ESTONES6

Florida State continues to deny rumors. Mizzou is interesting. The Big Ten screwed the pooch not swiping up Mizzou.

Debatable. The utter failure of the Big East's mid-2000s expansion demonstrates that pursuing markets at all costs doesn't always work.

Market. Footprint. Rivalries. Competition. Keeping them AWAY from the SEC.

Pooch = Screwed

We're in the St. Louis and Kansas City footprint already, and outside of Illinois they didn't have any rivalries of note. Regarding competition, Mizzou historically may be one of the few programs that does a better job of squandering the advantages given to them by geography and circumstance than Illinois, and you know what, I'm not seeing the Big Ten as in this life or death struggle with the SEC.

By market... I mean the Big Ten Network's market. The Big Ten gets roughly 70 cents on the dollar for every viewer inside a State that contains a school in the Conference. Every viewer in a State that does NOT contain a University in the Conference, the drops down to 30 cents on the dollar. I don't care if you are "in" the market or not... 70 > 30

Anyway... isn't this just what happened with the Big 10? Nebraska was officially invited, with "rumors" of Rutgers, Notre Dame, and Mizzou? Now the SEC has officially invited Texas A&M with rumors of Florida State, Mizzou, and Clemson?

What people are ignoring is the Texas effect. For a long time, I thought Texas and A&M were a package deal. You don't get one without the other. When the Big 10 was talking of expansion, they kept saying Texas, Texas, Texas. Everyone just brushed it off. Its really an interesting dynamic.

Florida State continues to deny rumors. Mizzou is interesting. The Big Ten screwed the pooch not swiping up Mizzou.

Debatable. The utter failure of the Big East's mid-2000s expansion demonstrates that pursuing markets at all costs doesn't always work.

Market. Footprint. Rivalries. Competition. Keeping them AWAY from the SEC.

Pooch = Screwed

Florida State continues to deny rumors. Mizzou is interesting. The Big Ten screwed the pooch not swiping up Mizzou.

I'm looking for the non-stylized version of this, or similar to:

I am just looking for a font with same basic serifs and style... not the pinch in the middle.

Any luck?

Nobody on the Saints' old font? Here's a better pic.

Its probably one of the basic Varsity fonts.

I'm looking for the non-stylized version of this, or similar to:

I am just looking for a font with same basic serifs and style... not the pinch in the middle.

Does anyone have the Washington Husky's font to install?

I'm also looking for the following fonts, or similar to:

Anyone know this font:

I have a fairly basic question about using the pen tool and how it translates from Photoshop to Illustrator. Basically, in Photoshop, I draw lines with the pen tool, click on the line to add an additional anchor point, and then using CTRL and the newly created anchor point to create a smooth curve. I was curious if anyone knew how to use a similar method to draw lines in Illustrator?

If I need to explain this better, I have the tutorial I followed when learning how to draw lines in Photoshop. I am trying to convert to Illustrator because Photoshop ruins the detail of the images.

Also, if anyone is familiar with Illustrator and Inkscape, I would like your opinion on what is easier to learn.

I'm looking for baseball templates in SVG form for Adobe Illustrator. Does anyone know where I can find a list?

This

and this

Those aren't fonts, they're logos.

Right. But I was hoping someone had made a font based off of those 2.

This

and this

Delany was quoted as saying "think outside the box... Maryland, Georgia Tech, Texas, Vanderbilt." Those are the outside the box options, obviously. Additionally, Georgia Tech has been invited to join the AAU... which is officially an unofficial rule to join the Big 10.

Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez:

"I'm not sure about continued expansion, but it would not surprise me. Our commissioner (Jim Delany) thinks outside the box and is always thinking how to be progressive and proactive. We will continue to study expansion throughout this year. It would not surprise me if we continue to expand. We've always talked about and had research done that we haven't taken full advantage of Penn State being in the east and we need someone else in the league from the east to maximize Penn State. It wouldn't surprise me if we went that way."

Shoot, if it was all about the almighty cable dollar and locking down markets, Missouri IS a better get than Nebraska. But they didn't go for any of that, and to me that indicates one thing-the visions of Big Ten Manifest Destiny are confined solely to the fevered dreams of a few Midwestern bloggers. Now if the Big East or Big XII were to fly apart, then yes, opportunistic acquisitions of programs may follow. But until that point, the Big Ten is sticking with 12.

I heartily disagree. If your point is that Missouri generates more money than Nebraska, then you have not seen this article from Forbes that outlines the Most (Financially) Valuable Teams in the NCAA. Nebraska is #4, while Mizzou doesn't even make the list.

