(04-06-2015 02:08 PM)jgkojak Wrote:  Notre Dame is in the ACC - done deal.

The best adds for B1G would be Kansas and Missouri as a package - you bring in a rivalry game, two AAU schools, etc.

Second best would be Kansas and Iowa State (if MU is unwilling to leave SEC)

I really think Kansas ends up in the B1G some day.

FWIW, I've heard the same thing regarding Notre Dame to ACC. Albeit my sources are radio hosts on the local Raleigh sports talk station that are enamored with Notre Dame and the ACC (no snickers please).

Even though the source is shaky, their logic isn't. Notre Dame in return for accommodations in scheduling and to bring only olympic sports into the ACC, they agreed to a clause that if they were to move football into a conference it would be the ACC.

But I think this is an "if" situation that won't happen anytime soon unless a 1 loss Notre Dame gets left out of the playoff party a couple of times.

I see Notre Dame staying independent and in ACC for olympics for a very long time.

Once the B1G adds Syracuse, Virginia, Duke, UNC, GT and FSU they'll own everything.

B10 East
Syracuse
Rutgers
Penn State
Maryland
Northwestern

B10 South
Virginia
UNC
Duke
Georgia Tech
Florida State

B10 Midwest
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana

B10 West
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska

9 game schedule 4 games in division plus 5 games against another division. The championship game is against the divisions that don't play each other.

I could see the Big 10 eventually adding Kansas and Virginia to get to 16....

The SEC would probably respond and add NC State and Virginia Tech, IF those teams accepted.....

Then 2 schools to the ACC, probably Cincinnati and someone

(04-06-2015 02:09 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 01:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  That means that UT's best bet for getting a ND type deal is with the Big 12. I'm at a loss to see that as a win for anybody. And if UT decides to go full indy in football, how much value do they really bring for their other sports in any conference that wouldn't be a sharp downgrade for them? I don't think the Horns have as many options as people give them credit for.

What about Texas' Olympic sports to the AAC? SMU, Houston, Tulsa, Memphis, and Tulane are all reasonably close for Olympic sports travel. Memphis, Cincinnati, UConn, Temple, SMU, Tulsa, Houston, etc. are legitimate opponents for basketball.

I could see the AAC view an ND type deal with Texas as a good thing for the conference, especially if there were a few football games for the schedule and help to grab some better bowl affiliations. And, the AAc needs a n Olympic sports replacement for Navy in the Central Division. Perfect fit.

Texas might like to have some October and November football games in Texas and Florida built in to the schedule.

While I could see the AAC doing this in a heartbeat, I can't see Texas accepting what would seem to be a lesser conference than A&M and Texas Tech are in. Even if it made perfect sense, their egos just wouldn't allow it, IMO.

(04-06-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Once the B1G adds Syracuse, Virginia, Duke, UNC, GT and FSU they'll own everything.

B10 East
Syracuse
Rutgers
Penn State
Maryland
Northwestern

B10 South
Virginia
UNC
Duke
Georgia Tech
Florida State

B10 Midwest
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana

B10 West
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska

9 game schedule 4 games in division plus 5 games against another division. The championship game is against the divisions that don't play each other.

Poor Northwestern, gets shuttered to the east.

(04-06-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Once the B1G adds Syracuse, Virginia, Duke, UNC, GT and FSU they'll own everything.

B10 East
Syracuse
Rutgers
Penn State
Maryland
Northwestern

B10 South
Virginia
UNC
Duke
Georgia Tech
Florida State

B10 Midwest
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana

B10 West
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska

9 game schedule 4 games in division plus 5 games against another division. The championship game is against the divisions that don't play each other.

When, in 2243?

(04-06-2015 05:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  When, in 2243?

You mean stardate 2243, right?

(04-06-2015 05:12 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 02:57 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  Once the B1G adds Syracuse, Virginia, Duke, UNC, GT and FSU they'll own everything.

B10 East
Syracuse
Rutgers
Penn State
Maryland
Northwestern

B10 South
Virginia
UNC
Duke
Georgia Tech
Florida State

B10 Midwest
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana

B10 West
Illinois
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska

9 game schedule 4 games in division plus 5 games against another division. The championship game is against the divisions that don't play each other.

When, in 2243?

No, but shortly after a cheap Scotch and Sominex cocktail.

Few extra thoughts:

1. A big point I think people miss is that this is Texas's ideal situtation. It's not perfect, but they don't want independence. They'd much rather be a regional conference, where they can have a network, and where there name remains the biggest one there.

2. I think the ACC does have right of first refusal (or whatever term is used) with Notre Dame. My guess is that's tied to the grant of rights meaning Notre Dame football can't practically join another conference until the last few years of it (not that they are likely to change the status quo regardless).

