Pac-10 Expansion (merged)

#176
#176
I know its all about money and the "footprint" but after all this expansion mess is over and all the big ten adds is rutgers and mizzou that would be very funny to me.
 
#177
#177
velovol said:
I know its all about money and the "footprint" but after all this expansion mess is over and all the big ten adds is rutgers and mizzou that would be very funny to me.
Click to expand...

I thought that Nebraska would be the first to bite with the Big 10. I still think it would be in their best interest.
 
#178
#178
Lexvol said:
I thought that Nebraska would be the first to bite with the Big 10. I still think it would be in their best interest.
Click to expand...

I agree.

However, does Nebraska want to lose rivalries with Oklahoma and Texas by jumping in with the Big Ten? Is that what's keeping them from jumping ship?
 
#179
#179
nebraska would be a nice get for them.
i guess my point was more that the PAC 10 or SEC would wind up power teams and the big ten who started all this mess would wind up with some medicore teams
 
#180
#180
justingroves said:
I agree.

However, does Nebraska want to lose rivalries with Oklahoma and Texas by jumping in with the Big Ten? Is that what's keeping them from jumping ship?
Click to expand...

You know, their fans really don't care about Texas. They are just as happy beating directional schools 100-0. The Oklahoma rilvary may be harder to lose, but I don't know that it is irreplaceable.
 
#182
#182
Lexvol said:
You know, their fans really don't care about Texas. They are just as happy beating directional schools 100-0. The Oklahoma rilvary may be harder to lose, but I don't know that it is irreplaceable.
Click to expand...

They've only regulary played since 96, and even then not that regularly.

How about the Colorado game? They've played on Thanksgiving weekend for a looooooooooong time.
 
#183
#183
The offer to Nebraska (and likely Mizzou) are almost certainly contingent upon Notre Dame's decision to join the Big 10.

If Notre Dame joins the Big 10, likely, that's where their expansion stops, at least for the forseeable future. They remain to be the Big 10's primary - and possibly only - target at this point, meaning, Mizzou, Nebraska, et al were secondary plans should ND again rebuff their overtures to join.

That's why I say that the Big 12's deadline to receive their commitment(s) to stay is as much about the looming negotiations with the Pac-10 than it is towards holding the Big 12 together.

If they come out and commit to stay, then the Big 12 will attempt to hold everyone together and carry on, possibly with a shared television deal with the Pac-10, but remaining two separate and independent conferences. Or, if they commit to stay, then the negotiations with the Pac-10 could begin in earnest, as they would only then know what teams from the Big 12 might be invited to also join, including either Nebraska or Mizzou.

If Nebraska and Mizzou do not re-commit themselves to the Big 12, then that conference is essentially a bunch of free agents - and the Pac-10 would then seek to sidestep the Texas legislature by inviting all four (4) Texas schools + Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. That gives them their 16-team conference, and they've trule taken the biggest gems in the Big 12 with them.

However, should this happen, and Nebraska and Mizzou do not re-commit to the Big 12, and the Big 10 simply doesn't extend an official invitation to either (be it ND joins, or they simply move on to other canidates), both schools could be left, essentially, without a conference as the Big 12 would only be a shell, if it survived at all.

I wish I could take credit for figuring this all out, but its all explained here: Orangebloods.com - Pac-10 ready to make moves; Nebraska's decision is key
 
#184
#184
Pac-10 commish lays out expansion scenarios; Big 12 in focus. - ESPN Los Angeles

Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott laid out a host of expansion scenarios to athletic directors on Friday, the first day of conference meetings here. They range from a full merger with the Big 12; to merging with six current Big 12 schools, including Texas; to adding Colorado and Utah; to the status quo, according to one athletic director
 
#187
#187
droski said:
easy to say when you are in a conference with all the power.
Click to expand...

Room, meet the Giant Elephant.

Giant Elephant, The Room.

Not pointed at you personally, Droski, by any means - but rather, echoing what this is all really about, beyond the dollars and sense of it all.

The score of this game will certainly be tallied in dollars, but its just as much about power and prestige as anything. Barring something like major re-structuring, mega-conferences, et al, it was unlikely that anyone was going to consistently compete with the SEC, much less topple it from its perch.

