Big 10 pushing for 12

[symple19]

By Adam Rittenberg
ESPN.com
Archive
Wisconsin athletic director Barry Alvarez says the Big Ten will soon make a more aggressive push toward adding a 12th member.

Speaking to Wisconsin's athletic board on Friday, Alvarez, the former longtime Badgers football coach, said the conference already has investigated possibilities for expansion "from all over the country." And though he places no timetable on the search, Alvarez thinks conference commissioner Jim Delany will respond to a group of athletic directors and coaches who want expansion.


"I have a sense he is going to take this year to really be more aggressive about it," Alvarez told the board. "I just think everybody feels [expansion] is the direction to go, coaches and administrators."

Penn State football coach Joe Paterno has been the most vocal advocate of a 12th Big Ten team, and he has support from several of his fellow coaches.

A 12th team would allow the Big Ten to split into divisions and hold a conference championship game. The Big Ten typically ends its football season two weeks before the other BCS conferences, though the addition of a permanent bye week in 2010 will shrink the gap by a week.

"We're irrelevant for the last three weeks of the football season because we're not playing," Alvarez said Friday.

Paterno has stumped for expansion several times, but Delany -- who was unavailable for comment -- told ESPN.com this spring that the league has no immediate plans to add a 12th team.

"There's not an obvious move," Delany said in May. "There might be to some coaches, including Coach Paterno, but it's not as obvious to the university presidents and to the athletic directors.

"There are a lot [of schools] that could take a lot away, but there aren't a lot that could bring so much to make the choice an easy one. You have to have a lot to make something go like this, and it's broader than really a championship game or a basketball tournament."

The Big Ten most recently expanded with Penn State, which began competing as a league member in football in 1993. The league has made runs at Notre Dame but hasn't had serious discussions for several years.

[symple19]

I really think Notre Dame should go, TV deal be damned. Thinking about it, if ND went to the Big 10 they could drag NBC (and their mega-dollars) along with em. Would be a good situation for all involved, IMO

[samikeyp]

I really think Notre Dame should go, TV deal be damned. Thinking about it, if ND went to the Big 10 they could drag NBC (and their mega-dollars) along with em. Would be a good situation for all involved, IMO

I would agree. It won't happen though with the current landscape. I think if the BCS stepped in and said you have to be part of a conference to be included...that would change ND's tune in a heartbeat.

[The Reckoning]

i predicted this in another thread somewhere around here

[The Reckoning]

oh here it is. i found it in the big 12 conference champ thread.



id still like to see TCU join the big 10 so itd be renamed the "Bigger 12" and have a conference championship

[vander]

that would be so geographically messed up, TCU needs to go to the big 12, then the Big 10+2 can have Iowa State :lol

[The Reckoning]

TCU is in mountain west and was in WAC. i think theyre used to it by now.

[samikeyp]

that would be so geographically messed up, TCU needs to go to the big 12, then the Big 10+2 can have Iowa State :lol

I like that....put TCU in the south, send OSU to the north and ISU to the Big 10. Perfect.

[Dr Cox]

there going to take mizzu ... and byu or utah will go to big 12


calling it now

[Doug Collins]

I'd prefer to keep Iowa State, it's one of the few conf. games we can actually win.

I do agree that Iowa State leaving with TCU replacing them would be awesome. Make the Big 12 South an all Texas division except for OU. OSU could then dominate the North, racking up North division titles to go along with its numerous golf, wrestling, and cross country championships. T. Boone is getting wet just thinking about it.

[K-State Spur]

I really think Notre Dame should go, TV deal be damned. Thinking about it, if ND went to the Big 10 they could drag NBC (and their mega-dollars) along with em. Would be a good situation for all involved, IMO

We're actually looking at the first time in the history where it would make financial sense for ND to join a conference.

It's already been shown how 1/12 of the SEC's TV contract is worth more than ND's exclusive network deal (that's right, Vanderbilt and Kentucky made more TV revenue than the Irish did this year).

I don't see any reason that the Big Televen couldn't get there as well - especially if it added the Irish.

Meanwhile, the Big 12 will continue to cater its deals specifically to Texas and Oklahoma.

[Girasuck]

there going to take mizzu ... and byu or utah will go to big 12


calling it now

It won't be BYU cause they won't allow any teams to play on Sunday's. This is the biggest reason why BYU will never move into a BCS conference.

[K-State Spur]

and byu or utah will go to big 12


calling it now

neither brings in a big enough market to offset the travel costs. teams already hate having to go out to boulder once a year.

i don't think any of this comes close to happening, but i would look to schools that are already within the geographic region. memphis might be considered as well, and don't completely dismiss missouri st. out of hand (they would have to take some steps to get there, but they are one of the nation's fastest growing schools/market).

[vander]

I'd prefer to keep Iowa State, it's one of the few conf. games we can actually win.

