1. The 2014 Spring Drive is underway! Get yer banners and crazy ยค currency!
  2. Follow us on Twitter and retweet to your friends... @buckeyeplanet
  3. Until our search engine is fully operational, just precede any search term in Google with "site:buckeyeplanet.com"! For example: site:buckeyeplanet.com Ryan Hamby
  4. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

Discussion in 'Buckeye Football' started by Mike80, Jul 26, 2007.

?

Which Teams Should the Big Ten Add? (please limit to four selections)

  1. Boston College

    28 vote(s)
    10.0%
  2. Cincinnati

    17 vote(s)
    6.1%
  3. Connecticut

    6 vote(s)
    2.2%
  4. Duke

    17 vote(s)
    6.1%
  5. Georgia Tech

    50 vote(s)
    17.9%
  6. Kansas

    44 vote(s)
    15.8%
  7. Maryland

    66 vote(s)
    23.7%
  8. Missouri

    91 vote(s)
    32.6%
  9. North Carolina

    27 vote(s)
    9.7%
  10. Notre Dame

    192 vote(s)
    68.8%
  11. Oklahoma

    69 vote(s)
    24.7%
  12. Pittsburgh

    39 vote(s)
    14.0%
  13. Rutgers

    38 vote(s)
    13.6%
  14. Syracuse

    16 vote(s)
    5.7%
  15. Texas

    116 vote(s)
    41.6%
  16. Vanderbilt

    13 vote(s)
    4.7%
  17. Virginia

    38 vote(s)
    13.6%
  18. Virginia Tech

    56 vote(s)
    20.1%
  19. Stay at 12 teams and don't expand

    24 vote(s)
    8.6%
  20. Add some other school(s) not listed

    14 vote(s)
    5.0%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. I was just responding to your suggestion that OU/OkSU and KU/KSU could be split if each had a good landing spot. That's true in theory, but since I can't imagine a scenario where either the B1G or SEC would want KSU or OkSU it doesn't work so well in practice. Maybe the SEC might be interested if they went beyond 16 teams, but even then I'm not sure they would add enough eyeballs to justify them.

    The reason why it is difficult to separate those schools is mostly political. In the case OkSU, they have a lot of political power because T. Boone Pickens is such a powerful alum/booster, and they could easily get the legislature and governor to scuttle any deal that allows OU to leave the BigXII while leaving them behind. KSU and Kansas lack the all-powerful alum/booster, but the legislature and governor would make things difficult for either to leave if the other didn't have a landing spot. If politics didn't play a role, I'd totally agree with you that the programs would definitely be separable because of the lure of more money.

    This same reason is why B1G expansion may run into trouble in Virginia and North Carolina if the SEC doesn't want to expand. Splitting VA and VPI and UNC and NCSU is easy if the B1G wants a pair of them and the SEC wants the other pair, but becomes politically difficult if the SEC wants to stand pat. Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers were easy gets because they don't have this problem.
  2. If these conferences decided to break off from the NCAA, would that still be the case? I'm admittedly ignorant on what exactly constitutes "antitrust" in a situation like this. For example, if these conferences broke away from the NCAA, could Boise State or some other undefeated team still left in the NCAA sue this new entity because they weren't given a chance to compete for a national title? Or would they have no standing because they could still compete for the NCAA national title (which admittedly would be as big as the D I-AA/FCS national championship is now)?
  3. Dryden

    Dryden Head Coach in Waiting Staff Member

    Let's say 64 teams form four conferences and withdraw from the NCAA to form a new organization called the CA$H.

    Congress is going to want to know why Boise St can't join the CA$H. It cannot be 64 static teams that never changes -- that's a pipe dream. Also, these aren't teams that we can just move around and realign like pro sports franchises, despite the fact they're honestly just feeders and function as semi-pro sports franchises. There are going to be 70 or 80 other universities with passionate alumni, many of them congressmen, senators, and so on that demand to be in.

    Lavell Edwards and Orrin Hatch complained until they got what they wanted once already. Changing the rules doesn't make all that stuff go away.

    We cannot lock them out of games. We can lock them out of all the TV money.
  4. So, with that logic, could Boise State sue (or get their senators involved) the AAU for not allowing them to join? I realize that isn't all that important in terms of being popular politically, but it is still a group of schools that excludes others because they don't feel they measure up. Granted, the AAU doesn't confer any direct, obvious benefits for a particular school like CA$H would, but it still only allows schools to join if they've met certain criteria. Theoretically, couldn't CA$H be set up that way, with criteria that would make it nearly impossible for teams like Boise State to ever join?

    Anyway, I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand the dynamics.
  5. PlanetFrnd

    PlanetFrnd Newbie

    The 64 schools would have a case - nothing is keeping the remaining 60-or so schools from playing games, creating a tournament, signing TV contracts, etc.
  6. PlanetFrnd

    PlanetFrnd Newbie

    Don't disagree with what you're saying at all. Just saying I wouldn't expect all parties - especially politicians - to remain strong in the face of money. Especially in an all-or-nothing scenario, like either KU gets in without KSU (for example) or the state of Kansas gets locked out.
  7. Dryden

    Dryden Head Coach in Waiting Staff Member

    Middle Tennessee and FAU are leaving the Sun Belt and headed for Conference USA. Game. Changer.
  8. Dryden

    Dryden Head Coach in Waiting Staff Member

    Understood.

    I think your question is non analogous though because AAU membership can be fluid. Whether it moves at a glacial pace or not isn't relevant because the possibility of membership change at least exists, provided an invitee meets certain criteria.

    A 4x16/64-team superleague implies there is some sort of predetermined criteria for 'the chosen ones' and that membership is fixed, particularly if this group decides to exit the NCAA and start something new. In doing so, they don't expect any movement in membership.

    Of course, if the 64 most wealthy Div I FBS schools leave the NCAA, that organization likely collapses in their absence.

    The idea of 4 super conferences for football sounds good in theory, it just doesn't seem to be very realistic given all the implications. There is also the Notre Dame and Texas problem. Notre Dame doesn't want to share their national TV appeal and fan base, and Texas doesn't want to share with a league that isn't Texas-centric.
  9. CA$H could be fluid as well. If a program drops below a certain threshold, they could be ousted and another team from the NCAA could be brought in. For that matter, leagues could add programs and get above 16 schools if need be. It would still be them choosing the haves and have nots, but it wouldn't be done capriciously, but rather based on quantitative ctiteria.

    I doubt the NCAA would collapse. There would still be hundreds of teams left. The NAIA survives just fine despite not having any big-name schools.

    My supposition would be that they would be part of such a breakaway governing entity. Given the option of remaining in the NCAA and altering their views on conference structure, I imagine they'd choose CA$H.

    I'm not actually in favor of an entity like CA$H, by the way. As flawed as it is, the NCAA still works.
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  10. PlanetFrnd

    PlanetFrnd Newbie

    Is the NCAA even supposed to be the multi-billion corporation/quasi government agency that it has become?
  11. That's tough to answer. Certainly it was not meant to be that way when it was first founded, but things are far more different now. Money, of course, is what is different now. If it isn't the NCAA, it will be something else. With cuts in state funding, increasingly competitive grant applications, and growing TV money for athletics, colleges are becoming less idealistic and more predatory merely to survive. That's the way of the future, and the NCAA is just one (frankly minor) piece of that.
  12. ORD_Buckeye

    ORD_Buckeye Senior

    When it comes right down to it, the states that get left out don't have the political clout to make anything happen. The only wildcard is if Harry Reid decides to go to the mattresses for Slot Machine Aggy and Slot Machine Aggy with Skiing. But what can they really do? There is no anti-trust issue.
  13. ORD_Buckeye

    ORD_Buckeye Senior

    Boise (and the other have-nots) have nothing to sue about. They are--and always have been--free to leave and set up competing leagues, television contracts/networks and playoffs and bowls. Nobody is stopping them or interfering with their right to do so.

    The only anti-trust issue would be if the Haves were to use our economic influence and market muscle to interfere with their plans: i.e. force stadiums not to do business with them or have networks blackball them. That would be collusion and anti-trust. The fact that they have a product nobody wants is not an anti-trust issue. Anti-trust legislation was never meant to be a guarantee against market rejection.
  14. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    UNLV and Nevada... LOLZ
  15. Fungo Squiggly

    Fungo Squiggly Mortal enemy of all things Bucky '13 B1G Pick'em Champ

    :rofl:

    No kidding. Those might be my favorites yet.

Share This Page