(03-04-2013 08:37 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  This is what I have been saying all along. While everyone has been singing Jim Delany's praises for being an evil puppet master and a genius, most have missed the fact that he and the B1G have made several, uh, curious (or at the very least, inconsistent) decisions along the way.

If choosing Maryland and Rutgers for their television potential was sheer genius because of the value they are going to add to the BTN, then choosing Nebraska over Missouri a few years earlier was very likely a mistake for those very same reasons.

Getting valuable TV markets will always be huge to the B1G but there is a very small collections of elite football programs from small TV footprints that will draw viewers in any geography (Nebraska, Oklahoma to name 2).

Mizzou has, in its footprint, some valuable TV markets but most college football fans, even in that footprint, are more likely to watch Nebraska or OU than Missouri.

Oh, I'm sure that was the B1G's logic. I'm just now sure that it is indicative of a sound overall strategy. It just seems like some good old fashioned needle threading to me.

My point is that Atlanta is also a Top 10 television market (No. 8) and Florida State would have (theoretically at least) given the B1G access to Jacksonville (No. 47), Orlando (No. 19), Tampa-St. Pete (No. 13), West Palm Beach (No. 38) and Miami (No. 16).

Those areas are MUCH more passionate about college football than either Washington, DC or New York City will ever be and Florida State would appear to fit that same profile of "traditional powers" under which you listed Oklahoma and Nebraska.

Passing on FSU and GT for RU and UMD was a mistake, IMHO and if the ACC survives as a major conference, I believe that historians will point to that bone-headed decision as the one that allowed that to happen.

Rutgers and Maryland would have still been there in the next go round whereas Georgia Tech and Florida State may not be. For the past several decades the former two properties have been considerably less valuable than the latter two under any financial model one chooses cite and I can't envision very many scenarios in which that is likely to dramatically change going forward. Conversely, if the current cable paradigm changes, where companies can no longer bundle programming, as so many experts are predicting it will, then that gap will almost certainly widen and likely considerably so.

To me the whole thing was dumb and poorly planed... That is unless, as I suspect, the RU and UMD acquisitions were really about trying to lure Notre Dame - the biggest fish in the sea and Delany's white whale. The thinking being that ND needs to play in front of its Subway Alums in the Northeast and games in East Rutherford, NJ and Landover, MD would help them do just that. If that was the case then it does begin to make some sense. However, even if that is the case, I still think that Delany and company are going to end up with a pocket full of straw.

(03-04-2013 01:41 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Okay let's play with your assumptions. North Carolina and Virginia will be a battle ground and likely the only one that the SEC and Big 10 could go to blows over. In Virginia the SEC would probably be content with Tech as they deliver as much of the state market as Virginia, and maybe more.

there's no doubt about it. when talking about sports, VT would deliver a LOT more of the state than UVA.

Missouri to the Big Ten doesn't make sense for the Big 10 at this point. They're looking for more money for their Big 10 Network and they already have market penetration in both St. Louis and Kansas City to a degree.

Missouri is the only SEC school that would think about leaving, and the Big 10 is the only place that would make sense for them, but I dont see it happening. The new SEC Network will make plenty of money as well.

I dont see them leaving the SEC.

B1G should have taken Missouri. They didn't. Missouri should stick where they are.

(03-04-2013 10:37 AM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  Missouri to the Big Ten doesn't make sense for the Big 10 at this point. They're looking for more money for their Big 10 Network and they already have market penetration in both St. Louis and Kansas City to a degree.

Missouri is the only SEC school that would think about leaving, and the Big 10 is the only place that would make sense for them, but I dont see it happening. The new SEC Network will make plenty of money as well.

I dont see them leaving the SEC.

What Big 10 market penetration in St. Louis? Do you mean Illinois? In the 19 years I've live in St. Louis, I have seen exactly one person wearing Illinois paraphernalia. One.

Media coverage of Illinois football is nonexistent, but basketball gets some coverage. SIU Carbondale get more coverage.

(03-03-2013 11:50 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  No exit fees, no grant of rights, no little brother "State U" to worry about and, as a bonus, likely no SEC temper tantrum if Mizzou leaves.

Looks relatively quick and simple.

But a 13-team SEC? Suddenly the ACC's foundation looks even shakier. A replacement has to come from somewhere. Now Mike Slive is the bad guy for raiding the ACC (and all the while Jim Delany is smiling).

The Big Ten has Maryland in the boat; no way, with the ACC ready to crumble, does Virginia not join the Terps.

That leaves UNC and Duke.

Do the Heels and their tagalong buddies from Durham choose a league with Maryland, UVa and the AAU stamp of approval or a football-first conference likely to pick up Virginia Tech and perhaps one, two or all among N.C. State, FSU and Clemson?

