Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
8BitPirate Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 185
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #1
Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
Something to cut away schools with consistently low performing in football and basketball?
10-30-2017 06:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

mikeinsec127 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,365
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(10-30-2017 06:12 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Something to cut away schools with consistently low performing in football and basketball?

No it doesn't if it did Northwestern would have been kicked out long ago.
10-30-2017 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikeinsec127 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,365
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(10-30-2017 06:12 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Something to cut away schools with consistently low performing in football and basketball?

Oh, this is about you and Rutgersguy having a pissing contest on the old Big East conference page. Now I get it, you came here to troll. Yeah, there aren't that many Big Ten members on this site. Most have no interest in any school but their own. So they stay on their schools' individual fan sites.

As for Temple, they weren't kicked out of the Big East for low performance, lack of fan interest and no administrative support. Temple, who had all of the above, thought it was catching the conference at a weak moment. It forced the issue, believing it could get full membership on the cheap. It demanded an all or nothing vote on its membership. At the time the BE was reeling from the first ACC raid. The conference was desperate to re-establish itself. Temple thought it had the upper hand. Unfortunately, there was still the Villanova issue. Villanova lead the charge to block Temples full membership. Since it was an all or nothing vote as demanded by the Temple administration, Temple got the "Nothing" vote and was shown the exit door. Had Temple just remained quiet and stayed as a football only member, it may have eventually gained full membership into the BE 2.0.
10-30-2017 07:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
8BitPirate Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 185
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #4
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
Just asking a legit question. ACC is probably having some buyers remorse right now. Didn'y know if the B1G was having the same.
10-30-2017 08:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
panite Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,105
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 100
I Root For: Owls-SC-RU-Navy
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(10-30-2017 08:59 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Just asking a legit question. ACC is probably having some buyers remorse right now. Didn'y know if the B1G was having the same.

If you are alluding to buyers remorse for the current L'Ville situation why would they have buyers remorse. The L'Ville situation fits right in there with the Miami and NC cheating scandals. 05-stirthepot 03-nutkick 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana COGS 07-coffee3 04-cheers
10-31-2017 12:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

8BitPirate Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 185
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(10-31-2017 12:01 AM)panite Wrote:  
(10-30-2017 08:59 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Just asking a legit question. ACC is probably having some buyers remorse right now. Didn'y know if the B1G was having the same.

If you are alluding to buyers remorse for the current L'Ville situation why would they have buyers remorse. The L'Ville situation fits right in there with the Miami and NC cheating scandals. 05-stirthepot 03-nutkick 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana COGS 07-coffee3 04-cheers

True but the lack the "blue blood' pedigree that protects.

Anyway, I would have though that teams are added for perceived value. Not sure how much value the most recent additions have delivered to the B1G.

But at least Maryland brings the Maryland market, for whatever thats worth.

A swap of your two bottom feeders like Rutgers and Maryland for Texas and OK would seem to reap more of a reward.
10-31-2017 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,331
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 105
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #7
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(10-31-2017 09:06 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  
(10-31-2017 12:01 AM)panite Wrote:  
(10-30-2017 08:59 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Just asking a legit question. ACC is probably having some buyers remorse right now. Didn'y know if the B1G was having the same.

If you are alluding to buyers remorse for the current L'Ville situation why would they have buyers remorse. The L'Ville situation fits right in there with the Miami and NC cheating scandals. 05-stirthepot 03-nutkick 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana COGS 07-coffee3 04-cheers

True but the lack the "blue blood' pedigree that protects.

Anyway, I would have though that teams are added for perceived value. Not sure how much value the most recent additions have delivered to the B1G.

But at least Maryland brings the Maryland market, for whatever thats worth.

A swap of your two bottom feeders like Rutgers and Maryland for Texas and OK would seem to reap more of a reward.

Maybe they can swap Rutgers for ECU?!?! 04-cheers
10-31-2017 11:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJ2MDTerp Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 968
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Maryland
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
I don't have any issues with Rutgers and wouldn't mind adding UConn to the mix in a few years.
10-31-2017 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
8BitPirate Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 185
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(10-31-2017 11:44 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(10-31-2017 09:06 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  
(10-31-2017 12:01 AM)panite Wrote:  
(10-30-2017 08:59 PM)8BitPirate Wrote:  Just asking a legit question. ACC is probably having some buyers remorse right now. Didn'y know if the B1G was having the same.

If you are alluding to buyers remorse for the current L'Ville situation why would they have buyers remorse. The L'Ville situation fits right in there with the Miami and NC cheating scandals. 05-stirthepot 03-nutkick 04-jawdrop 02-13-banana COGS 07-coffee3 04-cheers

True but the lack the "blue blood' pedigree that protects.

Anyway, I would have though that teams are added for perceived value. Not sure how much value the most recent additions have delivered to the B1G.

But at least Maryland brings the Maryland market, for whatever thats worth.

A swap of your two bottom feeders like Rutgers and Maryland for Texas and OK would seem to reap more of a reward.

Maybe they can swap Rutgers for ECU?!?! 04-cheers

Now you're being silly but UT and OK would fit the B1G model and deliver huge markets/competitive play whereas you must admit, Rutgers has not done so and doesn't look to do so in the foreseeable future.
(This post was last modified: 10-31-2017 03:11 PM by 8BitPirate.)
10-31-2017 03:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

JHG722 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 12,068
Joined: May 2009
Reputation: 143
I Root For: Temple
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Post: #10
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
Temple clause is 4-0 against ECU since joining the AAC.
10-31-2017 06:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
8BitPirate Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 185
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(10-31-2017 06:33 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Temple clause is 4-0 against ECU since joining the AAC.

Understand you anger at having the action of getting kicked out of a conference because you suck so badly named after you but it's not really pertinent to the subject.

Now "Temple-ing" B1G new comers for low performance and inviting Big 12 teams ready to move seems logical. UT and OU would bring money and good football.
10-31-2017 07:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,029
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #12
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would not sit well with Penn State. Both are prime areas where they recruit students and athletes, in addition to where large alumni bases live. They aren't rivals but there is some history which is more to say about the rest of the conference.

Getting Oklahoma and Texas should be schools 15 and 16. Helping Nebraska return to prominence would be a boon for the Big Ten and adding two local schools would help them feel more at home.
10-31-2017 08:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 983
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #13
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(10-31-2017 08:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would not sit well with Penn State. Both are prime areas where they recruit students and athletes, in addition to where large alumni bases live. They aren't rivals but there is some history which is more to say about the rest of the conference.

Getting Oklahoma and Texas should be schools 15 and 16. Helping Nebraska return to prominence would be a boon for the Big Ten and adding two local schools would help them feel more at home.

Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would also cut the BTN out of NYC, NJ, MD and DC regular market carriage, so that's never going to happen in the near future...

Agree OU and UT being the ideal targets.
11-01-2017 12:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

8BitPirate Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 185
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(11-01-2017 12:02 AM)AntiG Wrote:  
(10-31-2017 08:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would not sit well with Penn State. Both are prime areas where they recruit students and athletes, in addition to where large alumni bases live. They aren't rivals but there is some history which is more to say about the rest of the conference.

Getting Oklahoma and Texas should be schools 15 and 16. Helping Nebraska return to prominence would be a boon for the Big Ten and adding two local schools would help them feel more at home.

Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would also cut the BTN out of NYC, NJ, MD and DC regular market carriage, so that's never going to happen in the near future...

Agree OU and UT being the ideal targets.

Would it? Here in NC we have the option for every Conference Network, even the PAC12, but only the AAC and ACC have teams here. I'd also argue that the traditional B1G teams have enough alumni in those areas to make having the BTN on your local carriers menu profitable.
11-01-2017 06:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
megadrone Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 972
Joined: Jul 2004
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NJ
Post: #15
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(11-01-2017 06:28 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 12:02 AM)AntiG Wrote:  
(10-31-2017 08:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would not sit well with Penn State. Both are prime areas where they recruit students and athletes, in addition to where large alumni bases live. They aren't rivals but there is some history which is more to say about the rest of the conference.

Getting Oklahoma and Texas should be schools 15 and 16. Helping Nebraska return to prominence would be a boon for the Big Ten and adding two local schools would help them feel more at home.

Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would also cut the BTN out of NYC, NJ, MD and DC regular market carriage, so that's never going to happen in the near future...

Agree OU and UT being the ideal targets.

Would it? Here in NC we have the option for every Conference Network, even the PAC12, but only the AAC and ACC have teams here. I'd also argue that the traditional B1G teams have enough alumni in those areas to make having the BTN on your local carriers menu profitable.

It's the carriage rates that the network charges the cable provider. Since there aren't any B10 schools in NC, the rate is different than what can be charged in NJ. The Big 10 network model is dependent on the carriage rates.