The report looks at the four following criteria, ranked in order of importance:

1. Money generated by football that goes to academic purposes.

2. Athletic Department profit.

3. Conference dividends (which includes television money).

4. Spending by local communities (buying team merchandise, etc).

According to the report, Nebraska's program is responsible for generating $93 million annually. Currently, Nebraska's population is 1.8 million, which further points to the fact that Nebraska has a national audience. If only the 1.8 million people within the state were solely responsible for $93 million in revenue, every single man, woman, and child would have to spend $50 on Cornhusker-related purchases. While $50/head doesn't seem like a large number, especially on an annual basis, consider that if this logic were applied to the State of Missouri, the Tigers would be making over $300 million per year, or nearly 3 times what Texas (#1 in this report) makes.

Jim Delaney wasn't just looking at states with a high population count, he was looking for national brands that will appeal to a wide audience. And before I get villified as a Husker Homer, I'm from Missouri. My family all lives there. And it's more of a pro-state anyway. Royals and Cardinals. Rams and Chiefs. And even on the college level, people are split between the Tigers and Jayhawks.

Those reasons, amongst others, are why Missouri didn't get the nod.

Now, that being said, from a purely selfish reason I would love to see Mizzou in the next wave of BigTen expansion. I've always enjoy playing them on the field.

And you completely missed the point. The premise of ESTONE's argument is that Big Ten expansion is predicated on increasing revenues through subscription fees to the BTN, not other revenue sources. Missouri brings Kansas City and St. Louis to the table. Nebraska brings Omaha. You can do the math.

For the most part... it is. Nebraska was just a perfect storm... legendary program with a huge following. How else could explain them seeking Georgia Tech, Maryland, and Rutgers? I mean, don't be so naive. The Big 10 is and has been using the Big 10 Network as leverage throughout the entire process.

Not only that, The Big 10 receives something like 70% of the revenue generated From the B10 Network from states that contain a school in the conference. On the other hand, states that do NOT have a college in the conference, the Big 10 only receives about 30% of the profit.

Their goal is 16 teams... Notre Dame said they don't want to be the 12th or 13th or 14th... but the 16th team. They want to be the LAST domino. Honestly, I expect invitation to Mizzou, Rutgers, Maryland... and then Notre Dame.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Yes... I did. The Big 10 is going to go to 16 teams. Don't kid yourself. It may not happen in the next 6 months... but within 2 years, there will be a 16 team Big 10 - unless the SEC, Pac 10/2/4/6, Big East beat them to it.

I'd lay money it isn't happening in two years either. This is a body that is very, very cautious and conservative.

You are dealing with a group that are using the obscene amounts of profit as leverage. You are dealing with a group that are ignoring athletic competitiveness and geographical proximity so seek teams like Texas, Georgia Tech, Maryland and Rutgers... why? To get the Big Ten Network in the Houston/Dallas market, the Atlanta market, the Washington DC/Baltimore Market and the New York market... why? To make an even more obscene profit.

If the Pac 12 has any sort of monetary success with the 12 members, even with poor competition inside the conference as well as inter-conference, the Big 10 will act. The Big 10 has been proactive with expansion thus far, and they aren't going to err on the side of caution when there is money to be made.

Their goal is 16 teams... Notre Dame said they don't want to be the 12th or 13th or 14th... but the 16th team. They want to be the LAST domino. Honestly, I expect invitation to Mizzou, Rutgers, Maryland... and then Notre Dame.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Yes... I did. The Big 10 is going to go to 16 teams. Don't kid yourself. It may not happen in the next 6 months... but within 2 years, there will be a 16 team Big 10 - unless the SEC, Pac 10/2/4/6, Big East beat them to it.

Their goal is 16 teams... Notre Dame said they don't want to be the 12th or 13th or 14th... but the 16th team. They want to be the LAST domino. Honestly, I expect invitation to Mizzou, Rutgers, Maryland... and then Notre Dame.

I still think the Big Ten should go after Syracuse over Rutgers to take hold of the New York market. Although the football is just slightly better with Rutgers, the addition of Syracuse's basketball program would legitimize the Big Ten as a true, 2 sport conference... the 2 biggest money-making sports in NCAA.

There is not a true national conference, but the Big Ten is trying to be that in terms of TV audiences. That is why they may name their divisions as "Stars" and "Stripes" as opposed to regional names or even on former football coaches (Hayes and Schembechler) as those names will draw ire from many, like Penn State.