Just as I would suspect that most SEC fans are fine with business as usual.....so should we know that the other major conferences (and their schools and fans) would not be, and want to do something about it.

Like someone said earlier, kudos to the Pac-10 for making a play, because you certainly can't fault them for doing so. Of everyone involved, they seem to be the ones who have the perfect mix of size / initiative / strategic vision / finances to pull this off, with or without the SEC's interjections.
 
#188
#188
Lexvol said:
or...actually thinking that FSU/Miami is equal to or greater than Texas or OU. I understand that. I'm not convinced that Texas or to a lesser extent OU would do anything without shopping for a counter offer from the Big Ten or the SEC.
Click to expand...

I don't think I ever got at Miami = Texas or anything of the sort.

Since expansion's all about markets and revenue though, what I'm getting towards is that they're not terrible adds (there's alot of people treating it like adding those two is on the exact same level as adding Duke, Memphis and Tulane)


I believe they either had talked or were talking with the Big 10 also....so that might qualify as an offer; along with the TV contract offer they were apparently offered (mentioned on Outside the lines) where some network told them that, were they to go independent, they could make them just as much money as Notre Dame (or more even)
 
#190
#190
velovol said:
nebraska would be a nice get for them.
i guess my point was more that the PAC 10 or SEC would wind up power teams and the big ten who started all this mess would wind up with some medicore teams
Click to expand...

All the Big 10 cares about is getting the St Louis and Kansas City and attempting to get into the NYC market. Every big city that becomes regional, they then make 7x the amount of money in the Big Ten Network per subscriber.

Their expansion moves have really been all about making even more money from the beginning
 
#193
#193
Lexvol said:
I thought that Nebraska would be the first to bite with the Big 10. I still think it would be in their best interest.
Click to expand...

Maybe. I think mizzou's going to be first to bite (if it happens). Mizzou would get the biggest jump in revenue ( i think they're somewhere in 6th to 8th in the conference's revenue standings...and I heard that the Big Ten 22 mil/year was more than double what they earned...maybe 14 mil more? not sure)
 
#195
#195
Lexvol said:
You know, their fans really don't care about Texas. They are just as happy beating directional schools 100-0. The Oklahoma rilvary may be harder to lose, but I don't know that it is irreplaceable.
Click to expand...

yeah they would be.


I think though maybe, were it to come to independence or change in conference or whatever, texas could set up a yearly OOC game with them couldn't they? Like UF & FSU or UGA & GT
 
#196
#196
Tenacious D said:
For clarity's sake, I'll say the following:

I don't think that the SEC's existence or relevance would be in jeopardy were you to merge every remaining major conference together, add the AFC North & NFC South, throw in the Lakers and Yankees, have Billy Graham as the Conference Chaplain, name Warren Buffet as the Commissioner, and with Led Zeppelin opening every game with a free concert while topless women served free beer and gave out Snuggies to the first 5,000 fans. The SEC is simply too strong, from any conceivable standpoint (i.e. fanbase, money, prestige, history, winning, footprint, etc.), to fail to be one of the premier conferences in this country. Hooker said it best when he said that while the NFL was the "King of Sports", the SEC was the "Crowned Prince", and no compilation of calamitous events is going to change that, at least for the forseeable future.

The landing of Texas and Oklahoma (with or without the hanger-on schools coming with them) is critical because their addition / loss represents equally dramatic help and harm. Were the SEC to land them, where does the Pac-10 then go? Who do they then add that comes close to increasing their stature, as the landing of Texas / Oklahoma, et al, would provide? The shortest answer: Nowhere significant, as no one else would afford them this potential leap, were those two off of the table.

