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

[Warhammer]

A couple of items, first, I really think ESPN needs to be broken up some how. They have gone from reporting and televising sport, to making the news they are reporting.

I think this is very reasonable by the Big 10, and I think the move makes a ton of sense for ND and Texas. It also adds quite a bit to the Big 10 both nationally and regionally.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Bullshit. They're providing entertainment for the easily amused, which is what they're paid to do. And they're looking after their own best interests, same as every other greedy bastard in this particular game.

It's to the point that I'm honestly amazed that anyone doesn't understand that virtually all news has a slant and that's the oldest journalistic tradition in the U.S. by far.

They've gone over the top, IMO. I'm not blind/stupid/naive, but they aren't just slanting news coverage, they are creating it for no purpose other than to benefit themselves. And as a news organization, that's not cool. I know it's not exactly breaking news, but it's still unacceptable and should be called out as such.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

They've gone over the top, IMO. I'm not blind/stupid/naive, but they aren't just slanting news coverage, they are creating it for no purpose other than to benefit themselves. And as a news organization, that's not cool. I know it's not exactly breaking news, but it's still unacceptable and should be called out as such.

+1

I know that most news is slanted left or right. But you don't see many news organizations making/creating news. That is what ESPN is doing in this case. Plus we have the Mike Leach debacle, and I wish some one would shoot the 900 lb. gorilla in the room.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And as a news organization, that's not cool.

That's the thing, they aren't a "news organization", they're an entertainment network. None of the letters are short for anything now but even in the early days the "N" was for Network, not News.

If they drift into slander or libel, fine, bust their asses like anyone else. But trying to hold them to some imaginary notion like journalistic ethics is about like complaining that every rumor you hear on E! doesn't turn out to be true.

ESPN is simply carrying on in the fine journalistic tradition of their minority owner: Hearst Corporation

[Ksyrup]

Sorry, but that doesn't fly. They have a network devoted to news, and their breaking news coverage (both on cable and the internet) of anything relevant/important in the sports world says otherwise. ESPNews isn't Talk Soup. That's the PTI-type crap, and they are totally different creatures from the news division of ESPN.

If they weren't a news organization, then we wouldn't see this on the news content they write and publish on .com, would we?

ESPN.com news services

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

If they weren't a news organization, then we wouldn't see this on the news content they write and publish on .com, would we?
ESPN.com news services

LOL, you aren't seriously using that as a justification for denying reality are you?
C'mon, in the fine tradition of DT's signature, you're smarter than that.

Here's the thing: ALL news services have a bias, they all choose what to play up or down as it serves their purpose(s), which above all else is generating revenue, seconded by whatever personal agenda ownership may have. Typically that involves getting the largest audience possible, in some cases there are other revenue stream and/or other means of producing the same end result.

Fox has their angle, CNN & MSNBC have their angle but so does AP, so does Reuters (and so did UPI and it's predecessors UP & INS).

[Ksyrup]

Angles/biases are one thing. Creating news stories out of thin air or willingly allowing an employee to pay for a PR service to start a news item that results in someone being fired is not merely showing a bias in reporting news. It's creating news and then directing the outcome.

Frankly, in the case of the Craig James thing, I'm still not sure what ESPN gained from that other than a couple of weeks of breaking news updates - backing a shitty analyst? I assume their response to Bruce Feldman was a recognition that they were ill-prepared for any bad publicity after they got their mid-December numbers for creating that news story and running with it once Leach got fired. When it came out that they would look bad months later, they overreacted in an attempt to cover their asses, and a lot of people noticed.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Angles/biases are one thing. Creating news stories out of thin air or willingly allowing an employee to pay for a PR service to start a news item that results in someone being fired is not merely showing a bias in reporting news. It's creating news and then directing the outcome.

Look, the Craig James thing is simple insanity. More likely, a case of a few inmates being allowed to run too much of the asylum.

That's significantly different than the coverage of the conference mess, which is largely speculation, rumor and innuendo everywhere. Hell, is there a school or conference official involved that you'd believe fully 100% no matter what they said at this point? I wouldn't trust any of them right now if they told me water was wet ... unless saying so was in their own best interest. How is it reasonable to hold ESPN to a different standard than that?

In the interest of clarity, I'll stipulate that the last question is rhetorical. You simply aren't going to be able to convince me that there's any way that's reasonable.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

I wonder if this, on the heels of The Decision and the Craig James/Bruce Feldman debacle, is going to be the tipping point for ESPN. They are just too big for their own good, and it compromises everything they touch now. They can no longer report anything, it's all just showing highlights/analysis and live sporting events.

