Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[ORD_Buckeye]

Looks like this is not true.

Sources: Pittsburgh Denies Story That It Will Leave The Big East For The Big Ten

I think it was the equivalent of the gangly dude in American Pie spreading rumors about the size of his equipment in order to get a prom date.

 

[jlb1705]

Looks like this is not true.

Sources: Pittsburgh Denies Story That It Will Leave The Big East For The Big Ten

That's good to see.

Pitt to the Big Ten would've be the conference re-alignment equivalent of Lane Kiffin to USC.

You don't choke away a three-possession lead and conference championship to a basketball school and get to move up to a real conference. That's just not how things work.

 

[bkochmc]

So, it is not a different sport and the same Texas athletes in track and field would run in this. Its as if we were to link Track and Field twice by different names.
I am talking about the reference in the drop down menu for sports at the official UT athletics site. No Googling.

I didn't see the Texas Relays in the sports listing the first time. I can see how that would be confusing, especially if you didn't know about the event.

The math is this. Right now Texas gets about $12 million from the Big 12. We get $22 million. If we add Texas they get bumped to $22 million (it wouldn't be quite this simple since we would be splitting the pie from which our $22 million comes from one more way but getting revenues from the championship game, plus other considerations) but we don't get bumped to $32 million. That is, they will have $10 more million to play with than they have now and we will have nothing more. All that could go to football and basketball. The CG would bring money in as would cable revenues but they would be split evenly. This is, then, a $10 million windfall profit per year to play with for Texas. We get no windfall.

I never said that Ohio State will get an additional $10 million just because Texas joins. I said Ohio State will get additional revenue because bigger Big Ten Network and ad coverage will spread more money to each university.

None of this has any bearing on my point that Texas has many fewer sports than we have or that Iowa has (only other school I have looked at -- I took it as representative of the rest of the conference) and so they have an enormous financial advantage over Ohio State. They support fewer sports than we do so can spend more on football and basketball and would be getting this windfall profit every year over what the Big 12 would offer.

Wisconsin doesn't have baseball.
Northwestern doesn't have track, gymnastics, or hockey.
Indiana and Illinois don't have hockey or men's volleyball.

You can look at pretty much every Big Ten team besides Michigan and Penn State and find a sport that Ohio State has and another school doesn't have. Very few schools support as many sports as Ohio State does. Michigan, Penn State, USC, UCLA and Cal are probably about the only ones. These schools support many Olympic sports.

Yo, I am an academic -- retired OSU professor. I believe I have the academic part of this covered, thank you.

Congratulations, want a cookie? Seriously, what institution that is being considered do you think would fit the best from an academic standpoint? I don't have a dog in the 'academic fight'... I just mentioned it earlier as I had no background on you and knew many others thought it was a big consideration for the conference.

I think the only strike against Texas is the distance from Austin to the Big Ten campuses. Maybe that'll be enough to keep an invitation at arms length, maybe not. But they make a great fit in pretty much every other category.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Big Ten Hockey Conference!!!!

 

[Merih]

The Big Ten would trip all over themselves to add a school with the clout both academically and athletically that Texas brings. The only thing that would hold it up would be the distance factor. I've taken the flight many, many times. It is a bit out of the way when compared to most of the schools being in driving range of each other.

In the same vein as adding Penn State, Texas would bring alot to the conference. Expansion into a new market, an enormous and loyal fan base, and increased competition. This would make the pie a whole lot bigger for the rest of the teams to share.

 

[osuteke]

I think it was the equivalent of the gangly dude in American Pie spreading rumors about the size of his equipment in order to get a prom date.

Fist yourself Finch.

 

[buxfan4life]

Big Ten Hockey Conference!!!!

Oh yeah! When does the conference tourney start, again?

 

[MaxBuck]

Oh yeah! When does the conference tourney start, eh?

fi

 

[buckgeis]

Rutgers doesn't have a NY market unless

Rutgers doesn't have a NY market unless it is winning big, as it did 3 or so years ago. NYC was all atwitter. But it didn't last. If Rutgers were in the Big Ten it would not win big and NYC would not care about it. NYC is a pro football and college and pro basketball town. It is not a college football town. There are no college football teams in the 5 boroughs of any consequence. Rutgers isn't even a New York University. The most that can be counted on would be New Jersey.

 

[matcar]

Rutgers doesn't have a NY market unless it is winning big, as it did 3 or so years ago. NYC was all atwitter. But it didn't last. If Rutgers were in the Big Ten it would not win big and NYC would not care about it. NYC is a pro football and college and pro basketball town. It is not a college football town. There are no college football teams in the 5 boroughs of any consequence. Rutgers isn't even a New York University. The most that can be counted on would be New Jersey.

No, but Texas owns the Texas market, would bring a lot of households to the BTN, and academically is a strong fit for the conference. Meanwhile, UT's staff has openly discussed their desire to be part of something like the B10 offers. I know this because I speak with many. So, let's get back to talking about a school that actually makes sense for both parties.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Rutgers doesn't have a NY market unless it is winning big, as it did 3 or so years ago. NYC was all atwitter. But it didn't last. If Rutgers were in the Big Ten it would not win big and NYC would not care about it. NYC is a pro football and college and pro basketball town. It is not a college football town. There are no college football teams in the 5 boroughs of any consequence. Rutgers isn't even a New York University. The most that can be counted on would be New Jersey.

Which is why I've always said that, if the NYC television market, is that high of a priority, Syracuse is the logical choice if we look East.

 

[Esoteria]

AA is definitley not 15 minutes from Detroit metro. 25 miles, in a bus even with no traffic, is at least 30 minutes. I live in this god forsaken state and the traffic is AWFUL! but it's not crappy valley... As far as being the sticks that is.

I'd love to see Texas but like I've seen posted already, don't expand just to expand. Texas, ND and Mizzou all three. Anything less than that forget it.

Go BIG or don't go at all.

Detroit International Airport to University of Michigan is 14.9 miles by car according to Google Maps.

 

[cincibuck]

Plus, the Big Ten said that there's going to be a 12-18 month evaluation period. Why would they jump the gun so quick. I could see them doing this with Texas perhaps to beat the Pac 10 to the punch, but Pitt (or Rutgers or Syracuse aren't going anywhere) all will sit and patiently wait and crawl to Chicago on their knees if tapped on the shoulder. No need to rush this.

The only possible reason would be to sweat the Big East into hastily kicking the domers out; althought I've honestly come to believe that the domers would park their basketball and other programs in the Colonial League before giving up their football independence.

Question: Why would Texas want to go anywhere but where they are? Oklahoma and Nebraska are their only real rivals. They can fill their stadium 8 times a year playing TTech, Kansas, ISU and SouthwestNortheast Louisianna Mortuary Sciences and Normal College. They have two great rivalry games with Okie and TAM, which they have dominated recently and over the long haul. They're in a perfect location to be the middle and late game for TV. Their out of town commutes are short given where they're located. Where are they going to find it any better? I see zero incentive.

 

[Piney]

Question: Why would Texas want to go anywhere but where they are? Oklahoma and Nebraska are their only real rivals. They can fill their stadium 8 times a year playing TTech, Kansas, ISU and SouthwestNortheast Louisianna Mortuary Sciences and Normal College. They have two great rivalry games with Okie and TAM, which they have dominated recently and over the long haul. They're in a perfect location to be the middle and late game for TV. Their out of town commutes are short given where they're located. Where are they going to find it any better? I see zero incentive.

Money... money... and even more money. Not only just the TV contracts from sports but access to the CIC monies. The CIC monies would shut up the facility that were complaining about Mack Brown's salary really quick. Plus what I gather from the Texas fans that have come over is they really never liked the Big 12 and they feel they are better than all of their Big 12 breathern.

On the flip side while they never really liked the Big 12, they own that conference. They get the most money and prestige from that conference. It is just 'easier' to stay where they are.

But why would they switch? If the people running things down there have the foresight to see what the eventual future of college sports will look like. And that is eventual super conferences and the illusion of distance fading away as travel is not close to the barrier as it was in the past. If you start thinking about the future of athletic conferences for the next 50 years, when do you want to make the switch? Now, to be the trend setter and becoming partners with the financial giant of the Big 10, or later when the big moves have been made and the options are not as appealing.

 

[cincibuck]

That's exactly what I'm saying. I don't think State Penn being in the Big Ten has made all that much of an improvement, at least not since their first few years in the conference when they held their own. Hell, from 2000-2004 they degraded the conference overall with their play (5-7, 5-6, 9-4, 3-9, 4-7) whilst Ohio State and Michigan held up their end. Granted, in the last five years they've been pretty good with a couple excellent seasons, but there's no doubt there's a BTN right now even without State Penn. As for the Big Ten routinely getting a second BCS team in, State Penn hasn't been a key contributor in that, getting to a BCS bowl only twice since the inception of the BCS system in 1998. Conversely, Ohio State has been in four times as many BCS bowls and Michigan twice as many. Hell, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin have all been in as many BCS bowls as State Penn.

Can I get a "Fuck State Penn?"

Without Penn State the Big 10 is back to the Big Two and the Eight dwarfs. It gives the Big 10 three premier programs.