I like Delany's chances here.

So ... Missouri, Virginia, North Carolina and Duke make 18.

Delany plucks Kansas to complement Missouri and give the Big Ten a basketball royalty Fab Four of UNC, Duke, IU and KU. That's 19 members.

The ACC is rapidly disintegrating and it's time for Captain Jim to reel in his white whale: Notre Dame.

I actually think the B1G taking Missouri is likely, but for different reasons. I think the UNC bond to the ACC is stronger than most think, and that the B1G isn't taking any more from the ACC without UNC. Accordingly, the B1G will look to shore-up its western front by adding Mizzou and Kansas.

This will put pressure of the Big 12 - the SEC will be looking for 1-3 members and if they could get Oklahoma, OK State and Texas wouldn't be far behind. IMO, breaking the Big 12 in this way is easier than breaking up the ACC.

I also think Delaney knows the ND to the B1G is never going to happen - especially if ND teams up with the C7 for non-football sports.

(03-04-2013 11:34 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:37 AM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  Missouri to the Big Ten doesn't make sense for the Big 10 at this point. They're looking for more money for their Big 10 Network and they already have market penetration in both St. Louis and Kansas City to a degree.

Missouri is the only SEC school that would think about leaving, and the Big 10 is the only place that would make sense for them, but I dont see it happening. The new SEC Network will make plenty of money as well.

I dont see them leaving the SEC.

What Big 10 market penetration in St. Louis? Do you mean Illinois? In the 19 years I've live in St. Louis, I have seen exactly one person wearing Illinois paraphernalia. One.

Media coverage of Illinois football is nonexistent, but basketball gets some coverage. SIU Carbondale get more coverage.

Saint Louis, Missouri. Not the suburbs in Illinois. Where there are sizable numbers of Illinois and Big 10 alumni. Maybe not the shirt wearing kind. But they're certainly a large enough presence from my view. And I'm not talking about local news.

Im talking about the Big Ten Network, which was on my cable when I lived in Saint Louis. The one owned by the Big Ten Conference and which generates an ever increasing share of their revenue. I see the additions of Rutgers and Maryland as driven by a desire to expand revenues from the BTN. Missouri already has enough interest by enough folks in various Big 10 sports that revenues for the BTN wouldnt increase much (if at all) above what the University of Missouri would take as its share of revenue from being a part of the Big 10. Just my opinion.

(03-04-2013 07:47 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:56 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:48 AM)Fireman451 Wrote:  As a B1G Ten fan, adding UVA, UNC, Mizzou and Kansas would be my preference.

The conference doesn't need Notre Dame at that point. Contiguous conference, all the top public research universities from each of the representative states, huge fan support, great bball, no threats on the grid iron to the established programs and excellent academics.

Sign me up!

I thought you were a Houston fan as well. I have no problem with Kansas leaving. Hopefully that blows this GOR joke out of the water and the Texoma 4 head west. That would allow a safe landing spot for SMU, Baylor, TCU and Houston in a rebuilt Big 12.

A League with Baylor, Iowa St, K-State and others should get more money than the nBE.

A Texas Tech guy wanting the GOR blown to bits is high comedy. Slick, if the Big 12's GOR goes away, Texas is going to the Big 10 and Tech is going to, at best, the Mountain West. The Pac 12 will invite Tech without Texas the day Hitler and Usama Bin Laden rise form the dead, apologize for their mistakes, and then get married in Vermont.

You think Larry Scott will stand pat and watch the whorns go to the Big 10 without contacting the 3rd largest supported University in Texas?

Good luck with that, slick.

The PAC, Big 10 and SEC are going to give preference to the following:

In terms of prospects:

Is it a new market?

Does it add enough viewers to more than pay for itself?

Is it contiguous?

Can we bring enough new schools in that area to make them regionally viable?

Then a new set of priorities are applied:

Are they a land grant institution?

Are they a state funded institution?

Are they AAU (meaning do they have strong grant funding)?


If you'll note, outside of Notre Dame and perhaps Duke and/or Miami there aren't many expansion targets that are Private schools, and of those that are the next priority is AAU membership, and the only saving grace beyond that is total following. That's why Notre Dame is a no brainer even for the Big 10. Duke has national top 10 academics and AAU status. Miami is in Florida has a great history, and could be AAU in the near future.

Outside of those it will be tough for Boston College without Notre Dame's coattails, tough on Syracuse but doable due to their market and generally good regional athletic programs with stellar basketball, tough on Pitt except for markets and AAU status, tough on Wake, Baylor, T.C.U., Tulane, Tulsa etc.