Tipping point for what? It's just a small minority of people who have an emotional reaction. For most, espn is just a channel that has sports on it, and a website that has sports scores on it.

And as we see at fofc, people who ARE really into it constantly cite blogs and even annonymous blog posters. People find made-up rumors fun to talk about, its the male version of celebrity gossip.

[bronconick]

Eh, I'm not going to blast ESPN for how they've been covering the conference stuff. No one has a damn clue what's going on and I bet half or more of the leaks are purposely done by select universities trying to get their name out or attempt to control the narrative.

If they were a news-only outlet, the only thing that should have been reported so far is that A&M told the Big XII they were looking at options and maybe that the SEC would take them if there's no legal hurdles.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty amusing read here.

Orangebloods.com - Baylor's move has led to a realignment pause ... but for how long?

The translation is clear. Dodds wants to buy an extra year through all the media PR so UT can have a large amount of control over the situation and where teams go. That's the exact reason why the changes need to happen right now. The last people we want involved with conference realignment are Beebe and Dodds. They're the ones that created this mess.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

Here is the latest from the Big Ten "insider". He's been solid with info and is connected to the Big Ten offices.

PURPLE Book Cat

Post #860 Chicago MyFanPage Add Buddy Ignore Terms Presented by Notre Dame and Texas Reply Earlier this evening, Notre Dame and Texas jointly presented the Big Ten Conference with their proposed terms of entry into the conference. These terms resulted from lengthy discussions among both schools and the Big Ten over the past several months.

The major items include: 1. The preservation of an eight game (plus championship) conference football schedule. Both ND and Texas wish to preserve rivalries with non-Big Ten universities on a regular basis. This would require the Big Ten to abandon its current plans of a 9 game conference schedule. 2. The staggering of the schedule to allow for mid-season scheduling with non-conference football opponents. 3. The preservation of the status quo conference makeup until approximately 2014, unless the Big XII fails to retain key (NOT including A&M) conference members. This will provide the member schools, acting in unison, with the greatest leverage negotiating ongoing television contracts, particularly with ESPN. 4. Should Texas depart the conference for the Big Ten before ND due to the further disintegration of the Big XII, ND will remain independent until approximately 2014 5. The Longhorn Network would remain independent until approximately 2014, at which point the network would become a part of an expanded Big Ten Network (specifically referred to as "BTN2"), likely either in partnership with Fox, NBC, or less likely ABC

The Big Ten just wrapped up a meeting to initially consider all of the terms presented by the schools, including the aforementioned.

Notably, there is a general discontent with the reporting of the situation by ESPN with specific regard to Texas. ESPN has, for self-serving purposes, drastically exaggerated the lean of Texas to the Pac12 conference in nearly all commentary. ESPN has essentially waged a propaganda campaign to drive support among the Texas stakeholders to the Pac12 conference. ESPN has gone so far as to attempt to accelerate the disintegration of the Big XII to pressure Texas into making an immediate conference change decision. Texas has steadfastly resisted change, and will do so until the appropriate time occurs for Texas to stand in a strong position to renegotiate television contracts, including with ESPN.

In reality, the preference expressed by Texas' relevant leadership is to depart the Big XII for the Big Ten at the time that gives Texas the greatest leverage in negotiating a new television rights deal. The Big Ten and Texas agreed that Texas should do what is best for Texas, which they also both agree is a move by Texas to join the Big Ten Conference. Delaney's top priority has been to create an environment for Texas and Notre Dame to join the conference on mutually benefical terms.

Notre Dame has an interest in preserving its traditional rivalries, three of which occur already in the Big Ten, and creating a new national rivalry with a traditional powerhouse. The Big Ten believes that ND prefers independence, but realizes that it will soon have no choice but to join a conference. The Big Ten also believes that ND is trying to position itself so that if it must join a conference, it does so on the most favorable terms possible. Hence the return to the 8 game schedule and a protected game with national power Texas. The Big Ten will attempt to create a mutually beneficial environment for ND that allows it to preserve a great deal of independence to retain all its traditional rivalries within the conference context.

The initial mood at the Big Ten to the terms provided by the two schools is "receptive." This post was edited on 9/8 2:20 AM by PURPLE Book Cat

I don't see why the Big Ten wouldn't accept this right away.

[Ksyrup]

If the end result is UT and ND in the Big10, I'm not sure that's not for the best. Frankly, I don't really care what happens to anyone else in the Big12 outside of Oklahoma, just because they are the only other team in that conference that really matters on a national scale. As long as whatever happens doesn't screw anything up for FSU...have fun scrambling/jockeying for positions elsewhere. UT/ND in the Big10 seems like a good fit, IMO.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

ESPN is simply carrying on in the fine journalistic tradition of their minority owner: Hearst Corporation

Gold

SI

[Kodos]

I don't really think Texas fits the Big Ten. Certainly not geographically.