It's why Rutgers was a better target for the B10 than Pitt during the last round of realignment. While Pitt would have been a good addition to the B10 and an institutional fit, Pitt didn't deliver what PSU already did.
11-01-2017 10:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mikeinsec127 Online
1st String
*

Posts: 1,365
Joined: Jul 2009
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #16
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(11-01-2017 10:19 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 06:28 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 12:02 AM)AntiG Wrote:  
(10-31-2017 08:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would not sit well with Penn State. Both are prime areas where they recruit students and athletes, in addition to where large alumni bases live. They aren't rivals but there is some history which is more to say about the rest of the conference.

Getting Oklahoma and Texas should be schools 15 and 16. Helping Nebraska return to prominence would be a boon for the Big Ten and adding two local schools would help them feel more at home.

Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would also cut the BTN out of NYC, NJ, MD and DC regular market carriage, so that's never going to happen in the near future...

Agree OU and UT being the ideal targets.

Would it? Here in NC we have the option for every Conference Network, even the PAC12, but only the AAC and ACC have teams here. I'd also argue that the traditional B1G teams have enough alumni in those areas to make having the BTN on your local carriers menu profitable.

It's the carriage rates that the network charges the cable provider. Since there aren't any B10 schools in NC, the rate is different than what can be charged in NJ. The Big 10 network model is dependent on the carriage rates.

It's why Rutgers was a better target for the B10 than Pitt during the last round of realignment. While Pitt would have been a good addition to the B10 and an institutional fit, Pitt didn't deliver what PSU already did.

Yeah, the last round of expansion was about set-top boxes. In other words, it was about how much extra $ the BIG would make by being able to charge cable companies the higher carrying fee for its network. Oklahoma only has 3.9m people. By comparison Md is at 6m and NJ at 8.9. That is the long and short as to why we both were invited.
Now Ok has two problems that kept it from getting a BIG invite. First is that relatively small population base. Second is the OSU anchor around its neck. That combination made it unattractive. Besides, Ok needs to play in Tx, where a large block of its recruits come from and alumni live.
At first blush, Tx with 27.8m people and loads of history and tradition, seems to be a no-brainer. However, Tx refuses to give up its LHN. It also, has an 800lbs gorilla attitude that would not carry well in the BIG. Being in this conference means putting up with the snobbishness of TSUN and StPenn, but on a business level, all the schools have an equal vote. Tx would want to come in and be the Capo-de-tutti-Capi and that won't fly amongst the original membership.

Now in the next round of expansion, will be about ala carte tv viewership. I fully expect to see the BIG grab OK and UKan, which are both small state schools, but have large antional followings. But that will be a second option for both. First the BIG will go after UVa & UNC in an attempt to grab what it sees as the best combination on the board. Once that doesn't work out, it will wait for the **** to really fly. The ACC will panic and invite Tx with a ND membership deal that lets it keep all of its football revenue. Once Tx is off the board, the rest of the B12 schools will be scrambling to find a safe place. That may be enough to free Ok of OSU and UK of KSU and allow them to move.
11-01-2017 11:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
8BitPirate Online
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 185
I Root For: ECU
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(11-01-2017 11:04 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 10:19 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 06:28 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 12:02 AM)AntiG Wrote:  
(10-31-2017 08:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would not sit well with Penn State. Both are prime areas where they recruit students and athletes, in addition to where large alumni bases live. They aren't rivals but there is some history which is more to say about the rest of the conference.

Getting Oklahoma and Texas should be schools 15 and 16. Helping Nebraska return to prominence would be a boon for the Big Ten and adding two local schools would help them feel more at home.

Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would also cut the BTN out of NYC, NJ, MD and DC regular market carriage, so that's never going to happen in the near future...

Agree OU and UT being the ideal targets.

Would it? Here in NC we have the option for every Conference Network, even the PAC12, but only the AAC and ACC have teams here. I'd also argue that the traditional B1G teams have enough alumni in those areas to make having the BTN on your local carriers menu profitable.

It's the carriage rates that the network charges the cable provider. Since there aren't any B10 schools in NC, the rate is different than what can be charged in NJ. The Big 10 network model is dependent on the carriage rates.

It's why Rutgers was a better target for the B10 than Pitt during the last round of realignment. While Pitt would have been a good addition to the B10 and an institutional fit, Pitt didn't deliver what PSU already did.

