dfwabel

I completely agree with you. Unless we go all mega-expansion, I can see the major 6 conferences changing a bit. ACC, SEC, Big10, Big12, MTN West and Pac10. I really don't see the Big East surviving all this shake-up, not in football anyway. But if the Big10 goes supernova, then expect the ACC and SEC to snatch up 4 more schools each and possibly the Pac10 to follow suit and grab six more schools- likely taking schools like Utah or Colorado, which would essentially make the MTN West become the new WAC. One of these is not like the others--and it ain't the Pac 10, either. (Nope...sadly, it's the conference my 'Noles play in. ) Something flew under the radar this week. The ACC signed a new football/basketball TV contract with ESPN/ABC which will start before the 2011-12 football season. It is a 12 year contract which will pay them $1.86B over the 12 years. They basically doubled their current contract. These are (reportedly) the values for the BCS Conferences current deals. The deals for the Pac-10 and Big XII are set to expire in a year. Pac-10 current deal: $43 million annually. ACC old deal: $67 million annually. ACC new deal: $155 million annually (football and basketball). Big 12 current deal: $73 million annually. Big Ten current deal: $165 million annually (does not include BTN). SEC current deal: $205 million annually.

How? I think that Boise St. in the WAC helps more since they have more games on ESPN2, as opposed to CBS College, Versus, and The Mtn. They get to play more on Thursday, Friday and the occasional Sunday in football, so they reach a larger potential audience on ESPN2 than those other MWC networks. They are the draw for the WAC now since Fresno State has become mediocre. If they move and become the standard team on Versus, they will still have to be on at the same time as the SEC on CBS, the ABC game with the ESPN2 reverse feed, and the FSN Pac-10 game. The overall travel cost for the lesser teams may benefit them, but that stadium and city size will continue to hinder them.

I'm sure the millions of people living in Kansas City, Omaha, Denver, Salt Lake, Austin, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, Oklahoma City and others would disagree with you on that. My point is that there is a "frontier" of schools around the Missouri River and then a small pocket of Utah-Colorado until you hit Washington-Oregon-California. Texas is different as they used to say in their tourism ads since they have their own power grid. Plus most think Texans are too arrogant in the first place. People on the coasts still consider the Big XII as "flyover country". The Big Ten wants the east coast because of the audience which their alumni base is at and where their incoming classes come from. They get lots of kids from NY, NJ, MD, and VA.

Regardless, the city of Lincoln is on a spending spree.

Agreed. And I answered that "newer" thread just because it was at the top of the page. Doh!

15 months ago, that "source" issued a similar "news" report, confirming Mike Shanahan as the new Chiefs head coach. Todd Haley was actually hired. This plan still has many of the same problems as the one posted before it. Fresno State, Nevada, San Diego State, and I'm sure a handfull of others don't meet the academic requirements necessary to be in whichever conference. +1. The creator of that list (and others like it) just threw schools in where they want too and never though about academic fit and number of related sports which may need to be added/subtracted due to Title XI.

Remember while Oregon is AUU, Oregon State is that state's only university to hold the Carnegie Foundation's designation for universities with "very high research activity." OSU also is Oregon's land, sea, sun and space grant university. Wazzu is lesser than OSU. Stanford may (and should) be a deciding factor into who joins the Pac-10. Heck, they had their spring game at San Francisco's Kezar Stadium to try to gain more of the SF market from Cal. Brilliant.

While I would love to see Texas and aTm make the move, it is apparent that aTm is still seens as a lesser school by conferences, since the Texas Legislature will try their best to force a conference to take them both. Personally, there is no reason not to refuse them sine Aggies are national and very loyal (e.g. Aggie Muster). Those five seem to be appropriate since Nebraska and Mizzou seem to be afterthoughts from the formation of the Big XII. Apparently, the Big Ten can gain much ad revenue from specifically adding Nebraska. A Big Ten Blog (but not from our NJTank)

Did my mild sarcasm offend? It's based in truth, though. Much like the ill-fated Kingdom of Poland, the Pac 10 membership has a liberum veto regarding expansion. IIRC Stanford and said veto power are the reason why Colorado and/or BYU are not already members of the Conference. Lil' fella is newly board, therefore we have no idea on how close his ear is to the thought of Pac-10 expansion, TV deals, or even a network. It appears to be little. He failed to do research from this thread or on this thread.

Compared to which other boards? Since you did not leave it to sport, what others do you find elitist? TWOP, skyscrapers,net? Which ones? The Pac-10 has a recently new Commissioner, and a Deputy Commissioner (Kevin Weiberg, former Big XII head), so don't worry, they know much more about the issues than you even tell us. Then again, you have told me zero.

1-There is still the opportunity for the Big Ten to ask both Texas schools to join them. The SEC only wanted Texas in 1989, but the Texas Legislature ended those talks. 2-For both Texas schools and the Oklahoma schools to move must have the Pac-10 give them as much revenue as they currently receive from their current deals. UT and OU receive more TV money than the other schools in the Big XII. The Pac-10 will always have an issue in that they kickoff their first football games when the Big Ten, SEC, ACC, and even Big East are on their second games. The Big Ten and SEC will already have national games on ESPN(2), BTN or SEC/ESPN Network early, then the SEC on CBS as the feature game. 3-The SEC will go after schools and college presidents will listen for the financials, especially in southern states. 4-Academics and research are more important to the Big Ten than the most other conferences. Take a look at how this thread developed so you can lean about the AAC and what presidents look for. 5-The fact that the NCAA named Mark Emmert as president may illustrate where the NCAA may go as he was quoted 18 months ago in that the believed the NCAA was going to have a football playoff.

Non-revenues will benefit since the school will take part in revenue sharing from network and cable TV contracts as well as from the BTN. They would get additional exposure in recruiting as well from being on BTN. Since most universities have fiscal years beginning on June 1, we should know more by then. When you have Mizzou's Gary Pinkel publicly criticizing the fact that the Big XII does not equally share revenues yesterday and Missouri's governor already gave them the OK to consider a Big Ten invitation, then we can see who is ready to move if asked.

12 hours in, this is very underwhelming to me. I have another opinion on the "some of you are monkeys", line, but...

I will bump since since there was reported news last week from the Pac 10. Mercury-News Blog on Pac 10 Expansion From the story: I?ve spent a bit of time the past few weeks talking to folks inside and outside the league about expansion, which became a sizzling topic when commissioner Larry Scott said he was looking at it ?very seriously". That said, here?s what I?ve learned: * To say that the soul of the Pac-10 is at stake would be an overstatement ? but not by much. The presidents are aware of the huge difference in revenue between the Pac-10 and Big Ten/SEC (more below) and have dollar signs in their eyes. ?Everything is for sale,? one source told me. ?They?ll do anything necessary to make money.? This doesn?t guarantee that everything will be for sale when/if the presidents ultimately sit down (as a group) to vote on expansion. * Procedural issues require six votes and constitutional issues need eight. But I?ve been told that all 10 schools must sign off on expansion, which means that one president could put the kibosh on the whole thing. * Here are the specifics on the dollars, which are the key to everything. The Pac-10 currently generates about $100 million in annual revenue while the Big Ten and SEC are both over $200 million. The number I keep hearing out of Pac-10 circles is $150-$175 million ? the presidents want another $5 ? $7.5 million per school. They understand that the conference might not equal the Big Ten, but they want a 50 percent increase ? if not more. So in regards to expansion, the central question becomes: Would adding two teams create so much more net revenue that the 1/12th splits are greater than the 1/10th splits? * One way to increase inventory, of course, is by adding schools. But which ones? San Diego State, Fresno State, UNLV, Nevada and Boise State are not part of the equation, multiple sources told me. No way, no how. They don?t work academically and they don?t work in the TV homes/revenue equation. Unless Missouri or Texas (presumably with Texas A&M) are available ? and at this point there?s no substantive reason to believe they are ? then only three options exist for the conference: Utah, BYU and Colorado. And for all practical purposes, there are only two options: Colorado and BYU, or Colorado and Utah. Utah and BYU together simply will not work.

Why should/could the NCAA, an organization made up of the member schools, dictate what or which schools do/can to organize? They (NCAA) already lost a case taken to the Supreme Court with the CFA in 1984 concerned with who controls college football telecasts. Why get beaten down again, 30 years later when the damages would be enough for those schools who file class action to split? They got busted for trying to limit "trade" in terms of the number of games aired and the money which schools receive, so why now try to restrain organization? If they "limit" the size of conferences, then they may violate the Sherman Act, again. For those who want to read the SCOUTS decision in 1984, look here: NCAA vs. Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma

This is from Saturday. There is a uniform comment form his at the end as well. Seattle Times: AD Believes both Big Ten/Pac 10 Have Talked to Texas and aTm WOODWARD TALKS --- Just finished a pre-game interview with athletic director Scott Woodward and we addressed a variety of issues. He said hosting ESPN's College GameDay show doesn't make the school any more money than a normal game. In fact, the expenses are a little higher. Said Woodward: "Is it a budget buster? No. For the exposure you get, it is a great bargain." He said the ESPN producers have enjoyed their time so much that "they were to the point of scouting for GameDay for football." Woodward also talked about expansion and said the Pac-10 and the Big Ten have reached out to officials at Texas and Texas A&M. "I'd be surprised if our office is not in contact with them," he said. "I'm sure those conversations have happened and are taking place." When asked if the league might expand beyond two teams, Woodward said that's a possibility. "It could be two, four or a merger of Big 12. ... There's a theory that at the end of the day there's only going to be four super conferences. Now that it's going to look like, God only knows." Woodward said football coach Steve Sarkisian is entertaining the idea of wearing an alternative black jersey, but quickly added that nothing is in the works.

It is easier for me to search for the Chronicle story than the talk on this thread...however: 3 Points for Darfur

Gotcha, like Kentucky plays Men's soccer in C-USA. Well, in ice hockey (men and women) Big Ten schools play in the CCHA or WCHA, so I would initially say "no". I will talk to those in the depts. who I know on Monday or Tuesday, since Feb. 15 is Presidents Day and generally a state holiday. That may be different, as the Big Ten does not have hockey (due to only 5 schools fielding teams). I immediately thought of baseball as a sport that Texas may want to keep out of the big ten. I have no idea whether the Big Ten would allow such a thing, but money talks...so they could probably make it happen. The Big Ten means money; plain and sumple

Gotcha, like Kentucky plays Men's soccer in C-USA. Well, in ice hockey (men and women) Big Ten schools play in the CCHA or WCHA, so I would initially say "no". I will talk to those in the depts. who I know on Monday or Tuesday, since Feb. 15 is Presidents Day and generally a state holiday.

Is that true? That's crazy. When Illinois seemed to be a contender to make the World Series for a time last year, I knew it was a rarity for the school, but I had no idea just how rare, and for the conference as well. OSU, Michigan, and Minnesota can be good, but if Minnesota will still play in Metrodome (Mall of America Field) I don't know. The year Oregon State won the CWS, they had to beat Michigan in the Super Regionals to get to Omaha. Big Ten Teams are baseball poor since they have to spend the first 25-33% of the NCAA season away from home and in warmer climates. The Gophers used to be able to have an early tournament since they had a dome.

No. The Big Ten has only has seven schools for field hockey. Not all schools have rowing (women) or wrestling (men). There are only seven field hockey and gymnastics teams on the womens side too.

Not to burst your bubble but Idaho, Boise State, UNLV, Nevada, Colorado State & BYU will never be admitted to the Pac-10. I can guarantee that. Colorado & Utah probably to maybe. Gary, like me likes to rip spammy, especially outside of his Concepts since he stretches the truth constantly. All of this is not Big Ten relates, but the Pac 10 will try to expand, but their new commissioner needs to realize that they cannot gain a better contract due to the fact that they cannot start earlier than the SEC on CBS gave, and east coast vierers have already made their choices. (I love my UM girl Tracy Wolfson, but Andrea Joyce had a 4.0 every semester thus was an Angell Scholar at UM.) Right now the Pac-10 are grasping straws. No network, and with an east coast bias with many. Add the fact the MECHANICAL and WAC are becoming better networks, the Pac needs to do something. DJ, this is something I've heard from others in the media where the Pac-10 is looking forward to expansion, just for extra revenue and exposure. They are looking for teams with travel teams that would join their conference. I personally would want them to hold off on expansion for at least 5 years, focus on bettering the conference in whole and focus getting a Pac-10 Network at some point the next couple years. It is not just the Pac 10, but the Big XII is in the same wagon media wise. The Big XII is better off since they can start games at 12 noon Eastern, while the Pac 10 cannot without hurting local fans. The Big XII has deleting media markets; they are the most in trouble. Neither conference can truly "steal" a team or media market and make a real impact. Taking Denver or SLC is not a "coup"; just a little gain if any. Since UT to the Big Ten is the rumor got started, think about this way. Texas to the Big Ten is really a win/win. The Big Ten gets additional media exposure, cable households (which means $), and revenue. Texas joins the elite research universities (CIC), media presence, and the sports revenue which they provide (plus the BTN will charge more for TX residents).

Not to burst your bubble but Idaho, Boise State, UNLV, Nevada, Colorado State & BYU will never be admitted to the Pac-10. I can guarantee that. Colorado & Utah probably to maybe. Gary, like me likes to rip spammy, especially outside of his Concepts since he stretches the truth constantly. All of this is not Big Ten relates, but the Pac 10 will try to expand, but their new commissioner needs to realize that they cannot gain a better contract due to the fact that they cannot start earlier than the SEC on CBS gave, and east coast vierers have already made their choices. (I love my UM girl Tracy Wolfson, but Andrea Joyce had a 4.0 every semester thus was an Angell Scholar at UM.)

Then what about the Pac-10? Every year, UT would play Sooner and the Corps, but just replace Baylor and Texas State with Purdue and Indiana. The Purdue game would be great so we could see who REALLY has the World's Biggest Snare Drum! That intrigues me. Hey, where's "spammy" with all his inside information since he works directly with a D-1 athletic director? ] Guys, the Big Ten is not going to expand, period. The whole conference would have to vote on it, its just not happening. If it did, however, Missouri or Iowa State would be added, just because of geographical location. Texas will stay in the Big 12, and if Texas were to leave, the would join the PAC 11. Thats really all I have to say on this... Geographical location is precisely why those schools probably won't be added. It's all about marketing these days, and they already sell their channel in and recruit their players from those markets. Exactly. spammy, let be spin a hip hop phrase to give you the perspective: "If It Don't Make Dollars...Then It Don't Make Cents". Ames, IA= No dollars and no bigger media markets. Missouri is better in garnering Kansas City, but the Big Ten already has nice media exposure in St. Louis with the University of Illinois. Lastly, spammy, remember that the conference already put out the press release to let us know that it was considering expansion. The presidents have already signed off on the exploratory phase, so they know what school(s) they have in mind already through private discussions. If they didn't, then there would never have been an original press release.

Then what about the Pac-10? Every year, UT would play Sooner and the Corps, but just replace Baylor and Texas State with Purdue and Indiana. The Purdue game would be great so we could see who REALLY has the World's Biggest Snare Drum! That intrigues me. Hey, where's "spammy" with all his inside information since he works directly with a D-1 athletic director? ]