Anyway... The Big 10 is rather transparent when it comes to determining what teams they are extending invitations to. Nebraska was a perfect fit because they had a extensive fan base, solid market, and competitive football. But when it comes to Maryland, Rutgers, and Georgia Tech... its not hard to see that the Big 10's first priority is money as they are seeking the teams with the Baltimore+Washington DC, New York, and Atlanta markets.

I find it a bit discouraging because I think Missouri, Syracuse, and West Virginia would add decent markets, but also make the footprint bigger, provide better football competition, as well as provide a lot better basketball competition. The Big 10 would be a legitimate 2 sport conference.

I still think the Big Ten should go after Syracuse over Rutgers to take hold of the New York market. Although the football is just slightly better with Rutgers, the addition of Syracuse's basketball program would legitimize the Big Ten as a true, 2 sport conference... the 2 biggest money-making sports in NCAA.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the alignment is as follows:

* Michigan, Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan State, Northwestern, Minnesota

* Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana

The OSU/Michigan game will be moved to Thursday night... and here is the uniform the Buckeyes are slated to wear for The Game:

Sources: http://www.cleveland.com/buckeyeblog/index.ssf/2010/09/big_ten_to_announce_divisions.html

http://www.cleveland.com/buckeyeblog/index.ssf/2010/09/ohio_state_uniforms_for_michig_1.html

Wisconsin and Iowa will be placed in separate divisions beginning in the 2011 Season.

Which one gets Minnesota?

I've also heard they are thinking about putting Michigan and Ohio State in seperate divisions for the payoff of the Big Ten Championship

Which makes me think they may be going with a North South Alignment

The Big 10 wants 16 teams... they want to do 4, 4-team divisions. There is a simple way to solve the problem. If the Big 10 is SMART, they will have Michigan and Ohio State in separate division/leagues. To make up for the rivalry, all that OSU and Michigan has to do is schedule each other for one of the 3 or 4 at-large games. Problem solved. Still leaves the potential for Big 10 title game, OSU -vs- Michigan. Also leaves the option of 1 team spoiling the chances of the other to make the title game, etc. etc. Its not rocket science.

Really? Nobody has posted this yet?

Well that's not a player in a wrong uniform. That's just a poorly photoshopped jersey.

Isn't this actually the right jersey? He will be a member of the Heat in the next... 10 hours?

So when is Detroit bull dozing 1/3 of it's city?

I still think that the Pac-10 wins.

Maybe they do but they went after Texas and grabbed a handful of Colorado which has a weak football team, a phantom basketball program and no baseball at all. Selling a Pac-whatever network would be better with Texas than with CU.

Since both the Big Ten and Pac-10 went after Texas as the primary target with Notre Dame as a sole target for Big Ten, I think that both really won. Big Ten got Nebraska and the KC market and the Pac-10 still for Denver and possibly Utah; please see the TV markets in size listed above. In essence, The Mtn. Network may go away since Utah could leave and more moves from that conference to be added.

If Colorado possessed no value to the Big XII as they claimed, that does not mean that it has no value to the Pac-10 and their suppliers.

They actually get a significant decrease in revenue by not adding Mizzou. They will still get the KC/St. Louis market, but they would get a bigger cut of the pie if they had a school in Missouri.

Illinois already gave them STL. Nebraska lobbied that they could still provide KC as well as either KU or Mizzou.

As I have already stated... According to BTN contract, the Big 10 gets 70% revenue from a state if they have a school in that state = Missouri/Mizzou.

The Big Ten only receives around 30% of the revenue from households in state where a University is not located = Nebraska/Illinois picking up the St.L and KC markets.

So... would you rather have an additional 40% or no?

I still think that the Pac-10 wins.

Maybe they do but they went after Texas and grabbed a handful of Colorado which has a weak football team, a phantom basketball program and no baseball at all. Selling a Pac-whatever network would be better with Texas than with CU.

Since both the Big Ten and Pac-10 went after Texas as the primary target with Notre Dame as a sole target for Big Ten, I think that both really won. Big Ten got Nebraska and the KC market and the Pac-10 still for Denver and possibly Utah; please see the TV markets in size listed above. In essence, The Mtn. Network may go away since Utah could leave and more moves from that conference to be added.

If Colorado possessed no value to the Big XII as they claimed, that does not mean that it has no value to the Pac-10 and their suppliers.

They actually get a significant decrease in revenue by not adding Mizzou. They will still get the KC/St. Louis market, but they would get a bigger cut of the pie if they had a school in Missouri.