Should the SEC land them, it would likely make the already cavernous distance between themselves and other conferences nearly insurmountable - and across all critical criterion of revevue, TV footprint, competitive balance, etc. If you are like me, and think that winning either the Big 10 or Pac 10 championship is essentially meaningless now, wait until you do it without having to beat TX, FL, BAMA, TN, OK, GA, or any other SEC schools. Should the Pac-10 sign Texas and Oklahoma (again, with or without the hanger-on schools) all of these previously stated factors would work to greatly - GREATLY - close the gap between the Pac-10 and the SEC. How could it not? In fact, should the Pac-10 sign Texas and OK, I think that the Big 10 would then become a distant third - even if a miracle occurred and they somehow add Notre Dame. So, to me, that's really what's at stake here.....the SEC has a chance to place themselves in a nearly-unchallengeable position of current and future dominance, and the Pac-10 has this, a single chance to place themselves if not on-par with the SEC, then at least in the same conversation. In any regard, their size and footprint alone would ensure that they were never reduced to a point of irrelevance, or of being outside of the conversations.

The SEC would love to add them, but the Pac-10 MUST land them, IMO. More importantly, I believe that the Pac-10 is going to go after them, accordingly, with this mind set. Be prepared to see the Pac-10, "break the bank" so to speak, and make every effort to land both Texas and Oklahoma and the rest of the Big 12 defectors. I could see the Pac-10 being willing to add all four Texas teams, offering Texas and Oklahoma more revenue-shared money (as the Big 12 now does), having the Pac-10 championship game in Dallas, etc., etc. For well or ill, I think it is highly unlikely that the SEC will be similiarly able - or more likely, willing - to make the same concessions. I'm not even asserting that the SEC should or that it would be sensible to do any of these things, even for the long-term future of the Pac-10, but I think that they'll be far more willing and likely to do so, than the SEC.

I don't oppose Miami or FSU's entrees into the SEC because of their current football status (both "down" right now), but for more pragmatic reasons, namely, because they don't add any appreciable value to the conference (by the major categories, previously cited: TV footprint, revenue, etc.) beyond what the SEC now fully enjoys, namely, the fact that we already own the State of Florida with the Gators (who play both Miami and FSU each season, anyway). You cannot say that an appreciably larger group of Floridians would watch more SEC games, nor that more recruits would elect SEC schools than now do so. I just don't see these schools - either together, or respectively as individual institutions - raising the stature of or otherwise significantly adding to the SEC, whatsoever. I respect the opinions of those who may know more about these schools than I, or who believe differently about their prospects for contributing to the SEC, but from my detached standpoint (I neither like nor dislike either school), it seems certain to the point of being self-evident that they are a notch below Texas and Oklahoma in regards to the attractiveness of adding them to the SEC, and significantly so. Proponents of their entrance are, at best, simply expressing some feelings of loyalty to those schools or wishful thinking that they may gain admission into the SEC, and at worst, delusionally believe that Miami and FSU are not far closer to the Georgia Tech's and West Virginia's of the world, than they are to Texas and Oklahoma. The SEC might be forced to settle for one or both of them, but it won't be their first (or maybe even second or third option) so long as Texas and Oklahoma remain possibilities. Texas and Oklahoma are like Charlize Theron and Cameron Diaz. Miami and FSU are like Tina Fey and Fergie....not wholly unattractive, do-able, but not your first options. But it's not like they are the worst choices, either, because in my opinion, adding Georgia Tech is like taking your sister to prom....and the after-party, West Virginia is like adding Larry the Cable Guy, and Virginia Tech is like adding Andy Dick.

Some other tidbits to add to the conversation that I've heard or elsewhere read:

There's a lot of talk about how these schools will, "culturally fit" with one another, so I wonder how Baylor's religious affiliations are going to fit into the notably secular institutions of the Pac-10? Conversely, Austin, Texas prides itself on its Bohemian sub/counter-culture, and a move to the Pac-10 might be just the opportunity to go, "full-hippie". Of course, as Dallas, TX is home to one of the largest and most integrated homosexual populations in America (both the Dallas Sheriff and its District Judge are openly gay), perhaps Texas would be a closer cultural fit to the Pac-10 than the SEC. Of course this is not to say that the SEC-based cities doesn't also have their own fluorishing and widely-integrated homosexual communities (and whom which we are thankful to have, if only for their many and diverse contributions to our cities and towns), as well, but I wouldn't think them to be comparable to those others which are located in predominantly Pac-10 areas of the country. Simply, any notion that Texans are somehow more culturally akin to Southerners, or irreparably different from those in the Pac-10, may be in error. Or not. Just something to think about.

