Big Ten Expansion

[PeaveyFury]

Is anyone else becoming a bit concerned that seemingly 96% of the updates and information contained in these reports seems to be coming from Chip Brown at orangebloods.com? How reputable is this stuff in actuality?

[Point Beer Is Best]

Is anyone else becoming a bit concerned that seemingly 96% of the updates and information contained in these reports seems to be coming from Chip Brown at orangebloods.com? How reputable is this stuff in actuality?

If it's good enough for the JSonline blog to quote as a source, it's good enough for me!

 

In all seriousness, it looks like actual newspapers are reporting that Nebraska is a done deal.

[NeedMoreFans]

I like Nebraska for the football, but that's it. I think it's terrible for the conference for basketball.

 

I'm wondering what direction college football is heading, and am wondering how every other sport will be affected. If "super conferences" are created, will that be the case for basketball, too? If so, I am seeing a future where there is a college football playoff...maybe a playoff within each conference, even. It also opens the door for the NCAA basketball tournament to expand beyond the 68 team format that will be coming soon.

 

If the Pac-10 (and Big Ten) end up going beyond 12 teams, I don't see how the conferences can stay at 8 or 9 conference games. The Pac-10 plays a 9-game conference schedule...they all play each other (at least in 2010 they will). If they go to a 16 team conference, you'd play your division, which is 7 games, and only play 2 teams from the other division. Teams could go 4 years without playing each other. I'd assume they would add a 10th game, maybe more...but that would shorten the non-conference season...or they'd expand the regular season to 13/14 games. There is a lot to think about.

 

I really feel bad for the non-BCS schools right now. Boise St, TCU, Utah...will all be left in the cold. What will happen to Missouri, Iowa State, KU, K-State and Baylor? Those will be the five schools left out of any super conference, and I don't see how they could all join in with some of the other non-BCS schools. Mizzou, ISU, KU, K-State, Baylor, TCU, Boise, and Utah? I'm not seeing it right now...

[RyDogg66]

I penciled this 4 16 team super conference thing at work today and this is what I came up with.

 

Notre Dame, NEB, MISS, SYR and PITT to Big 10

Rutgers, UCONN, WVA, South FLA to the ACC

Baylor, Louisville, Cincinnati, Kansas to the SEC

TEX, A&M, T Tech, Colorado, OU, OSU to the PAC 10

 

Conference title games act as first round of playoffs, then left with Final Four. How easy is that Jim Delany?

 

Who does that leave out? K State and Iowa State...they go to C-USA perhaps or out west in to Boise's conference.

 

Then what happens to the 7 Big East Basketball schools? Perhaps they raid the A-10 for Temple, St. Joes and UMass. Or Maybe Conference USA and take Memphis and add UNC Charlotte and Rhode Island from the A-10. Anyway you shake it there are options for them to remain a powerful basketball conference.

[PeaveyFury]

I think you're much more likely to see the SEC go after ACC teams like Florida State and/or Miami before they'd consider letting Baylor and the like into the conference.

 

Per ESPN tonight, a 'Big 12 coach' has been informed by his AD and university president that the Big 12 Conference would indeed dissolve if Nebraska leaves for the Big Ten.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=5270048

 

Kind of funny that at the end of the article it mentions that even with the addition of some HUGE TV markets, the Pac-16 network is projected to distribute less revenue per member than the Big Ten Network.

[Diskono]

I really feel bad for the non-BCS schools right now. Boise St, TCU, Utah...will all be left in the cold. What will happen to Missouri, Iowa State, KU, K-State and Baylor? Those will be the five schools left out of any super conference, and I don't see how they could all join in with some of the other non-BCS schools. Mizzou, ISU, KU, K-State, Baylor, TCU, Boise, and Utah? I'm not seeing it right now...

It seems to me that the rest of the Big 12, the WAC, and MWC could all consolidate down into two pretty respectable conferences. Or one really good one, and one mediocre one. Maybe they should do a first division/second division thing with promotion and relegation. Maybe I'm just rambling.

[LouisEly]

The Mid-major schools like Utah, Boise State, TCU, etc., have to be doing cartwheels because the dissolution of a conference means one less automatic bid, which means one more at-large bid.

 

It will certainly foul up the BCS bowl games.

[PKBadger]

If the Pac-10 (and Big Ten) end up going beyond 12 teams, I don't see how the conferences can stay at 8 or 9 conference games. The Pac-10 plays a 9-game conference schedule...they all play each other (at least in 2010 they will). If they go to a 16 team conference, you'd play your division, which is 7 games, and only play 2 teams from the other division. Teams could go 4 years without playing each other. I'd assume they would add a 10th game, maybe more...but that would shorten the non-conference season...or they'd expand the regular season to 13/14 games. There is a lot to think about.