Yeah, the last round of expansion was about set-top boxes. In other words, it was about how much extra $ the BIG would make by being able to charge cable companies the higher carrying fee for its network. Oklahoma only has 3.9m people. By comparison Md is at 6m and NJ at 8.9. That is the long and short as to why we both were invited.
Now Ok has two problems that kept it from getting a BIG invite. First is that relatively small population base. Second is the OSU anchor around its neck. That combination made it unattractive. Besides, Ok needs to play in Tx, where a large block of its recruits come from and alumni live.
At first blush, Tx with 27.8m people and loads of history and tradition, seems to be a no-brainer. However, Tx refuses to give up its LHN. It also, has an 800lbs gorilla attitude that would not carry well in the BIG. Being in this conference means putting up with the snobbishness of TSUN and StPenn, but on a business level, all the schools have an equal vote. Tx would want to come in and be the Capo-de-tutti-Capi and that won't fly amongst the original membership.

Now in the next round of expansion, will be about ala carte tv viewership. I fully expect to see the BIG grab OK and UKan, which are both small state schools, but have large antional followings. But that will be a second option for both. First the BIG will go after UVa & UNC in an attempt to grab what it sees as the best combination on the board. Once that doesn't work out, it will wait for the **** to really fly. The ACC will panic and invite Tx with a ND membership deal that lets it keep all of its football revenue. Once Tx is off the board, the rest of the B12 schools will be scrambling to find a safe place. That may be enough to free Ok of OSU and UK of KSU and allow them to move.

Thank you sir! TIL and that makes sense.

If the B1G was able to pry UVa and UNC from the ACC, I'd be shocked buuut that would set off THE apocalypse of realignment. I could see NC State and VTech to the SEC (two new markets for them), after that who knows....
11-01-2017 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

AntiG Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 983
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 24
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #18
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(11-01-2017 11:04 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 10:19 AM)megadrone Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 06:28 AM)8BitPirate Wrote:  
(11-01-2017 12:02 AM)AntiG Wrote:  
(10-31-2017 08:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would not sit well with Penn State. Both are prime areas where they recruit students and athletes, in addition to where large alumni bases live. They aren't rivals but there is some history which is more to say about the rest of the conference.

Getting Oklahoma and Texas should be schools 15 and 16. Helping Nebraska return to prominence would be a boon for the Big Ten and adding two local schools would help them feel more at home.

Kicking out Rutgers and Maryland would also cut the BTN out of NYC, NJ, MD and DC regular market carriage, so that's never going to happen in the near future...

Agree OU and UT being the ideal targets.

Would it? Here in NC we have the option for every Conference Network, even the PAC12, but only the AAC and ACC have teams here. I'd also argue that the traditional B1G teams have enough alumni in those areas to make having the BTN on your local carriers menu profitable.

It's the carriage rates that the network charges the cable provider. Since there aren't any B10 schools in NC, the rate is different than what can be charged in NJ. The Big 10 network model is dependent on the carriage rates.

It's why Rutgers was a better target for the B10 than Pitt during the last round of realignment. While Pitt would have been a good addition to the B10 and an institutional fit, Pitt didn't deliver what PSU already did.

Yeah, the last round of expansion was about set-top boxes. In other words, it was about how much extra $ the BIG would make by being able to charge cable companies the higher carrying fee for its network. Oklahoma only has 3.9m people. By comparison Md is at 6m and NJ at 8.9. That is the long and short as to why we both were invited.

Just to add to that, getting into NJ meant getting into the NYC DMA, which by itself is 20.2M population (7.36+M TV DMA, #1 nationally)... then you add to that the part of NJ that is not covered under the NYC DMA (Southern Jersey - Burlington to Cape May counties, so this includes Camden/Trenton/AC) which is about 1.6M people (so let's assume it'd be about one third for TV coverage) for a total of 21.8M population and nearly 8M in subscribers.

Maryland bought in the state of MD/Baltimore DMA (#26 nationally with 1.1M) + DC DMA (#7 nationally with 2.44+M). DC Metro (which includes parts of Northern VA) is now a bigger population than Philadelphia, and add the rest of Maryland and part of Delaware as well and that's a nice coup as well at around 3-4M total subscribers.

The BTN didn't add football studs persay, but the shrewd move netted them TONS of cash for all members involved.
11-01-2017 04:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 959
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 37
I Root For: Not ESEACCPN
Location:
Post: #19
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
(11-01-2017 11:04 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Now in the next round of expansion, will be about ala carte tv viewership. I fully expect to see the BIG grab OK and UKan, which are both small state schools, but have large antional followings. But that will be a second option for both. First the BIG will go after UVa & UNC in an attempt to grab what it sees as the best combination on the board. Once that doesn't work out, it will wait for the **** to really fly. The ACC will panic and invite Tx with a ND membership deal that lets it keep all of its football revenue. Once Tx is off the board, the rest of the B12 schools will be scrambling to find a safe place. That may be enough to free Ok of OSU and UK of KSU and allow them to move.