3. Not sure I get the attraction of Big Ten expansion with Missouri and Kansas. If we do expand, they are my preferences, but the added markets aren't huge considering you have to add two schools, the names are strong, but not kings in football, and scheduling issues become a lot worse with the extra schools. I don't think the presidents will strongly consider that opition unless everyone is going to 16 and unless Texas is off the table. Pod scheduling would admittidly alleviate some of this, but I will believe they'll consider that when I hear one word of it mentioned.

(04-06-2015 06:04 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few extra thoughts:

1. A big point I think people miss is that this is Texas's ideal situtation. It's not perfect, but they don't want independence. They'd much rather be a regional conference, where they can have a network, and where there name remains the biggest one there.

2. I think the ACC does have right of first refusal (or whatever term is used) with Notre Dame. My guess is that's tied to the grant of rights meaning Notre Dame football can't practically join another conference until the last few years of it (not that they are likely to change the status quo regardless).

3. Not sure I get the attraction of Big Ten expansion with Missouri and Kansas. If we do expand, they are my preferences, but the added markets aren't huge considering you have to add two schools, the names are strong, but not kings in football, and scheduling issues become a lot worse with the extra schools. I don't think the presidents will strongly consider that opition unless everyone is going to 16 and unless Texas is off the table. Pod scheduling would admittidly alleviate some of this, but I will believe they'll consider that when I hear one word of it mentioned.

1. I don't think Kansas pays for itself without Texas.
2. You don't need Missouri. You already own the best markets in that state.
3. Virginia pays for itself. North Carolina pays for itself. I don't think Georgia Tech would.
4. If the Big 10 expands again I expect a Virginia school to be the target.
5. I don't think Texas would ever move to the Big 10.
6. If the Big 10 wants more East coast exposure then either a school prominent in Lacrosse or Hockey would be the way to go provided that they are AAU and decent in either football or basketball. Since I can't think of a Hockey school that fits that bill I would bet on Lacrosse.

(04-06-2015 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 06:04 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few extra thoughts:

1. A big point I think people miss is that this is Texas's ideal situtation. It's not perfect, but they don't want independence. They'd much rather be a regional conference, where they can have a network, and where there name remains the biggest one there.

2. I think the ACC does have right of first refusal (or whatever term is used) with Notre Dame. My guess is that's tied to the grant of rights meaning Notre Dame football can't practically join another conference until the last few years of it (not that they are likely to change the status quo regardless).

3. Not sure I get the attraction of Big Ten expansion with Missouri and Kansas. If we do expand, they are my preferences, but the added markets aren't huge considering you have to add two schools, the names are strong, but not kings in football, and scheduling issues become a lot worse with the extra schools. I don't think the presidents will strongly consider that opition unless everyone is going to 16 and unless Texas is off the table. Pod scheduling would admittidly alleviate some of this, but I will believe they'll consider that when I hear one word of it mentioned.

1. I don't think Kansas pays for itself without Texas.
2. You don't need Missouri. You already own the best markets in that state.
3. Virginia pays for itself. North Carolina pays for itself. I don't think Georgia Tech would.
4. If the Big 10 expands again I expect a Virginia school to be the target.
5. I don't think Texas would ever move to the Big 10.
6. If the Big 10 wants more East coast exposure then either a school prominent in Lacrosse or Hockey would be the way to go provided that they are AAU and decent in either football or basketball. Since I can't think of a Hockey school that fits that bill I would bet on Lacrosse.

6. I would assume those would be partial memberships similar to JHU.

3. If Georgia Tech couldn't demand a high enough subscriber's fee, then I agree with ya there. I still think GT would be a wise addition over the long term.

1&2. The two main markets in Missouri should be covered by the Illinois in St. Louis and Nebraska in Kansas City. The B1G would gain more territory looking elsewhere.

(04-06-2015 01:54 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 01:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 12:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 10:02 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  

(04-05-2015 11:02 PM)Strut Wrote:  For the sake of reviewing expansion, what's the most financial benefit on a per school basis if B1G were to add Texas and Notre Dame? The reason I picked them is I would think that they represent the maximum upside available; not that anyone should necessarily be added. On the back of a napkin, I can't figure how adding either of them or anybody else doesn't just add more mouths to feed with minimum to no financial benefit to projected $40 million plus /school now. I would think that SEC is in similar situation

What's the driving force for why conferences should expand at all at this point? I get the whole networks and their angles, but hasn't the dust even settled on that front for 10 years or so?

What would be the upside for those two schools?

Exactly. ND's best interests are satisfied by the situation they have now. Texas' best next move is probably a ND-type deal if they can find one that suits them.

Finding a ND type deal is pretty iffy for Texas. The Irish get all sports except football into a P5 league that makes geographic sense for them. For which conference does it make sense to give Texas a home for their other sports?