I do agree that Iowa State leaving with TCU replacing them would be awesome. Make the Big 12 South an all Texas division except for OU. OSU could then dominate the North, racking up North division titles to go along with its numerous golf, wrestling, and cross country championships. T. Boone is getting wet just thinking about it.

I've said a few times already that this is what I think should happen too, if only the B12 could drop Colorado outright and pick up Houston: all Texas division, and a balance of powers in the divisions, perfect

[j-6]

I think we've had this talk before. You have to remember that the Big 10 has really solid academics before banishing the Cyclones. I don't know if Iowa State qualifies but Mizzou certainly does. It would be great if they took the Tigers and TCU stepped in. Notre Dame is the obvious target but they have to give up too many rivalry games.

This is the best news for CFB in a long time. We're one step closer to a tourney.

[j-6]

I've said a few times already that this is what I think should happen too, if only the B12 could drop Colorado outright and pick up Houston: all Texas division, and a balance of powers in the divisions, perfect

I don't hate this idea, but there's no Texas division. You can't split the Okie schools.

UT
A&M
Tech
UH
Baylor


ISU
Nebraska
KU
Mizzou
OU
Okie State
K-State

[sandman]

Send off ISU and Mizzou, keep Colorado and add TCU to the South Division along with UH. 12 teams, good geographical split, MUCH higher level of competition.


I don't hate this idea, but there's no Texas division. You can't split the Okie schools.

UT
A&M
Tech
UH
Baylor


ISU
Nebraska
KU
Mizzou
OU
Okie State
K-State

[K-State Spur]

Notre Dame is the obvious target but they have to give up too many rivalry games.

What games would they have to give up? They could still play USC & Navy every year. Most of their other rivalries are with existing Big Televen schools (Michigan, MSU, Purdue).

[K-State Spur]

I've said a few times already that this is what I think should happen too, if only the B12 could drop Colorado outright and pick up Houston: all Texas division, and a balance of powers in the divisions, perfect

In what way would losing the Denver market and dropping an original Big 8 school while picking up an urban campus located in a market that the Big 12 already dominate be a good thing?

The conference already owns the state of Texas, adding teams from within is redundant. If the conference were to willingly drop a school (which WON'T happen), it would actually subtract a Texas school in Baylor.

[ChumpDumper]

We're actually looking at the first time in the history where it would make financial sense for ND to join a conference.

It's already been shown how 1/12 of the SEC's TV contract is worth more than ND's exclusive network deal (that's right, Vanderbilt and Kentucky made more TV revenue than the Irish did this year).

I don't see any reason that the Big Televen couldn't get there as well - especially if it added the Irish.

Meanwhile, the Big 12 will continue to cater its deals specifically to Texas and Oklahoma.Do you know anything about the financial goings on with the Big Ten and their cable network? I'm not too much into them, but I've always been impressed by the network whenever I see something on it.

[mookie2001]

yeah the big 10 network is sharp, i find myself watching indiana purdue all the time, its all HD, commentators who arent dumb as shit, they dont try to be funny or extreme, no ads all game long, no stupid junk stories, no promos, no bullshit, its a model network

[Stump]

According to wikipedia, Notre Dame renewed its contract with NBC a year ago, which now runs through 2015. It would be difficult to get Notre Dame to join the B10 with that hurdle in the way.

One thing not mentioned yet is that Notre Dame is already part of the big east for most of its other sports. Would it make more sense for them to try to join them, or would they be discontinuing too many rivalry games?

[Kermit]

If Mizzou leaves, kiss the Big 12 goodbye. That t.v. market is much to valuable to it's existence.

[NFO]

Talk around Columbus is the Big Ten will try to pursue Rutgers and tap into the NY TV market, which is worth way more than the St. Louis market. Rutgers is a large school and is consistent with the academics.

The Big Ten already has the Pittsburgh market with Penn State, so I think Pitt is out. Syracuse is in a remote area and hard to get to and their sports programs other than basketball are not up to par with the Big Ten's standards.

Notre Dame fits well, but no way they give up that NBC contract. Plus the big wigs at Notre Dame remember when they asked to join the Big Ten 60 years ago and the Big Ten rejected them, so they are holding a grudge so to speak.

[j-6]

Talk around Columbus is the Big Ten will try to pursue Rutgers and tap into the NY TV market, which is worth way more than the St. Louis market. Rutgers is a large school and is consistent with the academics.


I heard this too. I also heard about trying to convince Villanova to get their football to FBS and do an expansion after the moratorium ends.

I still think they chase Mizzou down.


If Mizzou leaves, kiss the Big 12 goodbye. That t.v. market is much to valuable to it's existence.

I also can see this, with the Dozen tearing apart and forming two BCS leagues with CUSA, WAC, and MWC schools. The same guy that told me about Nova said that a post-SWC shakeup might happen again.

[NFO]

I heard this too. I also heard about trying to convince Villanova to get their football to FBS and do an expansion after the moratorium ends.

I still think they chase Mizzou down.

Maybe Texas tries to join. According to this article, which is old, they tried to get into the league before.

Link (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081405_3N_SWCbaylor_tech_1ca3e1c_html8528.html )

[K-State Spur]

Notre Dame fits well, but no way they give up that NBC contract. Plus the big wigs at Notre Dame remember when they asked to join the Big Ten 60 years ago and the Big Ten rejected them, so they are holding a grudge so to speak.

I repeat: The NBC contract is not as valuable as it once was. Every single SEC team (including Vanderbilt, Kentucky, and Mississippi State) received more TV revenue than Notre Dame did last year.

[DMX7]

Maybe Texas tries to join. According to this article, which is old, they tried to get into the league before.

Link (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/MYSA081405_3N_SWCbaylor_tech_1ca3e1c_html8528.html )

Texas is fine where it is now. The Big XII does suck but Texas is doing just fine in it (in terms of wins, money and exposure).

[Kermit]

Wherever Texas goes, A&M goes. So that drastically fucks up their chances of joining the Big 10. Pac 10 might work but Stanford doesn't want them. They really need to get on their knees and start working on Mizzou's knob.

Edit:

Not to mention that the Big 11 is so fucking far away.

[K-State Spur]

I don't see any way that Texas ever bolts to the Big 10. They have 19 other sports that don't generate the revenue that football does - and their travel costs would be astronomical.

[DarkReign]

Call me ignorant, but why would Texas even want to bolt to the Big10?

Its obvious Notre Dame is the perfect fit for an addition to the Big10...but trust me, as a person who just left South Bend yesterday, these freaks are extremely proud of being independent to the point of dillusion.

[Kermit]

and their travel costs would be astronomical.

Eh, I don't think that cost and Texas really belong in the same sentence.

[chrisattsu]

Eh, I don't think that cost and Texas really belong in the same sentence.

True. Any program that is self-sufficient and willing to pay their head coach $5M per year, is not worried about travel expenses or pinching pennies.

[K-State Spur]

True. Any program that is self-sufficient and willing to pay their head coach $5M per year, is not worried about travel expenses or pinching pennies.

Not for football. And probably not for men's basketball.

But for the non-revenue sports that already act as a guzzler of AD funds - it's a different story. It's not like UT is without expenses already. Their athletic department profit margin is only about 10%.

[NFO]

Call me ignorant, but why would Texas even want to bolt to the Big10?

Because they asked to join back in the early 90s. Read the article I posted at the bottom of page 1.

I don't think Texas would ever join the Big 10, but they did ask to join once upon a time.

[j-6]

the contract value isnt in dollhairs its in eyeballs. natl broadcast everyweek :rolleyes

I didn't want to respond to K-State Spur's post because this is my opinion as well, but he's right. I think ND wants exposure over revenue - though I thought they make something like $12M a year off the NBC deal.

My same ''source'' guy - in the sports department at my wife's job and is a fixture at the CUSA office in Irving - said Rutgers and Mizzou again today, with a slight push for Nova because of academics and to bring in a Philly school. They think a huge shakeup is coming.

[K-State Spur]

the contract value isnt in dollhairs its in eyeballs. natl broadcast everyweek :rolleyes

because big 10 schools like michigan and ohio state are NOT on national television every week?

schools like Texas, USC, and Florida that are in conferences are under-exposed?

[Kermit]

because big 10 schools like michigan and ohio state are NOT on national television every week?

schools like Texas, USC, and Florida that are in conferences are under-exposed?

Yeah, this isn't the fucking 1960's. I don't have three channels on my tele. Cable pretty much skull-fucked the national television concept.

[K-State Spur]

the saturday night ABC or ESPN prime time games are typically 3x or 4x the number of viewers that the Irish get for their afternoon NBC games.

[Ed Helicopter Jones]

UTAH and BYU basically started the Mountain West. They won't go to the Big 12. If anything, Utah could eventually get lured into the Pac 10. But other than their BCS affiliation, the Pac 10 is not a better conference than the MWC.

I could see some around TCU wanting to leave the MWC for greener pastures. Of course, in the MWC they're the big dogs...not sure why they'd want to go where they're not appreciated.

I think there's more of a chance of luring the likes of Boise State or UH than there is of TCU, BYU or Utah leaving the MWC.

[K-State Spur]

UTAH and BYU basically started the Mountain West. They won't go to the Big 12. If anything, Utah could eventually get lured into the Pac 10. But other than their BCS affiliation, the Pac 10 is not a better conference than the MWC.

I could see some around TCU wanting to leave the MWC for greener pastures. Of course, in the MWC they're the big dogs...not sure why they'd want to go where they're not appreciated.

I think there's more of a chance of luring the likes of Boise State or UH than there is of TCU, BYU or Utah leaving the MWC.

you have little concept of the amount of money a BCS conference distributes compared to a (relative) mid-major

[MajorMike]

Mizzou will never leave the B12. They have way too much of a history with the former B8, former B7, former B6 schools to leave. Missouri was a charter school of what would develop into the Big 8 conference in 1907 and Iowa St. joined in 1908. Mizzou is pissed that they were leapfrogged the last couple years in the B12 bowl pecking order even going back to KU getting the Orange Bowl over them. They want to ruffle some feathers and hope the B12 ensures they think they are important.

Mizzou would lose its rivalry with Kansas (isn't it the most played football rivalry in the NCAA?), but would get to continue playing Illinios (Illinios wants to stop playing Mizzou each year). Paterno has already said that he would like to have Rutgers (We all know he has a lot of weight behind what he says). Mizzou has been offered this before and has turned it down. Mizzou plays the spread style offense, which meshes with the other styles of offense played in the B12, unlike the smash mouth style played in the B10. Rutgers gives the B10 an east coast connection they have been looking for.

No BCS conf is going to lose any teams unless it is that whole BEasy/ACC mess going on. The B10 wants Rutgers simply to tap into the NYC media market. Other logical choices would be Pitt and Cincy. Some people say Cuse, but I have a hard time seeing Cuse leave the BEasy esp when it comes to basketball as long as Beohiem is there.

Additionally, no matter how often people want to keep saying it, not conf is ever going to 'demote' a team by removing them from the league. No matter how much we bitch about Iowa State and Baylor and Northwestern and the like, they will never be forcibly removed from a conf. The liabilities and lawsuits would be epic.

[symple19]

Mizzou will never leave the B12. They have way too much of a history with the former B8, former B7, former B6 schools to leave. Missouri was a charter school of what would develop into the Big 8 conference in 1907 and Iowa St. joined in 1908. Mizzou is pissed that they were leapfrogged the last couple years in the B12 bowl pecking order even going back to KU getting the Orange Bowl over them. They want to ruffle some feathers and hope the B12 ensures they think they are important.

Mizzou would lose its rivalry with Kansas (isn't it the most played football rivalry in the NCAA?), but would get to continue playing Illinios (Illinios wants to stop playing Mizzou each year). Paterno has already said that he would like to have Rutgers (We all know he has a lot of weight behind what he says). Mizzou has been offered this before and has turned it down. Mizzou plays the spread style offense, which meshes with the other styles of offense played in the B12, unlike the smash mouth style played in the B10. Rutgers gives the B10 an east coast connection they have been looking for.

No BCS conf is going to lose any teams unless it is that whole BEasy/ACC mess going on. The B10 wants Rutgers simply to tap into the NYC media market. Other logical choices would be Pitt and Cincy. Some people say Cuse, but I have a hard time seeing Cuse leave the BEasy esp when it comes to basketball as long as Beohiem is there.

Additionally, no matter how often people want to keep saying it, not conf is ever going to 'demote' a team by removing them from the league. No matter how much we bitch about Iowa State and Baylor and Northwestern and the like, they will never be forcibly removed from a conf. The liabilities and lawsuits would be epic.

love me some Mike --- no way is Mizzou leaving.

[symple19]

you have little concept of the amount of money a BCS conference distributes compared to a (relative) mid-major

K-state is a pimp.

You should post more often bro, your takes are tight

[K-State Spur]

Mizzou will never leave the B12. They have way too much of a history with the former B8, former B7, former B6 schools to leave. Missouri was a charter school of what would develop into the Big 8 conference in 1907 and Iowa St. joined in 1908. Mizzou is pissed that they were leapfrogged the last couple years in the B12 bowl pecking order even going back to KU getting the Orange Bowl over them. They want to ruffle some feathers and hope the B12 ensures they think they are important.

Mizzou would lose its rivalry with Kansas (isn't it the most played football rivalry in the NCAA?),


I don't know how far going back - but not in my lifetime has Mizzou ever been offered the Big 10. In fact, they've talked about doing it for 15 years now, but there has never been any reciprocation by that conference.

They would just add KU as a non-conference match-up every year, they can survive losing every other old big 8 rivalry.

The amount of money flying around the Big 10 just is too much more than what the conference gets now. I'm not sure if they are really the Big 10's choice or not - but if they are - THEY'RE GONE.

Things like "style of offense" under their current football coach won't even factor 1% into their decision.

[MajorMike]

I don't know how far going back - but not in my lifetime has Mizzou ever been offered the Big 10. In fact, they've talked about doing it for 15 years now, but there has never been any reciprocation by that conference.

They would just add KU as a non-conference match-up every year, they can survive losing every other old big 8 rivalry.

The amount of money flying around the Big 10 just is too much more than what the conference gets now. I'm not sure if they are really the Big 10's choice or not - but if they are - THEY'RE GONE.

Things like "style of offense" under their current football coach won't even factor 1% into their decision.

1993 CU was voting to go to P10, Mizzou was being offered by B10, B8 thought they were losing one or other so they were inviting BYU (who declined) and thw SWC decision was a last minute thing that B8 didn't think was going to happen.

Something additional to be said about who would join if who left. If gaining another Texas school means that OSU would be moved to the north, OSU will veto it. OSU does not want to lose trips to the state of Texas for recruiting purposes when they are already behind.

[j-6]

As an aside - I seem to remember us talking about BYU wanting to go indy. Is that just a plug and play for Boise and the MWC, or can this contribute to the possible realignment madness?

edit: Can a school successfully veto a move (Okie State) if the rest of the conference is for it?

[johngateswhiteley]

But other than their BCS affiliation, the Pac 10 is not a better conference than the MWC.

Forget understanding the bcs, you don't know college sports. The pac-10 is the best conference. They don't want, nor need, to add or do anything. And they won't.

[K-State Spur]

1993 CU was voting to go to P10, Mizzou was being offered by B10, B8 thought they were losing one or other so they were inviting BYU (who declined) and thw SWC decision was a last minute thing that B8 didn't think was going to happen.

You may have heard talk of that, but regardless of what Sportstalk radio host you were listening to said, Colorado and Mizzou were never given offers to leave this conference for those.

[MajorMike]

Colorado voted in 93 or 94 to go to the P10 and it lost by 2 reagent votes.

[K-State Spur]

you are correct on the Buffs. Still calling BS that Mizzou has had a recent big 10 offer.

[leemajors]

Forget understanding the bcs, you don't know college sports. The pac-10 is the best conference. They don't want, nor need, to add or do anything. And they won't.

they should add a championship game to be legit, unless the other legit conferences remove theirs.

[johngateswhiteley]

they should add a championship game to be legit, unless the other legit conferences remove theirs.

I disagree, that would mess with the perfect setup in place. However, originally, I was referring to academics and athletics.

[K-State Spur]

If the Big 10 picks Mizzou, it's a no-brainer that they jump.

For Mizzou, it basically boils down to this:

Do you want an equal cut of a $250 million television contract? Or continue to take the backseat to Texas & Oklahoma for an uneven cut of a $70 million contract?

[MajorMike]

Ok, so what about the question on the other side.... does the B12 really lose anything if Mizzou goes?

[K-State Spur]

Ok, so what about the question on the other side.... does the B12 really lose anything if Mizzou goes?

Absolutely - the St. Louis market and 1/2 the Kansas City Market.

Plus the embarrassment of losing a charter big 6 member and the knowledge that the Big 10, SEC, et al can grab anybody they want from our league.

[jag]

Absolutely - the St. Louis market and 1/2 the Kansas City Market.

Plus the embarrassment of losing a charter big 6 member and the knowledge that the Big 10, SEC, et al can grab anybody they want from our league.

Would you consider Mizzou to be the most attractive option for the Big 10? If it's as easy as that then why not go for a Texas or Oklahoma?

[K-State Spur]

Would you consider Mizzou to be the most attractive option for the Big 10? If it's as easy as that then why not go for a Texas or Oklahoma?

I have no opinion on whether or not Mizzou is their best option, only that Mizzou will jump if offered.

4 reasons that Texas and Oklahoma don't make as much sense:

1) Geography - larger travel costs for every current big 10 team. This is not a big deal for football, but non-revenue sports do care about traveling expenses.

2) The Big 10 is looking for 1 team, Texas and OU are likely a tandem deal moving forward.

3) Might be tougher to get Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State to sign off on adding another athletic department that is as big (if not bigger) than their own. The Big 10 is pretty equitable with its revenue sharing, but it still has a few schools that throw their weight around more than others - do they really want another gorilla at the table?

Most important:

4) Mizzou would be willing to leave because they would get an equal share of a much larger deal as opposed to the current lesser share that they receive of a much smaller deal.

Texas and OU receive the lion's share of that smaller deal. They don't gain as much by jumping. No other conference will allow them the special treatment that they receive from the Big 12. ALL other BCS conferences feature equitable revenue sharing deals that the Big 12 does not have.

[symple19]

K-state makes sense. What is the consensus opinion of Mizzou fans?????

[johngateswhiteley]

http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/2094/how-the-big-12-teams-rank-in-revenue-sharing-funds

How the Big 12 teams rank in revenue-sharing funds
May, 26, 2009
May 26
10:46
AM ET
Email Print Share
By Tim Griffin

Posted by ESPN.com's Tim Griffin

A hot-button issue in recent years has been the revenue disparity between Big 12 teams. Several athletic directors of some of the conference's bottom feeders have mentioned how difficult it is to compete with the conference's biggest powers.

The Omaha World-Herald recently provided the breakdown for each school in the conference's 2007-08 revenue sharing numbers from those provided to the Internal Revenue Service.

The total of $103.1 million places the conference fourth among the "Big Six" conferences that make up the Bowl Championship Series automatic qualifiers. The Big 12 ranks behind the Big Ten ($154.2 million), the Atlantic Coast ($137.6 million) and the Southeastern ($135 million) conferences in revenue generated to share with members.

The World-Herald's findings indicate that $57 million come for television contracts, along with $32.2 million from bowl games, $27.3 million from the NCAA, $11.1 million from conference championships and $434,623 from royalties and licensing. The conference keeps some of the revenue to pay its bills, which is why those figures add up to more than the $103.1 million distributed to member institutions.

The Big Ten is the only conference that shares revenue equally among its schools. It provided $14 million to each school during the 2006-07 fiscal year.

The Big 12 schools divvy up all money equally except that which is generated from television.

Half of the TV money is divided evenly. The other half goes into an appearance pool. The schools that earn the most money are the ones who appear for football TV games and basketball nonconference games. Credits also are issued for NCAA tournament appearances.

Here's a look at the money provided for each Big 12 team.

1. Texas: $10.2 million
2. Oklahoma: $9.8 million
3. Kansas: $9.24 million
4. Texas A&M: $9.22 million
5. Nebraska: $9.1 million
6. Missouri: $8.4 million
7. Texas Tech: $8.23 million
8. Kansas State: $8.21 million
9. Oklahoma State: $8.1 million
10. Colorado: $8.0 million
11. Iowa State: $7.4 million
12. Baylor: $7.1 million

Source: Omaha World-Herald

And here's how the BCS-affiliated conferences rank:

1. Big Ten: $154.2 million
2. ACC: $137.6 million
3. SEC: $135 million
4. Big 12: $103.1 million
5. Pac-10: $80.1 million
6. Big East: $77.6 million

Source: Omaha World-Herald

[NFO]

Would you consider Mizzou to be the most attractive option for the Big 10? If it's as easy as that then why not go for a Texas or Oklahoma?

I'm not sure the Big 10 wants Mizzou. As others have siad Mizzou would likely jump if the offer was made, which I tend to agree with. But as an Ohio State fane I would not want Mizzou. They really don't bring that much to the table.

I think the Big 10 should go after Texas. I mean Texas did ask in the mid 90s to join the Big, in which Texas was turned down. However I think to get Texas you have to expand to 14 teams so Texas does not have to jaunt up to Happy Valley and Minnesota every year. I think adding Texas, Nebraska and Mizzou would make the most sense.

I don't think Oklahoma is a tandem deal as someone else mentioned, mainly because the Red River Rivalry was an out of confernce game anyway until 1996.

Who knows what will happen. A lot of people in Big Ten country are speculating that the Big 10 will try and hold out for Notre Dame, which is possible if Notre Dame doesn't improve in the next 4 seasons and the BCS gets rid of the ND rule and makes ND the same as all other non-AQ teams. But I guess we will just have to wait and see.

[johngateswhiteley]

I'm not sure the Big 10 wants Mizzou. As others have siad Mizzou would likely jump if the offer was made, which I tend to agree with. But as an Ohio State fane I would not want Mizzou. They really don't bring that much to the table.

I think the Big 10 should go after Texas. I mean Texas did ask in the mid 90s to join the Big, in which Texas was turned down. However I think to get Texas you have to expand to 14 teams so Texas does not have to jaunt up to Happy Valley and Minnesota every year. I think adding Texas, Nebraska and Mizzou would make the most sense.

I don't think Oklahoma is a tandem deal as someone else mentioned, mainly because the Red River Rivalry was an out of confernce game anyway until 1996.

Who knows what will happen. A lot of people in Big Ten country are speculating that the Big 10 will try and hold out for Notre Dame, which is possible if Notre Dame doesn't improve in the next 4 seasons and the BCS gets rid of the ND rule and makes ND the same as all other non-AQ teams. But I guess we will just have to wait and see.

i can't see t.u. leaving the big 12, but i don't know as much about this stuff as others. it just doesn't make sense to me. I also don't think A&M and t.u. will ever leave each other.

[MajorMike]

I really can't see Mizzou bringing much of anything to the B10. Sure you can say the StL and part of KC tv, but they are, like SA, considered 'small' markets. KC will always be B12 country (or at least the KC, KS side). Mizzou has something like 2 nationalchampionships... ever? Baseball in '54 and Track in '65. That is sports tradition?

Then you talk academics? Mizzou didn't finish in the Top 50. In fact, Mizzou was behind UT, CU, atm, Baylor, ISU, KU, and Neb. Therefore, the academics arguement is completely laughable.

[MajorMike]

I really can't see Mizzou bringing much of anything to the B10. Sure you can say the StL and part of KC tv, but they are, like SA, considered 'small' markets. KC will always be B12 country (or at least the KC, KS side). Mizzou has something like 2 nationalchampionships... ever? Baseball in '54 and Track in '65. That is sports tradition?

Then you talk academics? Mizzou didn't finish in the Top 50. In fact, Mizzou was behind UT, CU, atm, Baylor, ISU, KU, and Neb. Therefore, the academics arguement is completely laughable.

I notice that once again facts silence a poor arguement.

[NFO]

I notice that once again facts silence a poor arguement.

As an Ohio State fan I agree with your feelings on Missouri.

They bring nothing to the table for the Big Ten. The Bog Ten is not looking to expand for freaking Missouri. If they are going to expand they want to hit a home run and there are only two teams that would do that. Notre Dame and Texas.

Texas To the Big 10 (http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/)

[misterx91578]

they should add a championship game to be legit, unless the other legit conferences remove theirs.

Pac 10 is legit because everyone ACTUALLY plays each other unlike some conferences where one division is sub par to the other or in the Big 11 errr 10 some times miss each other

[NFO]

Big Ten making overtures to ...... Texas (http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2010/feb/11/big-ten-making-overtures-texas/?sports)

Discusses how there has been contact between the Big Ten and Texas.



Big Ten, big plans, big gains (http://www.jsonline.com/sports/84357987.html)

Big Ten expansion: A closer look at Texas (http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2010/02/big_ten_expansion_a_closer_loo.html)

Articles talk about the benefits of Texas joining the Big 10.



Osborne stays cool as expansion talk heats up (http://www.huskerextra.com/articles/2010/02/12/football/doc4b74caabd3d52924452790.txt)

Discusses Nebraska as possible listening to the Big 10 if they called.

[K-State Spur]

keegan has been passing off his own speculation and whims as 'fact' and 'sources' for years.

[NFO]

Big Ten Annouces Offer to Brazil (http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2010/2/16/1312994/big-ten-announces-offer-to-brazil#storyjump)


:lol

[Blake]

Big Ten Annouces Offer to Brazil (http://www.everydayshouldbesaturday.com/2010/2/16/1312994/big-ten-announces-offer-to-brazil#storyjump)


:lol

that's funny right there.

[The Gemini Method]

I think the notion of adding Pitt would probably be the option the Big 11 should go after, no? I mean, it is close to proximity of the majority of Big 11 teams and it will add a natural rival in Penn St. Don't know if the Big East would be happy losing the Panthers, but it seems the easiest to poach. Which, will then in itself have its own ramifications...

[MajorMike]

UT loves the attention but any move to the Big 10 where everyone gets an equal share would be a backwards movement, when they get the lion's share. To UT, the B12's way ensures the BUs and ISUs and so forth stay down, whereas if they were in the B10 they would get the same money as UT. UT already has the #1 grossing AD in the nation, why would they go be equal with someone when they can be above ther rest?

Additionally, you think there was an outcry in the Tejas Congress when the B12 was forming, wait for there to be one now with atm alongside ttek and BU against UT instead of with them.

[NFO]

I think the notion of adding Pitt would probably be the option the Big 11 should go after, no? I mean, it is close to proximity of the majority of Big 11 teams and it will add a natural rival in Penn St. Don't know if the Big East would be happy losing the Panthers, but it seems the easiest to poach. Which, will then in itself have its own ramifications...

I don't think the Big 10 would add Pitt. Penn St already gets all the PA TVs, adding Pitt would not bring in anymore television revenue, which means the current Big Ten schools would have to take less money to add Pitt, which I don't see happening if the Big 10 were to only add one team. Now if the Big Ten were to add three teams then Pitt may be back into the equation.



UT loves the attention but any move to the Big 10 where everyone gets an equal share would be a backwards movement, when they get the lion's share.

I disagree with that. While Texas gets the lion's share of the revenues in the Big 12, taking in about 12 mil in revenue each year. Each Big 10 team took in a reported around 20-22 mil in TV revenue this year. If Texas did join the Big Ten the Big Ten network would have the entire state of Texas to expand their network too, which is a huge market and would likely increase that share of 20-22 per school even with Texas in the mix. Yes Texas would share the revenue but it stand to make at least 10 mil more a year in TV revenue.

[samikeyp]

Additionally, you think there was an outcry in the Tejas Congress when the B12 was forming, wait for there to be one now with atm alongside ttek and BU against UT instead of with them.

True. There was an agreement made to bring Baylor into the B12 with the other three.....the Texas Legislature would have to get involved for the Horns to move.

[K-State Spur]

True. There was an agreement made to bring Baylor into the B12 with the other three.....the Texas Legislature would have to get involved for the Horns to move.

It was also made known early in the process that Texas & A&M were NOT to be split up under any and all circumstances.

Texas won't be able to jump anywhere unless that conference takes A&M as well.

In fact, since the formation of the Big 12, state legislatures have not allowed any 2 schools in the same BCS conference to go their separate ways. When the ACC expanded, Virginia's legislature held UVA's vote hostage against any expansion unless VPI was included in the plan. The Hokies were not one of the ACC's top 5 choices for inclusion, let alone top 3.

[symple19]

Rutgers is what I've read in several articles lately. Rutgers makes a lot of sense, good school and part of the NY market.

[The Gemini Method]

Rutgers is what I've read in several articles lately. Rutgers makes a lot of sense, good school and part of the NY market.

Rutgers would definitely bring in the NY market for the Big Whatever...

[jb4g]

Rutgers is what I've read in several articles lately. Rutgers makes a lot of sense, good school and part of the NY market.


Im with this, best tv market of all the teams that have been mentioned. Then the Big East takes Memphis to replace them.
Pac 10 takes Utah and Colorado
Big 12 adds TCU, but what to do about the north/south divisions?
Boise St takes Utah's place in the MWC

and finally CUSA shifts Tulane to the east and takes UTSA :lol

[Whisky Dog]

Big 11 won't take a school unless said school makes their tv revenues go up up up from 22 mil a yr to more.

That makes Texas, ND as the only real factors. Rutgers and the 'Cuse add the NY market, but NY only really cares much about college bball so 'cuse is the only dark horse that can add tvs in NY because of the 2-3 zone.

[MajorMike]

I disagree with that. While Texas gets the lion's share of the revenues in the Big 12, taking in about 12 mil in revenue each year. Each Big 10 team took in a reported around 20-22 mil in TV revenue this year. If Texas did join the Big Ten the Big Ten network would have the entire state of Texas to expand their network too, which is a huge market and would likely increase that share of 20-22 per school even with Texas in the mix. Yes Texas would share the revenue but it stand to make at least 10 mil more a year in TV revenue.

You are missing the point. UT already gets more than any other AD in the nation total. Therefore, why would you take an 8 mil raise per year to get the same thing that Northwestern and Purdue and Minnesota get when you already get 10 mil more than BU and CU and ISU get?

In the B12, they are #1 in the nation and miles ahead of their conf mates. In the B10, they would be #1 in the nation and equal to their conf mates. Economically not smart for them, and they know it.

[Blake]

You are missing the point. UT already gets more than any other AD in the nation total. Therefore, why would you take an 8 mil raise per year to get the same thing that Northwestern and Purdue and Minnesota get when you already get 10 mil more than BU and CU and ISU get?

In the B12, they are #1 in the nation and miles ahead of their conf mates. In the B10, they would be #1 in the nation and equal to their conf mates. Economically not smart for them, and they know it.

huh?

[Whisky Dog]

I think he's trying to say UT would be better off the huge fish in the smaller pond where the other schools don't have the revenue to keep up with them. Not that anyone short of Ohio st in that conference has anywhere near the facilities or compt advantage anyway.

[NFO]

You are missing the point. UT already gets more than any other AD in the nation total. Therefore, why would you take an 8 mil raise per year to get the same thing that Northwestern and Purdue and Minnesota get when you already get 10 mil more than BU and CU and ISU get?

In the B12, they are #1 in the nation and miles ahead of their conf mates. In the B10, they would be #1 in the nation and equal to their conf mates. Economically not smart for them, and they know it.

I see where you are coming from, but I just disagree with your perspective.

Lets say the Big Ten ended up taking Missouri and the Big 12 added TCU to replace them. The Big 12 will lose the TV revenue from the media market Missouri brings to the table, while TCU won't add any TV revenue because the Big 12 already has the entire state of Texas media market with the current Big 12 teams in that state, which means that the Big 12 TV revenue goes down if they were to lose Missouri and add TCU.

Texas knows that. IF Texas were to join the Big 10 they bring the entire state of Texas to the Big Ten Network, likely increasing the reveue of the current TV deal substantially. Yes, Texas is the king fish in the Big 12 since they do get the lion's share of the TV revenue, and if they were in the Big Ten they would share the revenue with the other schools. But is sharing money with other schools that bad that Texas would be willing to turn away an extra 8-12 million a year in just TV revenue and access to the CIC reseach fund. Perhaps, but I don't Texas would look at the move because they are top dog in won conference in terms of TV revenue and not in another confernce even though Texas would stand to make a lot more money from year to year.

I think Texas will isten to what the Big Ten has to say, if the Big Ten comes calling because (a) it doesn't hurt to listen and (b) they know if the Big Ten does expand to either 12 or 14 teams that it is likely to have a domino effect and Texas just wants to be prepared of the effects to its own conference if expansion is the route the Big Ten goes.