*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[cyman05]

Count me as one person who would not be excited about being in the Big Ten. I think it's great that a state our size has two BCS teams from different conferences.

I would obviously support the move for it's likely benefits to the Universit though.

Big 10 would be
1. easier
2. more money
3. way closer for fans
4. easier to develop rivalries with close schools geographically instead of being a northern outpost now that MU, and Nebby have left
5. better for academics
6. more media coverage in the midwest

Ahhh, but the new commish of college sports, ESPN, says no. And will say no forever.

 

[cyman05]

OU president says Big 12 conference set for 2012 - College Football - Rivals.com

NORMAN, Okla. (AP)—University of Oklahoma President David Boren said Monday the Big 12 Conference is settled with 10 teams through the 2012 football season, but didn’t rule out the possibility that two more teams could be added in 2013.

“Definitely, I think we have the opportunity to back to 12, if we want to,â€￾ Boren told The Associated Press.
Boren did not identify which other schools have expressed an interest in joining the conference.
With the departure of Missouri and Texas A&M to the Southeastern Conference and the addition of TCU and West Virginia to the Big 12, Boren said game schedules and media contracts are set for 2012 with ten teams.
Boren said he would like the league to ultimately explore the option of expanding to 12 teams.
“I don’t think we have to be in any rush,â€￾ he said. “It might be wise to take a little time to do that, because we want things to settle down.â€￾
A former Oklahoma governor and U.S. senator who became OU’s president in 1994, two years before the Big 12 was created, Boren said he believes stability has returned to the conference, despite the departure of Nebraska and Colorado last year and Missouri and Texas A&M this year.
“Right now we’re in a period of stability that ranks with any year of the history of the conference since it’s been formed,â€￾ Boren said. “We’re financially well off. We have solid media contracts. We have a full schedule of teams to play. We have many other schools still knocking on the door if we do want to go back to 12. We’re in a very good situation.â€￾

 

[Rogue52]

Big 10 would be
1. easier
2. more money
3. way closer for fans
4. easier to develop rivalries with close schools geographically instead of being a northern outpost now that MU, and Nebby have left
5. better for academics
6. more media coverage in the midwest

Ahhh, but the new commish of college sports, ESPN, says no. And will say no forever.

Fox Sports and Big Ten Conference would say no first based off of the lack of Big Ten Network subscribers we'd bring.

 

[Yellow Snow]

Count me as one person who would not be excited about being in the Big Ten. I think it's great that a state our size has two BCS teams from different conferences.

I would obviously support the move for it's likely benefits to the Universit though.

I TOTALLY agree with you. We'd lose our Texas recruiting and turn into Illinois without the Chicago recruiting.

The B10 would be BAD for our AD.

 

[Die4Cy]

Texas and Florida are the tip of the demographic spear. As long as you are tethered to one or both you are going to find the benefits going forward. That's where the TVs are and the people who watch them. And there are more there every year.

Texas has as many NEW people since 2000 as Iowa has people altogether. The Big 10 has a big following, but as time goes on its influence will shrink. The demographics sort of demand it.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

Even though the move would make a ton of sense from the academic research side, and let more fans see the games with a close opponent, it will never happen because each school's athletic directors might have to go down in TV revenue from like 27 million to 26 million. TV money drives athletic directors which drives expansion, not academics. Also, unless ISU was paired in expansion with Notre Dame or Texas, people would say the Big 10 took a prestige hit and they'd make fun of the Big 10 even further.

Maybe it's incredibly naive, but I don't think that TV money is the only thing influencing realignment. If it were, then why wouldn't the Pac-12 have pounced on OU/Texas in September? Why wouldn't the Big Ten have added Missery instead of Nebraska? Why wouldn't conferences be purging themselves of redundant members like Vanderbilt, Purdue, Northwestern, Washington State, Mississippi State, Baylor, etc. and replaced them with teams in new markets that can generate greater revenue? If it's all about TV money, then what's the point of even having conferences; wouldn't the top schools be better off going independent and not splitting their TV revenue evenly with their less-popular conference members? I really do think a totality of factors is considered, even though TV revenue is an increasingly large component.

We'll never be attractive to any conference if it's only going to be about TV numbers, but I think leveraging a preponderance of factors could paint us as worthy. AAU membership, top-50 public school, being a large state university, facilities that are ever-improving, passionate alumni, etc. If any conference is going to be the least bit concerned about these types of things, it's the Big Ten. The geographic fit is obvious. Our administration, both current and incoming, have Big Ten ties. We'd have unique academic/research strengths compared to existing Big Ten members. We'd have political leverage because Iowa's already in. We don't add TV sets like Notre Dame, but I'm guessing we have more alumni and potential BTN subscribers in KC and Texas than many Big Ten schools do.

