Expansion: Big Ten is reportedly talking to..

[ruralgopher]

In case anybody cares I'm pretty conflicted about this. I see the benefit to the Big Ten. I wish that whoever we bring in would be from a 'cold weather' area, though, which I don't consider Mizzou either.

 

[Ski U Mah Gopher]

I stand corrected

I think it actually was Texas Tech & Baylor that threw the hissy fit more than A&M (I think Texas actually was in A&M's corner & said A&M was the only team they had to have come with them), but you're premise is correct.....Ma Richards, the governor at the time of Texas, was a Baylor grad, & there were more Tech representatives than any of the other SWC schools & threatened any UT additonal funding bills dead unless Tech was included.

I think politics would play more of a role of Texas not becoming a member of the Big Ten more than anything else.....

I do remember the political mess, but forgot that is was the little 2 that forced the Big XII on us.

 

[GoAUpher]

I think it actually was Texas Tech & Baylor that threw the hissy fit more than A&M (I think Texas actually was in A&M's corner & said A&M was the only team they had to have come with them), but you're premise is correct.....Ma Richards, the governor at the time of Texas, was a Baylor grad, & there were more Tech representatives than any of the other SWC schools & threatened any UT additonal funding bills dead unless Tech was included.

I think politics would play more of a role of Texas not becoming a member of the Big Ten more than anything else.....

Depending on who you talk to it wasn't Richards that made it happen. As I understand it real power in the Texas government structure is in the hands of the Lt. Governor. That’s because the Lt. Gov is the president of the Senate and controls the upper chamber by setting the legislative calendar and controlling committee assignments. The Lt. Governor also chairs the Budget Board, and therefore controls the budgeting process. (See Wikipedia for more here).

The story I’ve read from Texas fans is that in the 90’s the Lt. Gov was Bob Bullock, who was a graduate of Texas Tech University and Baylor School of Law. It was Bullock who said that Tech and Baylor had to go to the Big XII or that the legislature would slash the appropriations for Texas and A&M.

Whether or not that is true, the current Texas Lt. Governor is David Dewhurst. He went to Arizona. I’ve seen it written that he is an Aggie. If so it would be as a fan not as a grad since his bio says he went to Georgetown Law after UofA. So no idea how that dynamic plays out now.

 

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

When discussing expansion, has anyone heard it definitively said it would be 1 school only. Could a Texas, A&M and Mizzou package ever be on the table. That builds a 14 team super conference and would bring with it some established rivalry's, the TV markets in St. Louis (that which isn't Illinois loyal) along with Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antoinio, Houston and Austin. It would allow some geographic proximity (although IIRC Columbia is further from Austin than Urbana-Champaign). Put together a couple of 7 team divisions and you have a major earthquake on the college sports landscape. Imagine this line-up...

Division A:
Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan, MSU, PSU and Wisconsin

Division B:
tOSU, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Texas, A&M and Mizzou

The only downside to this is the academic issue (which I think is bigger than many really appreciate) with A&M. Mizzou would be a bottom level academic institution in the Big 10, but is close enough in its rankings to be arguable. A&M on the other hand is not at the level where most would like to see the conference go academically. If they were to go this direction, I would think there would need to be iron clad guarantee's that A&M would upgrade itself academically. We'll see. I still say the conference is leveraging its Big XII dance partners to entice Notre Dame.

 

[GoAUpher]

When discussing expansion, has anyone heard it definitively said it would be 1 school only. Could a Texas, A&M and Mizzou package ever be on the table. That builds a 14 team super conference and would bring with it some established rivalry's, the TV markets in St. Louis (that which isn't Illinois loyal) along with Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antoinio, Houston and Austin. It would allow some geographic proximity (although IIRC Columbia is further from Austin than Urbana-Champaign). Put together a couple of 7 team divisions and you have a major earthquake on the college sports landscape. Imagine this line-up...

Division A:
Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern, Michigan, MSU, PSU and Wisconsin

Division B:
tOSU, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Texas, A&M and Mizzou

The only downside to this is the academic issue (which I think is bigger than many really appreciate) with A&M. Mizzou would be a bottom level academic institution in the Big 10, but is close enough in its rankings to be arguable. A&M on the other hand is not at the level where most would like to see the conference go academically. If they were to go this direction, I would think there would need to be iron clad guarantee's that A&M would upgrade itself academically. We'll see. I still say the conference is leveraging its Big XII dance partners to entice Notre Dame.

There were some unsourced quotes right after the B10 announced they were considering expansion that said 14 or 16 schools would be looked at, but I don't think it was ever followed up with anything more definitive. As always it depends on money. Does going to 14 teams get the BTN into enough new markets to make up for the fact that 3 more teams are getting a slice of the pie? Also, as you note academics play a big role too.

 

[hyaluronic]

Good. I'd rather have Texas than Notre Dame, though if we can snag both somehow, that'd be awesome.

 

[MrGopher]

Good. I'd rather have Texas than Notre Dame, though if we can snag both somehow, that'd be awesome.

How about USC and UCLA too?? It would be so awesome!! OMG and how about, umm... Florida, Alabama, LSU, and Georgia WOW!!

And can you imagine the national interest if we brought in UNC and Duke?? Holy Crap, it would be so profitable!!!

You know who really doesn't bring enough to the table? Northwestern. Also, Purdue and Minnesota are not bringing in enough TV sets and money. Let's drop them. Oh, and Iowa isn't up to snuff academically, and they also don't bring in enough TVs. Not worth having.

Here's how I would align the conference:

Big Bucks division:
USC
UNC
Duke
Notre Dame
Florida
Alabama
Texas
Penn St.

Cake Eaters division:
OSU
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Oklahoma
UCLA
Georgia
LSU

I really dont see how you can argue with that.

 

[MrGopher]

By the way, that sarcastic post wasn't a particular stab at hyaluronic, but rather a general stab at all the folks who even consider Texas to be a serious option.

 

[jovs]

Won't creating these cross continent super conferences impact costs. I would think that they would skyrocket if Texas was added. Traveling from Happy Valley to Austin is a distance. There are a ton of non revenue sports where this would happen. Tennis, baseball, etc..

 

[Gopher07]

Travel costs would be more than offset by the gains in TV revenue. Distance Minneapolis to Austin = 1,173 miles. Distance Minneapolis to Happy Valley = 974 miles. It's far (~1,000-1,500 miles for each BT school) but it's not like a lot of teams aren't dealing with the fact already. Plus, it's negligible when you're traveling by airplane.

 

[GoldenHerbs]

Not gonna happen, do you really think the fanbase would be happy about having to travel so far for road games. The closest big ten school to Austin would be what, Iowa?? Not gonna happen, just another stupid rumor.

 

[GoAUpher]

Won't creating these cross continent super conferences impact costs. I would think that they would skyrocket if Texas was added. Traveling from Happy Valley to Austin is a distance. There are a ton of non revenue sports where this would happen. Tennis, baseball, etc..

A plane ride is a plane ride. Once you have to fly the costs are pretty fixed. And Happy Valley to Mizzou would be a distance too.

 

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

Not gonna happen, do you really think the fanbase would be happy about having to travel so far for road games. The closest big ten school to Austin would be what, Iowa?? Not gonna happen, just another stupid rumor.

As Lee Corso says, "Not so fast my friend". First off, as I stated in an earlier post in this thread, I think the endgame is to pressure the folks in South Bend. But to dismiss this as "just another stupid rumor", is well, stupid. The story has enough legs to be talked about on the ESPN website and the Lawrence newspaper, so there most likely have been some discussions, serious ones- who knows, but there is enough smoke for it to be mentioned by several sources. Secondly, do yourself a quick favor and check back to the days preceeding the founding of the Big XII. Texas was very near a PAC 10 deal at that time but as has been discussed here, the politics of the state may have swayed UT from making that move. For UT, a move to the Big Ten makes sense from a financial and academic standpoint, and that shouldn't be discounted. Athletically, it makes sense only from the regard of money, but if UT can add and additional $10-15 million per year to the coffers, it certainly pays for a lot of travel expenses. I would argue that the "travelling fanbase" argument only goes so far. Its football-centric and those fans at UT who get away tickets are those who donate real dollars and can afford to and will pay to fly where the team plays. Also remember, the athletic department gets its dollars from TV and home gate mostly. Will UT pass up the financial gains to help their non-donor fans continue to get tickets to see the team play at Baylor? Will UT pass up the dollars to make sure that maybe 1,200 fans can watch the 'Horns play hoops at Kansas State (which is a pretty good hike BTW)? Will they pass up the dollars so 100 fans can watch the 'Horns swim team compete in Lubbock? Don't know. I personally think that this all amounts to nothing, but to discount the rumors is foolish.

 

[Weddings and Steak Frys]

A plane ride is a plane ride. Once you have to fly the costs are pretty fixed. And Happy Valley to Mizzou would be a distance too.

Correct. And you are right in the plane ride idea. It's not like PSU gets its volleyball team together and hops in a van on Friday to travel to a Friday night game in Madison or even Bloomington for that matter. So the proportional cost differential is less than it appears. Further, I would suspect the BigTen would make some scheduling changes similar to the PAC10 where if you play MSU on Thursday, you would play UM on Saturday. Using that mindset, a super-conference with A&M and Mizzou makes it that much more reasonable.

Travel Partners
UT- A&M
Mizzou- Iowa
Illinois- Northwestern
Minnesota- Wisconsin
IU-Purdue
MSU-UM
PSU-OSU

I still say all this comes to nothing, but there are some valid ways/arguments why it could and should work. For the third time, I think this is all to lever Notre Dame into thinking this is her final chance.

 

[tikited]

No to Texas.

Yes to Mizzou or Pitt.

I don't see a big need to bring in a team that would crush all but two teams in the conference right off the bat. Bringing in a team that could have a chance to do big things makes more sense to me. Teams should have to improve to be in the top-half of a conference imo.

 

[GoAUpher]

No to Texas.

Yes to Mizzou or Pitt.

I don't see a big need to bring in a team that would crush all but two teams in the conference right off the bat. Bringing in a team that could have a chance to do big things makes more sense to me. Teams should have to improve to be in the top-half of a conference imo.

As a fan this makes a lot of sense to me. But the folks making the decisions don't care about this as much as they care about TV markets and academic fit. If an OK athletic school (Mizzou) with ok academics delivers the similar/better return on investment as and academic/athletic powerhouse like Texas then I could see it. But if Texas were willing to move and the TV money was significantly better I don't think the school presidents will care one bit about the fact that they are adding an athletic whale instead of a minnow.

 

[Bo Darville]

Somehow I get the feeling that Texas to the Big Ten is the first step in Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana to the MAC.

 

[Gopher07]

TV money would be the deciding factor in bringing in Texas. When you add Dallas (#6 TV market), Houston (#10), and San Antonio (#37) it's a big deal. For reference, Chicago is the #3 market, Philly #4, Detroit #11, and MSP #15 in terms of current Big Ten footprint.

 

[howeda7]

Yea. This is the kind of stuff that I could see derailing the idea. The trifecta of TV money, academics, and competitive athletics all favor the move. Tradition, geography, politics, etc may stand in the way. Of these possible misc category reasons I'd go with politics as the most likely killer of a potential deal.

That is the fly in the ointment. When the ACC expanded, they wanted Miami and Syracuse. The governor of Virigina ORDERED UVa to vote no unless Virginia Tech was the second school. They needed 9 votes and didn't have it without UVa. So guess what, Va. Tech became the second school, not Syracuse. A similar situation would likely occur if we try to raid Texas from the Big 12.

And this talk of adding Texas, Texas A&M and a 3rd school and then kicking out two existing schools like Minnesota and Iowa, will never fly. I'm not sure what the Big 10's by-laws are, but I'm guessing they need 8-9 votes to approve this. Obviously Minnesota and Iowa are not going to vote yes on thier own expulsion.

 

[NateDawgUM]

No to Texas.

Yes to Mizzou or Pitt.

I don't see a big need to bring in a team that would crush all but two teams in the conference right off the bat. Bringing in a team that could have a chance to do big things makes more sense to me. Teams should have to improve to be in the top-half of a conference imo.

The point isn't to make a team prove itself. The point is to MAKE MONEY. Period.

 

[GoAUpher]

Somehow I get the feeling that Texas to the Big Ten is the first step in Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana to the MAC.

Seriously, no. The "big boys" would need 8 votes to make this happen. They don't have them (even if Texas joined). Plus, membership in the Big 10 also includes the research benefits of the CIC. The Big Ten won't boot out long term members that are also good research schools over football.

 

[howeda7]

Somehow I get the feeling that Texas to the Big Ten is the first step in Minnesota, Northwestern, and Indiana to the MAC.

Yeah, one of the 6 greatest basketball programs in America is going to end up in the MAC. Somehow I doubt it. The current Big 10 schools likely need a near-unanimous vote for any change to be approved. No one will vote yes on thier own demise. Any change will be adding schools only, not kicking anyone out. That said, I'm against expansion altogether.

 

[FireDaveLee]

I don't see a big need to bring in a team that would crush all but two teams in the conference right off the bat.

Athletically speaking, the only two sports that they would "crush" the rest right off the bat would be baseball & swimming (I'll accept golf as well).

They would definitely be an upper division team in football, no doubt....but a move to the Big Ten would change some dynamics as well. A road game at Camp Randall or Kinnick in November wouldn't be a picnic. They'd be the favorite year in & year out in the Big Ten West, but I see some similarities in terms of Penn State being able to crush the Big Ten when they came. Penn State is definitely one of the Big 3, but they don't exactly "crush." I see something similar with Texas....they'd be the "Big 4."