Copying and pasting from the SEC board since someone thought of an interesting way of doing this:

Quote:American Private Conference (or APC):
North: Boston College, Northwestern, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh*, Stanford, Syracuse, USC
South: BYU, TCU, Baylor, Vanderbilt, Miami, Duke, Wake Forest
*Hybrid private/state school

Rice/Tulane deleted. The divisions are essentially "Irish & Friends" and "Others".

Big 10:
West: Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Iowa St, Minnesota, Nebraska, Purdue, Wisconsin
East: Maryland, Michigan, Michigan St, North Carolina, Ohio St, Penn St, Virginia, Rutgers

Divisions of 8 make scheduling just as easy as divisions of 4. I prefer the simplicity of 2 divisions than 4.

SEC:
West: Arkansas, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Texas A&M
North: Kentucky, Louisville, Missouri, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South: Alabama, Florida St, Georgia Tech, North Carolina St, Tennessee
East: Auburn, Clemson, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina

PAC:
West: Arizona, Arizona St, California, Oregon, Oregon St, UCLA, Washington, Washington St
East: Colorado, Kansas, Kansas St, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Texas, Texas Tech, Utah

Basically, Northwestern is moved to a conference of private schools that has USC, Notre Dame and Stanford. Iowa State moves in to take the open spot. Texas and friends move west to shore up the PAC. Not likely to happen but I like the idea.
11-02-2017 01:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 2,029
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 34
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: Future FBS!!!
Post: #20
RE: Does the B1G have a Temple clause?
Virginia and North Carolina can't realistically move until a couple years before the ACC grant of rights expire in 2036 or so. The Big Ten's television deal coincidentally (or not) expires around the same time frame as the Big 12's around 2024 (maybe the Pac 12 as well?). So if the Big Ten is negotiating a new contract and a television partner says that the Big Ten would be worth $X as-is but $Y with UT, OU, KU, and one more from a list, and Y > X, then the Big Ten can take that information to the schools they want and get them to potentially be invited. That's a double-edged sword though since those schools can take that figure back to the Big 12's negotiating table and request that the other television partner(s) pay up to keep them in the conference.

I think that Texas is the obvious target but the Big Ten will be extremely picky towards the little brother that catches a ride on UT's coattails. I think Kansas would need to ride along with Texas to get in. They don't bring in enough value on their own thanks to their poor football history, poor football attendance and support, horrible local recruiting territory, overlapping geography, and Nebraska-ish academics. Their elite basketball (potentially until this Adidas scandal gets sorted out) doesn't pay their way in. Frankly, the Big Ten and SEC have a huge bar that is set that new members would have the reach in order to provide more money to the current conference members and be a net positive and Kansas is short due to how high that bar is.

On the other hand, Oklahoma is a big enough football brand to bring in more money for the conference but has academics worse than Nebraska, is demographically/geographically challenged, and could turn into a has-been if cut off from in-conference Texas schools for recruiting. I think OU can be brought in but would need academic cover from an elite school like Texas, but not Kansas despite their AAU status. The major question is, "Does the Big Ten have enough to offer Texas to convince them to leave the Big 12 and to not join another conference?" I don't think so but that could change.

If the Big Ten had a division of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and one of Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Missouri, Minnesota, or Wisconsin (from an east coast addition), that doesn't look much different from the states Texas currently plays in the Big 12. Can the Big Ten stomach a Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, UConn, etc. for a UT/OU combo? That's the other major question but the SEC could counter with a Texas, Texas Tech (or another school from Texas or whoever UT wants), Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State which reunites UT with Arkansas and Texas A&M. Is that more compact division with historic rivals more favorable? Perhaps the Pac has the best package since they can have Texas bring along at least five friends instead of the more limited number of the Big 10 and SEC.

It will be brands that forge their way into the upper conferences. It will be schools that people will pay to see and therefore make money for the new conference which will be in demand. Usually that means television money and there isn't a bigger moneymaker than football right now. It doesn't matter the population of states the school resides in or what market they are located in but how many people watch their games. That's the difference between now and when Maryland and Rutgers were added. UNC and UVA pale compared to OU and UT but perhaps they could grow enough over time to pay for themselves.
11-02-2017 09:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.