Big 12 may be raided by Big 10 and Pac 10 expansion plans

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:
I'm another Big Ten fan (Iowa, specifically), and I don't want ND in the conference. Why? You get yourself a mediocre college program that insists on pretending it's still elite. I'm OK with Nebraska; they're a decent athletic program in multiple sports, so they help strengthen the conference somewhat. Notre Dame? They're like Wisconsin, except they've got a giant stick up their butt.

Yeah with the addition of Nebraska, the big ten now has two self-important fan bases (*cough* *cough* Iowa *cough*). No need for another.


Don't worry, the wheel always comes around eventually. At some point, at least in theory, Minnesota fans will have something to be proud about. Of course, the NCAA will eventually make the school forfeit all those big wins anyways, but hey, a win is a win! For a while, at least.

Oh come on, you're in Eagan. I'm sure you've run into some Gopher hockey fans.


Hey now, I'm mocking a rival sports fan, reality doesn't enter into it. At any rate, I'm not a big hockey guy, but hockey's weird from a collegiate standpoint anyways just because so few teams actually play it. Even in Iowa, you rarely hear about hockey. High school teams don't play it, colleges don't play it, nobody pays attention to it. Go one state north, and it's an obsession. The only two college sports that most people care about are football and basketball anyways and, if you want to make fun of Iowa, make fun of the basketball program. Lord knows I do, I went to Northern Iowa (Ali Faroukmanesh!) and my wife went to Iowa.

I am well aware that nobody in Iowa knows what hockey is (along with the many other things Iowans are ignorant of). I was just saying that Eagan has got to be crawling with Gopher hockey fans.

I stayed away from the Iowa basketball team for a reason. I'm not that cruel.

Badferret wrote:
Reading today's ESPN articles I cam across this gem from the ND athletic director;

Among the myths growing in the information vacuum is that this is an athletic issue -- all about the TV revenue, right? The reality, Swarbrick said, is that this is being driven much more by the academic side of campus at most schools than by the athletic side. Presidents and chancellors see this as a rare opportunity to change their educational neighborhood and better their universities in the process.

Yeah right.

Tony Barnhart's take.

*Even more;

The SEC has had secret talks with Texas A&M.

Someone should write a John Le Carre style novel about all of this, throw in a dead cheerleader in Waco and get Matt Damon to lead and you would have a blockbuster movie.

Academics do play a part. That is why the big ten is so attractive. Just look at Penn State to see how being in the big ten can have an effect on academics. That's why I don't think Texas will ever go to the SEC because Texas is one of the top research institutions in the country. I think Vandy and Florida are the only AAU schools in the SEC. At least if they go to the pac 10 they will be with Cal.

Badferret wrote:
Someone should write a John Le Carre style novel about all of this, throw in a dead cheerleader in Waco and get Matt Damon to lead and you would have a blockbuster movie.

That someone is John Feinstein. He could do a hell of a job and then if Jerry Bruckheimer produced the movie, it would be perfect.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
I am well aware that nobody in Iowa knows what hockey is (along with the many other things Iowans are ignorant of). I was just saying that Eagan has got to be crawling with Gopher hockey fans.

I stayed away from the Iowa basketball team for a reason. I'm not that cruel.


Eagan is crawling with suburbanites who seem to do nothing more than drive their kids to hockey practice. Constantly. Bless my athletically-challenged son.

IMAGE(http://www.gophersports.com/pics24/200/EA/EAXPGTPEAYPXEED.20071129213802.jpg)
Clem says hi, by the way.

As for academics, I guess I'm dubious as to how your athletic conference really makes an impact as to your research. Iowa has its Writer's Workshop and laser lab and other stuff because the school puts a focus on academics, not because it plays Indiana in football. I guess on some level being in a bigger conference could inspire more donors to give you money which tangentially gives you the capability to do more research and all, but "big conference is big conference" on some level, so I don't see how Nebraska jumping over makes much difference, really. Maybe I'm just ignorant of how it works, but do schools in the same athletic conference tend to do more co-research or something?