If feelers haven't been put out by ISU's leadership, I really don't know why because I don't understand what the downside would be.

 

[cyman05]

Maybe it's incredibly naive, but I don't think that TV money is the only thing influencing realignment. If it were, then why wouldn't the Pac-12 have pounced on OU/Texas in September? Why wouldn't the Big Ten have added Missery instead of Nebraska? Why wouldn't conferences be purging themselves of redundant members like Vanderbilt, Purdue, Northwestern, Washington State, Mississippi State, Baylor, etc. and replaced them with teams in new markets that can generate greater revenue? If it's all about TV money, then what's the point of even having conferences; wouldn't the top schools be better off going independent and not splitting their TV revenue evenly with their less-popular conference members? I really do think a totality of factors is considered, even though TV revenue is an increasingly large component.

We'll never be attractive to any conference if it's only going to be about TV numbers, but I think leveraging a preponderance of factors could paint us as worthy. AAU membership, top-50 public school, being a large state university, facilities that are ever-improving, passionate alumni, etc. If any conference is going to be the least bit concerned about these types of things, it's the Big Ten. The geographic fit is obvious. Our administration, both current and incoming, have Big Ten ties. We'd have unique academic/research strengths compared to existing Big Ten members. We'd have political leverage because Iowa's already in. We don't add TV sets like Notre Dame, but I'm guessing we have more alumni and potential BTN subscribers in KC and Texas than many Big Ten schools do.

If feelers haven't been put out by ISU's leadership, I really don't know why because I don't understand what the downside would be.

You're right, TV money isn't the only thing influencing realignment, but its by far the #1 factor. Secondary concerns have popped up like geography and academics...But for the power conferences, once you can halfway justify your move by geography and academics, you go for the biggest money maker you can. I can't point to one counterexample in the last 20 years to show money wasn't the #1 influence in expansion.

You bring up some interesting examples though...
-Texas and OU to the PAC? Seems like the Longhorn network was all that separated this from happening...which in the end had to do with money.
-Why'd Big 10 add Neb. instead of Mizzou? Nebraska can turn on more TV sets nationally with their wide appeal than MU can locally with their bigger local markets.
-Why would the power conferences not rid themselves of smaller members? The local political powers that be would NEVER let this happen. Politicians would fight a lot more over the thread of kicking someone out who is already in the PAC or SEC, versus leaving someone behind in a lesser conference. In the end, its about potential loss of money for local communities to give up a spot at the big boy table, which ignites a political firestorm over money.
-Why even have conferences? People are questioning if you're Texas if its worth giving up 20-30 million in TV revenue to have a home for your non-revenue sports...But if you're Texas, you can print money, so you'll have all you'll ever need. How many schools are in this position though?

In the end, I think you're right: there are a number of factors at work besides ability to generate TV money. But TV money looms by far and away the #1 factor in expansion.

 

[isuno1fan]

I also will take the B12 everyday over the B10 so long as the B12 is stable.

 

[Wesley]

OU president says Big 12 conference set for 2012 - College Football - Rivals.com

NORMAN, Okla. (AP)—University of Oklahoma President David Boren said Monday the Big 12 Conference is settled with 10 teams through the 2012 football season, but didn’t rule out the possibility that two more teams could be added in 2013.

“Definitely, I think we have the opportunity to back to 12, if we want to,†Boren told The Associated Press.
Boren did not identify which other schools have expressed an interest in joining the conference.
With the departure of Missouri and Texas A&M to the Southeastern Conference and the addition of TCU and West Virginia to the Big 12, Boren said game schedules and media contracts are set for 2012 with ten teams.
Boren said he would like the league to ultimately explore the option of expanding to 12 teams.
“I don’t think we have to be in any rush,†he said. “It might be wise to take a little time to do that, because we want things to settle down.â€
A former Oklahoma governor and U.S. senator who became OU’s president in 1994, two years before the Big 12 was created, Boren said he believes stability has returned to the conference, despite the departure of Nebraska and Colorado last year and Missouri and Texas A&M this year.
“Right now we’re in a period of stability that ranks with any year of the history of the conference since it’s been formed,†Boren said. “We’re financially well off. We have solid media contracts. We have a full schedule of teams to play. We have many other schools still knocking on the door if we do want to go back to 12. We’re in a very good situation.â€

BYU, San Diego State possibilities for Big East - CBSSports.com

With the upcoming departures of TCU and West Virginia to the Big 12 and Pittsburgh and Syracuse to the ACC, the Big East will need seven schools to get to a 12-member football league by 2014.

