Reply With Quote
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.
Maybe Texas tries to join. According to this article, which is old, they tried to get into the league before.
Link
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.
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).
Wherever Texas goes, A&M goes. So that drastically s 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 ing far away.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.the contract value isnt in dollhairs its in eyeballs. natl broadcast everyweek
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.
because big 10 schools like michigan and ohio state are NOT on national television every week?the contract value isnt in dollhairs its in eyeballs. natl broadcast everyweek
schools like Texas, USC, and Florida that are in conferences are under-exposed?
Yeah, this isn't the ing 1960's. I don't have three channels on my tele. Cable pretty much skull- ed the national television concept.
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.
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
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 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.
K-state is a pimp.
You should post more often bro, your takes are tight
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.
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?
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.
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.
Colorado voted in 93 or 94 to go to the P10 and it lost by 2 reagent votes.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