Badferret wrote:
... all of this is about TV packages and the Billions of dollars up for grabs. Clemson and Ga. Tech bring nothing to the SEC's pocket, they are both in TV markets that the SEC already owns. FSU and Miami lock up the rest of Florida's TV market, and Va. Tech gives the SEC access to the Richmond/DC market.

If it's all about TV markets, keep in mind that Virginia Tech's two major TV markets - Richmond and Norfolk - are smaller than the Greenville, S.C., market, which is Clemson's home market. And when it comes to S.C. football, Clemson > South Carolina.

Also, D.C. is a pro, not college, sports town. If you're looking to own the eyeballs of college fans in that market, the SEC would be better off poaching Virginia and Maryland. But I don't see either of those happening, especially since neither school is a perennial football power.

You're right about GT, though. The Wreck doesn't bring much except to round out the whole package.

Karate Kid and A-Team remakes, Colorado joining the Pac-10, dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria!

Badferret wrote:
No way they stop at Nebraska. The Big 10 is in it to expand the reach and revenue of the Big 10 Network, and frankly adding just Nebraska doesn't really help them reach that goal.
That's not particularly accurate. Despite not being the Nebraska of old, there are still plenty of people outside of Nebraska that watch Nebraska football. It's somewhat like Notre Dame in that regard. Tradition might not mean much when it comes to X's and O's but it does when you're talking about viewership.

I've been, and still am, sweating this entire mess. Kansas is really the odd man out. Not enough TV's to really matter, and basketball just doesn't drive the revenue. All reports here in St. Louis reflect that Mizzou just really got played. So once the Pac 10 gets done, that leaves Kansas, Kansas State, Mizzou, Iowa State, and Baylor as free agents.

As I was writing this, my dad just called to say that reports are out that Oklahoma State has agreed to join the Pac 10.

My hope, it's probably too late, was for the Big 12 to try an lure Cincinnati and Louisville from the Big East, and Memphis from Conference USA. Now maybe Kansas has to try to join them. I am really, really hoping that the Mountain west is not the direction they head.

Will be glad when this is all done.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
As for academics, I guess I'm dubious as to how your athletic conference really makes an impact as to your research. Iowa has its Writer's Workshop and laser lab and other stuff because the school puts a focus on academics, not because it plays Indiana in football. I guess on some level being in a bigger conference could inspire more donors to give you money which tangentially gives you the capability to do more research and all, but "big conference is big conference" on some level, so I don't see how Nebraska jumping over makes much difference, really. Maybe I'm just ignorant of how it works, but do schools in the same athletic conference tend to do more co-research or something?

Because of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation which is the Big Ten plus the University of Chicago (an original member of the conference before they decided that football is silly).

There have been a couple articles already about how giddy the academic folk at Nebraska are about joining the Big Ten.

Big 12 ocalypse needs to go on pause while I'm in class.

This Chicago Tribune article from May does a good job of describing the monetary gain the Big 10 can reap.

The key figures are the 75-85 cents per household that the Big 10 Network gets from cable providers in the heart of the Big 10 versus the 10 cents that they get when the channel is relegated to a lower tier sports package.

So just by adding Nebraska, they will see a rise of around 70 cents for every cable box in the state, a nice start, but as the article points out, nothing compared to what they would get if they added NY area schools.

Note that these figures are not dependent upon actual ratings, but merely the number of cable/satellite subscribers who get the channel in their basic package.

Of course, if the do land ND that pretty much takes care of the whole country for the Big 10, but then they might as well add at least one more school to make the two divisions equal.

Badferret wrote:
The key figures are the 75-85 cents per household that the Big 10 Network gets from cable providers in the heart of the Big 10 versus the 10 cents that they get when the channel is relegated to a lower tier sports package.

So just by adding Nebraska, they will see a rise of around 70 cents for every cable box in the state, a nice start, but as the article points out, nothing compared to what they would get if they added NY area schools.

