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.
Wouldn't that make ISU a money-grubbing ***** who will lift her skirt for any invite and wreck the stability of the Big 12? :smile: (kidding!)
Maybe I'm cynical, but yeah, I think it's all about the money, and what you can get away with to make more money. You can't kick a member out of a conference without a heap of political and legal trouble, but that's just the cost of doing business.
And since most of these schools are public institutions, maybe we should be OK with having the TV networks and ticket holders foot most of the bill for athletics, rather than the taxpayers or students. If that means they have to be a little more mercenary, so be it.
Lots of people talk about how these universities have moved away from their core academic mission. Has anyone ever looked at what a successful football program does to market the university? Missouri has enjoyed record enrollment, higher academc standards, and increasing endowments over the past five years...right at the same time the football team became successful. That directly supports the core mission. Maybe it's a coincidence, but the admins at MU don't think it is.
Let's face it: AAU membership, high college "rankings", geographic or cultural alignment, are nothing more than window dressing in this game. Nice to have, but irrelevant to the overall decision. Everyone and their mother knew that NU's AAU status was tenuous. Did that stop the Big 10 from inviting them? Hell no. Would MU have gotten an SEC invite if they weren't AAU? Yep.
Everything you said about ISU's fit in regards to the Big 10 is true...and won't be considered because of one simple fact: the Big 10 could add Iowa State and not make one dime more on TV revenue than they do already. Because every market ISU brings is already covered by having Iowa.
It has NOTHING to do with ISU's worthiness as an institution; in fact, if the tables were turned, and Iowa was looking to join the Big 12, they'd probably be passed over for the same reasons. Despite their football history, and their fan support, and all the other things that they whine about, the Hawks wouldn't bring much to the Big 12 table that isn't already there. (except that coveted Quad Cities market) :smile:
