CBS: It may be time for the Big Ten, SEC to poach the Big 12 again

Donate To GopherHole
Some guy said:
Looked it up. It would be 70% approval. So as long as you have a block of 5 schools you can prevent being voted out.


If the Big Ten added Notre Dame, Texas, Oklahoma, and Virginia....all of a sudden you have 18 schools and need a block of 6 schools to prevent being removed.


As I have said I do not think it even matters because I don't think they'll ever kick someone out. But you don't want to add too many major powers who might want to change the conference by dropping dead weight (if you consider your own school dead weight).
Click to expand...

Reference please.

Your arguments lack thought/logic. No major power would want to drop "dead weight" i.e. probable wins. No logic.
 

I think the 6 year TV deal the league just signed points to the addition of two new teams with expectation that one of them is a big enough draw that we can get bigger money with them....Texas and ND fit that bill...maybe ol Delaney has a plan for his retirement party.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Reference please.

Your arguments lack thought/logic. No major power would want to drop "dead weight" i.e. probable wins. No logic.
Click to expand...
I am talking financial dead weight.

You don't even understand the point I was making. I was saying that it is unlikely to ever get 70% of schools to vote on out, because if one is voted out it sets a precedent of voting teams out. So the 30% of teams who are possibly second on the list would never go along.

You say my argument makes no sense because no one would want to vote anyone out. Which is exactly what I said in my post?


As for references, I can't find the link I found earlier. The expansion % is 70% and that's pretty easy to find in many places. Not going to go find it, sorry should have posted earlier
 

GopherinPhilly said:
I think the 6 year TV deal the league just signed points to the addition of two new teams with expectation that one of them is a big enough draw that we can get bigger money with them....Texas and ND fit that bill...maybe ol Delaney has a plan for his retirement party.
Click to expand...

Would be interesting to see the actual deal to know if there are stipulations in if the big ten expands before then. It is a gamble.

The short term deal is a bet by the big ten that even without additions they can get a better deal in 6 years. The risk would be if cable money starts running dry and the next deal is similar or even a little lower.

I have no knowledge of The cable industry. This is what I've read on various blogs in regards of the cord cutting and Internet threat to cable tv.
 

Some guy said:
I am talking financial dead weight.

You don't even understand the point I was making. I was saying that it is unlikely to ever get 70% of schools to vote on out, because if one is voted out it sets a precedent of voting teams out. So the 30% of teams who are possibly second on the list would never go along.

You say my argument makes no sense because no one would want to vote anyone out. Which is exactly what I said in my post?


As for references, I can't find the link I found earlier. The expansion % is 70% and that's pretty easy to find in many places. Not going to go find it, sorry should have posted earlier
Click to expand...

Completely understood, not hard at all, thus my comment. Referring to your "dead weight" comment.
 


Some guy said:
Would be interesting to see the actual deal to know if there are stipulations in if the big ten expands before then. It is a gamble.

The short term deal is a bet by the big ten that even without additions they can get a better deal in 6 years. The risk would be if cable money starts running dry and the next deal is similar or even a little lower.

I have no knowledge of The cable industry. This is what I've read on various blogs in regards of the cord cutting and Internet threat to cable tv.
Click to expand...

You can have a deal to get 2 billion per year, but if cable starts dying like it's going to do, then that's no good either, even if you have thirty years left on the contract.
 

Sparlimb said:
You can have a deal to get 2 billion per year, but if cable starts dying like it's going to do, then that's no good either, even if you have thirty years left on the contract.
Click to expand...

Yes, cable is bleeding to death as we speak. I just dropped cable and feel like I'm late coming to the party. I know several people who have already kicked it to the curb.
 

MNGoldenGophers1 said:
Yes, cable is bleeding to death as we speak. I just dropped cable and feel like I'm late coming to the party. I know several people who have already kicked it to the curb.
Click to expand...

All broadcasters are evolving...you still want to watch the games, yes? The delivery medium might change, but the # of eyeballs won't.
 

PMWinSTP said:
All broadcasters are evolving...you still want to watch the games, yes? The delivery medium might change, but the # of eyeballs won't.
Click to expand...

The problem is at least half of the people stuck paying for BTN don't want it. So when cable/satellite become a la carte streaming channels, the money numbers go way down.
 



Sparlimb said:
The problem is at least half of the people stuck paying for BTN don't want it. So when cable/satellite become a la carte streaming channels, the money numbers go way down.
Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but I don't want the shopping channels. Some people don't watch the travel, food, true crime channels, etc. The bundling is how they can offer such a discounted per channel price. It will be a long time before we'll be able to purchase a la carte, and trust me, it won't be what you are charged now. BTN is nice, but that's not the big money...

My package does not include BTN...but I still watch every away game I want to...just not in my living room.
 

Seems almost as if Texas & Oklahoma are kind of waiting for the Big XII GOR deal to expire, and then they would look at their options, whether that be a new conference, or staying in the Big XII.

From what you read online (I highly recommend Frank the Tank's blog https://frankthetank.me), it seems like the powers that be at Texas & Oklahoma are about the Big Ten; Texas because it's the best combo of academics & athletics & a better geography fit than the Pac or ACC (especially BC/Syracuse/Pitt), and Oklahoma because they want to enhance the reputation of their university and become known for more than just a football factory. You throw in those 2, along with Kansas, I'm guessing the Big Ten could probably get Missouri as well because, as well as they're enjoying the benefits of the SEC, some thought is that they'd still prefer the Big Ten, and being involved with some of their old conference mates may be just too good to pass up.

Which then presents a problem to me, as a Minnesota fan; clearly the conference would go geography and we'd be in a division with all of those new schools. As much as I respect those schools and their programs in their specific sports, it's almost like us, Wisconsin & Iowa would now become more of a "Big 8" school in terms of sports as we wouldn't see some of the Big Ten schools as much as in the past. Personally, I don't have a ton of personal loss if we were to lose out on playing Ohio State instead of Texas & Oklahoma, I would miss playing Michigan a ton. I don't know if there's a good solution to this though, if expansion is inevitable and the Big XII were to lose their power schools. At least there's a few years to figure it all out....
 

Have Colorado State expand their stadium and add them. I say this for purely selfish reasons, as I would like more excuses to visit the Rocky Mountains, and plane fare to Denver is cheap.
 

FireDaveLee said:
Seems almost as if Texas & Oklahoma are kind of waiting for the Big XII GOR deal to expire, and then they would look at their options, whether that be a new conference, or staying in the Big XII.

From what you read online (I highly recommend Frank the Tank's blog https://frankthetank.me), it seems like the powers that be at Texas & Oklahoma are about the Big Ten; Texas because it's the best combo of academics & athletics & a better geography fit than the Pac or ACC (especially BC/Syracuse/Pitt), and Oklahoma because they want to enhance the reputation of their university and become known for more than just a football factory. You throw in those 2, along with Kansas, I'm guessing the Big Ten could probably get Missouri as well because, as well as they're enjoying the benefits of the SEC, some thought is that they'd still prefer the Big Ten, and being involved with some of their old conference mates may be just too good to pass up.

Which then presents a problem to me, as a Minnesota fan; clearly the conference would go geography and we'd be in a division with all of those new schools. As much as I respect those schools and their programs in their specific sports, it's almost like us, Wisconsin & Iowa would now become more of a "Big 8" school in terms of sports as we wouldn't see some of the Big Ten schools as much as in the past. Personally, I don't have a ton of personal loss if we were to lose out on playing Ohio State instead of Texas & Oklahoma, I would miss playing Michigan a ton. I don't know if there's a good solution to this though, if expansion is inevitable and the Big XII were to lose their power schools. At least there's a few years to figure it all out....
Click to expand...

All makes sense but as has been discussed earlier, OK OKST are pretty much a package deal..deal-breaker for me and probably B1G. Can't see MIZZOU making another move...most fans I know are now in love with being an SEC FB team.

I know my wish-list teams are a real long-shot, but Stanford and Irish would be my dream additions. Stanford to West, Irish to East.
 



RodentRampage said:
Have Colorado State expand their stadium and add them. I say this for purely selfish reasons, as I would like more excuses to visit the Rocky Mountains, and plane fare to Denver is cheap.
Click to expand...

Ask and you shall receive

2016: 32,500 capacity
2017: 41,200 capacity (new stadium)
 

Maximus said:
Ask and you shall receive

2016: 32,500 capacity
2017: 41,200 capacity (new stadium)
Click to expand...

I suppose if the Big Ten extended an invitation with the stipulation that the stadium be expanded to 50,000, CSU might jump on it. Not realistic, but it would be a great road trip.
 


RodentRampage said:
I suppose if the Big Ten extended an invitation with the stipulation that the stadium be expanded to 50,000, CSU might jump on it. Not realistic, but it would be a great road trip.
Click to expand...

For purely selfish reasons...I would love it if we added Colorado and Colorado State. Sounds a lot better than going to Kansas or Oklahoma.
 



If Texas and Kansas came in we would definitely lose Purdue and one of Illinois/Northwestern to the East.

That way both divisions have teams in Chicagoland, Purdue is reunited with Indiana, and the quadrangle of hate Minn-Iowa-Wis-Neb would be preserved.

Not that's its going to happen.
 

westcoastgopher11 said:
If Texas and Kansas came in we would definitely lose Purdue and one of Illinois/Northwestern to the East.

That way both divisions have teams in Chicagoland, Purdue is reunited with Indiana, and the quadrangle of hate Minn-Iowa-Wis-Neb would be preserved.

Not that's its going to happen.
Click to expand...

How about we simply "lose" Purdue
 

westcoastgopher11 said:
If Texas and Kansas came in we would definitely lose Purdue and one of Illinois/Northwestern to the East.

That way both divisions have teams in Chicagoland, Purdue is reunited with Indiana, and the quadrangle of hate Minn-Iowa-Wis-Neb would be preserved.

Not that's its going to happen.
Click to expand...

So you think they would move Purdue and another to the East and have 1 9-team division and 1-7 team division? I think they would probably just move one and keep it 8&8.
 

It's sounding more and more like the Big XII won't expand and just hope the networks pay them not to expand.
 

Some guy said:
So you think they would move Purdue and another to the East and have 1 9-team division and 1-7 team division? I think they would probably just move one and keep it 8&8.
Click to expand...

I think we have a better chance of winning the division that way.
 

GophersInIowa said:
I think we have a better chance of winning the division that way.
Click to expand...

Disagree.

A 7 team division of:
Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota

Is tougher to win than an 8 team division of:
Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota
Illinois


Although I suppose it depends on crossovers and who you get in your 3 crossovers vs your 2 crossovers.
 

Some guy said:
Disagree.

A 7 team division of:
Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota

Is tougher to win than an 8 team division of:
Texas
Oklahoma
Nebraska
Iowa
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Minnesota
Illinois


Although I suppose it depends on crossovers and who you get in your 3 crossovers vs your 2 crossovers.
Click to expand...

My comment was tongue in cheek. He also mentioned adding Texas and Kansas, not Texas and Oklahoma.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom