Expansion: Big Ten is reportedly talking to..

Donate To GopherHole
The best argument I have seen for Texas joining is made in this blog

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2...-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

I know it's been posted before, but based on a lot of the comments in this thread I doubt many have read it. It has 2 main Premises:

#1) think like a University President, not a sports fan. to paraphrase, think funding, academic advantages and prestige and research dollars. (This is mostly focused towards reasons Texas would want to join) Texas fits academically in the middle to upper eschelon of the big ten institutions. Joining the big ten adds prestige and benefits that the big 12 will never match.

In my words, you are judged by your association, If you are a University President do you want your school to be associated with Nebraska, Kansas, Texas Tech, Iowa State, because you are seen ase their superior or do you want to be associated with Michigan, Northwestern, Penn State and Wisconsin because you are now part of a group of academic institutions generally rated as superior. The lowest ranked B10 school per US news and world reports are Iowa, Indiana and I believe Michigan State tied at #71 - If I recall correctly Texas is the only school in the B12 that would ranked ahead of those 3 schools. (there might be 1 more)

#2) As the author puts it 11+1=13 (think Penn State, they set the expansion bar very high) The big ten is not expanding for a championship game in football, and it is not expanding to split the pie with another institution. In short, the additional institution has to not only fit into the big ten academically and athletically, It has to bring more than the +1 of being the 12th school. Texas and ND fit the bill. The author eliminates a lot of the other schools mentioned in this thread based on his criteria (which may or may not be valid) but it is a well laid out argument and I wouldn't dismiss the possibility.

The SEC has a lot of advantages athletically, I think the goal of the big ten is to maintain it's reputation of being both a superior academic and athletic conference. ND and Texas are the 2 most logical school to forward that goal. The Big 12 and Big East is not a stable conferences, that is why they are the most likely to provide the 12th team. So forget the "If Texas, why not UCLA, USC, Florida or whomever else. The SEC and PAC-10 are stable and none of their schools are looking for an out. The big Twelve and Big East both have schools that would jump at the opportunity to join the big 10.

As far as travel distances, check the milage from (Pac 10) Seattle to or Phoenix (1112), or (ACC) Boston to Miami (1261). in Comparison state college to Austin (1325)

I am all for this, I think Texas Joins the Big Ten - It nearly did 20 years ago. And Colorado joins the pac-10 This has been a rumor for a while. I hate to say it but the Big twelve is left as the Big East in the middle.
 

The sky is not falling. The unlikely, but possible addition of Texas to the Big 10 does not mean the end of Minnesota's conference membership. Sheesh, take a deep breath. There are documentable talks about addition, there are historical precendents for addition. No such evidence supports the fear of being kicked out. The Big Ten has never even discussed that option for any school. Further, I'm not sure how much more clearly it can be stated that THE CIC IS LARGER THAN THE BIG TEN TO THOSE WHO RUN THESE UNIVERSITIES!!!!! Maybe to quote the much reviled Common Man Dan Cole, if your world only revolves around sports, sports, sports, I can see the fear. That said, UT is an institution of academic quality that would place it much more in line with the Big Ten schools than the so-called learning institutions that make up the Big XII or SEC. UT would consider joining the Big Ten based on the financial AND academic standpoints. They would be very hesitant to give up the opportunity to have access to the academics that the CIC provides to them. There is nothing to suggest there would be any interest in kicking out a team(s) or precedent for that happening, short of a program getting the death penalty for NCAA violations, and even that would be unlikely. There is some independently verified corroboration of the goal orf expansion, the only comments on contraction are people saying "I bet they will kick someone out". Two very different situations. Take a deep breath. There is only about a 1% chance any addition of Texas comes to fruition.
 

Throw a baseball against a wall. It bounces back. But it's just barely possible that every atom of the baseball might miss the atoms of the wall and pass right through the wall. It's beyond mind-bogglingly unlikely that it would happen, but not actually impossible. If every person on a the planet threw a baseball against a wall every second until the sun turned into the red giant and burned up the Earth in a few billion years, the odds of this happening even once would still be nearly zero.

