(12-14-2010 08:34 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  But a careful examination of who is actually being mentioned as candidates by Big East sources and who was already invited demonstrates to me that ND's handprint is all over this plan.

That actually make sense. While many may moan that ND is pulling strings, they are the closest to a neutral party in this, and thus are probbaly the one program that both "sides" will listen to.

(12-14-2010 08:34 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  Back in 2002, Mikey T tried to be proactive by suggesting to Miami that the league could add Louisville and South Florida to help address some of its issues. That was being proactive as well. But the Hurricanes said, "No", demonstrating that the league wasn't "in control" then with its most valuable football member.

That wasn't the only proposal Miami shot down either. It was just the last one they were offered. But Miami was always using The BEast for their own purposes - and we let 'em...

(12-13-2010 10:41 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Missouri, Kansas, and Kansas State bring 2 states full of viewers, including the St. Louis and Kansas City markets. It would also give The BEast a viewing audience from New England through the heart of the nation, and in Texas (with fans/enemies of Mizzou, KU, and KSU from Big XII days, living in TX, as well as TCU fans). That's reason enough IMO...

Iowa State we could do without. Although a presence in Iowa would be good for the conference. ISU is one of the sub .500 schools you are referring to. But since ISU already has rivalries with Mizzou, KU, and KSU, they make a logical choice for inclusion. Giving all 4 schools a guaranteed home in the event of a collapse of the Big XII is a small price to pay for such exposure in the heart of the nation. St. Louis and Kansas City alone are worth that...

If we can get the others without ISU, even better. But I kind of doubt that will turn out to be the case...

I know what you mean about the board, dude. GTS must have been having database fits again...

I believe that adcorbett made the prescient point, though, that both of the Big Ten and Pac-10 didn't consider the Kansas and Missouri markets were valuable enough to add their conferences and the Texas crowd certainly didn't care about giving them up. That's not to say that they wouldn't add value to the Big East today (I believe that they would), but it's unreasonable to believe that these markets would somehow vault the BE to be on par financially with the rest of the BCS conferences with a Big East Network when other conferences thought that they would actually subtract per school dollars. Those Big 12 North schools add some value, but not as much as a lot of people here seem to have deluded themselves into believing. The most valuable brand of those schools is Kansas basketball. For football, though, TCU was a better addition from a national perspective than any of those 4 schools (and I'm not just talking about recent success - look at the long-term). They're better than the C-USA usual suspects, but we're not talking about adding Texas or Notre Dame here. They certainly aren't worth holding up the future long-term plans of the conference (especially since I continue to maintain that the Big 12 is MUCH safer than people give it credit for).

Missouri, Kansas State, and Iowa State have never been Legendary or Leaders either. Kansas has been a legend, but the Big Tin prefers teams with huge fanbases, or/and enormous markets - preferably both. Kansas doesn't cut the mustard there...

IMO they agreed upon Nebraska because of their loyal following. Their market ain't worth it. But Nebraska has sold out every home game since November 3, 1962, which is something no other college team anywhere can say...

(12-14-2010 02:14 AM)vabearcat Wrote:  TyBull, you should invest in a good map, because your understanding of geography is at a very low ebb.

And When did geography become important? USF is in a "Northeastern" Conference.......

(12-14-2010 02:14 AM)vabearcat Wrote:  TyBull, you should invest in a good map, because your understanding of geography is at a very low ebb.

Well he is from Tampa, err South Florida.

(12-14-2010 12:32 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Missouri, Kansas State, and Iowa State have never been Legendary or Leaders either. Kansas has been a legend, but the Big Tin prefers teams with huge fanbases, or/and enormous markets - preferably both. Kansas doesn't cut the mustard there...

IMO they agreed upon Nebraska because of their loyal following. Their market ain't worth it. But Nebraska has sold out every home game since November 3, 1962, which is something no other college team anywhere can say...