The best model that I've seen has been a "pod" system that would allow for 9 conference games. Here's an example (new teams in bold):

 

Pod 1: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota

Pod 2: Indiana, Northwestern, Purdue, Notre Dame

Pod 3: Illinois, OSU, Michigan, Missouri

Pod 4: PSU, MSU, Rutgers, Syracuse

 

You would play 3 games against the other teams in your pod, and then play 2 teams from each of the other three pods. 9 games total. This would help to ensure consistency in scheduling....a proper rotation would mean that you would never go more than two years without playing an opponent.

 

1st season UW schedule: Nebraska, @ Iowa, Minnesota, @Indiana, Northwestern @Illinois, OSU, @PSU, MSU

Next season UW schedule: @ Nebraska, Iowa, @Minnesota, Purdue, @Notre Dame, Michigan, @Missouri, Rutgers, @Syracuse

 

And then keep using that pattern going forward.

[RyDogg66]

I dont understand why Nebraska is the key to the Big 12 dissolving. Why not just plug in TCU or Boise State and keep on going? Texas must really want out.

[PeaveyFury]

Texas must really want out.

 

I think they recognize the potential earnings a super conference could bring, while losing Nebraska makes the Big 12 essentially the Texas/Oklahoma schools and a bunch of crap in the north division. Who wants to watch Texas play Kansas State or Iowa State when they could watch them play Oregon, USC, UCLA, etc? That's probably their line of thinking as much as anything.

[NeedMoreFans]

If the "pod" system comes into play, it would leave no choice but to have a playoff then. There would be a 4-team playoff for 2 rounds, otherwise there would be no way to determine the conference champion. Then, do a national playoff. Take only conference champions (and include the smaller conferences), and have a 3-round national playoff. College presidents may not want a playoff in college football, but it's going to happen if there are super conferences of 16 teams.

 

By the way, the people at Notre Dame must not be terribly intelligent. Part of their desire to remain independent is to play a national schedule and to keep it's NBC TV deal. However, the amount of money they would get from the Big Ten Network and from the BCS bid(s) the Big Ten gets would be way more than they currently receive from NBC. Yes, if they make a BCS game they don't have to share the revenue, but they make BCS games so rarely that it doesn't matter. They will be forced into a conference once everything shakes down, and may come out behind where they would have if they joined the Big Ten.

[JoeHova]

I really hope the Big Ten doesn't add Missouri. They don't seem to bring anything to the table, unlike Nebraska, which at least brings a good football history. Missouri doesn't seem to add any value to the league athletically (according to Wikipedia, they've won 2 national titles in their entire history in all sports, with none in the past 45 years. All of the state schools in the Big Ten have won at least 15) or academically (Missouri seems to be worse than all 11 current members, although possibly slightly better than Nebraska). I'd even prefer Pitt to them. There's no reason to add Missouri just because they border Iowa and Illinois. The only way I'll accept them is if they are part of a package deal with Texas and A&M, which seems very unlikely. I'll have to give up my Big Ten fandom if they let in Missouri because it just reeks of a nonsensical panic move that will do nothing but hurt the brand on and off the field.

[homer]

Missouri makes a ton of sense. They've been really good at hoops the last few years, and it was only a few years ago they were in the national title conversation in football until late in the year. From an economic standpoint they draw from Kansas City and St. Louis markets. Makes much more sense than Iowa West (Nebraska).

[JoeHova]

No, it doesn't. Nebraska is a national brand in football. Meanwhile, Missouri gets bumped down to lesser bowl games because their fans travel so poorly. The Big Ten network already has the St. Louis marketso however popular Missouri is there is irrelevant. Kansas would be a better fit if they desperately want the Kansas City market for whatever reason. Kansas at least has one standout program, unlike Missouri, and they are also better academically. Every so-called positive that Missouri brings to the table is also brought by a dozen more desirable universities. I just don't understand why the Big Ten is even considering them. Geography seems to be the only reason. It would be one thing if Missouri's athletic programs were as weak as they are but the school was great academically. Instead, they are far worse academically than any of the 11 current members and they would arguably only be better athletically than Northwestern. How do they help the Big Ten get stronger in any way? It just doesn't make sense. Inviting Missouri is expansion for the sake of expansion. That disgusts me. They might as well just invite Iowa State if they want to go that route. The Big Ten is supposed to mean something, not be a haven for every state school in the Midwest.

[homer]

Kansas at least has one standout program, unlike Missouri

-----------------

 

Missouri has one of the best journalism schools in the country if not the best. Not to mention they are a member of AAU http://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476

 

Also, Missouri finished 36th in the Learfield Cup standings which measures athletic performance across ALL sports (men's and women's). Wisconsin was 41st.

 

And just because the Big Ten Network is offered in St. Louis doesn't mean anyone is watching it. Ratings would skyrocket if Mizzou was added. Not to mention it also opens up the Kansas City market.

