Big Ten Expansion Yet Again

[Screw_Michigan]

Your obsession with UM and the UM'ers on here is nearing a level reached by few in the history of these boards.

I won't deny that. Where the hell have you been the last 10 years?

[Killian]

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/ ... l-be-done/

I noted in the Big Ten Expansion Index post that Notre Dame is now #3 in TV money… in its own home state behind Purdue and Indiana.

BWHAHAHAAHH

Going back to the core of the issue, if Notre Dame was good, this would be moot.

[Screw_Michigan]

Yes, I know. But it's still funny.

[Killian]

Yes, I know. But it's still funny.

As is the state of the football program, and the leadership of the university.

[M Club]

Not sure your definition of melting, but surely different from mine. Pointing out shit journalism is not melting. Your obsession with UM and the UM'ers on here is nearing a level reached by few in the history of these boards.

i'm curious to see what an actual melt would look like. a lot of melting by fiat, i suppose.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Yes, I know. But it's still funny.

As is the state of the football program, and the leadership of the university.

In case anyone needs any confirmation of that . . .

I noted in the Big Ten Expansion Index post that Notre Dame is now #3 in TV money… in its own home state behind Purdue and Indiana.

. . . is bad enough. But then, juxtapose that fact against the fact that ten years ago, ND received more TV revenue than the entire Big Ten conference combined.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Swarbrick: Changes could be small or 'seismic'

NEW YORK -- Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick said Tuesday it remains the school's "clear preference" to maintain its football independence, but that the possibility of impending Big Ten expansion and other conference realignment may ultimately impact the school's status.

"I believe we are at a point right now where the changes could be relatively small, or they could be seismic," said Swarbrick. "What I have to do along with [university president John] Jenkins is figure out where the pieces are falling."

In town to attend the Big East basketball tournament, Swarbrick and new football coach Brian Kelly met with a small group of reporters Tuesday morning. Calling the current college landscape "as unstable as I've seen it" in 29 years as a sports executive, Swarbrick said, "You could each invent a scenario that would force our hand."

The Big Ten, to which Notre Dame turned down an invitation in 1999, announced last December that it would actively begin exploring expansion. Commissioner Jim Delany has said the league will know better by this summer whether to proceed with the process. Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported that an investment firm commissioned by the conference investigated the financial merits of five schools -- Notre Dame, Missouri, Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Rutgers -- and confirmed that the league's existing schools would gain revenue were the Big Ten to undergo expansion.

Numerous reports have indicated the league is exploring the possibility of adding more than one team.

Meanwhile, Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott said last month that his league is looking "very seriously" at potential expansion in advance of negotiations over its television contracts, which expire next year.

"You have two conferences [the Big Ten and SEC] that have separated themselves economically and you've got all the other conferences lined up for their [upcoming television] renegotiations," said Swarbrick. "The bar has been set so high, and the [current] media market is so tepid, that it creates a lot of tension."

Asked why current realignment possibilities would affect the Irish more so than other shakeups that have taken place over the past 20 years, Swarbrick mentioned several hypothetical scenarios.

"What if realignment impacted the shape of the BCS?" he said. "Also, the Big East has been a great home for us [in other sports], but if there are fundamental changes to the Big East as a result of realignment, what does that do? What if a few conferences further distinguish themselves from the field? What are the competitive ramifications of that?

"... That's why I'm spending 50 percent of my time right now talking to people [about this]."

Kelly, who came to Notre Dame from Cincinnati last December, said he appreciates Notre Dame's independence, but that he isn't well-versed on the full ramifications.

"I can tell you that it is great when you look at a schedule where you're playing teams from all over the country," he said. "But I know that we have to drill a lot deeper than that."

On Monday, Notre Dame announced the latest of several upcoming neutral-site games, a 2011 game against Maryland at FedEx Field. Last season the Irish played Washington State in San Antonio, and this fall they will face Army at Yankee Stadium. The initiative to play more "barnstorming" games began under former athletic director Kevin White (now at Duke), who lamented in 2006 that, "Over time, we've really begun to behave like a wannabe conference member. I think it was real important for us to go back to our roots and behave more like an independent."

Swarbrick reiterated Tuesday that, "while we're paying attention [to realignment], we're trying like heck to maintain our football independence. It's good for college football and it's great for Notre Dame. That's our goal."

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/f ... z0hjDLrRh7
Get a free NFL Team Jacket and Tee with SI Subscription

Maybe it's because of my background, but I'm not anywhere nearly as up in arms about this as is most of ND Nation.

To me, it's only natural that Swarbrick would issue a statement about Big Ten expansion. After all, the ignoramuses over at the WWL apparently think that ND belongs in the Big Ten. Also, considering ND's limited Big East membership and the fact that the Big Ten is eyeing, among others, several Big East teams as possible expansion candidates leads one to conclude inevitably that Big Ten expansion could affect ND even if ND doesn't join the Big Ten. There's still a lot to sort out here. The Big Ten isn't yet showing its hand, and Swarbrick isn't yet showing his. This is a standard non-denial denial, nothing more and nothing less.

Many ND Nation posters are saying that they'll give up on ND football if we join a conference. I don't go that far, and in fact, some of the reasons given there for maintaining independence (e.g., we'll somehow lose our Catholic identity if we join a conference) are simply hooey. I value our independence and have concluded, on the whole, that it's been a benefit for ND. At the same time, however, I've also concluded that we have to do a better job scheduling than we did for this year, and that the 7-4-1 model has to go. But if conference membership is inevitable, perhaps it's best to join now rather than later. I'd rather join the Big East now, on our own terms and while we still have an opportunity to impact the landscape, than have to grovel to get into the Big Ten later.

OTOH, I also agree with Killian that ND can maintain its independence as long as it wants if the performance on the field is where it should be. In that regard, after three failed hires (four if you count O'Leary), the Kelly hire is absolutely critical. That's another reason not to like this year's schedule, as it might not give us as accurate a read as we need as to where we can expect Kelly's performance to be.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

To me, it's only natural that Swarbrick would issue a statement about Big Ten expansion.

Except the intent of the statement this time was about the very real possibility of ND joining a conference. That's far different from the recurring "we're independent, we're going to stay independent" stance. I would say this statement was a fairly big deal, and at the very least, a much different tone from what we're used to hearing out of ND.

[Terry in Crapchester]

To me, it's only natural that Swarbrick would issue a statement about Big Ten expansion.

Except the intent of the statement this time was about the very real possibility of ND joining a conference. That's far different from the recurring "we're independent, we're going to stay independent" stance. I would say this statement was a fairly big deal, and at the very least, a much different tone from what we're used to hearing out of ND.

From part of the article . . .

Swarbrick reiterated Tuesday that, "while we're paying attention [to realignment], we're trying like heck to maintain our football independence. It's good for college football and it's great for Notre Dame. That's our goal."

That sounds to me like the goal hasn't really changed. As far as the possibility of joining a conference, that's been on the table at least since the ACC decided to expand in 2003. Matter of fact, Kevin White had a deal on the table for us to join the ACC, which only fell apart (I believe) over the issue of timing. If White were still our AD, we'd have done the BOHICA act and wound up in a conference by now.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Not sure if this one really belongs here, but since I don't feel like starting a new topic over this, and Screw posted Swarbrick's comments earlier on Big Ten expansion . . .

http://www.irishsportsdaily.com/blogs/l ... ependence-

Kelly On ND's Independence
Written by Lorenzo Reyes Tuesday, 23 March 2010 14:01

During the question and answer session from Tuesday’s Gridiron Legends Luncheon Series, Brian Kelly joked that the talk of Notre Dame joining a conference was above his pay grade.

Afterwards, however, Kelly addressed the topic to a group of reporters that were on hand.

According to Kelly, when he was interviewing for the Notre Dame head coaching job, Irish Director of Athletics Jack Swarbrick mentioned the possible move to a conference.

“He communicated that clearly in terms of what Notre Dame’s preferences were, where he sees Notre Dame in the next 10, 15 years,” Kelly said. “I don’t want to speak for Jack but certainly one of the draws for him to be the athletic director here is he’s going to be, obviously setting the course for Notre Dame athletics. That’s pretty heavy stuff. I have total confidence in his ability to look at all of the things that are out there that make sense for Notre Dame.”

Regardless of what happens, the Irish coach doesn’t feel that his job would differ much with a move to a conference.

“I don’t think it changes that much,” he said. “I still think at the end of the day, we still have to be part of that national landscape and winning football games. I don’t know that it really changes it that much. There are small preferences here and there, definitely. But the big picture here is about winning championships.”

Kelly’s preference?

He wants to remain Independent.

“At the end of the day, you look at status as it relates to football,” he said. “Being able to play on the west coast and the east coast and not have to always play at those same destinations, I think it’s great for everybody. I think our fan base goes from coast-to-coast. If we could continue to do that, it would be a preference. But I’m a realist. We’re going to do what’s right for the University of Notre Dame.”

[Killian]

You can tell Kelly is the son of a politician. He knows that independence is sacred to many ND fans, so he has laid it out that while he supports his boss, he wants to remain independent.

[Screw_Michigan]

Swarbrick back in the news.

When a Notre Dame athletic director speaks, people listen.

Jack Swarbrick — the Notre Dame AD whose maybe-yes, maybe-no response to the possibility of Notre Dame joining the Big Ten caused such a tizzy in the national media — said Sunday in Kansas City that he was speaking primarily of the uncertainty of uncertainty.

“The point I made in the New York media gathering that got me so much attention, was our priority is and remains staying independent in football,” Swarbrick said, enjoying a rueful chuckle while attending the NCAA Regional women’s basketball game between the Irish and Oklahoma at the Sprint Center.

“That’s how we’re approaching this. This is what we’re doing.

“Secondly, the Big East is an extraordinary partner for us. We love the schools we’re with, and they let us be independent in football.

“Having said that, everything is so unusual right now that you can envision situations where the world changes. We hope it doesn’t. We don’t want it to.

“But we’re monitoring that.”

At one time, some contended Notre Dame joining the 11-team Big Ten Conference might be the beginning and the end of expansion talk. That would allow the Big Ten to even out its football schedule and hold a league championship game, which would offset league revenues being reapportioned to include the extra school.

Since then speculation has allowed for the possibility of adding three or even five more schools. Missouri, along with Syracuse, Rutgers and Pitt have all been mentioned as possible additions to the Big Ten.

Swarbrick indicated the dilution of Big Ten revenues could be offset by the success of the leagues own TV network, apparently on sound footing.

“The traditional model, where a conference had a fixed fee media rights deal, if you added somebody you sliced the pie a little thinner,” Swarbrick said. “When you’re dealing with equity in a network ... it’s a situation we haven’t had before.”

Notre Dame’s own deal with NBC on televising home football games runs to 2015.

Might that be an an obstacle to joining a conference?

“No,” Swarbrick contended. “That’s our greatest asset.”

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/03/28/18 ... z0jfrYpdTy

[PSUFAN]

lol...this isn't a hyper-charged issue or anything.

[Terry in Crapchester]

lol...this isn't a hyper-charged issue or anything.

Fwiw, over at ND Nation, speculation is rampant that the Big Ten will add five teams, not one.

That, of course, would change the face of BTPCF as we know it, particularly if other conferences decided to get in on that act.

[Danimal]

I can't see the 10 adding a bunch of mouths to feed. I think they'll add one team and call it good.

[Terry in Crapchester]

From a spreadsheet perspective, 16 teams only works if they add at least one that will bring in huge revenue, such as ND or Texas.

Imho, an even bigger problem with a 16-team conference is conference scheduling. If you keep the status quo, that would mean almost no tie-in between the two divisions, which would be a recipe for a future split along division lines. I suppose they could expand the conference schedule, but unless the NCAA expands the regular season accordingly, that expansion would come with a corresponding loss of OOC games. 12 conference games is out of the question, in that the Iowa-Iowa State game is legislatively mandated. Even 10 conference games probably would not meet with overwhelming approval. And if the Big Ten schedules one guaranteed crossover game per team, that means that each team only gets one home-and-home every seven years against the remaining out of division opponents.

[TheJON]

12 conference games is out of the question, in that the Iowa-Iowa State game is legislatively mandated

That's the 2nd time I've seen you post this and I am curious where you ever heard that? This is not true. The state does not mandate anything. This is an old rumor from back when Iowa was beating ISU by 40 points every year and Iowa fans were getting all high and mighty thinking that ISU could never beat us. So somehow people started believing that the state forces the 2 schools to play. That's false. That has never been true. Iowa and ISU's athletic departments could agree to not play each other any time they want so long as the current contract had expired. They just renewed the contract through 2018 I believe.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... heating-up

:brad:

I know, nothing is official, but the intent is clearly there, and the wheels in motion. First the NCAA Tournament and now this horrendous shit. My love for college sports is starting to crumble all around me. And if Jim Delaney didn't deserve to die a horrible, painful death before, he certainly does now. CAN SOMEBODY OFF THIS JERKDICK, PLEASE??!!1

[Van]

Jim Delany must die.

That remains one of my all-time favorite sigs.

[TheJON]

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... heating-up

:brad:

I know, nothing is official, but the intent is clearly there, and the wheels in motion. First the NCAA Tournament and now this horrendous shit. My love for college sports is starting to crumble all around me. And if Jim Delaney didn't deserve to die a horrible, painful death before, he certainly does now. CAN SOMEBODY OFF THIS JERKDICK, PLEASE??!!1

What the fuck? Wishing people would off themselves is MY schtick.

[Terry in Crapchester]

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... heating-up

:brad:

I know, nothing is official, but the intent is clearly there, and the wheels in motion. First the NCAA Tournament and now this horrendous shit. My love for college sports is starting to crumble all around me. And if Jim Delaney didn't deserve to die a horrible, painful death before, he certainly does now. CAN SOMEBODY OFF THIS JERKDICK, PLEASE??!!1

If you think that's bad, take a gander at this article, about the potential Brave New World we all could be facing in BTPCF a few years down the road, with the Big Ten leading the way: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/20/sport ... ref=sports

I've been an advocate of ND maintaining football independence for quite some time now. However, I'm beginning to lean toward the possibility of ND giving up its independence, if for no other reason than to head this off at the pass. Either join the Big Ten or the Big East, either approach would work albeit for different reasons.

[WolverineSteve]

It's a good read, I remember years ago on here somebody wrote of "super conferences". Now it seems like it's close to happening. I hate that tv is the impetus, but when isn't it in sports anymore?

[MuchoBulls]

First the NCAA Tournament and now this horrendous shit.

While I do not agree with the NCAA Tournament expansion, I've heard that expansion might not be as large as going to 96 teams. Hoping that is the case.

[Goober McTuber]

The SEC might expand too.

Can't let the lesser conferences get too close, you understand. :P

Airline stocks would certainly bump upward.

[Adelpiero]

If MU and Nebraska bolt for Big10, the Big12 is fucked. Same could be said that if MU bolts, Big12 is in trouble. they lose the #2 and #4 markets. Bringing in more tejas teams does nothing. Bringing in BYU doesn't bring in major sets. It's all about the $$$ and tv markets.

SEC and pac10 swoop in for Ou, tejas, and atm.

rest of Big12(knasas included) are fighting to get into a super mid major conference. Okie st would be wild card, would any of the super conferences want them? OU and okie st a pair? tejas and aTm other pair? Best offer gets pair of choice?

[Terry in Crapchester]

If MU and Nebraska bolt for Big10, the Big12 is fucked. Same could be said that if MU bolts, Big12 is in trouble. they lose the #2 and #4 markets. Bringing in more tejas teams does nothing. Bringing in BYU doesn't bring in major sets. It's all about the $$$ and tv markets.

SEC and pac10 swoop in for Ou, tejas, and atm.

rest of Big12(knasas included) are fighting to get into a super mid major conference. Okie st would be wild card, would any of the super conferences want them? OU and okie st a pair? tejas and aTm other pair? Best offer gets pair of choice?

The Big XII as an entity might be fucked, but I think most of the member schools land on their feet (although some won't). If Croumenthal's scenario becomes reality, I think what you'll wind up seeing will look something like this:

Big Ten
East Division: UConn, Michigan, Michigan State, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Syracuse
West Division: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin

SEC
East Division: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, Miami, South Carolina, Tennessee
West Division: Arkansas, Kentucky, LSU, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M

Western Conference
East Division: Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah
West Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

ACC
North Division: Boston College, Cincinnati, Louisville, Maryland, Pitt, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
South Division: Clemson, Duke, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, North Carolina State, South Florida, Vanderbilt*, Wake Forest

* I see the SEC adding five teams and dropping one of its existing teams. Vandy is the most likely candidate if they get Miami (also a private school), although Kentucky, South Carolina and Mississippi State are also possibilities. If the SEC drops either Vandy, Kentucky or South Carolina, I see that school going to the ACC. If it's Mississippi State, the ACC figures to pick up somebody like East Carolina.

[King Crimson]

Western Conference
East Division: Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah
West Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

right now as a total athletic department, Baylor > Colorado, TCU, Texas Tech. and it's really not even that close. Academically, BU and CU are a draw.....TCU comparable to KU and NU, and Tech way down. I don't see the Pac 10 peeps (though Iowa State is ranked higher than nearly half the Pac)....wanting more KSU, Tech, OSU type schools. They already see Wazzou and Oregon State as bottom feeders. the Pac does seem to have a kind of academic consortium type self-identity among it's member schools. I don't see Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC getting on board with those institutions. it's been said by me and SCS in this thread, TCU is bad argument. they have a small alum base in a city that is already a Big XII media town with UT, ATM, and OU grads out the wazoo. Football is their only competitive sport, really, and they don't even fill their 45,000 seat stadium when they are undefeated. they don't really add anything.

around Denver/Boulder, opinion is if the Pac expands it's CU and Utah, Utah and BYU (for whom playing on Sundays would be a deal breaker--which the Pac does), or no expansion. CU peeps want the move pretty bad....for some good reasons (big Cali alumni base=more football related alum/booster giving) and some dumb ones (won't cure the AD's ills and Dan Hawkins train wreck). Sad for CU fan, is that CU sporting-wise (minus cross country and skiing!) is probably at it's lowest and least desirable point in the last 30 years....if not longer. They did have a Pac offer in 91 or 94, I forget. no CU men's revenue sport has had a winning record in conference since 05 (hoops, 9-7).

basically, the low population density states are going to get screwed when it all shakes out....unless you are Nebraska or Oklahoma football or KU hoops. the media money is the whole thing. it's sad that the political economy of the media is going to determine the shape of college sporting culture for the future. the Big 8 had multiple football MNC's with OU, NU, and CU. was routinely sending 5 teams to the NCAA tournament when the conference disbanded.....but that conference is totally unfeasible in today's mediascape not because of quality of play on the field but because there aren't enough fannies to sit in front of the TV for advertising dollars. at what point is it not sport, but ad driven spectacle?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Western Conference
East Division: Colorado, Kansas, Kansas State, Nebraska, Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah
West Division: Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

right now as a total athletic department, Baylor > Colorado, TCU, Texas Tech. and it's really not even that close. Academically, BU and CU are a draw.....TCU comparable to KU and NU, and Tech way down. I don't see the Pac 10 peeps (though Iowa State is ranked higher than nearly half the Pac)....wanting more KSU, Tech, OSU type schools. They already see Wazzou and Oregon State as bottom feeders. the Pac does seem to have a kind of academic consortium type self-identity among it's member schools. I don't see Stanford, Cal, UCLA, USC getting on board with those institutions. it's been said by me and SCS in this thread, TCU is bad argument. they have a small alum base in a city that is already a Big XII media town with UT, ATM, and OU grads out the wazoo. Football is their only competitive sport, really, and they don't even fill their 45,000 seat stadium when they are undefeated. they don't really add anything.

I see your point here, but football is what's driving the expansion. Football and money, that is.

Strictly in terms of football, Baylor is the weakest possible addition, and it's not terribly close. So I think Baylor is out. Iowa State doesn't really bring anything to the table from a football perspective, and they're clearly the #2 school in a relatively sparsely-populated state. Overall, the options for the Pac-10 might not be particularly appealing, but I think the options I went with are the best ones for them when it comes down to it. But I suppose I could be wrong.

Academics won't be a factor at all, in all likelihood. Look no farther than my projected ACC for proof of that. I don't think Duke, North Carolina or Virginia are particularly looking forward to being mentioned in the same breath with West Virginia and Louisville. But I also think that they'll have no reasonable alternative, when it comes down to it.

around Denver/Boulder, opinion is if the Pac expands it's CU and Utah, Utah and BYU (for whom playing on Sundays would be a deal breaker--which the Pac does), or no expansion.

I'd agree with this -- in a vacuum. But if the Big 10 and SEC expand to 16, the Pac will have little alternative but to keep up with the Joneses, particularly in light of the fact that the Big XII might very well have been dealt a mortal blow.

basically, the low population density states are going to get screwed when it all shakes out....unless you are Nebraska or Oklahoma football or KU hoops. the media money is the whole thing. it's sad that the political economy of the media is going to determine the shape of college sporting culture for the future. the Big 8 had multiple football MNC's with OU, NU, and CU. was routinely sending 5 teams to the NCAA tournament when the conference disbanded.....but that conference is totally unfeasible in today's mediascape not because of quality of play on the field but because there aren't enough fannies to sit in front of the TV for advertising dollars. at what point is it not sport, but ad driven spectacle?

Yep.

[King Crimson]

Strictly in terms of football, Baylor is the weakest possible addition, and it's not terribly close. So I think Baylor is out. Iowa State doesn't really bring anything to the table from a football perspective, and they're clearly the #2 school in a relatively sparsely-populated state. Overall, the options for the Pac-10 might not be particularly appealing, but I think the options I went with are the best ones for them when it comes down to it. But I suppose I could be wrong.

Academics won't be a factor at all, in all likelihood. Look no farther than my projected ACC for proof of that. I don't think Duke, North Carolina or Virginia are particularly looking forward to being mentioned in the same breath with West Virginia and Louisville. But I also think that they'll have no reasonable alternative, when it comes down to it.

A Big 10 mega-expansion might change the playing field as you note but I can tell you with pretty reliable info that academics is very much in play with Pac 10 expansion--which, right now, is likely (if it happens) to be CU and Utah--article in the SLC paper about the UU AD more or less admitting that the Pac had made contact with him. It's not the best kept secret that CU AD declined to comment on a similar question but didn't deny it either. Remember, I don't have any first hand info but I *do* work at CU so I know some people who have some skinny. Utah is no world beater, but it is a Tier 1 US News school that commands a medium sized media market. I think in a vacuum as you say the Pac would prefer to stand pat, but they may need to add SLC and Denver as markets. or feel the need may exist and are looking to be proactive rather than reactive (at least that's what the CU people are thinking/hoping).

I only mention ISU to show that the "reputation" of some schools is driven by coastal bias. For instance, ISU is "ranked" higher than Oregon and Arizona but perception is likely the opposite. way the opposite. ISU also ranks higher than Missouri and Kansas though around the Big XII both MU and KU fancy themselves pretty nifty schools--and much better than, say, NU and OU when in fact they are right there together. I think ISU is fucked. I don't think they are attractive to anyone and I don't mean to suggest anything else....but, Tech, KSU, OSU.....not schools the Pac wants anything to do with.

16 team conferences are kinda dumb in my opinion. i know the answer is "conference championship game"....but basically with the divisions you have two 8 team conferences united only in name and fewer OOC games.

honestly, i still don't believe in the TCU argument. that's just me. no additional media benefit and what happens after Patterson's career ends or possibly dovetails. It's not like TCU has been a juggernaut for decades running. To afford them super-star status based on the last 2-4 years.....I think is shortsighted. If in 5 years they are a 4-6 win team year-in/out, what else do they bring? Baylor men's hoops in the Elite 8 (and will be a serious contender next year) and should have had Duke on the ropes and women have a recent NC and made the Final Four this year.

[Terry in Crapchester]

16 team conferences are kinda dumb in my opinion. i know the answer is "conference championship game"....but basically with the divisions you have two 8 team conferences united only in name and fewer OOC games.

Agreed. But I don't think that 16-team conferences are about CCG's. Twelve teams are enough to get you to that. In the Big Ten's case, I think it's all about expanding the BTN, and in particular, expanding the conference "footprint" in order to make the BTN more profitable. I don't know all the details, but from what I have heard, the BTN receives $.10 per month from every cable subscriber that receives the BTN but is "outside" the Big Ten's footprint, but $1.10 per month from every cable subscriber that receives the BTN and is "inside" the Big Ten's footprint. When you're talking about the NYC media market, of course, the difference is huge.

That, I believe, is why the Big Ten may be looking to go to 16 teams. If they do that, of course, they'll set off a sort of Darwinian chain reaction in which the other conferences will be more or less forced to keep up, or risk their own demise.

And college football will be the worse off for it, unfortunately.

[King Crimson]

Agreed. But I don't think that 16-team conferences are about CCG's. Twelve teams are enough to get you to that. In the Big Ten's case, I think it's all about expanding the BTN, and in particular, expanding the conference "footprint" in order to make the BTN more profitable. I don't know all the details, but from what I have heard, the BTN receives $.10 per month from every cable subscriber that receives the BTN but is "outside" the Big Ten's footprint, but $1.10 per month from every cable subscriber that receives the BTN and is "inside" the Big Ten's footprint. When you're talking about the NYC media market, of course, the difference is huge.

That, I believe, is why the Big Ten may be looking to go to 16 teams. If they do that, of course, they'll set off a sort of Darwinian chain reaction in which the other conferences will be more or less forced to keep up, or risk their own demise.

And college football will be the worse off for it, unfortunately.

I hope this isn't what happens, but it's certainly a plausible scenario. I kind of got ahead of myself with the 16 team/conference championship thing. I think there was another comment in there somewhere...that I skipped over in my zeal to get to 8 team conferences. My Brave New World of a highly "rationalized" (in the Max Weber sense) future BTPCF landscape would just burn this garbage to the ground and divide the nation into 8 population-equal regions with 8 team "conference" members. If this is in concert with a kind of Euro-soccer upper divisions/lower divisions type deal where a lower division team plays it's way into the upper division (say, TCU plays it's way into the upper Southwest Conference and Baylor drops to the lower), nifty. That works for me.

Teams play everyone in their 8 member conference with 3 OOC games. Tiebreaks are determined by style points, an excess of reward for atrocious sportsmanship, and whatever unfairly screws the Unfailing and Supreme Virtue of Texas. The top two teams in each division are seeded into a 16 team playoff. First round sites are played on the higher seed home field. after that the remaining bracket sites are determined regionally. Jerryworld, Atlanta, Soldier Field, Rose Bowl, Orange Bowl, etc. Someone wins it on the field.

at this point, anyone giving me the "pageantry and tradition" argument against a playoff can suck it. Traditional rivalries? They are either already in your geographical zone-conference or you play them with your 3 OOC games. They are NOT a de facto argument that supports the BCS. And the other objection that there's "academic concern" from Uni Presidents....bwahahwaaaaawaa!!!!!! Fuckin' hell, stapling the conference championship games onto the season, the 13th game, and extending the season an extra week for the BCS....makes that laughable.

[TheJON]

I worry this could really affect Iowa State in a negative way. Where would they fit in? I can't imagine the Big-10 wanting another Iowa team, especially considering it's not a great athletic school (but a good academic school). And if teams start bolting from the Big-12, that will be the end of that conference. So where would ISU end up? The MAC? I hope not. I really think Paul Rhoads is going to turn ISU into a solid football program, but I can't imagine he'd be able to do that if they drop to a mid-major. They're already at a serious disadvantage in revenue and this would just destroy that athletic department. And I know their hoops program has been struggling lately, but Hilton Coliseum is not a mid-major arena. That's one of the best places to watch a basketball game in the country.

[Carson]

Here's an interesting column by Paul Finebaum. He's a douchebag but seldom misses with information.

http://blog.al.com/press-register-sport ... _join.html

[Adelpiero]

Supposedly the Big10 AD"s already have atleast 2 of their schools for expansion. MU and Rutgers, with Nubs being next possibly offered.

was on SVP show, cited an unnamed Big10AD.

[Killian]

I highly doubt that because neither of those teams drastically impacts the Big10's revenue the way some of the others do, and Missouri only gets them slightly out of their geographic footprint.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

There really is no reasonable candidate that is drastically out of their geographic footprint.

[Screw_Michigan]

Geographic footprint means nothing in these discussions.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I'm pretty sure he's referring to tv markets.

[Killian]

I think Texas is more realistic than people think.

[PSUFAN]

Teams that are distant from the existing Big 10 area would indeed present new financial challenges to the conference. Travel costs are nothing to sneer at - and if all of the sports conference schools support - everything from the Chess Teams to BTPCF - have to travel long distances, then some poor fool's going to get a tuition hike.