Texas isn't immune to "down" season either....they've seen the Alamo Bowl & Holiday bowl in the past 5 years as well.

Basketball wise....very good, but they definitely wouldn't crush. They'd be in the mix every year, just as Michigan State, Wisconsin, Ohio State & Illinois are. Not to mention that Indiana will eventually be back along with the potential that Minnesota & Michigan possess in terms of stability....two programs that definitely can be a player. And I'm not even mentioning Purdue.

I guess I just don't see them walking over everyone without a trace of doubt....

 

[howeda7]

IMO, the only way Texas is a viable option is if they go completely for broke and expand to 16. Then a case could be made for adding Texas, Texas A&M (likely a requirement to get Texas) Mizzou, Rutgers and Pitt.

An east division of Pitt, Rutgers, PSU, MSU, Michigan, OSU, Purdue and Indiana.

A west division of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Mizzou, Texas and Texas A&M.

 

[FireDaveLee]

Reading a bit of the Texas rivals site, there definitely seems to be some interest amongst some fans. They see the benefits.

As mentioned, I think politics will be the biggest player.......I don't see Texas coming without Texas A&M. At that point, we're back to adding 1 school, at least, once again, whether it's Pitt, Mizzou, Rutgers, Syracuse, Iowa State, Nebraska or Notre Dame.

Unless there's complete chaos......
-Texas joins the Big Ten
-Texas A&M & Oklahoma join the SEC
-TCU joins the Big XII
-Big XII & Big Ten swap names since the Big XII now has 10 teams & the Big Ten has 12 teams.

 

[GoAUpher]

IMO, the only way Texas is a viable option is if they go completely for broke and expand to 16. Then a case could be made for adding Texas, Texas A&M (likely a requirement to get Texas) Mizzou, Rutgers and Pitt.

An east division of Pitt, Rutgers, PSU, MSU, Michigan, OSU, Purdue and Indiana.

A west division of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Mizzou, Texas and Texas A&M.

Well, 14 could work too. Texas, A&M, and Syracuse gives you a stranglehold on the Texas TV markets and a footprint into NY (you could substitute Rutgers or Pitt for Syracuse but Syracuse might deliver the best increase in TV share).

East: Cuse, PSU, OSU, MSU, Mich, Purdue, Indiana
West: Texas, A&M, MN, Iowa, WI, IL, NW

 

[tikited]

The point isn't to make a team prove itself. The point is to MAKE MONEY. Period.

The point of my post was what I want. I don't care what "they" want...they don't care what I want. Just stating my opinion.

 

[RodentRampage]

Seriously, no. The "big boys" would need 8 votes to make this happen. They don't have them (even if Texas joined). Plus, membership in the Big 10 also includes the research benefits of the CIC. The Big Ten won't boot out long term members that are also good research schools over football.

Getting a team out of a conference is like getting a cat into a bath. A bath that already contains a dog and a screaming child. (do not attempt this, it won't be fun for anyone, except perhaps the dog) Even if the other Big Ten schools wanted some programs out of the Big Ten, it just couldn't happen. If the other 8 Big Ten schools, plus Texas did want these three schools out, the only option would be to leave the Big Ten, form a new conference, and then not invite these three teams to join.

And even if that exceedingly unlikely event happened, we wouldn't be reduced to the MAC, Minnesota, Northwestern and Indiana would just form the nucleus of of a new Big Ten (we'd still be members of the Big Ten, after all). We'd have the Big Ten bowl tie-ins until the contracts expired. We'd poach some other teams, maybe the top of the MAC, Iowa State, and the Big Ten would still be in business.

But realistically, we aren't going anywhere.

 

[MrGopher]

The only way a school is going to leave the Big10 is for that school to bail by its own accord. The member schools are actually quite a solid bunch, and never would vote one of their own off the island.

Losing schools will not happen in my lifetime, unless they choose to leave, or the conference is broken in two.

I agree with the feeling that this is just to bait the 'Domers into doing what everyone has known for years and years to be the right thing. I also think it is possible that Texas might be a good choice because they are a good temporary boost for the conference. They are easily removable on grounds of geography, tradition, travel, etc. Once Notre Dame wants in, they will be in, even at the expense of Texas.

 

[KD6-3.7]

all this talk about what the big ten won't do is crazy. ten years ago i would have said that the big ten will not accept a team like texas, and yet here we are talking about it.

when you inject money into it, anybody will do anything. it is not a stretch to imagine the big ten finding the votes to jettison an underachieving school, when the advantage is more money and more acclaim.

if the only reason to bring in texas is for money, then there is no reason to believe that tradition or the amount of votes needed will stand in the way of other drastic changes.