Hell, I live in Oregon and Big10 tv is part of my FiOS package. I can't always get Pac-10 games, because they have a second tier contract with the regional Fox Sports channel, but I can always watch Big 10 games.

Full details on sanctions and penalties imposed against USC. I mention it here because any team moving to the Pac-10 now doesn't have to worry about one of its star attractions gobbling up bowl bids and NCAA tourney seeds.

Oso wrote:
Badferret wrote:
The key figures are the 75-85 cents per household that the Big 10 Network gets from cable providers in the heart of the Big 10 versus the 10 cents that they get when the channel is relegated to a lower tier sports package.

So just by adding Nebraska, they will see a rise of around 70 cents for every cable box in the state, a nice start, but as the article points out, nothing compared to what they would get if they added NY area schools.

Hell, I live in Oregon and Big10 tv is part of my FiOS package. I can't always get Pac-10 games, because they have a second tier contract with the regional Fox Sports channel, but I can always watch Big 10 games.

Which is why the Pac-10 is so aggressively trying to go big.

Enix wrote:
Badferret wrote:
... all of this is about TV packages and the Billions of dollars up for grabs. Clemson and Ga. Tech bring nothing to the SEC's pocket, they are both in TV markets that the SEC already owns. FSU and Miami lock up the rest of Florida's TV market, and Va. Tech gives the SEC access to the Richmond/DC market.

If it's all about TV markets, keep in mind that Virginia Tech's two major TV markets - Richmond and Norfolk - are smaller than the Greenville, S.C., market, which is Clemson's home market. And when it comes to S.C. football, Clemson > South Carolina.

Also, D.C. is a pro, not college, sports town. If you're looking to own the eyeballs of college fans in that market, the SEC would be better off poaching Virginia and Maryland. But I don't see either of those happening, especially since neither school is a perennial football power.

You're right about GT, though. The Wreck doesn't bring much except to round out the whole package.

You have to remember this is less about actual ratings as it is access to new cable boxes. Living in Asheville, NC I'm considered part of the Greenville, S.C. market so I can safely say that this market is fully saturated with SEC access, Clemson or no, ie the SEC would not be able to wring any more dollars out of CBS/ESPN by adding Clemson. (Also, USC is a much larger school than Clemson and has a much larger alumni base than the Tigers, evidenced by them consistently selling out a larger football stadium than Clemson's [88k for the Chickens, 80K for the Tigers] so I would disagree there as well.)

As for DC, as I mentioned, it doesn't matter that no one would actually watch the games, if the SEC grabbing Va Tech switched which games ESPN broadcast in that market, the SEC can go back to ESPN asking for another 60-70 cents for every subscriber in the nation's 8th biggest TV market.

Does any of this make any real sense, of course not, but it doesn't change the fact that these are the considerations that are making the wheels on the bus go round and round.

Rat Boy wrote:
Full details on sanctions and penalties imposed against USC. I mention it here because any team moving to the Pac-10 now doesn't have to worry about one of its star attractions gobbling up bowl bids and NCAA tourney seeds.

It doesn't look like Basketball gets extra sanctions. I skimmed the .pdf of the panel's findings and I think they accepted last seasons' voluntary post-season ban as enough. They are limited to 12 scholarships and reduced the number of recruiting days and the number of coaches on the recruiting trail at one time, but I don't see a post-season ban for basketball going forward.

Football is neutered for the next two years.

Oso wrote:
Rat Boy wrote:
Full details on sanctions and penalties imposed against USC. I mention it here because any team moving to the Pac-10 now doesn't have to worry about one of its star attractions gobbling up bowl bids and NCAA tourney seeds.

It doesn't look like Basketball gets extra sanctions. I skimmed the .pdf of the panel's findings and I think they accepted last seasons' voluntary post-season ban as enough. They are limited to 12 scholarships and reduced the number of recruiting days and the number of coaches on the recruiting trail at one time, but I don't see a post-season ban for basketball going forward.

