http://myespn.go.com/blogs/bigten/0-3-43...ality.html
Since the majority of MAC-BCS matchups are against the Big Ten, this could change scheduling quite a bit. MAC teams would have to travel farther to play teams in other conferences for their paycheck games.
It might be a blessing in disguise, though. MAC teams could play easier BCS teams like in the Big East, or pick up a C-USA team instead of a third paycheck game.
(05-21-2009 05:11 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]http://myespn.go.com/blogs/bigten/0-3-43...ality.html
Since the majority of MAC-BCS matchups are against the Big Ten, this could change scheduling quite a bit. MAC teams would have to travel farther to play teams in other conferences for their paycheck games.
It might be a blessing in disguise, though. MAC teams could play easier BCS teams like in the Big East, or pick up a C-USA team instead of a third paycheck game.
I don't think it will impact the MAC too much. In order to make teams bowl eligible Big Ten teams will need to continue to schedule MAC.
Now that I've done the math, I realize that 9 conference games is mathematically impossible for an 11-team conference. It works with 12 teams or 10 teams, but with 11 one team can only play 8 games.
If they're set on doing this, they'll need to make a change.
(05-21-2009 11:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]Now that I've done the math, I realize that 9 conference games is mathematically impossible for an 11-team conference. It works with 12 teams or 10 teams, but with 11 one team can only play 8 games.
If they're set on doing this, they'll need to make a change.
Damn prime numbers!!
(05-21-2009 11:23 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]Now that I've done the math, I realize that 9 conference games is mathematically impossible for an 11-team conference. It works with 12 teams or 10 teams, but with 11 one team can only play 8 games.
If they're set on doing this, they'll need to make a change.
Let them play 10 conference games and see what it does to their bowl hopes.
That would cost the BT probably two bowl bids.
They NEED 4 OOC games per team to bolster bowl hopes.
They don't necessarily need 4 OOC games. For each additional conference game, you're guaranteed to have a Big Ten team add another win. It would hurt their bottom dwellers and probably cause them to have less bowl-eligible teams, but it makes their top teams look better and we all know that the Big Ten exists to serve a select few teams.
I think Big Ten will go to 12 teams and 9 conferences games. With 6 teams having 5 conference home games and six having 4 they could enter into a schedule agreement with the MAC for those teams that need an extra home game to balance things out. MAC could get a guarantee that those games are on the Big Ten Network and they get 500k per game as away team. By providing every Big Ten team with two MAC games the MAC would collect about 12 million a year. That is about 1 milion per MAC school. (assuming Temple doesn't commit past 2010). The MAC could go with 10 game conference schedule which would have 5 home and 7 away for each team. MAC would become very profitable due to high payouts from the 2 non-conference games and low travel expenses. MAC wouldn't have top buy any FCS schools to show up. This may hurt bowl elgible teams, but with 10 conference games the MAC would still fill its bowls with the 6 win requirement.
Assuming Notre Dame as the 12th Big Ten team.
Each Big Ten team would play 1 MAC west and 1 MAC East team each year. Every six years every MAC school would play every Big Ten team. Imagine playing Notre Dame, Michigan, Penn State and Ohio State 4 times in a six year span for every MAC school. This is like merging with the Big Ten except we don't get the Rose Bowl and we don't host any Big Ten schools.
I can't see B-10 going to 9 conf games,
some schools play 7 or 8 home games & that would limit thier home games.
I like to see MAC sign sch agreement with B-10,
MAC could use leverage to get more home games, at the very least more neutral site games
(05-22-2009 02:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]They don't necessarily need 4 OOC games. For each additional conference game, you're guaranteed to have a Big Ten team add another win. It would hurt their bottom dwellers and probably cause them to have less bowl-eligible teams, but it makes their top teams look better and we all know that the Big Ten exists to serve a select few teams.
Actually I think you made my point.
Going to 9 conf. games, if scheduling possible, would cost the BT probably 1 or 2 bowl bids.
(05-23-2009 05:55 AM)emu steve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2009 02:03 PM)uakronkid Wrote: [ -> ]They don't necessarily need 4 OOC games. For each additional conference game, you're guaranteed to have a Big Ten team add another win. It would hurt their bottom dwellers and probably cause them to have less bowl-eligible teams, but it makes their top teams look better and we all know that the Big Ten exists to serve a select few teams.
Actually I think you made my point.
Going to 9 conf. games, if scheduling possible, would cost the BT probably 1 or 2 bowl bids.
Yes and its not like the Big Ten is hard pressed for more money with its new TV deals.
A 12 team like Nebraska which would fill it up at places like Northwestern and Illinois would be a nice addition to the conference. You aren't going to see Big Ten expansion though for 10 years because of current TV deals in place stabilizing things.
BIG 10 will not got to -9- games.... $$$$$$$ it is cheaper to pay than to "share" revs with another member. Of course it hurts NU & IN but not MICH<WISC< or OSU....
(05-26-2009 10:22 AM)NIU05 Wrote: [ -> ]BIG 10 will not got to -9- games.... $$$$$$$ it is cheaper to pay than to "share" revs with another member. Of course it hurts NU & IN but not MICH<WISC< or OSU....
Unless your splitting home gates with conference members (highly unusual set up), home teams keep their home revenue made for conference games.
There is an unusual situation in the PAC-10 where revenue is split evenly in the WSU-UW series. When the game is in Pullman the split both ways is about 400k, but when the game is played in Seattle (with UWs larger fanbase) the split is 1.2 mil each way greatly benefiting Washington State.
(05-26-2009 02:16 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2009 10:22 AM)NIU05 Wrote: [ -> ]BIG 10 will not got to -9- games.... $$$$$$$ it is cheaper to pay than to "share" revs with another member. Of course it hurts NU & IN but not MICH<WISC< or OSU....
Unless your splitting home gates with conference members (highly unusual set up), home teams keep their home revenue made for conference games.
There is an unusual situation in the PAC-10 where revenue is split evenly in the WSU-UW series. When the game is in Pullman the split both ways is about 400k, but when the game is played in Seattle (with UWs larger fanbase) the split is 1.2 mil each way greatly benefiting Washington State.
Washington Huskies AD - Rev Sharing
KC.... Look @ this article, it indicates ALL gate receipts are shared in the BIG 10, ACC and SEC.
"The Big Ten, Southeastern and Atlantic Coast conferences have what is essentially full revenue sharing. For the major revenue-producing sports such as football and men's basketball, TV revenue, gate receipts and postseason income is pooled and shared evenly, minus expenses for things such as travel to bowl games."
I don't have details, but if sharing is limited to just conference games then -9- games is out and if it sharing is ALL inclusive -9- games would be a possibility.
Do you really think Ali Babi and his 10 friends would share EVERYTHING? Somehow, someway, someones has to be sc***ing a fellow member. Every gang operates that way.
(05-27-2009 05:15 PM)NIU05 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2009 02:16 PM)Airport KC Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2009 10:22 AM)NIU05 Wrote: [ -> ]BIG 10 will not got to -9- games.... $$$$$$$ it is cheaper to pay than to "share" revs with another member. Of course it hurts NU & IN but not MICH<WISC< or OSU....
Unless your splitting home gates with conference members (highly unusual set up), home teams keep their home revenue made for conference games.
There is an unusual situation in the PAC-10 where revenue is split evenly in the WSU-UW series. When the game is in Pullman the split both ways is about 400k, but when the game is played in Seattle (with UWs larger fanbase) the split is 1.2 mil each way greatly benefiting Washington State.
Washington Huskies AD - Rev Sharing
KC.... Look @ this article, it indicates ALL gate receipts are shared in the BIG 10, ACC and SEC.
"The Big Ten, Southeastern and Atlantic Coast conferences have what is essentially full revenue sharing. For the major revenue-producing sports such as football and men's basketball, TV revenue, gate receipts and postseason income is pooled and shared evenly, minus expenses for things such as travel to bowl games."
I don't have details, but if sharing is limited to just conference games then -9- games is out and if it sharing is ALL inclusive -9- games would be a possibility.
Do you really think Ali Babi and his 10 friends would share EVERYTHING? Somehow, someway, someones has to be sc***ing a fellow member. Every gang operates that way.
That is interesting if the Big Ten does operate with a full revenue sharing model.
This then goes back to my theory on who should be the Big Ten #12...look at who was the Big Ten #11, it was Penn State and their huge 100,000 seat stadium.
If ND is going to ***** foot, the next best option would be Nebraska which packs an 85,000 seat stadium and would travel to Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, NW where help is needed at the gate.
Why is this discussion continuing to drag on? The Big Ten can't play 9 games while having 11 members. It is mathematically impossible!
Should they expand to 12 schools, however, that might be a different story. It would still be a disadvantage to play 9 Big Ten games.