I agree with you that the Big Ten ended up considering Nebraska's huge fan base as extremely important. It was also a big indicator that for all of the talk about cable households, market sizes and the Big Ten Network, the driving financial factor was STILL the national TV contract with ABC/ESPN (or whoever else is going to bid on it in the next couple of years). Texas was really the most valuable possibility of them all (as they would bring both a massive number of regional cable households along with a ton of national TV value). After them, everyone considered ND to be the most obvious choice, which was true, but the reality is that their value was much along the same lines as Nebraska's as a national TV play instead of a regional market play. Nebraska isn't on the level of ND nationally as a TV draw, but they're definitely on the tier right below them and the Huskers came into it with the equal partnership mentality that the Big Ten cares about instead of the needing special treatment that Texas and ND would always demand. IMHO, adding Nebraska was an incredible move (and judging by the amount the Big Ten is getting just for the conference championship game, it definitely made financial sense).

The new Big Ten division names and logos, though...

(12-14-2010 11:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not to say that they wouldn't add value to the Big East today (I believe that they would), but it's unreasonable to believe that these markets would somehow vault the BE to be on par financially with the rest of the BCS conferences with a Big East Network when other conferences thought that they would actually subtract per school dollars. Those Big 12 North schools add some value, but not as much as a lot of people here seem to have deluded themselves into believing... They certainly aren't worth holding up the future long-term plans of the conference

Frank said in a much better way, what I was trying to get across.

(12-14-2010 01:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-14-2010 11:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not to say that they wouldn't add value to the Big East today (I believe that they would), but it's unreasonable to believe that these markets would somehow vault the BE to be on par financially with the rest of the BCS conferences with a Big East Network when other conferences thought that they would actually subtract per school dollars. Those Big 12 North schools add some value, but not as much as a lot of people here seem to have deluded themselves into believing... They certainly aren't worth holding up the future long-term plans of the conference

Frank said in a much better way, what I was trying to get across.

Don’t be too quick to agree, I posted already the different between BE all-sport member and the current B12 member is less than $2 million. Let wait and see the next TV contract for B12 and BE.

Quote:Didn't say anything about the league not being proactive. I was challenging your contention that somehow the Big East was in control of the situation. We saw how "in control" (driver's seat, catbird seat) it was with TCU when it was unable to get them to budge on a football only invite.

They got TCU, which was being proactive. But they were hardly "in control" and that was with a team from a non-AQ conference, not an AQ conference that is above the Big East. Back in 2002, Mikey T tried to be proactive by suggesting to Miami that the league could add Louisville and South Florida to help address some of its issues. That was being proactive as well. But the Hurricanes said, "No", demonstrating that the league wasn't "in control" then with its most valuable football member.

Again, I've been following this league for a long time, much longer than many who post on this board. I think some here believe that somehow WVU, UL, and UC are masterminding this current expansion plan behind the scenes. But a careful examination of who is actually being mentioned as candidates by Big East sources and who was already invited demonstrates to me that ND's handprint is all over this plan.

Again, take it or leave it.

Cheers,
Neil

I absolutely think ND's handprints would be on it from the Big East standpoint in terms of getting the non-football schools to stay on board and I think A&M and Texas's have theirs on it in coaxing Kansas to leave allowing the Texas schools to split and go where they want to go. I never said anything about UL, WVU, or UC other than that they'd be valuable when competing against the Jayhawks in a new TV deal.

(12-14-2010 10:13 PM)3rdandBlunder Wrote:  

Quote:Didn't say anything about the league not being proactive. I was challenging your contention that somehow the Big East was in control of the situation. We saw how "in control" (driver's seat, catbird seat) it was with TCU when it was unable to get them to budge on a football only invite.

They got TCU, which was being proactive. But they were hardly "in control" and that was with a team from a non-AQ conference, not an AQ conference that is above the Big East. Back in 2002, Mikey T tried to be proactive by suggesting to Miami that the league could add Louisville and South Florida to help address some of its issues. That was being proactive as well. But the Hurricanes said, "No", demonstrating that the league wasn't "in control" then with its most valuable football member.