Football is neutered for the next two years.

I really don't know the particulars of either case but wasn't the Mayo situation just a recruiting violation whereas the Bush situation was USC buying a house for his mom.

I think USC should have to forfeit all of their non-conference road games this year. But, they have to show up and pretend like they are trying so that it looks like the opponent actually beat them. That would be a fair punishment.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
I really don't know the particulars of either case but wasn't the Mayo situation just a recruiting violation whereas the Bush situation was USC buying a house for his mom.

I think USC should have to forfeit all of their non-conference road games this year. But, they have to show up and pretend like they are trying so that it looks like the opponent actually beat them. That would be a fair punishment.

Heh. I'm much less of a Football fan, so I'll go along with your plan.

As for Mayo, there were two issues. The first was recruiting based. Mayo's "handler" was included in the recruiting process by USC and the handler provided Mayo with improper benefits. Second, USC made cash payments to Mayo's family and girlfriend.

Transportation, meals, lodging, professional training sessions, cash and merchandise to student-athlete 2 and his brother in August 2006, while the young men were in the Los Angeles area;
 $150 cash, wired to the girlfriend on December 31, 2006;
 $300 cash, wired to the girlfriend on February 19, 2007;
 $150 cash, wired to the girlfriend on August 31, 2007;
 A wireless communication service device worth $226.24 to student-athlete 2 on March 13, 2007;
 Monthly wireless service at $171 per month, with a total value of $2,297, to student-athlete 2 from March 13, 2007 through April 2008;
 Arrangement for student-athlete 2 to appear on the cover of the November 2007 issue of SLAM magazine and be featured in a story in the same issue;
 Transportation to Las Vegas, and two nights' lodging in that city, to student-athlete 2 on or about July 20, 2007;
 An airline ticket to student-athlete 2's brother on or about August 2, 2007, so that the young man could travel to the Los Angeles area from Ohio;
 Transportation and arrangements for a meal for student-athlete 2 and his brother on or about August 2, 2007;
 Monthly wireless service to student-athlete 2's brother from August 2007 through April 2008 at approximately $173 per month, a total benefit of $1,557;
 A television valued at $1,399 to student-athlete 2 on August 21, 2007.

Rat Boy wrote:
Full details on sanctions and penalties imposed against USC. I mention it here because any team moving to the Pac-10 now doesn't have to worry about one of its star attractions gobbling up bowl bids and NCAA tourney seeds.

It also means USC forefits their victory in that epic game against Fresno State in 2005.

Suck on that, Pac-10!

Oso wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
I really don't know the particulars of either case but wasn't the Mayo situation just a recruiting violation whereas the Bush situation was USC buying a house for his mom.

I think USC should have to forfeit all of their non-conference road games this year. But, they have to show up and pretend like they are trying so that it looks like the opponent actually beat them. That would be a fair punishment.

Heh. I'm much less of a Football fan, so I'll go along with your plan.

USC plays at Minnesota this year and Minnesota is shaping up to be anywhere between mediocre and sucks-balls. So, they need any help they can get.

As for the Mayo thing, I didn't realize so much money changed hands. My guess is that the difference in punishment has something to do with Mayo only being there for one year whereas Bush was there for three.

USC imposed sanctions on its own basketball team and the NCAA said that those sanctions were enough, hence why they didn't impose more on that program.

iaintgotnopants wrote:
Oso wrote:
iaintgotnopants wrote:
I really don't know the particulars of either case but wasn't the Mayo situation just a recruiting violation whereas the Bush situation was USC buying a house for his mom.

I think USC should have to forfeit all of their non-conference road games this year. But, they have to show up and pretend like they are trying so that it looks like the opponent actually beat them. That would be a fair punishment.

Heh. I'm much less of a Football fan, so I'll go along with your plan.