The $17M (or whatever it is) is only that which the SEC gets from its TV package with CBS / ESPN.....and does not include additional revenues which the individual teams may negotiate with other outlets, and which they would retain for themselves, without sharing with anyone. So, if Texas wanted to start its own network, it could do so as a member of the SEC....but not the Pac-10, as it would be an, "all-rights in" (meaning, all rights would be shares amongst all, in one package) deal. Sounds like a way for Texas to get what it wants, after all.

If we're at the point that there is concern that Texas can't leave without Baylor.....how is it possible that they could leave without A&M? Well, its not, really. And who's the one AD who has both stated that the SEC would be an option (implicitly confirming that some discussions have been held) if the Big 12 went away, and who has been most vocal in criticizing the prospect of Big 12 teams travelling long distances to Pac-10 sites.....that would be the A&M AD. While everyone's looking at Texas (who seems to be revelling in being so heavily courted by everyone), the SEC might have attempted or has actually ensured that they won't be able to just do anything they want, at least without warning, knowing that A&M would want to go to the SEC. A step further, suppose that the Pac-10 sends out their invites to all six schools, and immediately thereafter, the SEC invites A&M.....and they accept their invitation, becoming members of the SEC. Would the Pac-10 have the stomach to fight the TX legislature (and the current TX Governor, who is an A&M grad) to gain their allowance for Texas to come to the Pac-10 without A&M? How long would that take? What would happen to the rest of their invites, in the meantime? Does anyone believe that OK and the others leave for the Pac-10.....not knowing what TX may be forced / allowed to do. What would the other conferences be doing during this time? After seeing the Pac-10's hyper-aggressive manuevering suddenly becoming bogged down over Texas, they wouldn't be sitting idly by while awaiting other events to unfold, you can be certain of that. The Big 10 likely leaps to go slightly further South, and extends invites to OK & OK State, as would the SEC. Knowing that its most likely TX will have to follow A&M, and most preferring the SEC themselves (as is widely rumored), the Oklahoma pair accept the SEC's invitation, following A&M. Now, TX might be allowed to go to the Pac-10 eventually, but if they want to keep the rivalry with both the Aggies and the Red River rivalry with OK....they'll need to come to the SEC for that. The TX legislature, now seeing the inconceivability of the SEC taking all four TX schools (they've already taken 3 at this point - OK, OK ST & AM), might then be open to protecting and keeping the main Texas school rivalries intact - and that's TX and A&M.......and that's the SEC.

Much to the Longhorn's chagrin, the road to mega-conference expansion might not go through Austin, after all, but College Station, instead.

My hope - and that's all it is, really - is that such a scenario is what Slive means when he said that the SEC would be "thoughtful and strategic"......and is not waiting to scramble to find a dance partner once he hears the opening notes of some Bel Biv Devoe slow-jam.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I agree with what alot of what you're saying (I have to admit, sorry you carried on a bit too long for me to follow it all through :) )

I do want to clear up that I wasn't calling you out with my post, while I quoted you I was kind of directing it towards everyone who seems to think expansion is all about adding good teams and not the cash grab that it really is.

I want to modify your metaphor though. Yes, believe me Miami and FSU are not the same as Texas and OU in strength of addition, believe me I understand that. But where those two are say - the hot cheerleader and her best friend - we wouldn't be getting the fat girls....we'd end up dancing one of the girls who's still cute, but alot less popular. (course you get one or both (Tex/OU) and you get elevated to a level of popularity and high fives you never dreamed you'd experience)

(Edit: I see you made that change in your next metaphor of the situation)

I think I do want to point out (on the lines of what you said about Texas and starting a network) I'm not sure they could do that as part of a conference, unless they were planning on using it to leave later to start their own independence. Don't we (the SEC) have equal revenue sharing though? I don't think with our conference set up - some other things besides that one - that a team would be able to create it's own network and pocket that revenue (I think maybe that per the TV agreements, rights to showing the conference's teams might belong to the networks specified in the deals).

I mean though too, their sports revenue numbers are insane...I think I saw in 08-09 it was like $138 million (the only comparison I know is that was $20 mil more than OSU's that year). If anyone would have the money to go it alone, it would be them
 
#197
#197
milohimself said:
Texas doesn't want the cousins to begin with.

