Michigan AD stated that contrary to what Ohio State AD stated earlier in the week he was fairly certain that the Big 10 would expand further.

What teams would they look at?

What would the trickle down effect be (ACC, Big 12, SEC, etc)?

Is this the first step towards the NCAA's first super conference?
(why else expand past 12)

Does the Big East stand pat and wait for the fallout and pick up whats left i.e Kansas, Iowa State, Kansas St.

Here is the link:

http://www.annarbor.com/sports/um-footba...od-chance/

Exciting times! Hopefully summer 2011 will be like summer 2010.

(12-02-2010 10:40 AM)Brent St Pierre Wrote:  Michigan AD stated that contrary to what Ohio State AD stated earlier in the week he was fairly certain that the Big 10 would expand further.

What teams would they look at?

What would the trickle down effect be (ACC, Big 12, SEC, etc)?

Is this the first step towards the NCAA's first super conference?
(why else expand past 12)

Does the Big East stand pat and wait for the fallout and pick up whats left i.e Kansas, Iowa State, Kansas St.

If the Big 10 is insistent on expanding further, then yes the 16 team conferences could be on the table. As many have said here, there are very few programs to make it worth while for the Big 10 to expand (Texas, ND, maybe a few others) but its all about money and academics for their conference. If they were to go to 16 it will either include Texas or ND or both, and if thats the case the Big 12-2 is essentially done/vulnerable, so the Pac 12 will step in to try and get a few teams, probably including Boise and 3 others from BCS conference, and the Big East will go after KU and KState at least from the Big 12 remaining, and if Mizzou is not scooped up from Big 10 then Big East would scoop them up as well. The Big 12 could be dissolved with OU/Ok State/A&M/? to SEC, and ACC would compete with Big East for some of our own schools and Big 12/C-USA schools to get to 16.

Oh, so do I, Savage! There's nothing like 16 team "conferences" where some teams play one another no more than once every four years! I mean, look at our basketball league. We play Louisville once a year.

EXCITING! ROCK AND ROLL!!

This is a warning shot to the Big East, intentionally or not. I would expect Pitt rumors to the Big 10 to start heating up again this spring as well as Missouri. They both make sense. If either of those schools left their current conferences (and they would if invited) the ramifications to the Big 12 and Big East would be huge.

I bet Texas A&M and Oklahoma State end up in the SEC if the 14 team stuff starts.

The Pac 10 adds Texas and Oklahoma.

So the Big 10 would look to Notre Dame and Rutgers.

ACC would add UConn and Syracuse as travel partners for Boston College.

So the B12 and BE leftover would form:

Eastern Division
Pitt
West Virginia
Cincinnati
Louisville
East Carolina
South Florida
Central Florida

Western Division
Iowa State
Missouri
Kansas
Kansas State
Texas Tech
Baylor
TCU

As you can see we would still be a worthy BCS conference.

I love how the non-Big East fans are trying to ruin our expansion fun.

(12-02-2010 11:29 AM)CatsClaw Wrote:  I love how the non-Big East fans are trying to ruin our expansion fun.

I havent mentioned ECU once. I am fascinated by expansion and think that all roads go through the Big East. Would I love for ECU to end up in the BE . . . sure, but thats not why I follow closely what goes on in Big East boards.

It's interesting to see the what the fan responses are depending on which AD says something. If WVU AD Oliver Luck makes expansion comments it's accepted as foreshadowing what the Big East might do and what schools are possibly joining. But when Michigan AD Dave Brandon talks expansion it doesn't generate quite the same response.

Unless Notre Dame changes its mind, the Big Ten isn't expanding. $30 million per school per year is now the magic number for expansion to work for the Big Ten and there are only a handful of schools (ND, Texas) that have even a chance of generating that much additional revenue. The Big Ten will likely always say publicly that further expansion is a possibility and they're always "evaluating the landscape", but in reality, having ND involved with it is mandatory for the dollars to work.

(12-02-2010 11:17 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  The Pac 10 adds Texas and Oklahoma.

That won't happen.

Other than Texas, none of the B12 South schools (except maybe Texas Tech) really preferred the Pac to the Big 12. The others were willing to go west with the Horns if necessary to stay in an AQ conference, but it wasn't their preference. That won't change in the future.

A&M wants the SEC, but UT won't permit A&M to become the only Texas school in the SEC. If Big 12 Lite ever disintegrates, and A&M was free to join the SEC, UT would also join the SEC (even though they always say "never") because they want to keep the Aggies in their second-banana place.

You won't see UT and A&M going to separate conferences, and because A&M has made it clear they have no interest in the Pac -- they told that to Larry Scott in person when he visited College Station in June -- that ends the Pac-16 discussion.

(12-02-2010 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unless Notre Dame changes its mind, the Big Ten isn't expanding. $30 million per school per year is now the magic number for expansion to work for the Big Ten and there are only a handful of schools (ND, Texas) that have even a chance of generating that much additional revenue. The Big Ten will likely always say publicly that further expansion is a possibility and they're always "evaluating the landscape", but in reality, having ND involved with it is mandatory for the dollars to work.

So the Michigan AD is lying?

(12-02-2010 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unless Notre Dame changes its mind, the Big Ten isn't expanding. $30 million per school per year is now the magic number for expansion to work for the Big Ten and there are only a handful of schools (ND, Texas) that have even a chance of generating that much additional revenue. The Big Ten will likely always say publicly that further expansion is a possibility and they're always "evaluating the landscape", but in reality, having ND involved with it is mandatory for the dollars to work.

