Pac-10 expansion discussion

[dawgfan]

Breaking this out into its own thread - sounds like Colorado is quite open to the idea of joining the Pac-10 given the large number of alumni living in Pac-10 states. The finances would obviously have to pencil out, but they're leaving the door wide open on the idea:

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14393700?source=ARK_news

We know that Utah is quite interested as well, which likely means that if the Pac-10 presidents and AD's feel like adding those two markets will increase revenues for all the schools and concerns about scheduling can be addressed in a way that satisfies the PNW schools (they don't want to lose playing games in L.A. on a regular basis), Pac-10 expansion could soon be a reality.

[TroyF]

I know the Pac 10 would like the Denver market. (it's about #16 now I believe) I also know Colorado would love to do it. It's not just the CU alumni that are plentiful it's the amount of PAC 10 fans in the Denver market. (thousands upon thousands of LA transplants)

It would ensure more home games would be sold out regardless of opposition.

If the PAC 10 gave an official invite, I think CU would jump in half a second.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

I know the Pac 10 would like the Denver market. (it's about #16 now I believe) I also know Colorado would love to do it. It's not just the CU alumni that are plentiful it's the amount of PAC 10 fans in the Denver market. (thousands upon thousands of LA transplants)

It would ensure more home games would be sold out regardless of opposition.

If the PAC 10 gave an official invite, I think CU would jump in half a second.

Yeah, Colorado is a great fit academically, athletically and most importantly, from a TV market standpoint. Utah is a little less ideal, but I think the SLC market is big enough that they wouldn't drop the average revenue for the Pac-10 schools.

I'm guessing that Larry Scott is crunching numbers with TV consultants right now to figure out how adding Colorado & Utah would affect TV negotiations when the Pac-10's current deals expire after 2012. If it adds enough, I'm guessing they get invited, but not before a lot of lobbying to Pac-10 schools to address scheduling concerns.

I think the round-robin in football is less of an issue - while the schools like the fact that no team is skipped, I think they are realistic enough to see that doing so is hurting them in comparison to the rest of the BCS conferences. It will be harder to sell for basketball though - right now the conference schedule works out beautifully.

Divisional alignments and rotation schedules would have be such that traditional rivalries are kept intact as well as the ability for all the non-L.A. schools to get regular visits.

I think it can be done in a way that will appease everybody, especially if the TV numbers (and thus revenue) jumps considerably by adding Colorado & Utah and being able to stage a football championship game.

[sterlingice]

So if they grab Colorado, does that mean the Big XII starts looking to their usual candidates (Arkansas, for instance?)

SI

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So if they grab Colorado, does that mean the Big XII starts looking to their usual candidates (Arkansas, for instance?)

SI

I would guess the first school they'd look at would be TCU.

[Karlifornia]

It's really too bad that BYU isn't an ideological fit for the PAC-10. Colorado would be a nice add, though. Do you divide the divisions up North and South? Or do you split up all the "rivals" into opposing conferences. I say the latter is a better option.

[cartman]

There was also noise about the Pac-10 being interested in Texas. I was surprised to find out that in Pac-10 TV markets, Texas is second to USC in TV viewers.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by cartman

There was also noise about the Pac-10 being interested in Texas. I was surprised to find out that in Pac-10 TV markets, Texas is second to USC in TV viewers.

Now, Texas in the Pac-10 would be awesome.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by cartman

There was also noise about the Pac-10 being interested in Texas. I was surprised to find out that in Pac-10 TV markets, Texas is second to USC in TV viewers.

Texas would be a tremendous target in all respects, but I have my doubts they'd accept, unless the Pac-10 went really big and tried to carve away more Big-12 programs like Oklahoma, A&M, Nebraska & Mizzou.

I think by far the most likely targets that are realistic are Colorado & Utah.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

It's really too bad that BYU isn't an ideological fit for the PAC-10. Colorado would be a nice add, though. Do you divide the divisions up North and South? Or do you split up all the "rivals" into opposing conferences. I say the latter is a better option.