[Ksyrup]

Geography has very little, if anything, to do with conference alignment anymore.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I don't really think Texas fits the Big Ten. Certainly not geographically.

I think the line through the S in the dollar sign connects Notre Dame and Texas to this

SI

[MrBug708]

Sweet! West Virginia to the PAC-12!

[Kodos]

Notre Dame to the Big Ten makes all the sense in the world. Texas - not so much.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Sweet! West Virginia to the PAC-12!

I'm ok with with this since I would then be able to attend 2 games per year.

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Notre Dame to the Big Ten makes all the sense in the world. Texas - not so much.

Notre Dame will want to keep USC, Navy, and...Stanford? Right now that's probably the best OOC matchup in the country and that's every year

[Warhammer]

ND would drop Navy and keep Army. I mean they need to have a winnable game every year.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's significantly different than the coverage of the conference mess, which is largely speculation, rumor and innuendo everywhere. Hell, is there a school or conference official involved that you'd believe fully 100% no matter what they said at this point? I wouldn't trust any of them right now if they told me water was wet ... unless saying so was in their own best interest. How is it reasonable to hold ESPN to a different standard than that?

You must not be reading the sources by MBBF. On nearly every one, he states "it is clear", or "it leaves no doubt", or "admits what everyone knows".

[kcchief19]

I'm not putting much credibility behind this one, but since we like to report all whack job rumors out there: there's a rumor that BYU has agreed to join the Big 12 continent upon Oklahoma signing an intent to remain in the conference.

I find it highly doubtful for many reasons. One, why would BYU agree to join now when the conference is even in more chaos than when they rebuffed the Big 12 earlier. The only way would be if they offered BYU the same money A&M was getting, which is more than everybody but Texas and OU were getting. If BYU came into the conference on those terms, you are guaranteeing an implosion.

If anything the last week has taught us is that anything written on paper is worthless ... OU probably won't sign an intent, but if they did is BYU going to hire Ken Starr to sue OU if they later leave?

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by cartman

You must not be reading the sources by MBBF. On nearly every one, he states "it is clear", or "it leaves no doubt", or "admits what everyone knows".

I love both of you guys. I truly do. I could post a long plea for sanity for the two of you to put everything a side, but I know that's not going to happen.

To borrow a line from True Blood, why don't you two just fuck and get over with it?

[panerd]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I love both of you guys. I truly do. I could post a long plea for sanity for the two of you to put everything a side, but I know that's not going to happen.

To borrow a line from True Blood, why don't you two just fuck and get over with it?

+1. Two posters who I enjoy reading a lot... but in this thread... HUGE homers.

Mizzou is not the prize MBBF thinks they are and they will go to a big conference only because of St. Louis and Kansas City tv sets and recruiting and not recent success in football and top 6 and 7 finishes in a 12-team basketball conference.

And despite what world Cartman's delusional burnt orange glasses show him the rest of us see the Big 12 blowing up as 99% at the feet of his Longhorns. (Not saying they are wrong for the money grab, but their money grab and network is most definitely the cause of what's going on)

[MrBug708]

I dont think Cartman has really given us an elitist attitude that his school has been giving off

[gstelmack]

Cartman spends very little time in this thread talking up Texas and a lot of time in this thread pointing out how often MBBF has been wrong and thus wondering why anyone would actually be taking anything he posts seriously.

[cartman]

My defense of Texas is that they've done everything they've done within the bounds of the conference structure. They got the other members of the conference to vote for things they supported/wanted done. And some of these votes schools have seemingly voted against their best interests at certain times. But still, Texas was able to get at least 7 other schools to vote in favor of these items, which is a harder path than getting 4 other schools to block such moves with 12 members, or 3 other schools with 10 members.

Contrast that with A&M's unilateral move. They are now claiming that Baylor is going back on their word with their blocking of the move, when A&M themselves are going back on their word last year to keep the Big 12 together after the departure of Nebraska and Colorado.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

ND would drop Navy and keep Army. I mean they need to have a winnable game every year.

Navy kept Notre Dame's doors open during WWII. They're on the schedule forever.

[Radii]

The interesting thing about how long this has drawn out is that MBBF is going to be right, wherever Mizzou lands. This has gone on for so long, and he's made so many different posts, all with an unbelievable air of authority, stating where Missouri will end up. So when things do shake out and they end up... wherever, he'll be able to point to a very authoritative post showing where he called it and knew it way in advance.

We're all guilty of homerism in sports threads, but there's just an elegance with which MBBF takes it to another level.