USC plays at Minnesota this year and Minnesota is shaping up to be anywhere between mediocre and sucks-balls. So, they need any help they can get.

As for the Mayo thing, I didn't realize so much money changed hands. My guess is that the difference in punishment has something to do with Mayo only being there for one year whereas Bush was there for three.

Still, with that many transgressions it looks like the hoops program got off a little easy.

mindset.threat wrote:
Still, with that many transgressions it looks like the hoops program got off a little easy.

I think they got off incredibly easy for everything. The Football transgressions happened less than five years after their last infraction, so they get the "repeat offender" achievement. Then they got the "lack of institutional control" achievement as well.

However, USC did self-impose significant sanctions. They vacated all wins for the 2007-2008 seasons (when Mayo played). They gave back to the NCAA all money they received for the 2008 NCAA Tournament. They gave up on the post season last year, including the Pac-10 tournament and its revenue share from the Pac-10, they released 3 recruits from letters of intent, they heavily restricted their ability to recruit (fewer recruiting days, 2 coaches away at once instead of 3), and they gave up a scholarship last year and next.

It could have been worse, but I think they didn't go easy on themselves either.

You're right about GT, though. The Wreck doesn't bring much except to round out the whole package.

GT is a good academic school though...;)

karmajay wrote:
You're right about GT, though. The Wreck doesn't bring much except to round out the whole package.

GT is a good academic school though...;)

Interestingly, the NCAA released this year's Academic Progress Report which measures the academic performance of all NCAA athletic programs. Let's take a look.

Bah, formatting didn't look good. To summarize the Big 10 is tops, but the SEC is competitive, it is the Big 12 that lags behind, at least when it comes to academic performance of football players.

TMZ (what!?) is reporting that Oklahoma State is the next team moving to the Pac 10.

The McNewspaper is reporting that Texas and A&M have asked about joining the Big Ten. Of course, in the same article, they point out that that doesn't make sense.

I vote that once this is all said and done and somehow Nevada's ended up in the ACC, all conferences are forced to take 1980's-era NHL Conference/Division names.

Badferret wrote:
You have to remember this is less about actual ratings as it is access to new cable boxes. Living in Asheville, NC I'm considered part of the Greenville, S.C. market ...

WNC has always been SEC country because you're closer to Tenn., Ky. and S.C. than you are to Chapel Hill. Grabbing Clemson (one of the top 20 teams in the nation based on attendance) would mean you'd never see another ACC game again, at least until the NCAA basketball tournament.

As for the SEC chewing on the ACC's carcass, this chart (.pdf) shows that Clemson outdrew SC in seven home games last year. SC had higher attendance in all games (home, road, neutral), but you figure the fact that the Chickens played in Athens, Tuscaloosa and Knoxville tended to skew those numbers higher.

Tell you the truth, I think the SEC took the wrong S.C. team the first time around. I suspect the SEC will get it right this time if they have the chance.

As for Virginia Tech, I think the Hokies like beating up on Wake Forest and Duke too much to aspire to a fourth-place finish in the SEC East.

I'm just worried that so many major conferences are suddenly unable to count to ten. Well, stop at ten.

Texas in the Big Ten? I look forward to the revival of that traditional Texas-Purdue rivalry.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
I'm just worried that so many major conferences are suddenly unable to count to ten. Well, stop at ten.

Texas in the Big Ten? I look forward to the revival of that traditional Texas-Purdue rivalry.

One of the articles linked here mentioned that one of the main reasons that the Big Ten would keep it's name is that all the greater numbered "Big X" trademarks are taken, including the Big 16, which is owned by a bakery in Canada that makes a particularly wholesome bread with 16 different grains in it.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
I'm just worried that so many major conferences are suddenly unable to count to ten. Well, stop at ten.

Texas in the Big Ten? I look forward to the revival of that traditional Texas-Purdue rivalry.

If anyone splits Texas and Oklahoma they are idiots. OU-Texas is a huge event here. They shut down the Interstate going away from dallas to let more people in.