Again, I've been following this league for a long time, much longer than many who post on this board. I think some here believe that somehow WVU, UL, and UC are masterminding this current expansion plan behind the scenes. But a careful examination of who is actually being mentioned as candidates by Big East sources and who was already invited demonstrates to me that ND's handprint is all over this plan.

Again, take it or leave it.

Cheers,
Neil

I absolutely think ND's handprints would be on it from the Big East standpoint in terms of getting the non-football schools to stay on board and I think A&M and Texas's have theirs on it in coaxing Kansas to leave allowing the Texas schools to split and go where they want to go. I never said anything about UL, WVU, or UC other than that they'd be valuable when competing against the Jayhawks in a new TV deal.

If you realize ND's handprints are all over this, why would you think they would take any part in trying to pry loose Kansas from the Big 12? They have little interest in the states of Kansas and Missouri. Their interests lie greatly in the northeastern states (where they already get exposure through the Big East), midwestern states of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan (where they get plenty of exposure through their indy football), California (again through football), Texas and Florida. The latter two is where they would like more consistent exposure.

I really do not believe it's an accident that the "leading" candidates have been TCU, Nova, UCF, and UH.

It's also in the Irish's best interests to keep the Big 12 afloat since that keeps the Big East relatively stable as well.

If the Irish have any designs on the St. Louis market (which I doubt, but if they did), I would think in a 12/20 set-up they would want Nova to upgrade and then fill the 20th slot with St. Louis for basketball.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-14-2010 07:45 PM)SO#1 Wrote:  

(12-14-2010 01:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-14-2010 11:59 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That's not to say that they wouldn't add value to the Big East today (I believe that they would), but it's unreasonable to believe that these markets would somehow vault the BE to be on par financially with the rest of the BCS conferences with a Big East Network when other conferences thought that they would actually subtract per school dollars. Those Big 12 North schools add some value, but not as much as a lot of people here seem to have deluded themselves into believing... They certainly aren't worth holding up the future long-term plans of the conference

Frank said in a much better way, what I was trying to get across.

Don’t be too quick to agree, I posted already the different between BE all-sport member and the current B12 member is less than $2 million. Let wait and see the next TV contract for B12 and BE.

You totally missed the point of what I said and what Frank said.

(12-15-2010 08:10 AM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(12-14-2010 10:13 PM)3rdandBlunder Wrote:  

Quote:Didn't say anything about the league not being proactive. I was challenging your contention that somehow the Big East was in control of the situation. We saw how "in control" (driver's seat, catbird seat) it was with TCU when it was unable to get them to budge on a football only invite.

They got TCU, which was being proactive. But they were hardly "in control" and that was with a team from a non-AQ conference, not an AQ conference that is above the Big East. Back in 2002, Mikey T tried to be proactive by suggesting to Miami that the league could add Louisville and South Florida to help address some of its issues. That was being proactive as well. But the Hurricanes said, "No", demonstrating that the league wasn't "in control" then with its most valuable football member.

Again, I've been following this league for a long time, much longer than many who post on this board. I think some here believe that somehow WVU, UL, and UC are masterminding this current expansion plan behind the scenes. But a careful examination of who is actually being mentioned as candidates by Big East sources and who was already invited demonstrates to me that ND's handprint is all over this plan.

Again, take it or leave it.

Cheers,
Neil

I absolutely think ND's handprints would be on it from the Big East standpoint in terms of getting the non-football schools to stay on board and I think A&M and Texas's have theirs on it in coaxing Kansas to leave allowing the Texas schools to split and go where they want to go. I never said anything about UL, WVU, or UC other than that they'd be valuable when competing against the Jayhawks in a new TV deal.

If you realize ND's handprints are all over this, why would you think they would take any part in trying to pry loose Kansas from the Big 12? They have little interest in the states of Kansas and Missouri. Their interests lie greatly in the northeastern states (where they already get exposure through the Big East), midwestern states of Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan (where they get plenty of exposure through their indy football), California (again through football), Texas and Florida. The latter two is where they would like more consistent exposure.

I really do not believe it's an accident that the "leading" candidates have been TCU, Nova, UCF, and UH.

It's also in the Irish's best interests to keep the Big 12 afloat since that keeps the Big East relatively stable as well.

If the Irish have any designs on the St. Louis market (which I doubt, but if they did), I would think in a 12/20 set-up they would want Nova to upgrade and then fill the 20th slot with St. Louis for basketball.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, anyone that thinks that ND wants the Big 12 to fall apart didn't pay attention to anything that happened last summer. The Big 12 breaking apart and the formation of superconferences was the BIGGEST threat to ND's independence. ND will forego a whole lot of things for independence (including more absolute dollars), but the one thing they couldn't do was be foreclosed from ever winning a national championship (which was a legitimate threat for the first time if 4 16-school superconferences were formed and they staged a playoff). The status quo of 12-school conferences being the max is EXACTLY what they want and they definitely do NOT want Texas going ANYWHERE.

I know the last line was partially in jest, but ND would seriously rather have SLU a thousand times over compared to the "Little 4" Big 12 schools. Neil is exactly correct - to the extent that ND cares about markets outside of the East Coast, Great Lakes and California, they want to get more exposure in Texas and Florida. The area that they care the LEAST about is the Great Plains/Lower Midwest region that the Little 4 are based in.

Every reason based on the premise that the death of the B12-2 lead to the formation of the super-conferences. Because if the Pac-10/12 takes four more members, the SEC has to take four members from somewhere and because the SEC going to 16 well the Big Ten has to take four also and because the Big Ten going to 16 the ACC has to go to 16 too. All of these conferences have to do it if they want to stay competitive. If they don’t do it they will wither and die at just 12 teams. You have to have 16 or else... Is this the correct understand?

*sighs* Clearly you guys aren't listening to what I've been saying...

Let me try to explain this to you guys: If we steal the Big XII North schools, that solidifies our conference by adding good football and outstanding basketball...both of which add value to the Big East in terms of TV deals as well as a BEN (which we've now added new markets for by the addition of those schools). Both of those TV factors will help cut the earning deficits between our conference and other conferences, making a defection of our teams to other conferences far less likely than it is now.

This also benefits the PAC who really only wanted Oklahoma and Texas, who are now freed from their legislators in their respective states to make the move because, well, their schools weren't the ones that created the Big XII implosion.

SEC takes Oklahoma State and A&M. SEC gets who THEY want without further unnecessary expansion.

The ACC is going to get lucky to walk out unscathed. Considering they still haven't reached what they set out to achieve with the last round of expansion, they're going to be content to just sit tight.

Big-10+2 is going to WANT Notre Dame...but Notre Dame won't come. They want to remain independent in football, and if they help broker a deal to keep the basketball only schools (and their TV markets) as well as continue to boost the value of our basketball TV deal and add content to a Big East Network...we'd be content to let them stay as they are in the Big East. Quite frankly, nobody else adds anything of any REAL substance to the Big10+2 to say nothing of the fact that as it is there are Big10 presidents that weren't happy with their LAST expansion adding Nebraska to the fold. Big10 stays at 12.

If we go ahead and throw in UCF or add Nova in football, you'd see the Pac-14, SEC at 14, us in a much more stable situation at 14 and the Big10 and ACC stay pat at 12.

You guys can't seem to think past last summer. Even last summer didn't look to blow up the Big East despite what talking head was saying Rutgers and Syracuse might go to the Big10 (and I think if we all used our thinking caps, you'd realize how ridiculous that really sounds). All this talk of our commissioner and flowers is cute, but fails to highlight the main difference: Last summer he was forced into being reactionary, if he causes the mess everyone else will be...and frankly, if you DO want to use last summer as an example of anything it should be to show that nobody's going to expand just for the sake of reaching a magic number. The Pac and Big10 did so to get a championship game which they project will add value. They have that now. For the Pac, the addition of Texas and Oklahoma would add tremendous value. For the Big10...unless you're Notre Dame, nobody on the board really adds anything of any real substance. They already have their championship game, so they're content.