And in all seriousness, there's not gonna be a 5th down, or a tyus edeny, or a quinn snyder, to use sports references that all Mizzou fans love so much, to screw Missouri as re-alignment goes nuts. They're not Texas, but they're going to be just fine. Once we're down to 4 16 team conferences they'll be in one of them, without a doubt.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Radii

The interesting thing about how long this has drawn out is that MBBF is going to be right, wherever Mizzou lands. This has gone on for so long, and he's made so many different posts, all with an unbelievable air of authority, stating where Missouri will end up. So when things do shake out and they end up... wherever, he'll be able to point to a very authoritative post showing where he called it and knew it way in advance.

We're all guilty of homerism in sports threads, but there's just an elegance with which MBBF takes it to another level.


And in all seriousness, there's not gonna be a 5th down, or a tyus edeny, or a quinn snyder, to use sports references that all Mizzou fans love so much, to screw Missouri as re-alignment goes nuts. They're not Texas, but they're going to be just fine. Once we're down to 4 16 team conferences they'll be in one of them, without a doubt.

Don't worry gents, we'll always have Mike Anderson.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by Logan

Don't worry gents, we'll always have Mike Anderson.

[timmynausea]

Saw this on a WVU board and thought it was funny, especially considering that Pitt has been touted as a desirable expansion target at different points. Pitt tickets for this weekend's game against Maine are selling for $0.93 on stubhub. So if you bought a coffee from Starbucks this morning, you probably spent enough to take your entire family to a Pitt football game:

Maine Black Bears vs Pittsburgh Panthers Football [9/10/2011] Tickets at StubHub!

[sterlingice]

Sadly, not with the Stubhub fees

SI

[I. J. Reilly]

If there are any Chuck Klosterman fans who are in this thread, you will love the current post over at EDSBS.com. It's a work of art.

[Solecismic]

What the media doesn't seem to understand is that there are only a handful of schools that make it worth while to expand a 12-school conference. Why is 16 a magic number all of a sudden? Why not 18, then? Why not 24? Because once you reach 14, you've pretty much lost all contact with schools in the other division.

It's like a cell dividing through meosis. Each new cell receives a new copy of half the DNA of its parents.

So the Big XII implodes to feed expansion elsewhere, because most of those schools worth having are in the Big XII (Texas and Oklahoma being the big prizes). The ACC shows no signs of losing schools to the SEC, and no signs of wanting to get bigger.

The Big Ten will listen to Notre Dame and Texas, but no one else at this point. And, frankly, after seeing Texas wag the Big XII into near-obscurity, there might be votes against Texas coming from Big Ten schools.

The Pac-12 wants to be in first-strike mode, because geography limits their expansion choices. They need top Big XII schools, or it's not worth it to expand at all. I question the wisdom of this approach, because no one has succeeded with a 16-team conference.

I still think the best solution is for the Big XII to hold at nine schools, maybe talk to TCU or Louisville/Cincinnati. That way, it's the Big East falling apart first, not the Big XII. But this would require Texas to behave differently.

I wanted to comment on the journalism angle here, since I was a sportswriter for a long time, and I have a master's degree in journalism.

Back when I did this for a living, we recognized that everyone brings a slant to the job, but editors were prized for their independence. A lot of bravado about keeping publishers and advertisers out of the news room. We were taught to look at stories from as many angles as possible, and to be conscious that our job was not only to be fair, but to try and avoid bias in what we choose to report.

We read our Woodward and Bernstein, and admired how Ben Bradlee worked as an editor.

Now, imagine Nancy Grace on the Watergate story.

Today, journalism is slanted shit for the most part. Publishers do not stay out of the news room, and editors are hired to "shape" the public, not report a story. Fox mocks us with its "fair and balanced" slogan. CNN mocks us in many other ways. Newspapers are dying and online journalism is difficult to read, because no one can be trusted and everyone can publish.

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by I. J. Reilly

If there are any Chuck Klosterman fans who are in this thread, you will love the current post over at EDSBS.com. It's a work of art.

Nebraska: I deserved it. It was steroids, barfighting, booze, the Solich. I lost count of everything.
Oklahoma: I don't even remember when he started using Callahan. All I know is that I've never seen any drug like that. It didn't even look fun.
Nebraska: Callahan. Yeah, don't ever do a drug you find in Oakland. Ever.

I cranked up at that.


WHEN THE BAND BROKE UP: THE ORAL HISTORY OF THE BIG 12 - Every Day Should Be Saturday

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We read our Woodward and Bernstein, and admired how Ben Bradlee worked as an editor.