Still, this is more likely than any Big Ten school being tossed out of the Big Ten.
 

MrGopher said:
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.

I really dont see how you can argue with that.
Click to expand...

As far as adding more than one team, I am not entirely sure about how I feel. I can envision a situation where ND initially balks, which it has done publicly, then once they realize the Big Ten door is closing on them, change their tune. If this happens, I think the B10 would try to accommodate both schools and then do a quick search to find a suitable third school. Other than this scenario (or an oddly similar one), I assume that the B10 would prefer to keep the expansion to one team, to help prevent the type of upheaval you describe above.

Others have made the Texas is a valid option argument, and I will not regurgitate it again. However, Texas is such a good option with a definitive untapped geographic fingerprint for TV markets, and a well respected research-oriented university, that it may trump ND. I really don't know how many TV markets that the B10 network would break into with ND.

While they all may be small contributing factors, geographical proximity and established rivalries will be small factors. I hate the Yankees. I hate the Cowboys. I hate the Spurs. These teams are not geographically close to me, and oftentimes aren't even in the same division. I'm apathetic towards the Brewers and the Bucks. Rivalries will evolve over time, and changing conferences inherently destroys current rivalries and creates new ones. The B10 wants a big fish, and Texas happens to be a big fish in a relatively unstable conference.
 

bigtenchamps1899 said:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem is that important logic (money, academics) support adding Texas. The same logic doesn't support kicking schools out of the Big Ten. Especially MN. Losing the Twin Cities market isn't something the Big Ten wants to do. More important is the academic side of things via the CIC. Worrying about whether the Big Ten would boot MN is like worrying about whether the Vikings will become permanent co-residents at TCF. Technically possible but completely unlikely. Also, as noted multiple times, there are not enough votes to make it happen. The "little fish" of the Big Ten that you worry will be gone are not going to band together and let one or two of their number get booted. Period.
 


Would the Texas state legislature have any say in regards to this situation? I thought I heard that mentioned at some point as being a significant roadblock.
 

SFBaygopher said:
The best argument I have seen for Texas joining is made in this blog

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2...-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/
Click to expand...

Thanks SF...I probably should have given Frank's work his own post like you instead of dropping the links in the midst of other thoughts.

If you read everything this guy researched and wrote you'll see why the idea of Texas isn't crazy. I still don't think its likely, I'm still not sure its the best move, but logically it makes sense. Of course, you have to be willing to accept the 2 main premises of the argument first. :)
 

frozengopher said:
Would the Texas state legislature have any say in regards to this situation? I thought I heard that mentioned at some point as being a significant roadblock.
Click to expand...

I think Texas faces the same potential problems that the U does when it comes to PO'ing the legislature...funding. Otherwise I'm not sure if they can stop anything. The stories about Texas' move to the Big XII along with TTech/Baylor focus on how the Lt. Gov threatened to slash Texas and A&M's funding if the little 2 didn't get to join as well.
 

GoAUpher said:
The problem is that important logic (money, academics) support adding Texas. The same logic doesn't support kicking schools out of the Big Ten. Especially MN. Losing the Twin Cities market isn't something the Big Ten wants to do. More important is the academic side of things via the CIC. Worrying about whether the Big Ten would boot MN is like worrying about whether the Vikings will become permanent co-residents at TCF. Technically possible but completely unlikely. Also, as noted multiple times, there are not enough votes to make it happen. The "little fish" of the Big Ten that you worry will be gone are not going to band together and let one or two of their number get booted. Period.
Click to expand...

Agreed. For one it's really tough to get enough votes to kick a team out of a conference. It's something that rarely happens in any conference. And, despite the inferiority complex that many Minnesotans have, the Twin Cities is not a small market, it's the around the 13th or 14th biggest market in the country. It would be foolish to throw that away. And even if it did happen, we'd probably just wind up in the Big 12 - they wouldn't let that market slide.
 