So in short what happens is this: We stabilize our football conference, add a huge boost to the value of our already awesome basketball brand (which = money), close the revenue differences, and eliminate the need for other conferences to expand. Champagne falls from the heavens, we all breath a sigh of relief, and this message board shuts down...Everyone wins but the message board.

12 is the magic number. That's where conferences go.

(12-17-2010 07:09 AM)3rdandBlunder Wrote:  *sighs* Clearly you guys aren't listening to what I've been saying...

Let me try to explain this to you guys: If we steal the Big XII North schools, that solidifies our conference by adding good football and outstanding basketball...both of which add value to the Big East in terms of TV deals as well as a BEN (which we've now added new markets for by the addition of those schools). Both of those TV factors will help cut the earning deficits between our conference and other conferences, making a defection of our teams to other conferences far less likely than it is now.

And clearly you are not listening to what I(and Frank) have been saying. This first part of youru premise is the faulty logic. That is the first mistake. Adding those BXII teams does not any marquee football; it adds teams similar to what are already in the Big East. It does not add large markets, at least not enough to be a net profit after "paying" for their slices of the pie. Add that together, and it is not worth the collateral damage it would cause. Them being available on their own is another matter. But your 1) Add the Big XII North, 2) ????, 3) big Profit theory makes no sense. These are schools that the Big Ten, Pac 10, and SEC did not want; how exactly are they going to close a revenue gap on a per team basis?

Then, your second mistake is the notion below that the distruction of the BXII will not lead to super conferences. Without retrading things that were already said, the one new thing you boruhg tup that was/may be faulty logic as well, is the SEC ordeal. They wanted A&M. They did not want Okie State, but would have taken them if needed. So if the SEC only adds A&M, OU is forced ot take OSU with them to the Pac, now 16, and that would likely trigger expansions by other conferences. And if the SEC chose another school instead of OSU, that likely hurts the BE or ACC, which either way will probably hurt the BE, and this doesn;t even count if the B10 gets involved.

I'm sorry, it's not adding marquee football but it's certainly adding already AQ schools which is better than continuing to add non-AQ schools. No they're not massive markets, but they're new markets all the same which still = more TVs on which to put the BEN. And in any event, you've failed to see what I've saying yet again. The money would be made up by the basketball, which is what we'd have to sell. How much do you think ESPN or any other network would be willing to pony up to watch Kansas, Pitt, Cuse, Louisville, Mizzou, Georgetown, and Nova beat up on each other throughout the season? Those are some pretty high end basketball teams, and while football is driving the bus...basketball's money is nothing to sneeze at by a d@mn sight.

Notre Dame, who has national recognition, involvement comes from putting content on the BEN which could open up markets. If not, they may be willing to keep the basketball only schools in the league to keep those markets open. In return, Notre Dame keeps their sweetheart Big East deal and stays independent in football. That staves off further expansion from other conferences because with Notre Dame and Texas (who I've put in the PAC under this deal), the major players are off the market. Big10+2's only interested in taking those two, in all seriousness. With both off of the market, they're NOT going to expand. Period. SEC gets A&M, and I'm willing to bet they won't be crying in their beers to get "stuck" with Okie State by any means.

My plan is not 1) Big XII schools 2) ??? 3) Profit. My plan is 1) Big XII schools 2) Pimp the hell out of the incredible basketball and take what you can get for football, start the BEN, and keep Notre Dame in our corner to stave off further expansion 3) Profit.

If the Big East takes the BigXII schools, there will NOT be collateral damage and I'd be willing to bet on it. However, if by some off chance there IS...we'd still only lose one or two schools TOPS. At which point, the usual suspects are still on the board to reload with and either your school's off to another conference or is still in better shape than we're in right now. Quite honestly, I don't care who Frank the Tank or anyone else is...none of 'em are looking at the big picture. They're still stuck in the events of last summer and looking at "evidence" that just isn't and wasn't there to begin with.