I don't think Texas Tech will have a problem getting into the PAC if they needed to do so. The only obstacle I would see for them would be a viable travelling companion to keep even numbers. Depending on what could happen in that scenario Kansas State, Iowa State, or either of the Oklahoma schools could accompany them. Of course the PAC would want the Longhorns, but they need new markets for television as well and Texas is a danged big one of which Tech could gain them a piece.

I expect to see state funded land grant schools to be the first from any conference to be taken by the PAC, SEC, or Big 10. All would prefer AAU, but at least the PAC and SEC aren't bound by it as much as the Big 10.

(03-04-2013 10:38 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  B1G should have taken Missouri. They didn't. Missouri should stick where they are.

Missouri is a really good school in a great college town. They were the 2nd most populous Big 12 state so them leaving was a huge blow, much more so than A&M. Still, make an honest evaluation of Mizzou's sports history. No national titles in football or basketball. No BCS wins in football. No final 4s in basketball. The B1G did the right think by taking an historic power like Nebraska with their national appeal.

(03-04-2013 12:31 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:47 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:56 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:48 AM)Fireman451 Wrote:  As a B1G Ten fan, adding UVA, UNC, Mizzou and Kansas would be my preference.

The conference doesn't need Notre Dame at that point. Contiguous conference, all the top public research universities from each of the representative states, huge fan support, great bball, no threats on the grid iron to the established programs and excellent academics.

Sign me up!

I thought you were a Houston fan as well. I have no problem with Kansas leaving. Hopefully that blows this GOR joke out of the water and the Texoma 4 head west. That would allow a safe landing spot for SMU, Baylor, TCU and Houston in a rebuilt Big 12.

A League with Baylor, Iowa St, K-State and others should get more money than the nBE.

A Texas Tech guy wanting the GOR blown to bits is high comedy. Slick, if the Big 12's GOR goes away, Texas is going to the Big 10 and Tech is going to, at best, the Mountain West. The Pac 12 will invite Tech without Texas the day Hitler and Usama Bin Laden rise form the dead, apologize for their mistakes, and then get married in Vermont.

You think Larry Scott will stand pat and watch the whorns go to the Big 10 without contacting the 3rd largest supported University in Texas?

Good luck with that, slick.

The day Larry Scott offers Texas Tech without having Texas on the hook is the day Stanford, Cal & USC fire his ****ing ***.

(03-04-2013 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Of course the PAC would want the Longhorns

Expanding into the central time zone without getting the Horns would violate your rule, "Does it add enough viewers to more than pay for itself?" That's a high bar to jump over just because the Pac (and B1G and SEC) make so much money already that a new addition has to be extremely valuable in order to cross the break-even point.

Add to that the fact that, out of the Big 12 schools, only UT and KU (and ISU, but they're not on the table) have the academic cred to make Pac-12 CEOs happy.

The Pac already had the opportunity to add Oklahoma (who would deliver more TV viewers in Texas than any team other than the Horns or Ags) and Oklahoma State without UT, and the Pac-12 CEOs said no. If they're not going to add OU without UT, then they're sure as hell not going to add anyone with less value than OU (unless it's someone who is tagging along with UT).

(03-04-2013 12:53 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:31 PM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:47 AM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:56 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:48 AM)Fireman451 Wrote:  As a B1G Ten fan, adding UVA, UNC, Mizzou and Kansas would be my preference.

The conference doesn't need Notre Dame at that point. Contiguous conference, all the top public research universities from each of the representative states, huge fan support, great bball, no threats on the grid iron to the established programs and excellent academics.

Sign me up!

I thought you were a Houston fan as well. I have no problem with Kansas leaving. Hopefully that blows this GOR joke out of the water and the Texoma 4 head west. That would allow a safe landing spot for SMU, Baylor, TCU and Houston in a rebuilt Big 12.

A League with Baylor, Iowa St, K-State and others should get more money than the nBE.

A Texas Tech guy wanting the GOR blown to bits is high comedy. Slick, if the Big 12's GOR goes away, Texas is going to the Big 10 and Tech is going to, at best, the Mountain West. The Pac 12 will invite Tech without Texas the day Hitler and Usama Bin Laden rise form the dead, apologize for their mistakes, and then get married in Vermont.

You think Larry Scott will stand pat and watch the whorns go to the Big 10 without contacting the 3rd largest supported University in Texas?

Good luck with that, slick.

The day Larry Scott offers Texas Tech without having Texas on the hook is the day Stanford, Cal & USC fire his ****ing ***.

If Texas goes to the Big 10, you think Larry Scott and the PAC presidents sit on the sidelines? Larry wants the Texas TV market and without UT, where do they go?

I understand UT is the crown jewel in expansion but having part of the state is better than not having any of it.

(03-04-2013 12:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Of course the PAC would want the Longhorns

Expanding into the central time zone without getting the Horns would violate your rule, "Does it add enough viewers to more than pay for itself?" That's a high bar to jump over just because the Pac (and B1G and SEC) make so much money already that a new addition has to be extremely valuable in order to cross the break-even point.

