Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  [ 104 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply

Conference Realignment-Maryland/Rutgers to the Big Ten

Author Message
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#41

Posted: September 20, 2011, 3:06 PM Post
User avatar

LambeauLeap President
Board Administrator
Posts: 2794
With the Pac-12 out, I'd love to see the Big Ten be proactive and push for Oklahoma.

I know it won't happen, but I'd love to see it.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#42

Posted: September 20, 2011, 3:10 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 926
PeaveyFury said:
With the Pac-12 out, I'd love to see the Big Ten be proactive and push for Oklahoma.

I know it won't happen, but I'd love to see it.
I think their completely tied to OK ST, which makes it a nonstarter. And what about their academics, aren't they a bit weak?


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#43

Posted: September 20, 2011, 3:14 PM Post
User avatar

LambeauLeap President
Board Administrator
Posts: 2794
And what about their academics, aren't they a bit weak?


Meh, find something positive about their academics and ignore the rest just like with Nebraska.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#44

Posted: September 20, 2011, 10:57 PM Post
Posts: 123
What's wrong with Nebraska?  Great football tradition.  Excellent fans.  Borders Big Ten states. They were an AAU member I believe when they got accepted into the conference.  I think they have a pretty good women's volleyball team too Image

I agree with Peavy though.  I'd love to see them be proactive.  I still don't understand the lack of interest in Missouri.  I don't think West Virginia matches up academics wise but maybe Rutgers.  Notre Dame of course, though they need to get over themselves first.  And you all know by now I'm in love with Boston College.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#45

Posted: September 21, 2011, 1:17 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 926
paul253 said:
I agree with Peavy though.  I'd love to see them be proactive.  I still don't understand the lack of interest in Missouri.  I don't think West Virginia matches up academics wise but maybe Rutgers.  Notre Dame of course, though they need to get over themselves first.  And you all know by now I'm in love with Boston College.

Why exactly should the Big 10 expand? I think it's clear at this point that the four, 16-team superconference endgame was only a narrative and not, in fact, bound to happen.

The Big 10 has expanded twice since 1950, targeting only the best (Penn St. and Nebraska) and is probably the strongest and most cohesive conference in the nation. Sure, Missouri might fit, but they're probably not much more than revenue neutral, assuming they're that. Similar for Rutgers. Adding anyone else would be the equivalent of all the other teams taking a pay cut, except Notre Dame and Texas, of course. Until one of them want to sign up on our terms, we'll stick with 12.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#46

Posted: September 21, 2011, 7:02 AM Post
Posts: 123
I guess I'd answer that by saying they're going to have to eventually, so they may as well do it now while there are still some attractive options.  The ACC has already gone to 14.  The SEC is at 13 and I can't imagine they'll stay at 13.  They'll most likely grab a Big 12 team or an ACC team, which will lead to a corresponding move.  This article " http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/f ... &eref=sihp " says the UConn is saying they are not committed to the Big East, which should tell you something.  Even teams that are looking to leave usually say they are committed until a move has been finalized.  I still have major doubts the Big East can survive, especially if the Big 12 lasts.  The Big East is talking about adding the service academies and I have to imagine they'll eventually lose their AQ status.  Once that happens they're no better in football than the MWC.  I don't know.  I just think this realignment is not over. 


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#47

Posted: September 21, 2011, 7:20 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 926
I guess I'd answer that by saying they're going to have to eventually, so they may as well do it now while there are still some attractive options.

I don't think this is considered true anymore. People speculated that we would end up with four conferences, in which case yeah, the Big 10 probably would have had more pressure to expand. But it now appears we will have at least five conferences yet, if not six, just as there were before.

This slightly edited but largely stolen structure seems like a very possible end game, with the Big 12 and the Big East basically merging:

Big 14 [Big 12 + Big East]

Uconn/Rutgers/Louisvlle/Missouri/Iowa State/Kansas/KSU

Texas/Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU/Oklahoma/Oklahoma State/BYU

Notre Dame – Independent in football, Big 14 in other sports

SEC 14

LSU/Arkansas/Ole Miss/MSU/Alabama/Auburn/Texas A&M

Kentucky/Tennessee/Vandy/South Carolina/Georgia/Florida/West Virginia

ACC 14

Boston College/Maryland/North Carolina State/Wake Forest/Clemson/Florida State/Syracuse

Virginia/Virginia Tech/North Carolina/Duke/Georgia Tech/Miami/Pittsburgh

PAC 12

Washington/Washington State/Oregon/Oregon State/Stanford/Cal

Colorado/Utah/Arizona/Arizona State/UCLA/USC

B1G 12

Nebraska/Michigan/Michigan State/Iowa/Northwestern/Minnesota

Ohio State/Wisconisn/Penn State/Illinois/Purdue/Indiana

USF and Cincinnati back to CUSA, not exactly sure how the basketball schools like Marquette shake out.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#48

Posted: September 21, 2011, 1:44 PM Post
Posts: 123
Listening to what the commissioner of the Pac-12, he basically said without saying that the reason they didn't expand is because Texas wouldn't give up the LHN.  It's not because  they didn't want to.  You don't go through all they went through and then decide "we didn't want to expand anyway".  So I'm not sure this is all done.  I definitely think the SEC will add one.  I think we'll go through all of this again next year when the SEC needs to get back to an even number.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#49

Posted: September 21, 2011, 3:16 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 926
Listening to what the commissioner of the Pac-12, he basically said without saying that the reason they didn't expand is because Texas wouldn't give up the LHN. It's not because they didn't want to. You don't go through all they went through and then decide "we didn't want to expand anyway".

Yeah, but expanding to add Texas (sans LHN) and just expanding are two very different things. It sounds like Oklahoma and OSU were willing to go to the PAC without Texas, but the schools voted not to take just them.

SEC will definitely add one more, probably West Virginia (or maybe spend some time at 13 and try to pry Florida State away from the ACC), with Missouri still holding on to the Big 12. But I think the PAC is done, and the ACC is probably done, because they'll want to hold a spot open in the conference in case they can entice Notre Dame down the road. There's no rush to add Rutgers and UConn now when they'll still be available later. And the Big 10 seems like they were never really interested in expanding past 12 without Notre Dame or Texas, so the Big 10 is essentially done.

The only major domino yet to fall or not fall is the dissolution of the Big East, or some type of merger between the Big East and the Big 12. Both conferences are incredibly weak right now, and might pull off some desperation moves. I could see the Big East football schools reaching out to the Big 12, with the basketball schools staying under the Big East name.

EDIT: Just saw this article: "Texas lawmakers to UT: Stay in the Big 12 and let TCU join"

It calls for a merger of the Big 12 with the Big East. There's 24(!) basketball programs there, and enough for 12-14 football programs depending on how it shakes out and who gets the invites.

http://www.tcu360.com/spo...-big-12-and-let-tcu-join


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#50

Posted: September 21, 2011, 3:35 PM Post
Posts: 123
I'm too lazy to find a link, but there's also a story about the Big East adding Navy and Air Force as football only members.  Apparently they are desperate to stay alive as a football conference.  They should combine with the Big 12, but I'm not sure Texas and Oklahoma want to do this.

Also, I heard West Virginia applied to the SEC and the SEC said no.  That might chance if Missouri stays in the Big 12, but as of now the SEC doesn't want WV. 

On a side note, I hope WV destroys LSU this weekend.  I hate the SEC.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#51

Posted: September 22, 2011, 7:25 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1170
paul253 said:
  On a side note, I hope WV destroys LSU this weekend.  I hate the SEC.

I know tons of Big Ten fans hate the SEC and i used to, but from strictly a football perspective, i mainly now just respect that conference because they deserve all the hype they get. It's easily been the best conference in college football for awhile now, both in terms of depth of quality teams and in elite teams from year to year. Of course many SEC programs are helped by having lower academic standards than a lot of other programs, including Big Ten ones, but i think the biggest overall reason for their dominance is there simply is more local high quality high school talent to recruit in the south than there is for most Big Ten teams besides maybe OSU and Michigan. Plus, while i used to share your frustration with watching SEC teams to often beat up on Big Ten teams, especially in high profile games, from just my loving to watch big games perspective, i can't help but really enjoy watching a lot of SEC matchups on TV. Great entertainment for a sports fan and lover of college football.

As for wanting to see WV whip on LSU, i totally agree, but for a different reason. I don't care much about seeing an SEC team lose, but LSU going down would be a huge help to Wisconsin if they manage to go undefeated. Obviously any of Oklahoma, LSU, and Alabama going undefeated will lead to a berth in the national title game above the Badgers. Stanford i don't know about though. If say only one of Oklahoma, LSU, and Alabama finish undefeated, but so does Wisconsin and Stanford, i have no idea right now which team would get the invite of the two?

On the realignment front, i agree with sbryski, hold out for quality above being in to big of a rush to reach the 16 team number, then potentially regretting it later if it helped cause missing out later on a big fish like say Notre Dame.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#52

Posted: September 28, 2011, 1:05 PM Post
Posts: 123
Danzig I do agree with you.  The SEC is the best conference, though because of their reputation they tend to have a lot of over rated teams (Georgia, Auburn and South Carolina this year).  But my real hatred from them comes from two things.  Just the absolute arrogance of their fans and players.  And second back in 2006 when #1 Ohio St played #2 Michigan at the end of the year.  Michigan lost at Ohio St by 4 points and there was some discussion as to whether they deserved to be in the national championship game because they had one loss, at the #1 team in America, and so did Florida, which lost at home to an average team.  Michigan's coach was very nonchalant about, basically saying whatever happens happens.  Florida's coach, however, was very outspoken about why his team deserved to get into the title game. He said people "wanted to see" the SEC Champion against the Big Ten Champion.  In my opinion it was in bad taste to be talking up his team as much as he was, as if he was some politician campaigning for votes.  Now this very same conference is behind the talk of the BCS eliminating it's 2 team per conference max for the BCS games rule.  It just furthers my opinions of their arrogance.  We're so good that we need three teams in the BCS.  They don't think Boise St deserves to be there but they think they deserve three teams?


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#53

Posted: September 30, 2011, 8:29 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1170
Some won't agree with me, but i do think that if say LSU had one loss to Alabama this year, they'd still be more derserving a berth to the BCS title game than Boise St because i simply do not believe at all that Boise St could play the schedule LSU does this year and avoid losing at least two games.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#54

Posted: October 01, 2011, 1:38 PM Post
Posts: 123
The rotten thing about having to compare Boise St to LSU or Alabama is that you are essentially comparing apples to oranges.  Yes LSU and Alabama play a tougher schedule, but they are better equipped to handle that schedule.  What I mean is that their athletic budgets to go out and recruit the best players is much higher than Boise St's.  I don't want to take the time to try to find the latest budget numbers, but I think it goes without saying the LSU and Alabama's athletic budgets dwarf that of Boise St.  On top of going out and being able to get better players, they can afford better facilities.  They can afford to pay coaches more.  Alabama's Nick Saban made $5.1 million in 2010.  LSU's Les Miles made $3.7 million.  Urban Meyer made over $4 million last year for Florida.  Chris Pederson at Boise St made less than $1.5 million.  There is also the built in advantage of playing in the AQ conference.  Players considering Boise St know that one loss may mean a trip to Maaco Bowl.  And let's not even talk about tv exposure.  So teams like Georgia already have HUGE advantages over Boise St in getting players, and then Boise St plays Georgia essentially in Georgia's backyard and hammers them.  Looking at LSU's schedule, I'm not sure Boise St could go undefeated, but I think they are better than everyone on the schedule save for Alabama and maybe Oregon.  But it's definitely possible that they could have the same results as LSU will.  Of course you will never know, which is why college football's setup sucks.  It also sucks that teams like Boise St can't get most AQ teams to play a two game home and home series.  Do you think Florida will ever agree to go to play at Boise St?  They haven't left the state of Florida for non-conference game in like a decade.  You'll get teams to agree to one of these one year classic games like Georgia did this year and Virginia Tech did last year, but rarely do BCS teams go to Boise to play.  And when they do (Oregon, Oregon St.) they lose. 

I'm definitely not saying Boise St would run the table with LSU or Alabama's schedule, but I do think that it's possible for them to get through with one loss. Let's not act like Boise St has never played in front of more than 30,000 fans.  I also think if they had to play LSU or Alabama's schedule year in and year out, you also have to assume their athletic budget and tv exposure would be much higher.  So when you consider all the advantages an SEC or Big Ten team already has over a Boise St or a TCU, I'm not sure I buy the fact that a team that cannot beat everyone on it's schedule deserves to be in the national title game over a Boise St team IF Boise St plays a few tough teams AND dominates everyone.  I honestly believe TCU would have beaten Auburn last season.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#55

Posted: October 03, 2011, 6:11 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1170
Obviously the major football programs have huge built in advantages over Boise St and other programs like them. It is what it is though given there are so many D-1 football programs. We can't expect some fantasy world where all programs have the same financial resources and abilities to recruit blue chip recruits. Plus FWIW, i have huge respect for what Pederson has built at Boise St.

In the end, they do play in the conference that they do play in and thus the schedule they play. So even though they've shown that they can hang with and even beat the big conference programs in a matchup or two each year, what their conference schedule allows though is to win with ease on even days they don't play their best. LSU though for example will have played this year

Oregon
at West Virgina
at Mississippi St
Florida
at Tennessee
Auburn
at Alabama
Arkansas

Most of those teams could be argued to be as good or better than the best team Boise will have played all year in their win over Georgia. LSU is a top notch team, yet they really have to bring it eight times this year to avoid getting beat/upset and that doesn't include the SEC title game. For Boise though, once they beat Georgia in game one, many people following college football pretty much had already assumed Boise would finish undefeated because they have nobody left on their schedule to give them a really tough game. Take Boise St out of the Mountain West this year, i have a hard time envisioning any SEC not winning that conference with relative ease.

So IMO is just gives Boise St such a vastly vastly easier route to going undefeated that if it was my call, no way could i justify putting them in the title game over say a one loss Bama or LSU that lost a game playing each other. Same with any undefeated Big 10 or Pac 12 team regardless that both conference are clearly down this year because even while being down, it's still much tougher than having to beat a schedule of Mountain West teams.

Then again, we should have a playoff system deciding this, not computers and hypothetical situations.
 


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#56

Posted: October 04, 2011, 1:07 AM Post
Posts: 123
Looking at LSU's schedule I can very easily see Boise St winning every game except for maybe 1 (Alabama).  Just because Mississippi St, Tennessee, and Auburn are in the SEC doesn't make them good teams.  The fact is, Boise St's schedule is as easy as it is because nobody wants to play them.  You can't talk smack about someone for not playing a tough enough schedule and then refuse to play them.  I am just sick of this whole argument that Boise St doesn't deserve a chance.  They've gone undefeated.  They've beaten undefeated teams in BCS games.  They've beaten Pac 12 teams, Big 12 teams, ACC teams, SEC teams.  What more do they need to do?  What more can they do? 


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#57

Posted: October 04, 2011, 6:27 PM Post
User avatar
Posts: 1170
paul253 said:
Looking at LSU's schedule I can very easily see Boise St winning every game except for maybe 1 (Alabama).  Just because Mississippi St, Tennessee, and Auburn are in the SEC doesn't make them good teams.  The fact is, Boise St's schedule is as easy as it is because nobody wants to play them.

Their schedule is so easy because their conference is full of cakewalk games for any good team. Conference games make up the vast majority of the games every team will end up playing and thus the simple fact of the matter is Boise happens to play in a conference full of teams that can't even put a just a little scare into Boise unless they play really poorly this year.

Yea it's true that every single one of those teams i listed on the schedule for LSU aren't all really good teams, but they'd all very likely beat nearly every team in the Mountain West and win many of the games with ease. So LSU isn't afforded the luxury of just cruising through most of their games for an easy win, regardless if they don't play well as Boise can.

Say what you want about just how good Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, Mississippi St, Florida, etc are, but it surely is a hell of a lot tougher to come away with a win week after week going to the Swamp in Florida, play Auburn, or go to Tennessee than travel to those so dreaded venues at Toledo, UNLV, and Wyoming. You want to assume that Boise could easily play that Bama or LSU schedule and come through it with only one loss, but i'm highly doubting that and either way, that won't be happening because it will be Bama/LSU playing those very rough schedules while Boise is mostly feasting on one easy win after another.

Finally, as for nobody wanting to play Boise, if my memory is correct, i thought i read that Wisconsin and some other BCS teams offered to schedule Boise, but they passed because they would only accept a home and home agreement. If my memory is right on that and i think i am, Boise has every right to feel they deserve a home and home setup vs just only playing at a BCS team's venue, but that's life in today's college football for the most part with teams in a lesser conference. They either suck it up and take more of the single games on the road for the exposure or be left with people saying nice record, but you won 10 games vs unranked teams, including multiple games vs pure garbage teams in conference.

What more do they need to do?  What more can they do?

There probably isn't much they can do besides accept more games vs bigger schools where Boise doesn't also get a home game in return. FWIW, i can understand why they think it's not fair because they've had some really quality teams, but their beef should be with the corrupt NCAA not having a playoff system to decide the title winner. Until then, i simply don't believe teams like a Boise St should be given as much credit for all their winning when so many of their games come against crappy competition while the other schools competing for a title game berth aren't afforded the same luxury of so many cakewalk wins. It's way easier to just get up for one big non-conference game a year and then cruise through a very weak conference schedule the rest of the way. So i couldn't hand out a title game berth based on guessing what Boise might have done if in say the SEC or Big 12 instead this year when i will know for sure what the teams in those vastly superior conferences actually did do.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#58

Posted: October 05, 2011, 9:36 AM Post
Posts: 123
I love it when you write entire responses only to have them not load when you hit submit. I'll try again:

Finally, as for nobody wanting to play Boise, if my memory is correct, i thought i read that Wisconsin and some other BCS teams offered to schedule Boise, but they passed because they would only accept a home and home agreement.

Boise St. is just like every other football team.  They have to schedule a certain number of home games to make money.  Boise St. can't go and play 4 road games every single year for the sake of exposure any more than Wisconsin can.  So if a good team refuses to play at Boise, Boise St. is SOL.  But explain to me why Wisconsin is willing to do a home and home with UNLV and Oregon St and not with Boise St?  Face it, Wisconsin is asking more from Boise St. then they would from others because they are not confident they can go down to Boise and win.  If you don't think you can beat them, it seems pretty arrogant to tell them they are not good enough to be in the BCS title game when they go undefeated but you are good enough to go to the title game even if you have a loss.

Yea it's true that every single one of those teams i listed on the schedule for LSU aren't all really good teams, but they'd all very likely beat nearly every team in the Mountain West and win many of the games with ease.

And so will Boise St. (probably)  That has no bearing on whether or not a team like Auburn, South Carolina, Tennessee or Florida could beat Boise St this season.  Personally, I think Boise would beat all of them. I think if you put Boise St in the SEC East they'd easily win it.  If you put them in the SEC West they could finish anywhere from 1st to 3rd, depending on how the schedule is set up.  Boise St also had some really bad luck with timing.  After they accepted a move to a much tougher Mountain West, BYU and Utah left and TCU is having a down year.  Normally TCU would be able to smoke a lot of SEC teams.

but it surely is a hell of a lot tougher to come away with a win week after week going to the Swamp in Florida, play Auburn, or go to Tennessee than travel to those so dreaded venues at Toledo, UNLV, and Wyoming.+

Not saying it is easier, but remember the conference road schedule only includes 4 road games.  Mississippi St.'s road schedule includes Georgia, Auburn, Kentucky and Arkansas.  Ole Miss's road schedule includes games at MSU, Kentucky, Auburn, and Vanderbilt.   South Carolina's road schedule is Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, and MSU.  Better than Boise's St's schedule no doubt, but none of those schedules are exactly murderer's row.

Remember, just because the media and their fans think it doesn't mean a team is good just because they are in the SEC.  We all assume that Florida is good because they won the title a few years ago and were ranked #12.  But they play one good team, at home no less, and lose by 4 touchdowns.  I can see them losing three more games in a row now. We all assume South Carolina is good because they won the SEC East last year and were ranked #10 at one point.  But who have they played?  They beat Georgia by a field goal in a game they could have easily lost (they same Georgia team Boise St destroyed) and lose to Auburn.  Yet they are still ranked #18 because they are in the SEC. I think Boise St would crush South Carolina.

I could argue that three teams would deserve to be in the title game with one loss ahead of an undefeated Boise St.  LSU because they've played one of the toughest schedules in recent memory.  Alabama because they are that good, even though the wins at Penn St. and Florida shouldn't be considered as impressive as they are, and Oklahoma because the Big 12 has some good depth and they won at FSU, though FSU has now lost 2 in a row.  But anyone else, in my opinion, should not be put ahead of Boise St. if they lose.


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#59

Posted: October 05, 2011, 9:53 AM Post
Posts: 123
http://sportsillustrated....t=hp_t2_a6&eref=sihp

And for what it's worth, according to "a source" Missouri wanted to go to the Big Ten last year, which we all know, but still wants to go now.  The SEC is their second choice but the Big Ten is not offering them a spot.  To the Big Ten I ask.....why not?  The ACC and SEC will be at 14 teams each probably by next season.  The Pac-12 is going to expand.  We know they will.  The Big East or the Big 12 is going to crumble, with one conference's members possibly filling up the other conference.  If I had to guess it would probably be a bunch of Big East Teams going into the Big 12.  So three of your main rivals are sitting at 14, which will get them at least two additional markets and two additional opportunities to sell merchandize and probably bigger tv contracts and you are just going to sit tight at 12?  I don't but it.  Missouri is a good fit for the Big Ten both geographically and ideologically.  They are an AAU member and bring in two decent sized markets.  But they are going to the SEC unless the Big Ten stops them. 

Why won't the Big Ten stop them? The Big Ten needs to grow some cajones.  They need to invite Missouri then approach Notre Dame and say "look, this is your last chance.  Join now or our teams (Michigan, Michigan St, Purdue) will not schedule any more football games with you.  We will not be your fallback conference for all your other teams when the Big East crumbles either. You'd make more money if you join the Big Ten and you're going to have to join a conference sooner or later.  It's the Big Ten now or the ACC in a few years".  Maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't, but I'm sick of Notre Dame and their average football team calling all the shots. 

http://sportsillustrated....t=hp_t2_a6&eref=sihp


 Top
 
  A&M to the SEC/Pitt & Syracuse to ACC/Conference Realignment
#60

Posted: October 05, 2011, 10:29 AM Post
User avatar
Posts: 926
And for what it's worth, according to "a source" Missouri wanted to go to the Big Ten last year, which we all know, but still wants to go now. The SEC is their second choice but the Big Ten is not offering them a spot. To the Big Ten I ask.....why not?

$$$

Even Nebraska did not, by itself, generate enough additional media revenue for it to increase the amount that goes to each team. The only reason it was a net gain was because it allowed for a valuable conference championship game.

Missouri just doesn't cut it in terms of additional revenue. All the other schools would need to take a pay cut, and there's no reason for them to do that.

The ACC and SEC will be at 14 teams each probably by next season. The Pac-12 is going to expand. We know they will. The Big East or the Big 12 is going to crumble, with one conference's members possibly filling up the other conference. If I had to guess it would probably be a bunch of Big East Teams going into the Big 12.

So? Just because some other conferences are at 14, or even 16, doesn't mean a thing. Those models might even be unstable, leading to some teams breaking off again in a few years.

If other top schools want to share their media revenue with more teams to have a bigger conference, why does the Big 10 have to? Here's the key: Adding another school may increase the league's shared media revenue, but then that pool of revenue needs to be shared with another school. So there's a threshold that needs to be met financially. That rules out a lot of schools as possible targets, including Missouri and Pittsburgh.

Notre Dame and Texas are the only two "free agent" schools that work financially. And either one would provide enough additional revenue that we could add a Missouri or Rutgers along with them to get to 14 and still come out ahead. Problem is Texas won't buy into the revenue sharing program, so they won't be coming, and Notre Dame doesn't want to join a conference if they don't absolutely have to. Until one of those dominoes falls, if Missouri finds a different home, so be it.

The Big Ten needs to grow some cajones. They need to invite Missouri then approach Notre Dame and say "look, this is your last chance. Join now or our teams (Michigan, Michigan St, Purdue) will not schedule any more football games with you. We will not be your fallback conference for all your other teams when the Big East crumbles either.

That would backfire and make the Big 10 look silly. Either you join, or we'll make a decision that would cost ourselves money? Notre Dame would call that bluff without blinking. We will always be ready to take in Notre Dame.

You'd make more money if you join the Big Ten and you're going to have to join a conference sooner or later.

The strange thing is Notre Dame doesn't really seem to care if it cost them a little bit of money to remain independent. Which is frustrating to someone who wants them in the conference. But what can you do?

And Notre Dame has announced they're joining Hockey East, so the signal that anything might happen yet this year has been turned off. Big 10 won't do anything until the Big East collapses, if it ever does. For football it might, but they still have a very nice hold on northeast basketball and olympic sports.


 Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next  [ 104 posts ]  New Topic   Add Reply



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group