[Fatter than Joey]

Missouri makes a ton of sense. They've been really good at hoops the last few years, and it was only a few years ago they were in the national title conversation in football until late in the year.

 

I couldn't agree more -- The Badgers for one, have reaped the St. Louis programs well these last years -- plus this would be a huge rivalry with UI which is more St. Louis-centric than Chicago-centric.

 

Nebraska is a national brand in football.

 

Not so much anymore, but I certainly would like to see them in the Big Ten.

[MarquesJohnson2000]

The Mid-major schools like Utah, Boise State, TCU, etc., have to be doing cartwheels because the dissolution of a conference means one less automatic bid, which means one more at-large bid.

 

It will certainly foul up the BCS bowl games.

I heard on the radio this morning that the "super Pac 16" plans to petition for two automatic bids.

 

[JJHardy7]

Instead, they are far worse academically than any of the 11 current members and they would arguably only be better athletically than Northwestern.

 

They've done pretty well the past few years in football and basketball...

[JoeHova]

And just because the Big Ten Network is offered in St. Louis doesn't mean anyone is watching it. Ratings would skyrocket if Mizzou was added. Not to mention it also opens up the Kansas City market.

Who cares if anyone is watching it? They're getting the money from subscribers already. More viewers is nice but with cable they don't matter that much compared to how many households a channel is in. Adding Nebraska (or another school with a huge following) will help much more with carriage than adding Missouri (a school not many people care about, even the alums). Also, skyrocket is unlikely because people just don't care about Missouri. Their basketball attendance would rank 9th in the Big Ten (even though they've been "really good" lately (for comparison, Nebraska, despite winning only 2 conference games, was less than 500 per game behind Missouri)) and they would rank 7th in football (8th if you count Nebraska). Missouri's inability to sell bowl tickets is infamous so even though they do OK at home, they don't have a fervent fanbase by Big Ten standards.

 

As for the journalism school, the Big Ten already has the best journalism school in the country (Northwestern) and if there is one academic discipline that doesn't seem like a smart thing to bet on right now, journalism is it.

 

There is just no upside at all to adding Missouri. Missouri needs the Big Ten far more than the Big Ten needs Missouri. Missouri adds nothing at all to the Big Ten except another team. Meanwhile, Missouri benefits from being associated with much better academic and athletic universities, not to mention all the extra money they'll get. Why should Missouri get to reap the rewards while bringing nothing to the Big Ten? Almost every other school in consideration would bring huge benefits to the conference either academically, athletically, or both.

[sbrylski]

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/23051/pac-10-makes-announcement-on-coloradoPac-10 gets Colorado: LINK

[dadofandrew]

I believe I've read the Big Ten network charges about $2/month per subscriber in our area, and whatever they can get (10-25 cents) from places like Wyoming, Kansas, and so on. So adding Mizzou would lead to more money. As would getting a NY area team in.

[logan82]

More viewers would probably lead to more advertisement revenues.

[JoeHova]

No doubt that increased ratings lead to increased advertising rates. My point is that Missouri is not near the top of the list in terms of schools that could bring in new households or better ratings. Even if you totally ignore their weakness in academics, that makes them a bad fit because they bring much less to the table than they would get in return.

 

The Big Ten doesn't have to expand. It already receives (even without a football championship game), by far, the most TV revenue per school of any conference (also, much more than Notre Dame gets from their NBC deal). There is no real incentive for the Big Ten to expand unless it is with a school that can give something back to the conference. Nebraska gives back. So does Texas. So does Notre Dame. So does Kansas. Even Syracuse does if they could get the Big Ten network on cable in NYC. Missouri doesn't.

[CheeseheadInIllinois]

I've got a feeling the Big 10 is going to go to 16 just to keep up (Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers if Notre Dame opts to stay independent).

 

Also, I've got a feeling that a new Big 12 leftovers/MWC/Boise State conference would get a BCS bid if only to appease the region's senators and keep the government from getting involved in the shakeup. Also, if the Big East dissolves, that would still leave 10 bids for 5 conferences plus Notre Dame, if they manage to become good again.

[sbrylski]

Stop resisting... change is coming! The Big Ten already has decided to expand, that argument is moot.

 

Is it a Notre Dame or Texas? No. But...

• Missouri has elevated its profile in both football and men's basketball the last few years, competing for the Big 12 title in football two years ago and reaching the Elite Eight in hoops last year. There's little doubt that Missouri could be a first-division team in both sports in the Big Ten if it joined the league today.
• The school has upgraded its facilities, which are some of the best in the Big 12. It would have little trouble recruiting at the same level as most Big Ten programs. Heck, Missouri already recruits against Illinois and other Big Ten schools.
• Missouri would give the Big Ten a greater presence in the St. Louis market. Sure, it's not New York, but New York will always be a pro town, while St. Louis could become a true Big Ten city with fans of both Missouri and Illinois, two teams that happen to play there every year in football and basketball.

 

Source