Did you seriously just use the editor of "Pravda on the Potomac" as an example of unbiased journalism?

LOL

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

I wanted to comment on the journalism angle here, since I was a sportswriter for a long time, and I have a master's degree in journalism.

Back when I did this for a living, we recognized that everyone brings a slant to the job, but editors were prized for their independence. A lot of bravado about keeping publishers and advertisers out of the news room. We were taught to look at stories from as many angles as possible, and to be conscious that our job was not only to be fair, but to try and avoid bias in what we choose to report.

We read our Woodward and Bernstein, and admired how Ben Bradlee worked as an editor.

Now, imagine Nancy Grace on the Watergate story.

Today, journalism is slanted shit for the most part. Publishers do not stay out of the news room, and editors are hired to "shape" the public, not report a story. Fox mocks us with its "fair and balanced" slogan. CNN mocks us in many other ways. Newspapers are dying and online journalism is difficult to read, because no one can be trusted and everyone can publish.

Your post is beautifully written and actually describes a major reason that I don't take very many things seriously anymore. Thank you for putting it into words that I wouldn't have come up with.

[tarcone]

The B1G only looks for home runs. Penn State in the early 90s, Nebraska last season. They wont jump aboard the out of control freight traing just to get to 16 like everyone else. If there isnt a school that fits, they wont invite them. I could see the B1G staying at 12 as the others go to 16 and then collapse from the weight of their own size.
If ND and Texas want in, then the B1G would do it and stick at 14. I dont understand the logistical nightmare of 14. 6 conference games, 1 rivalry game and 1 rotating game. Who cares if we see Indiana once every 6 years in football. Thats not a deal breaker getting Texas and ND.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Matthean

WHEN THE BAND BROKE UP: THE ORAL HISTORY OF THE BIG 12 - Every Day Should Be Saturday

This is amazing.

[panerd]

I have nothing new to add except for how gay of a moniker B1G is for the Big 10 or Big Ten.

Actually I also saw this on bodog... (an actual chance for people to put their money where their mouths are or steer me in the correct direction)

11:00pNCAA Football 2011 Season - WEEK 2 Special - How many teams will play in the SEC for the 2012-2013 season? All wagers have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome becomes public knowledge will be "No Action". 2012-2013 season only.
Over
13½ (-175)o (+135)u

Under


11:00pNCAA Football 2011 Season - WEEK 2 Special - Will the Missouri Tigers be the 14th Team in SEC? All wagers have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome becomes public knowledge will be "No Action". 2012-2013 season only.
Yes
+200


11:00pNCAA Football 2011 Season - WEEK 2 Special - Will the Florida State Seminoles be the 14th Team in SEC? All wagers have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome becomes public knowledge will be "No Action". 2012-2013 season only.
Yes
+125


11:00pNCAA Football 2011 Season - WEEK 2 Special - Will the Clemson Tigers be the 14th Team in SEC? All wagers have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome becomes public knowledge will be "No Action". 2012-2013 season only.
Yes
+175


11:00pNCAA Football 2011 Season - WEEK 2 Special - Will the Oklahoma Sooners join the PAC-12? All wagers have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome becomes public knowledge will be "No Action". 2012-2013 season only.
Yes
+125


11:00pNCAA Football 2011 Season - WEEK 2 Special - Will the Oklahoma State Cowboys join the PAC-12? All wagers have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome becomes public knowledge will be "No Action". 2012-2013 season only.
Yes
+150


11:00pNCAA Football 2011 Season - WEEK 2 Special - Will the Texas Longhorns go Independent? All wagers have action. Any wagers placed after the outcome becomes public knowledge will be "No Action". 2012-2013 season only. Independent = No Conference Affiliations.
Yes
+200

[bronconick]

If the Big XII finally gets on the cart and stops claiming that it's not dead, I fully plan on calling the midwestern based conference that stubbornly can't count past their fingers the Big 12. It will annoy the living piss out of at least half the Michigan and MSU fans I know, and will probably become a new favorite of Notre Dame fans.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have nothing new to add except for how gay of a moniker B1G is for the Big 10 or Big Ten

Thanks for someone finally saying it.

[Kodos]

I kinda like B1G. It's a lot better than Leaders and Legends.

[tarcone]

Love it

[RedKingGold]

We can't make the logo too complex for the slower Midwestern folk.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

We can't make the logo too complex for the slower Midwestern folk.

The PAC-12's been eating their lunch since expansion talk started. Better logo, bigger TV contract, possibly yoinking two of the 5-6 worthwhile teams in Texas and Oklahoma. They should be used to that though, since the PAC's been doing the same on New Year's Day in Pasadena for most of the last 60 years.