The closest PAC school is 1,000 miles away. The furthest is 2,400 miles and two time zones away.

The closest ACC team is 875 miles away, with the two farthest nearly 2,000 miles.

Other than the SEC, the B1G is closest. Nebraska is 820 miles and Rutgers "only" 1720 miles.

Is it worth it to any of those three to send their teams to Austin on a regular basis? Maybe the ACC might consider if if they didn't already have such a deal with Notre Dame. But they do. The ACC doesn't need to strengthen their OOC schedule any more until their mid-level teams get more competitive.

The SEC makes sense geographically, but what possible reason could they have for lending UT a hand in football?

That means that UT's best bet for getting a ND type deal is with the Big 12. I'm at a loss to see that as a win for anybody. And if UT decides to go full indy in football, how much value do they really bring for their other sports in any conference that wouldn't be a sharp downgrade for them? I don't think the Horns have as many options as people give them credit for.

B10 will only take AAU schools
ACC Virginia,UNC,Duke,Ga Tech and Pitt
SEC Vanderbilt,UFLA,Missouri,texas A&M
B12 texas,Kansas Iowa St

B10 is interested Virginia,UNC,Ga Tech,Texas and Kansas

Bold part is wrong. They knew Nebraska was losing AAU membership when they invited them. How did they know that? Wisconsin and Michigan were leading the charge to boot them from the AAU. Now The Big Ten has a University that isn't an AAU member. That means you and everyone else that tries to sell this notion that a school has to be an AAU member, you are all wrong.

It has even been stated that it is not a set in stone requirement. It's just that they have always had the ability to have that as an asset of every school they invite. It isn't a requirement, it is just a testament to how attractive The Big Ten is to such schools.

(04-06-2015 06:50 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 06:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 06:04 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  Few extra thoughts:

1. A big point I think people miss is that this is Texas's ideal situtation. It's not perfect, but they don't want independence. They'd much rather be a regional conference, where they can have a network, and where there name remains the biggest one there.

2. I think the ACC does have right of first refusal (or whatever term is used) with Notre Dame. My guess is that's tied to the grant of rights meaning Notre Dame football can't practically join another conference until the last few years of it (not that they are likely to change the status quo regardless).

3. Not sure I get the attraction of Big Ten expansion with Missouri and Kansas. If we do expand, they are my preferences, but the added markets aren't huge considering you have to add two schools, the names are strong, but not kings in football, and scheduling issues become a lot worse with the extra schools. I don't think the presidents will strongly consider that opition unless everyone is going to 16 and unless Texas is off the table. Pod scheduling would admittidly alleviate some of this, but I will believe they'll consider that when I hear one word of it mentioned.

1. I don't think Kansas pays for itself without Texas.
2. You don't need Missouri. You already own the best markets in that state.
3. Virginia pays for itself. North Carolina pays for itself. I don't think Georgia Tech would.
4. If the Big 10 expands again I expect a Virginia school to be the target.
5. I don't think Texas would ever move to the Big 10.
6. If the Big 10 wants more East coast exposure then either a school prominent in Lacrosse or Hockey would be the way to go provided that they are AAU and decent in either football or basketball. Since I can't think of a Hockey school that fits that bill I would bet on Lacrosse.

1&2. The two main markets in Missouri should be covered by the Illinois in St. Louis and Nebraska in Kansas City. The B1G would gain more territory looking elsewhere.

That's not true. You would only have the Kansas and Illinois suburbs of those metros. You couldn't count the main population areas of both cities for cable fees for the Big Ten Network.

Quote:On December 28, 2009, Charter Communications reached an agreement to provide the network to its systems in St. Louis and Southern Illinois on the provider's expanded basic-digital tier.[37]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Ten_Network

Sorry but people are wrong when they say The Big Ten needs The University of Missouri to get full access in St. Louis.

If Missouri was needed for that, they would have been taken before Nebraska. They aren't needed and there is no need to cause a stir between The Big Ten and The SEC. The upside isn't worth that because its not that big.

Kansas would get The Big Ten the same access in all of Kansas City.

(04-06-2015 07:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas would get The Big Ten the same access in all of Kansas City.

Which part of Kansas City? The Kansas side or Missouri side.

(04-06-2015 09:19 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 07:10 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas would get The Big Ten the same access in all of Kansas City.

Which part of Kansas City? The Kansas side or Missouri side.

Well the proven point from my previous post was that The Big Ten Network got all of St. Louis without Missouri needing to be part of the conference. Why would Kansas City be any different?

(04-06-2015 07:00 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 01:54 PM)Rich52c Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 01:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 12:36 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-06-2015 10:02 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  What would be the upside for those two schools?

