http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=5493010

$1.4MM? Seems like a reasonable price for the Buckeyes, but I'm not sure what Colorado selling a 2011 game means with respect to the shifting conference landscape...

USFFan

Seems odd with Ohio St. too since Nebraska is coming in. If the Big Ten is going to nine conference games, having four OOC games would be one too many. Though its quite possible that they'll drop a game.

Probably need the money to sustain themselves as they see reduced revenue for Big 12 exit fees and surely have to pay Pac 12 entrance fees.

OSU has money to burn. This is a good OOC one and done.

(08-24-2010 01:36 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Seems odd with Ohio St. too since Nebraska is coming in. If the Big Ten is going to nine conference games, having four OOC games would be one too many. Though its quite possible that they'll drop a game.

From everything I've read they'll be on an interim 8 game schedule until 2015 basically for everyone to wrap up the extra OOC contracts without canceling series so close to when they're scheduled if at all.

The PAC10 and Big10 often work hand in hand. Now that CU is going to be joining the PAC10, OSU may be helping them out financially to help defer some of their costs to the PAC10 and out of the Big XII.

(08-24-2010 02:16 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  The PAC10 and Big10 often work hand in hand. Now that CU is going to be joining the PAC10, OSU may be helping them out financially to help defer some of their costs to the PAC10 and out of the Big XII.

The Pac-10/Big Ten relationship is way overstated. The Big Ten and SEC, often perceived as bitter rivals, actually have a lot more aligned interests and bowl relationships tied up with each other. This is simply Colorado on its own, who needs cash BIG TIME, looking for a payday in any way possible. Colorado has an extra game that year because it's traveling to Hawaii.

(08-24-2010 01:38 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 01:36 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Seems odd with Ohio St. too since Nebraska is coming in. If the Big Ten is going to nine conference games, having four OOC games would be one too many. Though its quite possible that they'll drop a game.

From everything I've read they'll be on an interim 8 game schedule until 2015 basically for everyone to wrap up the extra OOC contracts without canceling series so close to when they're scheduled if at all.

Yes, this is true. There won't be a 9-game schedule, if it's agreed upon, until at least 2015.

(08-24-2010 02:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 02:16 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  The PAC10 and Big10 often work hand in hand. Now that CU is going to be joining the PAC10, OSU may be helping them out financially to help defer some of their costs to the PAC10 and out of the Big XII.

The Pac-10/Big Ten relationship is way overstated. The Big Ten and SEC, often perceived as bitter rivals, actually have a lot more aligned interests and bowl relationships tied up with each other. This is simply Colorado on its own, who needs cash BIG TIME, looking for a payday in any way possible. Colorado has an extra game that year because it's traveling to Hawaii.

Since the PAC10 and Big 10 didn't originally want there to be a Bowl Coalition so stuck together in an attempt to thwart it, later leading to the BCS and they have both worked together to try and keep others out of the Rose Bowl (while still expecting their teams to participate in other BCS bowls) and they have worked to keep a playoff from happening by previous reports I wouldn't say their relationship is overstated. For years Big Ten and Pac 10 teams have played non-conference games against one another and also just happened to work on the current expansion deals simultaneously both poaching and "weakening" the Big Twelve, it appears quite healthy actually. CU has had financial difficulties for awhile but OSU has shown 0 interest in playing them until now.

(08-24-2010 02:40 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 02:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 02:16 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  The PAC10 and Big10 often work hand in hand. Now that CU is going to be joining the PAC10, OSU may be helping them out financially to help defer some of their costs to the PAC10 and out of the Big XII.

The Pac-10/Big Ten relationship is way overstated. The Big Ten and SEC, often perceived as bitter rivals, actually have a lot more aligned interests and bowl relationships tied up with each other. This is simply Colorado on its own, who needs cash BIG TIME, looking for a payday in any way possible. Colorado has an extra game that year because it's traveling to Hawaii.

Since the PAC10 and Big 10 didn't originally want there to be a Bowl Coalition so stuck together in an attempt to thwart it, later leading to the BCS and they have both worked together to try and keep others out of the Rose Bowl (while still expecting their teams to participate in other BCS bowls) and they have worked to keep a playoff from happening by previous reports I wouldn't say their relationship is overstated. For years Big Ten and Pac 10 teams have played non-conference games against one another and also just happened to work on the current expansion deals simultaneously both poaching and "weakening" the Big Twelve, it appears quite healthy actually. CU has had financial difficulties for awhile but OSU has shown 0 interest in playing them until now.

The Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-10 triumverate always receives the brunt of the criticism, but make no mistake: NO ONE THAT HAS ACTUAL POWER IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL EVER WANTS A PLAYOFF. NO ONE. At best, the SEC and ACC have supported a plus-one system, which everyone else rejected carte blanche. Talk to the powers that be in the Big East about how much they want a college football playoff. They are on the exact same page as the Big Ten and Pac-10 on this issue. The Rose Bowl is simply more high profile and an easier foil than the Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls, so the Pasadena game and its conference partners get a disproportionate share of the public blame while the other conferences hide behind their money.

I'm not saying that the Big Ten and Pac-10 aren't friendly - they definitely get along. However, I vehemently disagree that they move in tandem and are constantly in collusion (which is what way too many college football fans that see the Rose Bowl connection assume). I can confirm without reservation that the Big Ten was very surprised by the Pac-10's power play for Texas - they very much wanted Texas for themselves and didn't want to see the Longhorns go anywhere unless it was to the Big Ten. Once again, the Big Ten has as much or even more tied up financially with the SEC, who way too many college football fans just assume are bitter rivals.

Think of Target and Wal-Mart. These 2 competitors might snipe at each other in public and are rivals in every sense of the word. What is the one thing that binds them, though? The last thing that they want is some third competitor to come up to gobble up market share. Better to have a duopoly with one competitor that you hate than an open market with lots of different competitors.

Well, the Big Ten is Target and the SEC is Wal-Mart. They are far and away the richest college conferences - it's not even close. As a result, they don't need or want a conference that's a relative plebian (the Pac-10) to rise up and cramp their style and attempt to take away market share and power that they have with the TV networks. The Big Ten and SEC are stronger when they are the Big 2 BCS conferences and the other ones are the Little 4 (at least financially-speaking) and they absolutely want to keep it that way.

(08-24-2010 02:33 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 01:38 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 01:36 PM)mattsarz Wrote:  Seems odd with Ohio St. too since Nebraska is coming in. If the Big Ten is going to nine conference games, having four OOC games would be one too many. Though its quite possible that they'll drop a game.

From everything I've read they'll be on an interim 8 game schedule until 2015 basically for everyone to wrap up the extra OOC contracts without canceling series so close to when they're scheduled if at all.

Yes, this is true. There won't be a 9-game schedule, if it's agreed upon, until at least 2015.

Without making this an expansion thread, 2015 just seems to be a key year.

I also found it interesting that Colorado isn't playing a P10 schedule until 2012. How cash strapped are the Buffs?

Colorado to remain in Big 12 for 2 years

Sounds like some of you were on the right track. Seems as though Colorado cannot afford the buyout and will play an additional year in the Big 12 to reduce the buyout penalty.

(08-24-2010 03:38 PM)BullsFanatic Wrote:  Colorado to remain in Big 12 for 2 years

Sounds like some of you were on the right track. Seems as though Colorado cannot afford the buyout and will play an additional year in the Big 12 to reduce the buyout penalty.

I'm shocked by this. Something tells me this is a ploy to get the Pac-10 to cough up some dough to pry Colorado away and allow for a championship game in 2011 and/or to get the Big IIX to do something creative to make the exit fees go away.

USFFan

(08-24-2010 04:05 PM)usffan Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 03:38 PM)BullsFanatic Wrote:  Colorado to remain in Big 12 for 2 years

Sounds like some of you were on the right track. Seems as though Colorado cannot afford the buyout and will play an additional year in the Big 12 to reduce the buyout penalty.

I'm shocked by this. Something tells me this is a ploy to get the Pac-10 to cough up some dough to pry Colorado away and allow for a championship game in 2011 and/or to get the Big IIX to do something creative to make the exit fees go away.

USFFan

The Big IIX would honestly rather have the exit fees than for Colorado to stick around for an extra year, so there's definitely an element of CU trying to negotiate a better deal. On the other hand, CU certainly has a ton of money problems - they're stuck with a football coach that they don't want because they can't afford to buy him out.

(08-24-2010 03:17 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 02:40 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 02:32 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(08-24-2010 02:16 PM)buckaineer Wrote:  The PAC10 and Big10 often work hand in hand. Now that CU is going to be joining the PAC10, OSU may be helping them out financially to help defer some of their costs to the PAC10 and out of the Big XII.

The Pac-10/Big Ten relationship is way overstated. The Big Ten and SEC, often perceived as bitter rivals, actually have a lot more aligned interests and bowl relationships tied up with each other. This is simply Colorado on its own, who needs cash BIG TIME, looking for a payday in any way possible. Colorado has an extra game that year because it's traveling to Hawaii.

Since the PAC10 and Big 10 didn't originally want there to be a Bowl Coalition so stuck together in an attempt to thwart it, later leading to the BCS and they have both worked together to try and keep others out of the Rose Bowl (while still expecting their teams to participate in other BCS bowls) and they have worked to keep a playoff from happening by previous reports I wouldn't say their relationship is overstated. For years Big Ten and Pac 10 teams have played non-conference games against one another and also just happened to work on the current expansion deals simultaneously both poaching and "weakening" the Big Twelve, it appears quite healthy actually. CU has had financial difficulties for awhile but OSU has shown 0 interest in playing them until now.

The Rose Bowl/Big Ten/Pac-10 triumverate always receives the brunt of the criticism, but make no mistake: NO ONE THAT HAS ACTUAL POWER IN COLLEGE FOOTBALL EVER WANTS A PLAYOFF. NO ONE. At best, the SEC and ACC have supported a plus-one system, which everyone else rejected carte blanche. Talk to the powers that be in the Big East about how much they want a college football playoff. They are on the exact same page as the Big Ten and Pac-10 on this issue. The Rose Bowl is simply more high profile and an easier foil than the Sugar, Fiesta and Orange Bowls, so the Pasadena game and its conference partners get a disproportionate share of the public blame while the other conferences hide behind their money.

I'm not saying that the Big Ten and Pac-10 aren't friendly - they definitely get along. However, I vehemently disagree that they move in tandem and are constantly in collusion (which is what way too many college football fans that see the Rose Bowl connection assume). I can confirm without reservation that the Big Ten was very surprised by the Pac-10's power play for Texas - they very much wanted Texas for themselves and didn't want to see the Longhorns go anywhere unless it was to the Big Ten. Once again, the Big Ten has as much or even more tied up financially with the SEC, who way too many college football fans just assume are bitter rivals.

Think of Target and Wal-Mart. These 2 competitors might snipe at each other in public and are rivals in every sense of the word. What is the one thing that binds them, though? The last thing that they want is some third competitor to come up to gobble up market share. Better to have a duopoly with one competitor that you hate than an open market with lots of different competitors.

Well, the Big Ten is Target and the SEC is Wal-Mart. They are far and away the richest college conferences - it's not even close. As a result, they don't need or want a conference that's a relative plebian (the Pac-10) to rise up and cramp their style and attempt to take away market share and power that they have with the TV networks. The Big Ten and SEC are stronger when they are the Big 2 BCS conferences and the other ones are the Little 4 (at least financially-speaking) and they absolutely want to keep it that way.

Again I'd have to strongly disagree that the Big Ten and Pac 10 don't work together on many many issues. Even on ESPN radio in Columbus people such as OSU and Big Ten homer Chris Speilman commented on air that he believed it was highly possible the Pac 10 and Big Ten were working together on the expansions going on around us. The two leagues consider themselves superior to the other leagues academically and athletically and have a longstanding relationship that goes very deep. They are much more than "friendly".

I think that's just announcers making assumptions though (I do have a lot personal respect for Chris Speilman, but he's speculating same as anyone). The Big Ten and PAC-10 share the Rose Bowl and that's about it. They don't play each other in any other bowl. There isn't a Big Ten/PAC-10 Challenge. There's no Big Ten/PAC-10 Network and the conferences want to expand with the same teams. Delaney has publicly stated that he thinks the conference ties to the east are as great as those to the west and he wants more focus on the east. Don't get me wrong, they aren't enemies, but the ties that people put between really aren't as strong as suggested.