Any Worries...

mplsbadger

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
2,267
Reaction score
43
Points
48
...that if the Big Ten goes to 14 or 16 that they might eventually split apart leaving us in the west holding the bag with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Northwestern, and Illinois? And a lousy TV contract.

While the east has Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Michigan State, Indiana and Purdue. And a great TV contract.

I remember the lake south with Minnetonka, Edina, Jefferson, Kennedy, Richfield, Burnsville and St. Louis Park from the '80's. Years later founding members Minnetonka and Edina find themselves on the outside looking in while the Lake Conference thrives with a bunch of new teams. In college football there is no MSHSL to force them back together.
 


The Big Ten has always been committed to splitting revenue equally. I assume the existing Big Ten institutions will fight to continue that financial parity. As the wealthiest conference it benefits the Big Ten to promote all of their institutions as they always have.
 

...that if the Big Ten goes to 14 or 16 that they might eventually split apart leaving us in the west holding the bag with Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Northwestern, and Illinois? And a lousy TV contract.

While the east has Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Notre Dame, Michigan State, Indiana and Purdue. And a great TV contract.

I remember the lake south with Minnetonka, Edina, Jefferson, Kennedy, Richfield, Burnsville and St. Louis Park from the '80's. Years later founding members Minnetonka and Edina find themselves on the outside looking in while the Lake Conference thrives with a bunch of new teams. In college football there is no MSHSL to force them back together.

Couple of things, I'm sure you are serious, so I will give you a serious reply. That said, this is absurd on several levels. First and foremost the Big Ten is an athletic conference second and an academic conference/association first. There is no way the Presidents of the schools in the conference (believe it or not Jim Delany as well as each schools athletic directors report to them) would allow such a thing. The Big Ten has flourished precisely because of its commitment to collaboration and common values. Hence the reason most schools being considered for expansion aren't academic lightweights (if Nebraska is invited it will be only with a significant commitment to improving its academics). Secondly, there is no precedent for schools being left out. I see by your moniker that you have at least some affiliation with UW and Minnesota. There is no way the Presidents of the schools of your hypothetical East Division would dissassociate themselves from the academic programs of those schools in the west, heap academic powerhouse Northwestern and highly rated but oft forgotten Illinois. I won't even go into the foolishness of saying goodbye to the primary schools of the Chicago marketplace or even the MSP, StL and MKE marketplaces for that matter. Your comparison to the Lake Conference is a total non-starter as that is nothing more than an athletic conference. The association between the schools is non-existent other than on an athletic level (schools within a common district excepted. SEE DIST 196 for example with Apple Valley/Eagan/Eastview/Rosemount). Further, even if you were able to on some bizarre planet make that logic leap, I would argue that Edina and Minnetonka have acquitted themselves quite well under the scenario they were dealt. I personally am only in favor of expansion if it were to include Texas and Notre Dame either individually or together with a third acceptable school. That said, no one here should be afraid of expansion.
 

Couple of things, I'm sure you are serious, so I will give you a serious reply. That said, this is absurd on several levels. First and foremost the Big Ten is an athletic conference second and an academic conference/association first. There is no way the Presidents of the schools in the conference (believe it or not Jim Delany as well as each schools athletic directors report to them) would allow such a thing. The Big Ten has flourished precisely because of its commitment to collaboration and common values. Hence the reason most schools being considered for expansion aren't academic lightweights (if Nebraska is invited it will be only with a significant commitment to improving its academics). Secondly, there is no precedent for schools being left out. I see by your moniker that you have at least some affiliation with UW and Minnesota. There is no way the Presidents of the schools of your hypothetical East Division would dissassociate themselves from the academic programs of those schools in the west, heap academic powerhouse Northwestern and highly rated but oft forgotten Illinois. I won't even go into the foolishness of saying goodbye to the primary schools of the Chicago marketplace or even the MSP, StL and MKE marketplaces for that matter. Your comparison to the Lake Conference is a total non-starter as that is nothing more than an athletic conference. The association between the schools is non-existent other than on an athletic level (schools within a common district excepted. SEE DIST 196 for example with Apple Valley/Eagan/Eastview/Rosemount). Further, even if you were able to on some bizarre planet make that logic leap, I would argue that Edina and Minnetonka have acquitted themselves quite well under the scenario they were dealt. I personally am only in favor of expansion if it were to include Texas and Notre Dame either individually or together with a third acceptable school. That said, no one here should be afraid of expansion.

+1 to all of this (especially the notes on academic confederation b/c the CIC is VERY IMPORTANT to all the B10 schools). One other factor that makes this a complete non-issue. It takes a 2/3's majority of B10 schools to add or drop a member. For this scenario to happen some of the schools being dropped would have to agree to it (and somehow that strikes me as unlikely).

Also, I'm going to jump back to another of vinko's points. How the East would have a substantially better TV contract despite losing the Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Milwaukee markets is beyond me.

So no, I wouldn't get too worried about something like this.
 


I think you guys are getting his question wrong. I don't believe he was talking about schools getting booted from the conference, just asking about the conference splitting up like the SEC has east and west. Badgergopher, can you confirm this?

Even if that happens, which it most likely will if the league goes to 14 or 16 teams, its fine. The TV revenue would still be split evenly as there would only be one contract for the whole B10 and I am sure they would still split revenue evenly.
 

Are you serious about separate tv contracts? Does that mean you're implying they are going to split the Big Ten Network in to two networks? That would seem to defeat the purpose of expanding the geographic footprint of the Big Ten conference, wouldn't it?
 

The uneven TV situation is the main reason Mizzou & Nebraska are ripe for the taking. The Big XII only splits half of the revenue evenly, the other half depends on how often a school is shown on ABC. Great for Texas and Oklahoma, bad for the other teams.
 

I think you guys are getting his question wrong. I don't believe he was talking about schools getting booted from the conference, just asking about the conference splitting up like the SEC has east and west. Badgergopher, can you confirm this?

Even if that happens, which it most likely will if the league goes to 14 or 16 teams, its fine. The TV revenue would still be split evenly as there would only be one contract for the whole B10 and I am sure they would still split revenue evenly.

I doubt we misinterpreted his intent. He was talking about separate TV contracts. Last time I checked individual divisions within a conference don't negotiate separate TV contracts.

No one will have a problem with divisions (just the makeup of them :)). He's not talking about divisions or if he is then he's even more off base.
 



Are you serious about separate tv contracts? Does that mean you're implying they are going to split the Big Ten Network in to two networks? That would seem to defeat the purpose of expanding the geographic footprint of the Big Ten conference, wouldn't it?

+1
 

He's not talking about divisions or if he is then he's even more off base.

I guess I just assumed this was the case because he was talking about east and west.

Either way, he is way off base. There isn't a chance in the world the B10 goes out and adds 2-4 teams just to split up into 2 separate conferences. And TV revenue will be split evenly, so this is a big non-issue.
 

Also, I'm going to jump back to another of vinko's points. How the East would have a substantially better TV contract despite losing the Chicago, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, and Milwaukee markets is beyond me.

This is beyond you? You couldn't fathom that OSU, Michigan, PSU, and possibly ND may bring more television viewers to the table?
 

This is beyond you? You couldn't fathom that OSU, Michigan, PSU, and possibly ND may bring more television viewers to the table?

No kidding. Remember the WAC Super Conference? That would be pretty funny when the Big 10 is adding Miami of Ohio to replace Ohio State someday.
 



+1 to all of this (especially the notes on academic confederation b/c the CIC is VERY IMPORTANT to all the B10 schools). One other factor that makes this a complete non-issue. It takes a 2/3's majority of B10 schools to add or drop a member. For this scenario to happen some of the schools being dropped would have to agree to it (and somehow that strikes me as unlikely).

I was thinking of this not as seven getting kicked out, rather as seven bolting. They'd have to leave the brand behind.

Agree that revenue sharing has been good to the B10 but you see Jerry Jones talking about blowing it up even though it has been fantastic for the NFL.

My original post wasn't so much an opinion as a thought starter. I think the note on academic ties probably prevents anything like this from happening.

I don't think it's totally out of left field however. I could see a scenario where Oklahoma could follow Texas for example even thought their conference history is separate. If you asked the average Michigan, MSU, or Purdue fan who they'd rather retain on thier schedule, Notre Dame, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, I think they'd all answer Notre Dame despite the conference ties and history.
 

This is beyond you? You couldn't fathom that OSU, Michigan, PSU, and possibly ND may bring more television viewers to the table?

No one disputes who gets what TV ratings. You are not seeing the real picture. The Big Ten, via its association with the CIC, is primarily an academic association. Sports, while important is secondary. The value of grants and the ability of schools within the CIC to work collaboratively to gain access to those funds is a tremendous part of the expansion process. In 2004, the schools of the CIC spent just shy of $6 Billion (that a B) on research and development alone, with Federal Funding or grants providing just short of $3.5 Billion of that funding. That is a big chunk of change. The collaborative academic approach of the CIC plays a large part of this. The school with lowest share of that 2004 money (Michigan State) received $143,000,000 in funding. Why would MSU as part of your group, jeopardize even a part of those funds. The Big Ten Network would require 3 years to equal that income to the school if payouts grew to $47,000,000 per year. Now you may ask; "If the schools of the hypothetical East Division left to start their own conference would they lose the grants?" That is a legitimate question. No, they wouldn't lose all of it, but they would lose a certain degree of political support that aids in obtaining it. I suspect politicians from MN, IA, WI, NE and MO would make life difficult in the area of funding for the abandoning schools. The departing schools would also lose access to roughly half of the academic tools that in collaboration enable and enhance their chances of winning the grant in the first place. Does anyone think that Mizzou's prime benefit is the other half of the StL marketplace that Illinois doesn't get? It has something to do with it, but without Mizzou's fine Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) and its other high-end programs (such as journalism), Mizzou would not be a school even being considered (look at the other proposed adds- most of them fit both an ACADEMIC and athletic profile). Also, remember that the Presidents of the schools in question are the ones who make the decisions. If you believe that they allow athletics to drive the train, you are sadly and foolishly mistaken. Are they an important part of each school, certainly, but make no mistake that they are only a piece of the puzzle. Zero percent chance of any of the original schools ditching the conference to form a new one. ZERO.

Links:

http://www.cic.net/Libraries/Reports/ResearchCollaborationOpportunitiesForCIC.sflb.ashx
 

This is beyond you? You couldn't fathom that OSU, Michigan, PSU, and possibly ND may bring more television viewers to the table?

They'll bring plenty of viewers. They'll also be giving up the #3 (Chicago), #15 (MSP), #21 (St. Louis), and #31 (Kansas City) TV markets. That will have an impact on the amount of dollars they'd bring in.

The premise of these 7 splitting off also ignores the fact that the bulk of the TV revenue and the source of expansion is the Big Ten Network. How exactly will the 7 bolting schools make money without the network? I'm pretty sure the remaining seven aren't going to let them walk away with the cash cow. Are you suggesting that these new 7 start a new network for their new conference?

The issue is not whether OSU, PSU, Mich, ND, and the rest would bring TV viewers. It's that the idea of these schools splitting off is ludicrous and unworkable for any number of reasons.
 

I don't think it's totally out of left field however. I could see a scenario where Oklahoma could follow Texas for example even thought their conference history is separate. If you asked the average Michigan, MSU, or Purdue fan who they'd rather retain on thier schedule, Notre Dame, Minnesota, or Wisconsin, I think they'd all answer Notre Dame despite the conference ties and history.

This is the flawed portion of your argument/thought. The average fan has no say in the process. Truthfully, the Presidents and Board of Regents really don't give a crap what the average fan thinks. The decisions made will come down to dollars and cents. And as I've referenced, while athletics is important, it is only a piece of the overall puzzle. I don't know how many times this can be said. Athletics gets the most press because that is the area that is most visible to the average person and its the easiest and funnest part to discuss or speculate on. If fan interest were of primary importance, Michigan wouldn't schedule Appy State and Notre Dame wouldn't schedule Western Michigan. But, they do and they do it for the money. Likewise, any expansion will be about revenue generation, but you need to look beyond ESPN and SI to really get an understanding of the big picture. There is no amount of TV money from football that will outstrip the benefits the existing schools get from their membership in the CIC financially.
 

They'll bring plenty of viewers. They'll also be giving up the #3 (Chicago), #15 (MSP), #21 (St. Louis), and #31 (Kansas City) TV markets. That will have an impact on the amount of dollars they'd bring in.

With Notre Dame they would not be giving up Chicago.
 

No one disputes who gets what TV ratings. You are not seeing the real picture. The Big Ten, via its association with the CIC, is primarily an academic association. Sports, while important is secondary. The value of grants and the ability of schools within the CIC to work collaboratively to gain access to those funds is a tremendous part of the expansion process. In 2004, the schools of the CIC spent just shy of $6 Billion (that a B) on research and development alone, with Federal Funding or grants providing just short of $3.5 Billion of that funding. That is a big chunk of change. The collaborative academic approach of the CIC plays a large part of this. The school with lowest share of that 2004 money (Michigan State) received $143,000,000 in funding. Why would MSU as part of your group, jeopardize even a part of those funds. The Big Ten Network would require 3 years to equal that income to the school if payouts grew to $47,000,000 per year. Now you may ask; "If the schools of the hypothetical East Division left to start their own conference would they lose the grants?" That is a legitimate question. No, they wouldn't lose all of it, but they would lose a certain degree of political support that aids in obtaining it. I suspect politicians from MN, IA, WI, NE and MO would make life difficult in the area of funding for the abandoning schools. The departing schools would also lose access to roughly half of the academic tools that in collaboration enable and enhance their chances of winning the grant in the first place. Does anyone think that Mizzou's prime benefit is the other half of the StL marketplace that Illinois doesn't get? It has something to do with it, but without Mizzou's fine Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) and its other high-end programs (such as journalism), Mizzou would not be a school even being considered (look at the other proposed adds- most of them fit both an ACADEMIC and athletic profile). Also, remember that the Presidents of the schools in question are the ones who make the decisions. If you believe that they allow athletics to drive the train, you are sadly and foolishly mistaken. Are they an important part of each school, certainly, but make no mistake that they are only a piece of the puzzle. Zero percent chance of any of the original schools ditching the conference to form a new one. ZERO.

Links:

http://www.cic.net/Libraries/Reports/ResearchCollaborationOpportunitiesForCIC.sflb.ashx

The Big Ten conference and the CIC are not the same thing. A school could leave the Big Ten and stay in the CIC. The seven schools remaining in the Big Ten would have just as much of a disincentive to kick the other seven out of the CIC as the seven leaving would have a disincentive to quit the CIC.
 

With Notre Dame they would not be giving up Chicago.

Even if you stipulate this you're just ignoring all the other reasons it won't work. What happens to the cash cow of the Big Ten Network? If the 7 schools are "bolting" then that means they are leaving the already built network behind. Are you suggesting they'd create their own network from scratch? Would they really be able to make more $$$ per year then as part of the expanded Big 10? And why bring Indiana/Purdue along?

And this ignores all the historical ties many of the schools share. Keep in mind that this isn't just an athletic confederation. While the CIC is not tied 1 to 1 with the Big 10 (as you note), they are essentially the same thing from a PR standpoint (with the B10 being the face and CIC as the behind the scenes academic powerhouse). Do you really forsee all the faculty councils, boards, and school presidents making this kind of move? The "egg head" side of things will only tolerate so much in the name of football and TV money.

This idea is right up there with the Vikings sharing TCF permanently. Possible (because anything is possible) but completely unlikely.
 

The Big Ten conference and the CIC are not the same thing. A school could leave the Big Ten and stay in the CIC. The seven schools remaining in the Big Ten would have just as much of a disincentive to kick the other seven out of the CIC as the seven leaving would have a disincentive to quit the CIC.

Fair argument, but there is a sizable difference between the two. First of all, if your hypothetical East were to make said powerplay and dare the dropped athletic schools to retaliate by dropping them from the CIC, there would be considerable pressure to do so. The hypothetical East would be cast in such a negative light via the media that such a scenario, while possible, is highly unprobable. All of this is to say nothing of the fact that the Presidents of these institutions are peers in a small community. Lastly, you've avoided the fact that the real decisionmakers in this process are all from the academic arena. At the end of the day, Jim Delany, despite having tremendous autonomy, still reports to the Presidents of his member institutions. Even if you toss that aside and look at it from a purely athletic side, there is considerable value to the Wisconsin, Iowa and Nebraska football franchises, to say nothing of the basketball brands of these schools that make such a move impractical. Next, there is no precedent for any of your East schools ever entertaining such an option. Top that off with the fact that the Indiana's, Purdue's and Michigan State's from the East would likely look at such a scenario playing out as a precursor to them being next and I think you're simply throwing monkey crap at that wall to see if anything sticks. You'd be better to spend your time worrying about a post-apocolyptic earth where Mel Gibson drives trucks and fights guys with mohawks. Afterall, it COULD happen. :p
 

Even if you stipulate this you're just ignoring all the other reasons it won't work. What happens to the cash cow of the Big Ten Network? If the 7 schools are "bolting" then that means they are leaving the already built network behind. Are you suggesting they'd create their own network from scratch? Would they really be able to make more $$$ per year then as part of the expanded Big 10? And why bring Indiana/Purdue along?

And this ignores all the historical ties many of the schools share. Keep in mind that this isn't just an athletic confederation. While the CIC is not tied 1 to 1 with the Big 10 (as you note), they are essentially the same thing from a PR standpoint (with the B10 being the face and CIC as the behind the scenes academic powerhouse). Do you really forsee all the faculty councils, boards, and school presidents making this kind of move? The "egg head" side of things will only tolerate so much in the name of football and TV money.

This idea is right up there with the Vikings sharing TCF permanently. Possible (because anything is possible) but completely unlikely.

Very smart take... sounds like someone else with a smart take on this thread. :D
 

I guess I agree that it is not likely but I'll contend that the larger the conference gets, the greater the likelihood that something like this could happen. I really started the thread to raise the possibility in that light.

One thing we've all assumed is that any new member will be extended CIC membership. I believe Penn State was invited to the conference first and the CIC second. Not sure if the agreement tied the two invitations together. I think regardless of where the expansion goes, we are better off if the B10 athletic and CIC memberships exactly mirror each other (+ U of Chicago). As posters have pointed out the CIC membership 'pours concrete' around the relationship.
 

I guess I agree that it is not likely but I'll contend that the larger the conference gets, the greater the likelihood that something like this could happen. I really started the thread to raise the possibility in that light.

One thing we've all assumed is that any new member will be extended CIC membership. I believe Penn State was invited to the conference first and the CIC second. Not sure if the agreement tied the two invitations together. I think regardless of where the expansion goes, we are better off if the B10 athletic and CIC memberships exactly mirror each other (+ U of Chicago). As posters have pointed out the CIC membership 'pours concrete' around the relationship.

I agree with you on all points. While I've commented that it is very unlikely, the probability does increase with expansion as new members wouldn't share the same history. I'm certain the rules would be amended to make it very difficult to jettison someone, but there is a dilutive effect to the "shared and common history angle" nonetheless. All that said, I don't think we'll see it in our or our kids lifetimes. Interesting article today out of Dallas talking about Mizzou as a better Big Ten fit than Nebraska. The article also references that some associated with the conference could possibly be uneasy about Notre Dame since they are not an AAU member (near the last 1/3) which I think shows the importance of academic fit in this process. Granted the writer is from the St. Louis Post Dispatch so he might have a dog in the fight, but interesting takes all the same.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ories/stories/051210dnospobig12.159e8e84.html
 




Top Bottom