Add to that the fact that, out of the Big 12 schools, only UT and KU (and ISU, but they're not on the table) have the academic cred to make Pac-12 CEOs happy.

The Pac already had the opportunity to add Oklahoma (who would deliver more TV viewers in Texas than any team other than the Horns or Ags) and Oklahoma State without UT, and the Pac-12 CEOs said no. If they're not going to add OU without UT, then they're sure as hell not going to add anyone with less value than OU (unless it's someone who is tagging along with UT).

Do you have the feasibility study information? I think it would be very informative for the speculation on this board if it was posted. I myself would love to see it. I know your answer ahead of time, but you are saying that Texas Tech bringing a piece of a very large state (26 million potential viewers) would not be worth adding to the PAC because the projection of the earnings they would bring are not enough to cover their entry? And what is your analysis of the value, or lack thereof, of a more concrete recruiting foothold in Texas?

Delany should add texas, Southern Cal, UNC, FLorida State. Go B1G and f tradition!!!

I could see the pac 10 add texas tech and houston. Heck, maybe they would add texas tech, smu or tcu, houston and school x to get to 16. Yet, for it to happen, texas and oklahoma would have to join either the big 10 or sec + the acc would need to be viable. Basically, the big 12 goes KO and the sec, big 10 and acc all go to 16+. Thus, the pac might want to keep up and the best targets all the big 12 leftovers in texas to get to at least get to 16.

(03-04-2013 01:37 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac 10 add texas tech and houston. Heck, maybe they would add texas tech, smu or tcu, houston and school x to get to 16.

I think its time for a 12 step program.

(03-04-2013 01:37 PM)bluesox Wrote:  I could see the pac 10 add texas tech and houston. Heck, maybe they would add texas tech, smu or tcu, houston and school x to get to 16. Yet, for it to happen, texas and oklahoma would have to join either the big 10 or sec + the acc would need to be viable. Basically, the big 12 goes KO and the sec, big 10 and acc all go to 16+. Thus, the pac might want to keep up and the best targets all the big 12 leftovers in texas to get to at least get to 16.

Oh God. I have got to get you caught up on this whole realignment thing. Many many years ago in 2010 The Big 10 added Nebraska....then in June of 2010 the Pac 10 invited Utah and Colorado to become the PAC 12...and then....

oh **** it.

Just call em the PAC 10.

(03-04-2013 01:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:57 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:47 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Of course the PAC would want the Longhorns

Expanding into the central time zone without getting the Horns would violate your rule, "Does it add enough viewers to more than pay for itself?" That's a high bar to jump over just because the Pac (and B1G and SEC) make so much money already that a new addition has to be extremely valuable in order to cross the break-even point.

Add to that the fact that, out of the Big 12 schools, only UT and KU (and ISU, but they're not on the table) have the academic cred to make Pac-12 CEOs happy.

The Pac already had the opportunity to add Oklahoma (who would deliver more TV viewers in Texas than any team other than the Horns or Ags) and Oklahoma State without UT, and the Pac-12 CEOs said no. If they're not going to add OU without UT, then they're sure as hell not going to add anyone with less value than OU (unless it's someone who is tagging along with UT).

Do you have the feasibility study information? I think it would be very informative for the speculation on this board if it was posted. I myself would love to see it. I know your answer ahead of time, but you are saying that Texas Tech bringing a piece of a very large state (26 million potential viewers) would not be worth adding to the PAC because the projection of the earnings they would bring are not enough to cover their entry? And what is your analysis of the value, or lack thereof, of a more concrete recruiting foothold in Texas?

It's not my analysis, it's theirs. And (I know this will come as a great surprise), the Pac-12 office has not yet begun e-mailing all of their internal analyses to me.

Seriously, though, my analysis (FWIW) is what I said above: It's based on the known fact, that OU wanted in and the Pac told OU, "No, unless UT is coming with you." OU is worth a lot more than TTU, both nationally and in Texas. There is no reason to believe the Pac CEOs would offer a different answer for any other non-Longhorn Big 12 school.

UT definitely adds a lot more than $30 million/year in value. OU might add that much (there are some who say the Pac should have said yes to them even w/o UT). KU might come close (IMO, though others might not agree) because of the huge value that KU hoops would have on PTN or anyone's conference network. Anyone else gets in (to the Pac, or SEC, or B1G) only if they can tag along with one of the big-value programs. To get an invite to a top league today as a "second banana" program that isn't tagging along with Big Brother, you have to be a large-state team that has a proven track record (giant fan base, revenue, success) like TAMU. TTU is not and never will be TAMU.

i think they should add kansas, virginia, unc and oklahoma