Does the Big 12 need to be 12 by 2014 when BCS is renewed?

Boise State, UCF, Houston and SMU will join the league together as a group, sources told CBSSports.com, once Boise State finds a conference home for its Olympic sports. Sources told CBSSports.com that all six schools are committed to joining the Big East. However, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported that Air Force remains undecided. If Air Force stays in the Mountain West, the Big East would need two schools – presumably BYU and another school.
That’s where San Diego State comes into play.

 

[cyman05]

I propose that if the Big East adds San Diego St, they are named the 4 corners conference.

NW- Boise
SW- San Diego St
SE- S. Florida
NE- UConn, Rutgers

 

[Wesley]

I propose that if the Big East adds San Diego St, they are named the 4 corners conference.

NW- Boise
SW- San Diego St
SE- S. Florida
NE- UConn, Rutgers

Before they get their fill, they might have to take University of Alaska.

I assume BIG 12 and others will start raiding again next year if they have a 27 month waiting period with all those TV contracts coming up in 2015.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

-Why even have conferences? People are questioning if you're Texas if its worth giving up 20-30 million in TV revenue to have a home for your non-revenue sports...But if you're Texas, you can print money, so you'll have all you'll ever need. How many schools are in this position though?

By definition, the top revenue-generator in each conference. For the Big Ten, I assume that's either OSU or Michigan. USC in the PAC. LSU or Florida in the SEC? Conferences have some benefit, even for football--scheduling, maintaining rivalries, BCS berths--so if a school's only two goals are optimizing revenue and being in a conference, it would make sense for the top programs in each conference to withdraw and form a conference together. There'd be more money to split in a coast-to-coast conference containing OSU, Michigan, USC, LSU, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama than anyone would know what to do with.

If that happened, I'd expect the "new" top schools in the old conferences to start doing the same. The "second-best" conference could consist of Penn State, Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida State, for example. And on down the line you'd go until you get to a "bottom of the barrel" conference of Vanderbilt, Washington State, Northwestern, Mississippi State, Indiana, Rutgers, Wake Forest, and let's just say Iowa State for posterity's sake.

That's my nightmare scenario. I would be surprised if the political powers-that-be would ever, ever allow it to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some elements of it occurring (more ESPN-influenced "marquee" television games, separate conferences for football and non-football sports, conferences with less and less geographic cohesion [which we're already seeing], etc.).

 

[Wesley]

I TOTALLY agree with you. We'd lose our Texas recruiting and turn into Illinois without the Chicago recruiting.

The B10 would be BAD for our AD.

We would be taking a lot of Iowa boys that like engineering. We would have to recruit Ohio with Bo and look at Michigan leftovers. We would hope for those Florida guys also for backs.

 

[cyman05]

By definition, the top revenue-generator in each conference. For the Big Ten, I assume that's either OSU or Michigan. USC in the PAC. LSU or Florida in the SEC? Conferences have some benefit, even for football--scheduling, maintaining rivalries, BCS berths--so if a school's only two goals are optimizing revenue and being in a conference, it would make sense for the top programs in each conference to withdraw and form a conference together. There'd be more money to split in a coast-to-coast conference containing OSU, Michigan, USC, LSU, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama than anyone would know what to do with.

If that happened, I'd expect the "new" top schools in the old conferences to start doing the same. The "second-best" conference could consist of Penn State, Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida State, for example. And on down the line you'd go until you get to a "bottom of the barrel" conference of Vanderbilt, Washington State, Northwestern, Mississippi State, Indiana, Rutgers, Wake Forest, and let's just say Iowa State for posterity's sake.

That's my nightmare scenario. I would be surprised if the political powers-that-be would ever, ever allow it to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some elements of it occurring (more ESPN-influenced "marquee" television games, separate conferences for football and non-football sports, conferences with less and less geographic cohesion [which we're already seeing], etc.).

Interesting to think about. I don't think its impossible to see this complete realignment ever happen if politicians didn't stop it. You'd see the #1 conference pull in TV revenues in today's dollars of $50 million/team/year.

If it ended up that there were only 64 teams at the big boy table, I think ISU would be in a much better position with a "draft" like this than the current structure of all the Washington States, Oregon States, Vandy, Wake Forest type of teams that are automatically assured of a spot.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

I TOTALLY agree with you. We'd lose our Texas recruiting and turn into Illinois without the Chicago recruiting.

The B10 would be BAD for our AD.

But we wouldn't have to play Texas anymore, either. We'd have to play...Illinois, who Iowa has shown to be beatable even with mostly Iowan recruits.

I don't concede that our TX pipeline would dry up, either; it's a big state. Lots of Minnesota's players come from Texas. The Big Ten recruits heavily in Florida, too, so we'd plausibly ratchet up our efforts there, too. And Michigan, PA, IL, and Ohio are all large enough states to produce recruits that we might be able to net.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

Interesting to think about. I don't think its impossible to see this complete realignment ever happen if politicians didn't stop it. You'd see the #1 conference pull in TV revenues in today's dollars of $50 million/team/year.

If it ended up that there were only 64 teams at the big boy table, I think ISU would be in a much better position with a "draft" like this than the current structure of all the Washington States, Oregon States, Vandy, Wake Forest type of teams that are automatically assured of a spot.

Totally agree with you. Someone on here brought up the idea of a promotion/demotion between conferences, like the English Premier League does in soccer; I think that'd be much more likely in a tiered structure like this (not that I think it's a good idea).

Thinking about doomsday scenarios like this gives me a whole new appreciation for what we have.

 

[HoopsTournament]

By definition, the top revenue-generator in each conference. For the Big Ten, I assume that's either OSU or Michigan. USC in the PAC. LSU or Florida in the SEC? Conferences have some benefit, even for football--scheduling, maintaining rivalries, BCS berths--so if a school's only two goals are optimizing revenue and being in a conference, it would make sense for the top programs in each conference to withdraw and form a conference together. There'd be more money to split in a coast-to-coast conference containing OSU, Michigan, USC, LSU, Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama than anyone would know what to do with.

If that happened, I'd expect the "new" top schools in the old conferences to start doing the same. The "second-best" conference could consist of Penn State, Georgia, Nebraska, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Florida State, for example. And on down the line you'd go until you get to a "bottom of the barrel" conference of Vanderbilt, Washington State, Northwestern, Mississippi State, Indiana, Rutgers, Wake Forest, and let's just say Iowa State for posterity's sake.

That's my nightmare scenario. I would be surprised if the political powers-that-be would ever, ever allow it to happen, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some elements of it occurring (more ESPN-influenced "marquee" television games, separate conferences for football and non-football sports, conferences with less and less geographic cohesion [which we're already seeing], etc.).

If that occurs, then over time the top conference will have teams that separate themselves. Every game has a winner and a loser and every conference has first and last place teams. That is why these teams would never go for something like this despite the money.

 

[cyman05]

If that occurs, then over time the top conference will have teams that separate themselves. Every game has a winner and a loser and every conference has first and last place teams. That is why these teams would never go for something like this despite the money.

I think that's what eventually kept OU and Texas from the Pac16. They valued a better chance at more wins, more conference championships, and a better shot at national championships over money.

However, some schools can't see that at the end of the day that winning is more important than an extra 2-5 million. Colorado and Nebraska moves made sense. Mizzou and A&M moves? Not so much. All they can see is dollar signs and a chance to give Texas the finger. They'll be sorry later on when they realized what they've just traded in for. The money isn't always worth it. Will most schools realize that in the end? I don't know.

 

[DistrictCyclone]

If that occurs, then over time the top conference will have teams that separate themselves. Every game has a winner and a loser and every conference has first and last place teams. That is why these teams would never go for something like this despite the money.

If it's really all about money, the wins/losses will be a secondary concern. Getting your game on as many TV's as possible so ESPN/NBC/etc. will fork over big dough will be the only thing that matters...unless TV revenue becomes "winner take all".

The networks would still be shelling out cash as long as the programs have large fan bases in areas with lots of TV sets, regardless of how crappy the team is. Fan support is pretty inelastic with respect to a teams' win/loss record. Case in point: Notre Dame. They've been tepid for decades now and NBC is still willing to fork over a hefty sum to air their games.

 

[HoopsTournament]

If it's really all about money, the wins/losses will be a secondary concern. Getting your game on as many TV's as possible so ESPN/NBC/etc. will fork over big dough will be the only thing that matters...unless TV revenue becomes "winner take all".

The networks would still be shelling out cash as long as the programs have large fan bases in areas with lots of TV sets, regardless of how crappy the team is. Fan support is pretty inelastic with respect to a teams' win/loss record. Case in point: Notre Dame. They've been tepid for decades now and NBC is still willing to fork over a hefty sum to air their games.

Notre Dame is different. When a traditional power starts finishing in the lower half of the conference, they don't show up on TV as much. Case in point: Tennessee.