Exactly. ND's best interests are satisfied by the situation they have now. Texas' best next move is probably a ND-type deal if they can find one that suits them.

Finding a ND type deal is pretty iffy for Texas. The Irish get all sports except football into a P5 league that makes geographic sense for them. For which conference does it make sense to give Texas a home for their other sports?

The closest PAC school is 1,000 miles away. The furthest is 2,400 miles and two time zones away.

The closest ACC team is 875 miles away, with the two farthest nearly 2,000 miles.

Other than the SEC, the B1G is closest. Nebraska is 820 miles and Rutgers "only" 1720 miles.

Is it worth it to any of those three to send their teams to Austin on a regular basis? Maybe the ACC might consider if if they didn't already have such a deal with Notre Dame. But they do. The ACC doesn't need to strengthen their OOC schedule any more until their mid-level teams get more competitive.

The SEC makes sense geographically, but what possible reason could they have for lending UT a hand in football?

That means that UT's best bet for getting a ND type deal is with the Big 12. I'm at a loss to see that as a win for anybody. And if UT decides to go full indy in football, how much value do they really bring for their other sports in any conference that wouldn't be a sharp downgrade for them? I don't think the Horns have as many options as people give them credit for.

B10 will only take AAU schools
ACC Virginia,UNC,Duke,Ga Tech and Pitt
SEC Vanderbilt,UFLA,Missouri,texas A&M
B12 texas,Kansas Iowa St

B10 is interested Virginia,UNC,Ga Tech,Texas and Kansas

Bold part is wrong. They knew Nebraska was losing AAU membership when they invited them. How did they know that? Wisconsin and Michigan were leading the charge to boot them from the AAU. Now The Big Ten has a University that isn't an AAU member. That means you and everyone else that tries to sell this notion that a school has to be an AAU member, you are all wrong.

It has even been stated that it is not a set in stone requirement. It's just that they have always had the ability to have that as an asset of every school they invite. It isn't a requirement, it is just a testament to how attractive The Big Ten is to such schools.

Agree - the B1G ideally wants an AAU school, but would more than happily trade that aspect for a football "franchise player" in a market that they don't already own - excluding the SEC and Pac 12, that's Florida State, Oklahoma and to a lesser extent Miami.

The target scenario for the conference would probably be expanding to 20 (excluding SEC and Pac) - Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, Duke, UNC and one of Virginia/GTech/Kansas/BC

You are not going to get a fiscally stable ACC team to move to the B10 because the cost of competition is astronomical. 100K football stadiums versus 60K seat football stadiums create a $28-30 million annual hole that can not be plugged by new TV revenue. UVa, GT, and UNC are not going to be able to add capacity and fill their stadiums to the 85K which is what they would need to compete. VT and NC State might be able to upgrade and sell the tickets at 75K but that only closes part of the gap. The alumni base of VT and NCSU is half that of PSU, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisky, etc. and that difference matters.

UNC and UVa football fans will not support a loser.

Only Clemson and FSU could financially compete on the football side and even then they would need to add seating and raise prices.

The real issue in the B10 is the 4-5 schools that can no longer compete with UM, OSU, Penn State, Wisky, Nebraska and MSU. Rutgers, Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern and to a lesser degree Minnesotta, are just not in the same league as the big boys of the B10.

Added thoughts:

1. Missouri is not going anywhere any time soon. They are content in the SEC and will not try to leave even if the Big Ten was their first choice in 2010. I seriousl doubt that either the Big Ten or SEC will try to raid the other for that matter. Too much risk of rejection and given they are the conferences with the most cards, too much risk involved. Beyond all that, while a good school with good markets, the Big Ten already has decent penetration into several of the Missouri markets with existing teams.

2. Realistically, I think if the Big Ten expands (in a decade; nothing is happening soon), then North Carolina is target 1 and Virginia #2. Big state flagships in heavily populated states (or decent size states with a good number of college sports fans) is the new the direction the Big Ten has been going unless there is a really big name available. If you ever could get North Carolina to bite, then they'd be willing to take Duke as well (academics great and great basketball following even if private and smaller).

3. AAU is not an absolute requirement, but it's close to one imo. The presidents seem somewhat embarrassed by what happened with Nebraska. I think there are a small handful of non-AAU schools they might consider, but the only one I think they'd pull the trigger on at this point is Notre Dame. If we look back a couple years ago, Florida State boosters were very vocal about looking at conference options and we never heard anything about going to the Big Ten even while we heard about Georgia Tech, Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina being approached. This to me strongly suggests AAU (or at least stronger research focus) is still a very big factor for the presidents (stupidly probably, but a factor none the less).

It is assumed that Kansas basketball would be a positive for the B1G. That may be true but it could also be a negative. Schools like Michigan and Ohio State could see them as a road block to getting their basketball programs to the top.