ESTONES6

Has anyone thought about the B16 TEN adding basketball only schools? I'm curious to see the financial benefit it could add to the BTN contract.

We all got what you were trying to do... But it's stupid.

I think it all depends on their time frame for adding the 15th and 16th schools. I believe their end game will have Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions (as they rightfully should be), with a a divisional cycle. Each team plays the 3 teams in their division, plus all 4 teams from another division, and a protected cross over game i.e. Michigan/Ohio State (there will be a Protected Cross Over "B" game on the years that the protected cross over is in the same division cycle for that year.), to bring the total to 8 Conference games per year. If the B16 TEN already has 15 and 16 lined up (which they do) and have back room commitments from them (which they probably do), then they may shove Michigan and Ohio State in the same division for 1 or 2 years, until 15 and 16 become full members... which I full anticipate to be either in 2015 or 2016. Obviously the league wanted competitive fairness at the forefront the last time they set up divisions. It's no surprise that they intentionally split Nebraska/Michigan from Ohio State/Penn State. Same goes for the "B-list" schools, Wisconsin and Iowa. I'd argue that over the last several years, Wisconsin and Michigan State have elevated their play while Nebraska, Michigan and Penn State are largely in a holding pattern. Also assuming that schools #15 and #16 are east coast teams, you could split the league east and west but carve up the two Michigan schools and ensure a protected Wolverine-Sparty game every year. East: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers, Team 15, Team 16. West: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State No doubt some would say that this unbalances the "Big 4" by putting Nebraska by itself (and OSU, UM, PSU together), but I'd counter that Nebraska plus Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa and Northwestern makes just as equally a strong division as putting the "Other 3" in the east division. The only way this doesn't work is if Teams 15 and 16 are like Virginia Tech and Florida State, but I doubt that. LOL @ Michigan and Michigan State. The B16 TEN is worried about THE RIVALRY... not other rivalries. They wouldn't put Michigan and Ohio State in the same division when they could easily flip flop Michigan State and Michigan, resulting in Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions, with the protected cross over in tact. I actually agree with that. I feel that the "Big 4" need to be split 2-and-2, but the old timey Big Ten fans will protest. You know, the same old farts who talk about Woody & Bo and act like Penn State still isn't part of the league. Hell, Nebraska might as well be on Mars to those guys. The B16 TEN bread gets buttered with the Michigan Ohio State game. It makes it worth that much more if they have the POTENTIAL to play eachother for the B16 TEN championship every year.

I think it all depends on their time frame for adding the 15th and 16th schools. I believe their end game will have Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions (as they rightfully should be), with a a divisional cycle. Each team plays the 3 teams in their division, plus all 4 teams from another division, and a protected cross over game i.e. Michigan/Ohio State (there will be a Protected Cross Over "B" game on the years that the protected cross over is in the same division cycle for that year.), to bring the total to 8 Conference games per year. If the B16 TEN already has 15 and 16 lined up (which they do) and have back room commitments from them (which they probably do), then they may shove Michigan and Ohio State in the same division for 1 or 2 years, until 15 and 16 become full members... which I full anticipate to be either in 2015 or 2016. Obviously the league wanted competitive fairness at the forefront the last time they set up divisions. It's no surprise that they intentionally split Nebraska/Michigan from Ohio State/Penn State. Same goes for the "B-list" schools, Wisconsin and Iowa. I'd argue that over the last several years, Wisconsin and Michigan State have elevated their play while Nebraska, Michigan and Penn State are largely in a holding pattern. Also assuming that schools #15 and #16 are east coast teams, you could split the league east and west but carve up the two Michigan schools and ensure a protected Wolverine-Sparty game every year. East: Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers, Team 15, Team 16. West: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State No doubt some would say that this unbalances the "Big 4" by putting Nebraska by itself (and OSU, UM, PSU together), but I'd counter that Nebraska plus Wisconsin, MSU, Iowa and Northwestern makes just as equally a strong division as putting the "Other 3" in the east division. The only way this doesn't work is if Teams 15 and 16 are like Virginia Tech and Florida State, but I doubt that. LOL @ Michigan and Michigan State. The B16 TEN is worried about THE RIVALRY... not other rivalries. They wouldn't put Michigan and Ohio State in the same division when they could easily flip flop Michigan State and Michigan, resulting in Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions, with the protected cross over in tact.

This. Doesn't make any damn sense.

I think it all depends on their time frame for adding the 15th and 16th schools. I believe their end game will have Michigan and Ohio State in separate divisions (as they rightfully should be), with a a divisional cycle. Each team plays the 3 teams in their division, plus all 4 teams from another division, and a protected cross over game i.e. Michigan/Ohio State (there will be a Protected Cross Over "B" game on the years that the protected cross over is in the same division cycle for that year.), to bring the total to 8 Conference games per year. If the B16 TEN already has 15 and 16 lined up (which they do) and have back room commitments from them (which they probably do), then they may shove Michigan and Ohio State in the same division for 1 or 2 years, until 15 and 16 become full members... which I full anticipate to be either in 2015 or 2016.