GoAUpher said:
I think Texas faces the same potential problems that the U does when it comes to PO'ing the legislature...funding. Otherwise I'm not sure if they can stop anything. The stories about Texas' move to the Big XII along with TTech/Baylor focus on how the Lt. Gov threatened to slash Texas and A&M's funding if the little 2 didn't get to join as well.
Click to expand...

The legislature down there can get in the way of this big time if they choose to by holding the money of the Permanent University Fund over their heads. This is a huge fund that is worth billions that is funded by gas and oil rights and established many years ago. 2/3 of the proceeds go to the University of Texas system while 1/3 goes to the A&M system. For instance, in 2007-2008 alone UT-Austin received 143 million dollars from this fund.
 

GopherGod said:
The legislature down there can get in the way of this big time if they choose to by holding the money of the Permanent University Fund over their heads. This is a huge fund that is worth billions that is funded by gas and oil rights and established many years ago. 2/3 of the proceeds go to the University of Texas system while 1/3 goes to the A&M system. For instance, in 2007-2008 alone UT-Austin received 143 million dollars from this fund.
Click to expand...

Assuming Texas even wanted to leave, this little nugget is exactly why it would fall through. Thanks GG.
 

I wonder if Texas is really serious, this could be just some sort of ploy to get something out of the Big 12?
 

RodentRampage said:
I wonder if Texas is really serious, this could be just some sort of ploy to get something out of the Big 12?
Click to expand...

Who knows? No reason not to. I don't know if we'll ever know if any potential addition or the Big Ten is serious until it happens. Which is what will make this so much fun/so frustrating for months and months to come! :)
 



Much of the Big 12 is upset with the current conference structure, hence its instability and the reason Texas is a plausible option. Texas already has a decided advantage over other schools in the conference, and I would not expect the "smaller schools" to make concessions without planning to bolt the conference.
 

hyaluronic said:
While they all may be small contributing factors, geographical proximity and established rivalries will be small factors. I hate the Yankees. I hate the Cowboys. I hate the Spurs. These teams are not geographically close to me, and oftentimes aren't even in the same division. I'm apathetic towards the Brewers and the Bucks. Rivalries will evolve over time, and changing conferences inherently destroys current rivalries and creates new ones. The B10 wants a big fish, and Texas happens to be a big fish in a relatively unstable conference.
Click to expand...


I can generally agree with that, but at the same time, we play the Buckeyes just about every freaking year, and that is not much of a rivalry. Don't get me wrong, I hate them, but even though we've played them a whole bunch of times in football, there isn't much competitiveness there. The fanbases aren't especially mixed in any part of the country.
 

highwayman said:
Divisions as I see it (E/W):
Great Lakes
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue

Great Plains
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Texas
Wisconsin
Click to expand...

I think that's definitely how they would align the expanded conference. Except I think they're going to name them "Central" and "Eastern" after their respective time zones.:)
 

People.....there's no way UT makes a move like that without A&M, and there is almost
no chance that both schools make that move together.
 

Texas' biggest rival isn't A&M, not even close. It's Oklahoma. A&M is to Texas as Michigan State is to Michigan. Michigan State wants to be Michigan's top rival, but Ohio State will always be. There is zero chance this happens. If we expand, it's Pitt or Mizzou. I think it's Pitt.
 

UT fans want to beat OU, that's true. But within the state of Texas, the two universities
are extremely well tied together. It has nothing to do with rivalry, and everything to do with
state politics.
 

Not happening. Travel expenses would murder all their other sports. Football and Bball are (most likely, maybe baseball too) the only sports bringing in more money than they lose, so they could handle trips to Madison, Twin Cities, Happ Valley, Columbus, Etc. But Tennis? Swimming? Volleyball? those not profit sports would get a hell of a lot more expensive, and I'm not sure if Texas is willing to deal with that. It all depends on if the money they get from the BT tv deal is substantially greater than the price increase of traveling.