The whole reason the Big XII is about to go up in flames is their revenue structure.

Anyways, this is all NBA Free Agency and Texas is Lebron James. He's the first domino. Anybody who tells you they know what's going to happen is completely full of it. It's 100% speculation right now.

I am, however interested in the fact that the Pac-10 seems to be making the first moves here (and quickly) so they can get serious leverage for big TV contract bucks by years end.
Click to expand...

Well and I bet Texas doesn't want to give up it's "I make more than all of you" revenue structure as well.

Yeah though, I do like the NBA Lebron comparison b/c a lot of conferences are watching and waiting to see where Texas goes before their moves, though also I think the conferences are just waiting to see who makes the first move too

Yeah, that is interesting to see how this would effect the Pac-10 with that TV contract about to expire. I mean without it happening, they would still probably get something around an ACC numbers TV deal ($155 mil a year), but the addition of the Big 12 south schools would probably drive their new TV deal really high...maybe more than the ESPN/SEC one
 
#198
#198
Tenacious D said:
I agree.

Had Texas ever been allowed to leave the other three, they would have long-since done so, and never looked back.

I also agree that everything is speculative right now. The Pac-10 might have purposefully leaked something out just to settle some concerns (amongst their fanbases, AD's, universities) that they weren't similiarly looking around. Up until last week, no one was really talking about the Pac-10 doing much, if anything, at all. The timing of the Orangeblood report - amidst or immediately adjacent to the Big 12 meetings - was too convenient to be a coincidence, in my opinion. However, I think that it was more to give the Big 12 a moment of pause, to not decide either to separate or commit to staying together (either would likely severely hinder or all-out devastate the Pac-10's plans, in any direction), until the Pac-10 could make a more formal offer.

Despite all of this, my greatest concern is that the rumblings stop.....and all goes quiet. Were that to happen, the next thing I would expect to hear would be the final thing said on the matter. After a matter of days or weeks of silence, you'd just see it come across the ESPN ticker....that the Big 12 and Pac-10 are merging....and the SEC never has a chance to make a play.

Again, I hope that Slive isn't either arrogant or foolish enough to believe that he can just sit and watch Texas and Oklahoma leave for the Pac-10 before he decides to do something, mistakenly believing that adding two lesser schools would be a sufficient response. It wouldn't, at least in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Agree alot. yeah, my thoughts though on the Orangebloods report though was that it was way too ideal to be true or work out (...things in the world dont seem to work that way) but yes there has to be at least something behind it yes. Someone had to be putting it out there on purpose or for the attention. I wonder now though if the story leak came from the Pac-10 to get some attention or if it somehow came from Colorado's people though.

I think Slive's stance is more a wait and cautious rather than arrogant. It seems he - and really almost everyone - are trying not to be the first ones to rush into this and make a fool out of themselves, cause really noone seems to really know how this will all pan out and what the effects will be.

(Also if a merger happens, I like to think the internet will be all over it before ESPN does)
 
#199
#199
Tenacious D said:
The offer to Nebraska (and likely Mizzou) are almost certainly contingent upon Notre Dame's decision to join the Big 10.

If Notre Dame joins the Big 10, likely, that's where their expansion stops, at least for the forseeable future. They remain to be the Big 10's primary - and possibly only - target at this point, meaning, Mizzou, Nebraska, et al were secondary plans should ND again rebuff their overtures to join.

That's why I say that the Big 12's deadline to receive their commitment(s) to stay is as much about the looming negotiations with the Pac-10 than it is towards holding the Big 12 together.

If they come out and commit to stay, then the Big 12 will attempt to hold everyone together and carry on, possibly with a shared television deal with the Pac-10, but remaining two separate and independent conferences. Or, if they commit to stay, then the negotiations with the Pac-10 could begin in earnest, as they would only then know what teams from the Big 12 might be invited to also join, including either Nebraska or Mizzou.

If Nebraska and Mizzou do not re-commit themselves to the Big 12, then that conference is essentially a bunch of free agents - and the Pac-10 would then seek to sidestep the Texas legislature by inviting all four (4) Texas schools + Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. That gives them their 16-team conference, and they've trule taken the biggest gems in the Big 12 with them.

However, should this happen, and Nebraska and Mizzou do not re-commit to the Big 12, and the Big 10 simply doesn't extend an official invitation to either (be it ND joins, or they simply move on to other canidates), both schools could be left, essentially, without a conference as the Big 12 would only be a shell, if it survived at all.

I wish I could take credit for figuring this all out, but its all explained here: Orangebloods.com - Pac-10 ready to make moves; Nebraska's decision is key
Click to expand...

Kind of.

The Big Ten Commish has said that their plan/goal is to expand to 14 or 16 teams by the end of the year. I think the 16 is what's contingent on Notre Dame. They (based on the original, yet "refuted" reports of their expansion) want Mizzou for the ties and the St. Louis and Kansas City markets (become 7x their network revenue per house). They want to make an attempt at the footprint in the northeast and get into NYC - either through a rutgers, syracuse, or - rare one - boston college. The 13 put them at needing another team to balance out, so that's where NEB would come in.

The offer's made to Notre Dame as well due to ties and the connections (oddly, if you want NYC to watch, they seem to be the team that best gets it done). Odds are Notre Dame says no of course, which their other invites would have left it at 14. Supposing they said yes though, that's where an offer to someone like Pitt or someone else comes along. They want to get to at least 14 but if Notre Dame joined and made it 15, they were going to go for one more team.


I do feel more that the Pac-10 offer is kind of being used as a "your move" threat with the deadline to Mizzou and Nebraska (which i guarantee the extension is taken and we dont hear anything until June 15). But yes, if Mizzou and Neb say they won't guarantee they're staying, the chances of the South bolting get much higher. I think if they pledge to stay, you'll either see the big 12 holding itself together or - in some off-shoot of the partnership talks the two conferences had - there's been rumor of the possibility of a full conference merger between the Pac-10 and Big 12 (I feel that one's less likely though).


Also, I could be wrong, but I'm not sure Baylor was included on the list of teams that the Pac-10 was to invite in the report
 
#200
#200
Tenacious D said:
Room, meet the Giant Elephant.

Giant Elephant, The Room.

Not pointed at you personally, Droski, by any means - but rather, echoing what this is all really about, beyond the dollars and sense of it all.

The score of this game will certainly be tallied in dollars, but its just as much about power and prestige as anything. Barring something like major re-structuring, mega-conferences, et al, it was unlikely that anyone was going to consistently compete with the SEC, much less topple it from its perch.

Just as I would suspect that most SEC fans are fine with business as usual.....so should we know that the other major conferences (and their schools and fans) would not be, and want to do something about it.

Like someone said earlier, kudos to the Pac-10 for making a play, because you certainly can't fault them for doing so. Of everyone involved, they seem to be the ones who have the perfect mix of size / initiative / strategic vision / finances to pull this off, with or without the SEC's interjections.
Click to expand...

As someone said on ESPN said a few days ago "Follow the money, that's what this expansion's really all about"

I mean yes, to the fans there's a huge pride and prestige factor to their views on it - and I'd think we'd all like to think that it's about something other than money - but the whole catalyst to this thing was really that our ESPN deal gave us higher revenue than the Big 10 this year and they wanted to get back on top.

They surprisingly found out that their Big Ten Network was in fact generating a great deal more money than expected -especially when regional - and their goal became to get more big markets into that fold to make up that gap. They've always been the top money dogs before this last year (they own as regional the 3rd, 4th, 11th, 15th, 17th, 21st, 23rd, and 25th largest TV markets in the country)

And of course, it led to everyone else bracing themselves to make moves to keep up after whatever the Big 10 chose to do.


I mean yeah, this isn't going to, odds are, change much in the realms of dominance etc. The SEC will still be a powerhouse football wise and will still be held in high regard. Your results are going to stay near the same, with near the same trends.


What all this will do (and is really geared to) is shift around the conference revenue rankings around (this year was SEC 1st, Big Ten 2nd).

The Pac-10's move is really interesting honestly. A good move before the expiration of their contract could jump them up from 4th or 5th overall up to 2nd, 3rd, or even possibly 1st depending on the contract
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top