You'd have to do the latter. I think you split them by rivalry so your in-conference schedule is your fellow 5 teams in your division plus your traditional rival. You'd also have to ensure at least one other "permanent" rival game so that the NW schools always play each other, the California schools always play each other, and the "Mountain" schools always play each other. Then the 8th in-conference game could rotate among the remaining teams that aren't permanent games.

For the sake of illustrative purposes, it could look something like this:

Division A:
Washington
Oregon State
Stanford
UCLA
Arizona State
Colorado

Division B:
Washington State
Oregon
Cal
USC
Arizona
Utah

Washington would play all their fellow Division A teams, plus Washington State & Oregon and then rotate an eighth conference game among Cal, USC, Arizona & Utah.

For Stanford, they'd play all their fellow Division A teams, plus Cal & USC and rotating an eighth game among Washington State, Oregon, Arizona & Utah.

That's probaby (roughly speaking) the fairest way to schedule things. The NW schools wouldn't like having games in LA every other year, but it wouldn't cut them off totally.

[Young Drachma]

I wonder what the Mountain West will do after this, because losing Utah and TCU (to replace Colorado) would be...well, something of a disaster for them to put it mildly. Boise State seems the #1 choice, but after that, the 2nd choices get pretty...well...meh-tastic.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I wonder what the Mountain West will do after this, because losing Utah and TCU (to replace Colorado) would be...well, something of a disaster for them to put it mildly. Boise State seems the #1 choice, but after that, the 2nd choices get pretty...well...meh-tastic.

Yep. Boise State would be a clear choice, but after that are a whole lot of "whatever" choices - Fresno State & Nevada I suppose would be front-runners, and San Jose State would be appealing if their football program ever got back on track.

Losing Utah and TCU (or BYU) would be major blows to the MWC.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yep. Boise State would be a clear choice, but after that are a whole lot of "whatever" choices - Fresno State & Nevada I suppose would be front-runners, and San Jose State would be appealing if their football program ever got back on track.

Losing Utah and TCU (or BYU) would be major blows to the MWC.

Well, where they might luck out...is the fact that the whole BCS "qualification" farce process is underway and all of the work Utah, TCU and BYU have done counts and so...they might end up with a BCS bid by the time this is done anyway, since the defections won't negate that performance.

Which would make it easier to recruit schools. So...Boise State is easy, but I'd hope they'd avoid the trap of taking bad California schools or even Nevada (though, I guess if you have UNLV why not take them?) and head to Conference USA and try to poach Houston and SMU.

So if can replace TCU and Utah with two major market schools that are investing in improving things, coupled with adding Boise...then you have the makings of a decent league.

I also think they ought to add Denver as a non-football member, because it's sort of goofy to have that school playing in the Sun Belt, but...I guess they figure there is no real incentive to a hockey school joining their league when they don't offer much outside of...well, hockey. But it wouldn't hurt anything, especially if you cut them out of the football revenue pie.

[dawgfan]

Adding Houston would probably be a good move - I hadn't considered them. I would guess they'd be preferable to SMU.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

So if they grab Colorado, does that mean the Big XII starts looking to their usual candidates (Arkansas, for instance?)

SI

With the amount of money that the Big 10 and SEC make, compared to all of the other conferences, there is no way that Arkansas (or any other school) would leave for the Big 12.

[bhlloy]

I think expansion and a title game are pretty much a must do for the Pac-10 if they want to continue being discussed in the national championship picture every year. The grumbling about them not playing a championship game have been getting louder and louder (which is a little obtuse I think - I think playing everyone in your conference every year > championship game but just my biased opinion)

I'm not opposed to it but my only question is how you split it up. Obviously north/south leaves most of the traditional powers in the south, but I'm not a big fan of how you've split it up above either. I just can't see putting all the rivals in different divisions, sure there is the potential to meet your rival in the title game but most years you aren't going to be directly competing against them either. I just can't imagine a 4-4 USC team meeting a 4-4 UCLA team and not having legaue ranking on the line. If I saw a way to split the two divisions that I liked I'd be on board 100% but I haven't so far.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by bhlloy

I'm not opposed to it but my only question is how you split it up. Obviously north/south leaves most of the traditional powers in the south, but I'm not a big fan of how you've split it up above either. I just can't see putting all the rivals in different divisions, sure there is the potential to meet your rival in the title game but most years you aren't going to be directly competing against them either. I just can't imagine a 4-4 USC team meeting a 4-4 UCLA team and not having legaue ranking on the line. If I saw a way to split the two divisions that I liked I'd be on board 100% but I haven't so far.

It's a tough one to solve. I'm pretty sure any split that keeps the NW schools from playing regular games in LA is going to be vetoed by them, which is why a split along rivalry lines has appeal.

[dawgfan]

So Nick Daschel has a bold idea - instead of shooting for a 12-team conference, why not think big and go to 16 teams?

http://www.bustersports.com/blog/bus...nk-16-schools/

This actually makes a lot of sense and would address the scheduling issues for the NW schools. In essence, it reverts the conference back to the old Pac-8 and adds a 2nd Pac-8. It'd be a super conference with a very loose affiliation between the two halves that would greatly expand the Pac's bowl and TV reach and seriously challenge the current SEC dominance.

It would also likely force the Big-10's hand to also go to a super conference, and maybe be the final push that Notre Dame needs to realize they can't stay independent in football any more.

[SackAttack]

Just seems weird that with both the Big Ten and Pac-10 thinking expansion, that the rumblings out of both of them are including Big XII schools.

I wonder if the Big XII is in some kind of trouble and we don't know it yet?

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Just seems weird that with both the Big Ten and Pac-10 thinking expansion, that the rumblings out of both of them are including Big XII schools.

I wonder if the Big XII is in some kind of trouble and we don't know it yet?

There is just way more money out there for certain Big 12 schools.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Just seems weird that with both the Big Ten and Pac-10 thinking expansion, that the rumblings out of both of them are including Big XII schools.

I wonder if the Big XII is in some kind of trouble and we don't know it yet?

I was thinking that, too. Would the Big XII lose a championship game then, if they don't have 12 teams?

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I was thinking that, too. Would the Big XII lose a championship game then, if they don't have 12 teams?

I'm sure they'd find a way, in the unlikely event that happened, to find teams to replace what they'd lost. It wouldn't be the same caliber of teams, but...there are quite a few options out there for them, because at the most we're talking 4 schools.

You raid the Mountain West for BYU and maybe Air Force, get Boise State and then find a 4th school from C-USA like Houston or even bringing SMU back to the big time and hope June Jones hangs out a while longer.

No league with a BCS bid is going to have a problem finding schools to join it, it's just finding the right schools to fill the gaps that don't leave you looking too bush league.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I was thinking that, too. Would the Big XII lose a championship game then, if they don't have 12 teams?

Yep.

If the Big-10 and Pac-10 both only expand to 12, the Big-12 will have reasonable options for non-BCS schools they could invite to keep their number at 12. But if either the Big-10 or Pac-10 makes a bold grab to go to 16 teams, they will likely come largely out of the Big-12, and the other conference will pretty much be forced to follow suit, and the Big-12 could soon cease to exist.

Seems like part of the vulnerability is geography given the centralized location of the Big-12, some of it is a relatively short history, and a lot of it is feelings of inequity within the conference members looking at programs like Texas getting bigger slices of the conference pie.

If either the Big-10 or Pac-10 decides to go big, obviously Texas is the prize fish to be caught, and that gives them leverage.

As much as going to 16 teams could make a lot of sense for the Pac-10, I don't know if they can do enough to both lure Texas on board and keep the current members happy.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Yep.

If the Big-10 and Pac-10 both only expand to 12, the Big-12 will have reasonable options for non-BCS schools they could invite to keep their number at 12. But if either the Big-10 or Pac-10 makes a bold grab to go to 16 teams, they will likely come largely out of the Big-12, and the other conference will pretty much be forced to follow suit, and the Big-12 could soon cease to exist.

Seems like part of the vulnerability is geography given the centralized location of the Big-12, some of it is a relatively short history, and a lot of it is feelings of inequity within the conference members looking at programs like Texas getting bigger slices of the conference pie.

If either the Big-10 or Pac-10 decides to go big, obviously Texas is the prize fish to be caught, and that gives them leverage.

As much as going to 16 teams could make a lot of sense for the Pac-10, I don't know if they can do enough to both lure Texas on board and keep the current members happy.

I think the only conference who can handle a 16 team mega league is the Big 10 because of their location. It'd be way too hard for the Pac 10 I believe, based on the options available and the criteria the league has.

[DeToxRox]

The question is this:

Say the Big 12 lost Texas to the Big 10 and Colorado to the Pac 10. Is the Big 12 stronger then the Big East currently is?

[Swaggs]

I don't think the Pac 10, even if they were able to bring in Texas, would have enough money to feed an extra six teams, so I can't see them being the first to move to 16-teams. If they did, it would be at the expense of the current members. If they add two teams and move to a 12-team league, they can earn some money with a conference championship, but any teams beyond 12 probably just splits the pie a little more.

It will also be interesting to see if the Pac 10 keeps its academic focus with expansion. I'm not sure that they have as many options as the Big 10 (due to their being backed up against the ocean, as opposed to the Big 10, who can reach out in almost any direction).

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

The question is this:

Say the Big 12 lost Texas to the Big 10 and Colorado to the Pac 10. Is the Big 12 stronger then the Big East currently is?

I'd say that the Big 12 would be stronger in football due to the history/prestige of Oklahoma and Nebraska. In basketball, losing Texas would be a huge blow to the conference, but they'd still be in the top tier of basketball leagues.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

It will also be interesting to see if the Pac 10 keeps its academic focus with expansion. I'm not sure that they have as many options as the Big 10 (due to their being backed up against the ocean, as opposed to the Big 10, who can reach out in almost any direction).

Colorado is a great fit academically and Utah isn't far behind. If they went to 16 teams instead of 12, you're right - it would be a lot harder. Texas obviously would be a great fit. Not as sure about other possible Big-12 targets.

[sooner333]

I don't see why Texas would leave for the Pac 10. I understand the Big Ten moreso. Texas is just as far from the Pac 10 and their games would be on late for their fans. Just a bad fit.

[DeToxRox]

I think OU might end up in the Big 10 if Texas does. Nothing else outside of them joining the SEC makes sense.

[Swaggs]

Oklahoma's academic profile doesn't really fit in with the Big 10. I think that they only get in if Texas would request them as a package (and even then, I think there might still be enough academic "snobs" in the Big 10 that would oppose it).

If the Big 10 wants to throw academics aside, they could just nab the combo of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri (or Nebraska or one last swing at Notre Dame) and they would then be able to rival the SEC as the best football conference and they would probably have the best basketball conference, as well.

It will be interesting to see if the BCS changes the limit of 2 teams per conference in BCS games. I can envision them changing it to 3 per conference and adding another game if some of these expansion plans happen.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

Oklahoma's academic profile doesn't really fit in with the Big 10. I think that they only get in if Texas would request them as a package (and even then, I think there might still be enough academic "snobs" in the Big 10 that would oppose it).

If the Big 10 wants to throw academics aside, they could just nab the combo of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri (or Nebraska or one last swing at Notre Dame) and they would then be able to rival the SEC as the best football conference and they would probably have the best basketball conference, as well.

It will be interesting to see if the BCS changes the limit of 2 teams per conference in BCS games. I can envision them changing it to 3 per conference and adding another game if some of these expansion plans happen.

That is the issue with OU, the academics that is.

But if it is what it takes to get Texas then you have to do it.

I could see them adding OU, UT, Nebraska, Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse (if they somehow got UT and OU, I bet Nebraska would pay their way in)

EAST

UM, MSU, OSU, PSU, RU, Pitt, Syracuse, Illinois

WEST

UT, OU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue

Something like that.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

There is just way more money out there for certain Big 12 schools.

This is the part that doesn't make sense though. The Big 12 still makes more money than the Pac 10 and once they decide on the direction they want to go regarding their tv revenue they should be competitive with the Big Ten and SEC. They'll still be behind those two conferences certainly, but not by the difference they currently are. The Big 12's mistake has been they haven't been able to get on the same page due to revenue sharing and thus they've gone with shorter term deals with less payout.

Colorado is the only Big 12 program that I see leaving the conference, but it wouldn't be about money, IMHO. They'll likely make similar to what they already make in the Big 12 so there really isn't much of a gain there. Their alumni base is stronger in the Pac 10 region which is one of the reasons they are looking into the Pac 10.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

This is the part that doesn't make sense though. The Big 12 still makes more money than the Pac 10 and once they decide on the direction they want to go regarding their tv revenue they should be competitive with the Big Ten and SEC. They'll still be behind those two conferences certainly, but not by the difference they currently are. The Big 12's mistake has been they haven't been able to get on the same page due to revenue sharing and thus they've gone with shorter term deals with less payout.

Colorado is the only Big 12 program that I see leaving the conference, but it wouldn't be about money, IMHO. They'll likely make similar to what they already make in the Big 12 so there really isn't much of a gain there. Their alumni base is stronger in the Pac 10 region which is one of the reasons they are looking into the Pac 10.

But the Pac 10 expanding gives them the title game revenue, plus what would probably turn into a better TV deal. No idea how the numbers would work out after all that but it'd probably be comparable to what the Big 12 eventually will get.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

That is the issue with OU, the academics that is.

But if it is what it takes to get Texas then you have to do it.

I could see them adding OU, UT, Nebraska, Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse (if they somehow got UT and OU, I bet Nebraska would pay their way in)

EAST

UM, MSU, OSU, PSU, RU, Pitt, Syracuse, Illinois

WEST

UT, OU, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Purdue

Something like that.

I think you'd see a bigger push from Texas for Texas A&M than Oklahoma. Texas and Texas A&M are the two that will likely get paired due to the government and rivalry. Again, the chance of Texas and Texas A&M leaving the Big 12 is minimum though. They've gained quite a bit from the Big 12 conference and know with a new Big 12 tv deal they'll still be the top dog when it comes to revenue.

[gstelmack]

Mizzou would still be in the Big 12, so they'd be fine.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

But the Pac 10 expanding gives them the title game revenue, plus what would probably turn into a better TV deal. No idea how the numbers would work out after all that but it'd probably be comparable to what the Big 12 eventually will get.

Pac 10 revenue would certainly be comparable to the Big 12, but again proves the point that if Colorado were to move it wouldn't be about money. If Colorado leaves they forfeit some of their Big 12 revenue (50% has been thrown around) which would be a big blow especially for a school that doesn't make a lot of money as is due to their recent struggles.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by the_meanstrosity

If Colorado leaves they forfeit some of their Big 12 revenue (50% has been thrown around) which would be a big blow especially for a school that doesn't make a lot of money as is due to their recent struggles.

According to the Big 12 bylaws, any team that leaves is subject to a penalty, depending on how long a lead time they give. If 1 year, 100%, if 2 years 50%, 3 years 33%, etc.

[Swaggs]

I don't think Big 12 fans need to worry about the Pac 10 taking Texas. But the Big Ten can simply offer way more money -- both in athletics and in research dollars.

I am still not sold that adding Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn (or any combination of them) delivers the NYC market. I love having those three teams in the Big East and don't mean any disrespect, but if they, singularly or collectively, delivered NYC -- wouldn't the Big East be the one calling the shots on expansion right now? I have a feeling that is what the Big Ten will be really, really looking at and scrutinizing during their 12-18 month period. I also still believe that, if the NYC stuff had any legs, the ACC would have been looking at Miami, Syracuse, and Rutgers rather than Miami, Syracuse, and BC during the last round of expansion.

[bronconick]

I always hear that 1) New York couldn't care less about college football anyway and 2) those that do, lean toward Penn State and Notre Dame.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I don't think Big 12 fans need to worry about the Pac 10 taking Texas. But the Big Ten can simply offer way more money -- both in athletics and in research dollars.

I am still not sold that adding Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn (or any combination of them) delivers the NYC market. I love having those three teams in the Big East and don't mean any disrespect, but if they, singularly or collectively, delivered NYC -- wouldn't the Big East be the one calling the shots on expansion right now? I have a feeling that is what the Big Ten will be really, really looking at and scrutinizing during their 12-18 month period. I also still believe that, if the NYC stuff had any legs, the ACC would have been looking at Miami, Syracuse, and Rutgers rather than Miami, Syracuse, and BC during the last round of expansion.

I think if they added Texas they would go look to the an East Coast team to balance it out and make an East and West division.

There are only so many choices right now based on the standards that seem to be set forth by the Big 10 as far as academics, market, etc.

I think the most realistic scenario is they expand to 12 first and add maybe Missouri and Pitt or Rutgers, then look to add the other one of those two and a fourth team to make it a 14 team conference.

[DeToxRox]

Dola. I lost my train of thought. I dunno why I said add Mizzou and Pitt or Rutgers. I mean they'd add one of those three at this point and then add the other two a year or two later.

[the_meanstrosity]

Originally Posted by cartman

According to the Big 12 bylaws, any team that leaves is subject to a penalty, depending on how long a lead time they give. If 1 year, 100%, if 2 years 50%, 3 years 33%, etc.

Thanks Cartman.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I don't think Big 12 fans need to worry about the Pac 10 taking Texas. But the Big Ten can simply offer way more money -- both in athletics and in research dollars.

I am still not sold that adding Rutgers, Syracuse, or UConn (or any combination of them) delivers the NYC market. I love having those three teams in the Big East and don't mean any disrespect, but if they, singularly or collectively, delivered NYC -- wouldn't the Big East be the one calling the shots on expansion right now? I have a feeling that is what the Big Ten will be really, really looking at and scrutinizing during their 12-18 month period. I also still believe that, if the NYC stuff had any legs, the ACC would have been looking at Miami, Syracuse, and Rutgers rather than Miami, Syracuse, and BC during the last round of expansion.

Rutgers was still a doormat program in football during the last ACC expansion. Schiano was just getting started with things and they hadn't upgraded their facilities yet. For all intent and purposes, they're a completely different program now, then when ACC expansion was announced in 2003.

Besides, the NYC TV market isn't just New York City, but even all of those Jersey households are still significant. And NYC is a pro sports town, but they love a winner. And giving them a program that's competing with schools that have long, storied histories are going to benefit all of the brands within the Big Ten. It's not about Rutgers delivering the homes, it's about Rutgers giving the Big Ten a reason to showcase it's other schools in that market for the entire college football season.

The TV market is so big, that even a sliver of it would trump what other markets supposedly bring to the table.

[dawgfan]

The Pac-10's current TV deals expire soon, which is why all this expansion talk is heating up.

Looking at the top-100 TV markets, the Pac-10 is currently located in:

#2: Los Angeles (USC & UCLA)
#6: San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose (Stanford & Cal)
#12: Phoenix (ASU)
#14: Seattle/Tacoma (Washington)
#68: Tuscon (Arizona)

As well, based on proximity the Pac-10 also has these markets pretty much locked up:

#20: Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto
#22: Portland
#28: San Diego
#55: Fresno/Visalia
#75: Spokane

That's already a pretty good base. Adding Colorado & Utah would add these markets:

#18: Denver
#33: Salt Lake City
(and to a lesser extent #91: Colorado Springs/Pueblo)

That's probably enough right there to help boost the next Pac-10 TV deal above and beyond the boost they'll already get due to inflation.

The question for Texas would be how that base compares with what the Big-10 has, and how well the Big-10's TV revenue will compete with the new deals the Pac-10 could get in 2012. The Big-10 might still have an edge, but population trends down the road will work in the Pac-10's favor.

[DeToxRox]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The Pac-10's current TV deals expire soon, which is why all this expansion talk is heating up.

Looking at the top-100 TV markets, the Pac-10 is currently located in:

#2: Los Angeles (USC & UCLA)
#6: San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose (Stanford & Cal)
#12: Phoenix (ASU)
#14: Seattle/Tacoma (Washington)
#68: Tuscon (Arizona)

As well, based on proximity the Pac-10 also has these markets pretty much locked up:

#20: Sacramento/Stockton/Modesto
#22: Portland
#28: San Diego
#55: Fresno/Visalia
#75: Spokane

That's already a pretty good base. Adding Colorado & Utah would add these markets:

#18: Denver
#33: Salt Lake City
(and to a lesser extent #91: Colorado Springs/Pueblo)

That's probably enough right there to help boost the next Pac-10 TV deal above and beyond the boost they'll already get due to inflation.

