most"? Last list we saw showed MBBF as the most ignored.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

"One of the most"? Last list we saw showed MBBF as the most ignored.

Depending on who those people are, it may be seen as a positive.

[Young Drachma]

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...page=1#article

[Izulde]

Hey Big East, stop trying to blow up the Mountain West.

[General Mike]

Big East isn't going to do anything. They are just going to let teams keep leaving until its too late, then Rutgers, UConn and USF will just go independent

[cartman]

Next on the Big East's list: Hawaii

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Izulde

Hey Big East, stop trying to blow up the Mountain West.

The basketball schools have to find someone to make money for them somewhere.

[DeToxRox]

The Big Ten and Pac 12 are the only two conferences that seemingly have a clue at this point on how to do expansion.

[Ksyrup]

I think the ACC knows what it's doing, to the extent they are looking for ways to add TV revenue, understand the rest of the south is SEC territory, and are focused on expanding into the NE. I'm not saying it will make for great football, but from a business perspective, it makes sense. The product on the field is secondary to the money, anyway.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

The Big Ten and Pac 12 are the only two conferences that seemingly have a clue at this point on how to do expansion.

Actually, I'd argue that the Big Ten adding Nebraska - a team that can and will knock off the other top Big Ten teams on occasion - is doing it wrong.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

The Big Ten and Pac 12 are the only two conferences that seemingly have a clue at this point on how to do expansion.

What did the ACC and SEC not do correctly? I'd say both of them expanded within a geographic area that expands their boundaries to good markets while not overreaching.

[Toddzilla]

The MWC should change their name to the Big West and they and the Big East could co-operate as one conference. That gives the teams in the MWC the AQ they want and the Big East doesn't go under. The schedule works, too, as you'd only have to play 2-3 teams on the other coast. Voila

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

The MWC should change their name to the Big West and they and the Big East could co-operate as one conference. That gives the teams in the MWC the AQ they want and the Big East doesn't go under. The schedule works, too, as you'd only have to play 2-3 teams on the other coast. Voila

I think there is already a Big West conference right?

[Toddzilla]

Fuck em

[panerd]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

I think there is already a Big West conference right?

I thought so too but I think it might be basketball only.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by panerd

I thought so too but I think it might be basketball only.

Yeah, perhaps all sports but football.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

What did the ACC and SEC not do correctly? I'd say both of them expanded within a geographic area that expands their boundaries to good markets while not overreaching.

Slive was quoted as saying that the SEC could get to 16 teams in something like 5 or 15 minutes when he was first asked about expansion. Instead, they had to deal with a year of legal wrangling to get Texas A&M and then couldn't get a sniff from their desired targets (Oklahoma and various ACC schools), before having to kick the tires on Missouri and WVU (and ultimately taking Missouri).

I'd say the ACC did well in getting what it wanted. Rid of the Big East as a viable competitor, enriching its basketball product and expanding its reach up the Northeastern Coast. I would imagine that they might wish that they had Boston College to do over again (maybe if UConn or Rutgers had been more viable at the time), but are probably still pleased with being on TV in a top 5 media market.

[Swaggs]

Frank the Tank has an interesting blog about the Big 12 moving back to twelve teams today (the fact that the pie would have to be split into two more pieces and Texas would have to sign off are acknowledged as unlikely) that has an idea I kind of like from a WVU perspective.

He suggests the following three expansion ideas:
Louisville and Cincy (the safe, unsexy choice)
Louisville and Rutgers (a little more bold, as Rutgers is way out of the footprint)
Rutgers and UConn, with Notre Dame coming in w/o football (kills the Big East and takes the threat of Notre Dame joining another conference and leading to another domino that could lead to the end of the Big 12)

Even though I hate the idea of rejoining with Notre Dame, if the would play 4 football games a year vs Big 12 teams, it would add value to the TV package. I would even suggest adding another non-football team that brings a market, like Villanova or Georgetown to get to a 12/14. It isn't ideal, but would stabilize things and create a great basketball conference and add two more, large, state schools to the conference.

[RomaGoth]

How come Boise State has not been mentioned in regards to the Big 12? The only thing I can guess is academics and/or other sports (i.e., no baseball team and subpar basketball)?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by RomaGoth

How come Boise State has not been mentioned in regards to the Big 12? The only thing I can guess is academics and/or other sports (i.e., no baseball team and subpar basketball)?

Hmm..let's see.

1. Academics.
2. Craptastic media market.

No one expands because your team has "earned" a spot. It's about money and nothing about Boise State save for their Cinderella status makes them move the needle.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Even though I hate the idea of rejoining with Notre Dame, if the would play 4 football games a year vs Big 12 teams

I don't think they're going to give the B12 four road games a year, because NBC already has the rights to their home games locked up through 2015.

While there's been rumors for years that NBC might be willing to let that deal expire, the impending launch of the NBC Sports Channel (currently known as Versus) makes a release seem less likely. Hell, they've reportedly signed up Notre Dame hockey to an separate TV deal already, if they're doing that then I don't see them letting football go.

[RomaGoth]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Hmm..let's see.

1. Academics.
2. Craptastic media market.

No one expands because your team has "earned" a spot. It's about money and nothing about Boise State save for their Cinderella status makes them move the needle.

Ummm. Did you actually read my post? I never said anything about them earning a spot, I was throwing out a simple question.

Also, I would think at this point that BSU is beyond the "Cinderella" status and is a legitimate top 10 team, despite what the big boys would have us believe.

[Ksyrup]

On-field performance has little, if anything, to do with this.

[Swaggs]

If you look into Boise State's history, it makes their football run even more impressive. They were a junior college up until 1965 and didn't award postgraduate degrees until the mid-70s, so their current endowment is pretty small by FBCS standards

They do not have the level of alumni and alumni money to build a strong athletic department. Instead, they sold out to build their football program and pulled it off about as well as could be imagined. They have only been playing FBCS football since '96. It is almost like a Sim City-type ascent for them.

I'd say the reason they aren't discussed in Big 12 or Pac 12 expansion is the limited all-around resources (financial, alumni and AD, outside of football), the academics are still developing, the market is inconsequential and that they don't have the rich tradition (i.e.; they are "new money").

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I don't think they're going to give the B12 four road games a year, because NBC already has the rights to their home games locked up through 2015.

While there's been rumors for years that NBC might be willing to let that deal expire, the impending launch of the NBC Sports Channel (currently known as Versus) makes a release seem less likely. Hell, they've reportedly signed up Notre Dame hockey to an separate TV deal already, if they're doing that then I don't see them letting football go.

No, I agree. But two Notre Dame games added to the television package is reasonably value (in comparison to other potential OOC games) and is more of a bonus, than a necessity. The value would be in keeping them independent and preventing the expansion dominoes to start falling again.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

No, I agree. But two Notre Dame games added to the television package is reasonably value (in comparison to other potential OOC games) and is more of a bonus, than a necessity. The value would be in keeping them independent and preventing the expansion dominoes to start falling again.

Okay, I get you now. I'm pretty sure I misread your original post as being 4 TV games (rather than the 2 TV games they could get from a normal home-and-home). That's on me, my bad. Sorry.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Slive was quoted as saying that the SEC could get to 16 teams in something like 5 or 15 minutes when he was first asked about expansion. Instead, they had to deal with a year of legal wrangling to get Texas A&M and then couldn't get a sniff from their desired targets (Oklahoma and various ACC schools), before having to kick the tires on Missouri and WVU (and ultimately taking Missouri).

I don't know about the OU scenario. That's more of a case of UT having to push the first domino before OU/OSU becomes a viable option again. That's obviously something we'll have to see about down the road. They've definitely talked with the SEC.

I think the SEC stuff got bogged down mostly due to the public exposure of the move, which allowed for multiple legal threats to be made. The Big 12 members were more a reason for the delays than anything the SEC did. The ACC teams that moved were smart enough to do the move quietly and then deal with legal issues after the official move was already announced.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

If you look into Boise State's history, it makes their football run even more impressive. They were a junior college up until 1965 and didn't award postgraduate degrees until the mid-70s, so their current endowment is pretty small by FBCS standards

They do not have the level of alumni and alumni money to build a strong athletic department. Instead, they sold out to build their football program and pulled it off about as well as could be imagined. They have only been playing FBCS football since '96. It is almost like a Sim City-type ascent for them.

I'd say the reason they aren't discussed in Big 12 or Pac 12 expansion is the limited all-around resources (financial, alumni and AD, outside of football), the academics are still developing, the market is inconsequential and that they don't have the rich tradition (i.e.; they are "new money").

It's true, there's nothing at all remotely "big time" about Boise St. except for the football program, and that's incredibly recent. People talk about the impact football can have on a university - this is the perfect test case. Academically, socially, and culturally, Boise St. has always kind of been the University of Idaho's slow adopted cousin. Can that change at all just because of football? And aside from that, it will be tough to keep top-10 success going, though they've been quite a few years now they've been relevant.