I dont think Ohio U would leave the MAC. I think they know they have a good thing there and won't leave unless its for one of the more stable conferences. With the ACC probably the next target of the B16 TEN, Big XII and SEC, its only a matter of time before Cinci, Temple, and UCONN all get invites elsewhere (probably the ACC once Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Clemson, and FSU get invites to the B16 TEN and Big XII, respectively).

Is there a chance that the Big East tries to poach some MAC schools now? I love the MAC and think it would be a shame if one of the "bigger" conferences tried to nab schools from them. At this point, if I were the Big East, I would basically try selling the Conference name to the basketball schools that just left and try to negotiate with the ACC to pick up UCONN, Cinci, and South Florida. Hopefully it would somewhat solidify the ACC incase Georgia Tech, North Carolina, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Clemson, and Florida State leave. The conference would be decimated if the even just 3 of those schools left, but adding a few more schools may help influence a TV deal and help keep together the ACC.

I agree with what other people said. Florida State has been massively underachieving in the ACC. Moving over to the Big XII would really hurt their football bravado. Sure they would have access to new recruiting grounds, but they aren't going to be able to gain anything away from the Red River 4 schools. That being said, money talks. If they can make twice the amount in the Big XII as they do in the ACC, then they will deal with their even MORE underachieving football program just to make the buck.

I hate the B16 TEN going outside the contiguous footprint. I wish they would add Virginia and Kansas to expand east and west, and call it a day. Adding Georgia Tech and North Carolina without Virginia really is disappointing. Kansas lacks a legitimate football program, the real moneymaker. And again, as with Virginia, it's been implied previously that the Kansas legislature may say "take both or neither" so one of them, more than likely KU since K-State has a great football program, doesn't get left. KU may be a great academic and basketball school, but lack of good football brings down their value in conference realignment. I've been disappointed with the B16 TEN. They hit a home run with Nebraska, but adding Rutgers was disappointing. I understand why, but I hate how transparent they have been about it. They could have added Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, and either North Carolina or Kansas/Kansas State and had a real four team pod system set up perfectly, being able to keep Michigan and Ohio State, in separate divisions. If they are so obsessed with getting markets, namely the Atlanta market, I would have much rather seen them add Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech. Disregarding the contiguous footprint really rubs me the wrong way, and I'm not sure why. I think 16 teams is where the B16 TEN and SEC want to go, but could there be any potential for 18 teams? It seems crazy, but having six divisions of 3 teams could work.

I hate the B16 TEN going outside the contiguous footprint. I wish they would add Virginia and Kansas to expand east and west, and call it a day. Adding Georgia Tech and North Carolina without Virginia really is disappointing.

Not terrible. Have the winner of the east play the winner of the west. Hopefully they would restrict the cross country games to one per school, per year.

Ahh, the smell of desperation. It makes a wonderful stench. It smelled of desperation long before they went after Fresno and UNLV. I'm pretty sure when they added Boise State, San Diego, and East Carolina... it was already permeating.

Is it a foregone conclusion that all these conferences are going to end up with 16 teams? I think its fairly obvious that the B16 TEN and SEC will be plucking 2 more schools each, but what about the PAC-12 and Big XII? If Clemson and Florida State go to the Big XII, that puts them at 12 teams. But what if the B16 TEN goes after say Virginia and Kansas to keep the contiguous footprint in tact instead of Georgia Tech. Then does Georgia Tech jump to the Big XII? Does adding Fresno, UNLV, Boise State, and say New Mexico make sense just to get to 16? Does the Big XII then go after Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and North Carolina to get to 16? It seems like the PAC-12 is pretty much land locked at this point. The Big XII will have to cut into B16 TEN and SEC territory to expand past 10.

It's much different when the football schools in your conference are Syracuse, Notre Dame, Miami, etc. The Catholic basketball schools didnt have a problem with football in the Big East until they started adding UCF, Boise State and Tulane. Uh, Boise is hardly on the same level as UCF or Tulane. They would have been the only strong football school in the conference, really. Boise would fall victim to the same thing that happens to all these mid majors that step up a conference. They get beat up and worn out through the course of the season. Yes, they are still good teams, but they don't put up the undeafeated seasons or 1 or 2 loss seasons. Sure Boise would be an upgrade, but its not like you are getting one of the heavy hitters.

It's much different when the football schools in your conference are Syracuse, Notre Dame, Miami, etc. The Catholic basketball schools didnt have a problem with football in the Big East until they started adding UCF, Boise State and Tulane. Yeah but is some crappy football better than no football at all? Sure, basketball is the OTHER money making sport in college, but its a football dominated country. So even if you add ECU and Boise State, wouldn't it be beneficial to get SOME football revenue while still having a premier basketball conference as opposed to a premier basketball conference and NOT football revenue?

Michigan and Ohio State are NOT going to be in the same division. Not sure why people think they are going to be in the same division... it doesn't make sense. As for the Big East... I don't see UCONN or Cinci NOT being added to either the Big XII or ACC. Yes, both have rather small stadium compared to Texas and Oklahoma... but they have access to NFL size stadiums that can hold the huge fan base of the big boys. Whether they go to the ACC or Big XII or what is going to depend on what the B16 TEN and SEC do.

Cinci and UCONN wouldn't be bad additions to the ACC... but adding another Florida school seems pointless.

It was doomed from the start when a large chunk of you conference is "basketball only".

http://espn.go.com/c...ols-sources-say Hilarious. The schools calling the shots that led to the Big East's slow, painful death are now upset with the direction of the league and looking to leave. Anyone who thinks the NHL has had the most disastrous, out-of-touch leadership in sports over the last ten years should take a look at the Big East. I'm not sure that the Big East was out of touch... I just think that no one was ready for the last 2 years (and the next 2 years), even the conference that started it all. When the B1G TEN added Nebraska, they had an end game in mind for 16 teams, but I don't think they anticipated the chain reaction that occurred afterword. I'm sure they had some idea that the Big XII would try to invite a school like TCU to bring them back to 12 schools. But I don't think the B16 TEN anticipated Utah and Colorado immediatly jumping ship to the PAC, which then caused Texas A&M and Mizzou to join the SEC. I don't think the B16 TEN anticipated 4 teams leaving the Big XII... 2 at most. Once the Big XII added TCU and West Virginia, it became more clear the rules were changing. It didn't matter if you were in the footprint or even near it. If you had a good program and a significant following, you were going to get poached. With the east being separated into 2 conferences, neither of which can compete with the B16 TEN, PAC, SEC, or Big XII, they were doomed. There was nothing the ACC and Big East could do. We saw it with Maryland... $50 million exit fee is a small price to pay when the B16 TEN is projecting $40 million+ in the first year of Rutgers and Maryland joining the conference. Its almost silly to NOT make the move. Unfortunatly, the Big East AND the ACC have had limited foresite. They have a legitimate chance at surviving and thriving if they can work together. With the schools remaining, they can have a decent football conference (by decent, I mean 5th of the big 5), and have arguably the best basketball conference (volume). I don't see the conferences working together however. Its not that the Big East was out of touch... its just no one anticipated all this movement in such a short period of time.

Right... that AND access to New York, Washington DC, and Baltimore markets...

Yeah, I could see that...but first, adding Kansas doesn't allow the B16 to add the BTN to Missouri cable/satellite subscribers at the higher in-state rate. So any gains there are mitigated. Kansas basketball's renown would be a good addition to bolster the B16's hoops side, but then none of these changes in the college landscape are really about basketball. It's football and the TV cash that comes with it that is driving the B16 here. True, and that may be why we have heard GT over UNC to the B16 lately. On the other hand...a.) does the conference really care all that much about what the NCAA thinks of them, and b.) in the long-run, wouldn't UNC's cache and prestige mean much more to the conference than adding anyone else? Yes, I think North Carolina is the best fit (besides Missouri)... they fit all the criteria. They have a large access to households, they are a member of the AAU, once they add Virginia, they will be in the contiguous footprint, they have a legendary basketball program with a blossoming football program... but they tend to get in trouble with the NCAA. That's the only draw back I see, and I'm not sure if its something they will over look. Not when 2 of the crown jewels in the conference are on bowl bands this year.

I'm not sure what Kansas gains the Big Ten in the area that matters most, which is TV markets and overall state population. Here's a quick thumbnail sketch of what the B16 would get if they added each of the rumored schools: Virginia - share of DC TV market (#9 TV market), Norfolk/Virginia Beach (#43), Richmond (#58) | Population: 8.1 million UNC- Charlotte (#24), Raleigh/Durham (#27) | Population: 9.7 million Georgia Tech - Atlanta (#8), Savannah (#96) | Population: 9.8 million Kansas - share of KC TV market (#31), Wichita (#69) | Population: 2.9 million By those metrics alone, any of the 3 ACC schools would be a better 'get' than Kansas. I was thinking along the lines of cornering the Missouri market since they didn't add Mizzou. Also, the Kansas basketball team has such a national presence, that it could make up for the lack of State population. Something that I think may be understated it North Carolina's football program is constantly under investigations or subject to sanctions. With Penn State and Ohio State already in trouble with the NCAA, would they want to add another program that is littered with questions?

There is no way, no how Notre Dame joins the SEC. If they favored the Big East and the ACC over the B16 TEN, do you honestly think they would consider the SEC? Seems like suicide, especially after the Tide roll all over them (and I'm rooting for ND). Anyway, when it comes to the B16 TEN, has is pretty much been stated or determined that the they are strictly expandind down the east coast? I am assuming that Virginia is a lock at this point, as is Virginia Tech to the SEC. But is it a foregone conclusion that #16 is either Georgia Tech or North Carolina? I feel like Kansas would make more sense, not in terms of households = dollars, but its contiguious, its a member of the AAU, the basketball following speaks for itself, and it has 50,000+ football stadium.

Virginia Tech and NC State to the SEC aren't so much rumors as people saying they are the best fits.