The question for Texas would be how that base compares with what the Big-10 has, and how well the Big-10's TV revenue will compete with the new deals the Pac-10 could get in 2012. The Big-10 might still have an edge, but population trends down the road will work in the Pac-10's favor.

The Big 10 all get money from the Big 10 Network. If they added Texas, that is basically the entire state plus probably at least parts of Oklahoma that would the B10 Network would get added to.

Plus the Big 10 Network would be able to force the cable companies hands next go around and get more money from them.

That isn't taking in account their TV deals.

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

Rutgers was still a doormat program in football during the last ACC expansion. Schiano was just getting started with things and they hadn't upgraded their facilities yet. For all intent and purposes, they're a completely different program now, then when ACC expansion was announced in 2003.

Besides, the NYC TV market isn't just New York City, but even all of those Jersey households are still significant. And NYC is a pro sports town, but they love a winner. And giving them a program that's competing with schools that have long, storied histories are going to benefit all of the brands within the Big Ten. It's not about Rutgers delivering the homes, it's about Rutgers giving the Big Ten a reason to showcase it's other schools in that market for the entire college football season.

The TV market is so big, that even a sliver of it would trump what other markets supposedly bring to the table.

I know and understand the arguments, I'm just not sure that I buy them. I have a feeling that the Big Ten is going to do a lot of research and run a lot of hypotheticals over the next year or two, so I guess we'll see if Rutgers gets an invitation. I think the ACC's expansion was all about Miami and money, so I'm not sold on the fact that Rutgers' improvement in football would have made much of a difference now, if their market wasn't a big enough selling point then.

Again, no disrespect to Rutgers -- I hope they and the rest of the Big East stick together for a long time. They have a huge alumni base, strong academics, and their impact on Jersey/Philadelpia is a big asset to the league and I think they, along w/ the rest of the conference if it stays intact, are headed in a good direction.

[DeToxRox]

Just looked. Apparently each Big 10 school makes 20 mil from its TV deal now. Adding Texas would bump that up by a few mil plus the title game money that would follow.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Swaggs

I know and understand the arguments, I'm just not sure that I buy them. I have a feeling that the Big Ten is going to do a lot of research and run a lot of hypotheticals over the next year or two, so I guess we'll see if Rutgers gets an invitation. I think the ACC's expansion was all about Miami and money, so I'm not sold on the fact that Rutgers' improvement in football would have made much of a difference now, if their market wasn't a big enough selling point then.

Again, no disrespect to Rutgers -- I hope they and the rest of the Big East stick together for a long time. They have a huge alumni base, strong academics, and their impact on Jersey/Philadelpia is a big asset to the league and I think they, along w/ the rest of the conference if it stays intact, are headed in a good direction.

Right. I hear you.

My argument all along has been on a bit of a lark, that effectively, I've said that if Rutgers gets in, it's been somewhat predetermined already given the investments they've made -- specifically in football -- to upgrade facilities and things. The President came from Washington, so he knows the big time college athletics a bit better than some Big East yokel say and I think, as a result, they've been doing their work politically behind the scenes for a while to make this happen.

It's the only way they'd have a shot. Well and that's how most of the decisions get made. It's all politics and backroom dealing.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by DeToxRox

The Big 10 all get money from the Big 10 Network. If they added Texas, that is basically the entire state plus probably at least parts of Oklahoma that would the B10 Network would get added to.

Plus the Big 10 Network would be able to force the cable companies hands next go around and get more money from them.

That isn't taking in account their TV deals.

I would be quite surprised if the Pac-10 doesn't launch their own network. In many ways, they're even more suited to it than other conferences given their West Coast time zone - alums and fans that live on the East Coast or in the Central Time Zone have a hard time finding their teams on TV.