Frank, every time I see you post that $30 million dollar figure, I keep saying to myself he's just not thinking like a university president.
A Big Ten University president would be more concerned with "institutional mission" than dollars, and "fit" instead of tv markets.
Notre Dame is a great name to make money with but a terrible research partner.
The Big Ten, because of their network's success is and will continue to operate on a different business plane.

With all due repect, wedge, what planet were you on early this year?

(12-02-2010 01:16 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unless Notre Dame changes its mind, the Big Ten isn't expanding. $30 million per school per year is now the magic number for expansion to work for the Big Ten and there are only a handful of schools (ND, Texas) that have even a chance of generating that much additional revenue. The Big Ten will likely always say publicly that further expansion is a possibility and they're always "evaluating the landscape", but in reality, having ND involved with it is mandatory for the dollars to work.

So the Michigan AD is lying?

Not lying, he's talking like an AD. He's reflecting the fact that there's a lot of sentiment for expansion within the Big Ten athletic community.

But it's not the athletic community that makes these decisions & it only takes a minority to block them. After the addition of Nebraska, there were reports that several Big Ten presidents were upset about the addition & saw it as a downgrade to Big Ten academics.

Any future additions will be harder to come by. It only takes 4 or 5 "no" votes to black expansion in the Big Ten, so the majority an be for it but that doesn't mean it will happen.

IMO, any future candidates will be scrutinized by the opposition much more closely than Nebraska was by the opposition. I believe that they will make their feelings known earlier in the process. The sense I got was that they felt they didn't have much choice with this last one because things had advanced so far down the road by the time the vote came, but they weren't happy with it. I think some held their noses & voted "yes" against their better judgment, but I don't think they will do that again. I think they will rein Delany in before he gets to far along with this one.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but I'll believe it when I see it. The finances that Frank mentions, if nothing else, give them the perfect excuse to do what they want to do for other reasons & to convince those on the fence to go along with them. There is no CCG pot of gold at the end of the rainbow this time, so any new candidates will have to be really compelling on the academic front as well as the athletic.

University presidents know that their jobs often hinge on the success of their athletic programs & how they handle decisions related to them. It's not just the coaches who are concerned about the won-loss record. There's still only one conference champions in a 16-team league & still a max of only 2 teams going to a BCS bowl, but the odds are a lot higher against you than when you only had 10 teams in the league. Inching up to 11 or 12 teams is one thing, but at some point, the presidents are going to draw the line & say enough is enough.

(12-02-2010 01:29 PM)Bill Marsh Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 01:16 PM)EerMeNow Wrote:  

(12-02-2010 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unless Notre Dame changes its mind, the Big Ten isn't expanding. $30 million per school per year is now the magic number for expansion to work for the Big Ten and there are only a handful of schools (ND, Texas) that have even a chance of generating that much additional revenue. The Big Ten will likely always say publicly that further expansion is a possibility and they're always "evaluating the landscape", but in reality, having ND involved with it is mandatory for the dollars to work.

So the Michigan AD is lying?

Not lying, he's talking like an AD. He's reflecting the fact that there's a lot of sentiment for expansion within the Big Ten athletic community.

But it's not the athletic community that makes these decisions & it only takes a minority to block them. After the addition of Nebraska, there were reports that several Big Ten presidents were upset about the addition & saw it as a downgrade to Big Ten academics.

Any future additions will be harder to come by. It only takes 4 or 5 "no" votes to black expansion in the Big Ten, so the majority an be for it but that doesn't mean it will happen.

IMO, any future candidates will be scrutinized by the opposition much more closely than Nebraska was by the opposition. I believe that they will make their feelings known earlier in the process. The sense I got was that they felt they didn't have much choice with this last one because things had advanced so far down the road by the time the vote came, but they weren't happy with it. I think some held their noses & voted "yes" against their better judgment, but I don't think they will do that again. I think they will rein Delany in before he gets to far along with this one.

I'm not saying it won't happen, but I'll believe it when I see it. The finances that Frank mentions, if nothing else, give them the perfect excuse to do what they want to do for other reasons & to convince those on the fence to go along with them. There is no CCG pot of gold at the end of the rainbow this time, so any new candidates will have to be really compelling on the academic front as well as the athletic.

University presidents know that their jobs often hinge on the success of their athletic programs & how they handle decisions related to them. It's not just the coaches who are concerned about the won-loss record. There's still only one conference champions in a 16-team league & still a max of only 2 teams going to a BCS bowl, but the odds are a lot higher against you than when you only had 10 teams in the league. Inching up to 11 or 12 teams is one thing, but at some point, the presidents are going to draw the line & say enough is enough.

nm

U know. i am so over Delany and the Big ten...have not caught one of the Big ten's games this year...and I watch a lot of football. they are not all that. At least not down in the South. F'em

(12-02-2010 01:17 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  With all due repect, wedge, what planet were you on early this year?

Seriously? Can you point to anything that shows anyone in the B12 South outside of Austin wanted to join the Pac for any reason other than following UT? It's not going to happen.

(12-02-2010 10:58 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  There's nothing like 16 team "conferences" where some teams play one another no more than once every four years!

I think that even if the Big Ten expanded to 16 teams, you would still see all 16 teams play each other at least 1x2 years. That would require 9 conference games, but so what? The Pac-10 has done that for years with no problems.

(12-02-2010 12:41 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Unless Notre Dame changes its mind, the Big Ten isn't expanding. $30 million per school per year is now the magic number for expansion to work for the Big Ten and there are only a handful of schools (ND, Texas) that have even a chance of generating that much additional revenue. The Big Ten will likely always say publicly that further expansion is a possibility and they're always "evaluating the landscape", but in reality, having ND involved with it is mandatory for the dollars to work.

I agree frank...which begs the question...Why does the Big ten keep taking about expansion?