IMO, I think this is a ploy by Texas to scare the B12 into giving them more $.
 

PigAxeJug said:
Not happening. Travel expenses would murder all their other sports. Football and Bball are (most likely, maybe baseball too) the only sports bringing in more money than they lose, so they could handle trips to Madison, Twin Cities, Happ Valley, Columbus, Etc. But Tennis? Swimming? Volleyball? those not profit sports would get a hell of a lot more expensive, and I'm not sure if Texas is willing to deal with that. It all depends on if the money they get from the BT tv deal is substantially greater than the price increase of traveling.

IMO, I think this is a ploy by Texas to scare the B12 into giving them more $.
Click to expand...

I think the extra 10 million could handle that. Having said that, I'd prefer Mizz.
 

Why are we only discussing the addition of a single school?

Seems to me that the big ten network gives us tremendous power and prestige...why not go after 3 schools and create the power conference we need to compete with the ACC and SEC. Texas, Nebraska and A & M or Mizzou could be added and we have a tremendous conference. Pitt, Syracuse, Iowa State are also in the mix.

Central and Eastern divisions with 7 teams in each division would be fabulous.
 

GoAUpher said:
Assuming Texas even wanted to leave, this little nugget is exactly why it would fall through. Thanks GG.
Click to expand...

The financial aspect, national prestige, etc. cannot be argued against. The legislature will recognize that a move to the Big Ten is absolutely in UT's best interest.

The question is how much political grand-standing they want to do over it. There have been Texas legislators that have tapped into the archaic parochialism of rural Texas voters in the past. But a lot has changed in Texas over the last 10-15 years. Nowadays it's harder for Texas politicians to claim that Texas is this isolated place that isn't interested in interacting with the rest of the world.

Not to mention, the other Texas schools were afraid of losing UT and A&M in the past. UT has left A&M in the dust to such a degree that this is about 1 school at this point. If you let UT go, it reopens the possibility that the rest of the Texas schools rejoin each other again.

I think the only thing that could kill this is the reaction from A&M and Oklahoma. No one wants to see either or both of those two go to an expanded SEC.
 

PigAxeJug said:
Not happening. Travel expenses would murder all their other sports. Football and Bball are (most likely, maybe baseball too) the only sports bringing in more money than they lose, so they could handle trips to Madison, Twin Cities, Happ Valley, Columbus, Etc. But Tennis? Swimming? Volleyball? those not profit sports would get a hell of a lot more expensive, and I'm not sure if Texas is willing to deal with that. It all depends on if the money they get from the BT tv deal is substantially greater than the price increase of traveling.

IMO, I think this is a ploy by Texas to scare the B12 into giving them more $.
Click to expand...

They already fly to the majority of their destinations, and fuel is a marginal cost.

Texas already gets an uneven share of B12 revenue - asking other schools to give up more will not go over well. I have heard some speculate that the B12 would be dramatically reshaped if Missouri left, and Missouri has, essentially, openly campaigned to be invited. If Texas gets more revenue share, it will hasten the dissolution of the B12, not stabilize it. At this point, we can use Missouri as a pawn to get the big fish. If we are expanding beyond 12 teams, we can take Missouri and Texas, and another school (A&M, Pitt, etc.)
 

How about that? Don't remember whether Penn State was a major surprise. Nebraska judging by this was too. Rutgers was a surprise. Maryland was a REAL surprise. The two together and the timing was an off the charts surprise. Wonder how big the next surprise will be?
 

I know folks keep drumming Missouri, but they just paid a $12m exit fee two years ago, and face a $50m EF to leave the SEC. I'd say they are a far out choice. South and east are a better bet, both on expanding the footprint and TV revenue. Missouri is, well, redundant.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom