Expansion: Big Ten is reportedly talking to..

Donate To GopherHole

This one has been out there awhile. A very juicy prospect. I'd love a road trip to Austin.
 


Texas would seem like a home run, but do they have the mindset to fit in with the other Big 10 schools? This quote from the linked article has me wondering:

"Texas already receives the most TV money in the Big 12 because of its frequent national network appearances, but the source said Texas still thinks it can get a better deal for itself and is considering forming its own state-wide TV network."

A huge reason there is dissatisfaction in the Big 12 is the unbalanced revenue sharing. I have never heard any of the Big 10's elite schools ask for more revenue because they bring in more. It may be a subject that's discussed privately, but I haven't read of anyone publicly advocating it.

If Texas does get admitted to the Big 10, they will bring influence and a full vote with them. How might the Big 10 change if Texas begins advocating more perks for the elite schools like unbalanced revenue sharing?
 



"If Texas were to join the Big Ten it would be the biggest thing to happen to college sports in over a decade, this story is HUGE, it gets no bigger than this in NCAA athletics." Colin Cowherd. I'll try and get a link to Colins bit on this subject as soon as it's listed, it was a terrific segment about 10 minutes long.
 

GopherGod

GopherGod would have a complete meltdown, he wouldn't know who to cheer for :rolleyes:

Reality would set in and I'm sure he'd know how to make the ever so slight backhand to the face of the Gophers, which he is so good at doing.
 

This would be an excellent addition for the Big Ten and a major blow to the Big 12. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to replace the impact that Texas has in that conference.

I wonder what we would do about our home-and-home we already have scheduled with them, probably drop it and replace it with a new non-conference opponent, as opposed to playing a conference game early. Or maybe we could play them twice in a year! Ha!

Go Gophers!!
 

I just don't see Texas making the move especially if they believe they can make more with their own TV network. I also don't see them wanting to have an equal vote in the Big 10 while they have been able to essentially call all the shots with the Big 12 conference. For instance, they were largely behind the choice for the first Big 12 commissioner, refused to join if other schools in the Big 12 were allowed to take Prop 48 recruits as they had done as members of the Big 8, got the conference HQ moved to Dallas from KC and are also pushing to have the conference championship game moved permanently to Cowboy Stadium. Ultimately they would not be able to run roughshod over the Big 10 conference politics because of the big players like PSU, OSU, UM while they can in the Big 12. I would also suspect that the Texas Legislature would not make it easy for Texas to leave A&M behind due to the negative impact it would have on them if they left A&M behind. If the University of Texas were to push this matter then the legislature may look to reallocate more of the Permanent University Fund to the Texas A&M system.
 



BleedGopher said:
This would be an excellent addition for the Big Ten and a major blow to the Big 12. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to replace the impact that Texas has in that conference.

I wonder what we would do about our home-and-home we already have scheduled with them, probably drop it and replace it with a new non-conference opponent, as opposed to playing a conference game early. Or maybe we could play them twice in a year! Ha!

Go Gophers!!
Click to expand...

Texas is actually a nice fit from a wow factor, academic factor, and financial (re: TV) factor. I'd take Texas over Notre Dame any day.

Since they would be in our division, we would keep it as is and build the Big Ten 2015 and 2016 schedule around it. We could then add another NC game as fits the schedule.

2015
Sat, Sep 05 South Dakota State TCF Bank Stadium TBA
Sat, Sep 12 Colorado State at Fort Collins, Colo. TBA
Sat, Sep 19 Texas TCF Bank Stadium TBA
Sat, Sep 26 Ohio TCF Bank Stadium TBA

2016
Sat, Sep 03 New Mexico State TCF Bank Stadium TBA
Sat Sept 10 Indiana State TCF Bank Stadium TBA
Sat Sep 17 Texas at Austin, Texas
Sat, Sep 24 Colorado State TCF Bank Stadium TBA

Divisions as I see it (E/W):
Great Lakes
Indiana
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue

Great Plains
Illinois
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Texas
Wisconsin
 

100% against this. Keep the Big Ten regional. I would rather play Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa St, Pitt, or even Syracuse -- before Texas (in terms of rivalries).
 

Texas in the Big Ten?

It will never happen. Way too far to travel for the rest of the teams. Let's just stick with Mizzou or Pitt for another team. Makes more sense.
 

WAGopher said:
If Texas does get admitted to the Big 10, they will bring influence and a full vote with them. How might the Big 10 change if Texas begins advocating more perks for the elite schools like unbalanced revenue sharing?
Click to expand...

It's possible I suppose but I think that more than 2/3's of the schools in the conference have to agree for those types of changes to take place. Even with Texas on board that means 8 schools would have to support this kind of move. Supposing they were feeling greedy I could see OSU, Mich, PSU, Wisky, and maybe Iowa supporting this. That's only 6 including Texas. MSU is a wild card to me in this hypothetical but I'm betting you'd see MN, IU, Purdue, NU, and Illinois all oppose a move like this since they would be the hardest hit.

GopherGod said:
I just don't see Texas making the move especially if they believe they can make more with their own TV network. I also don't see them wanting to have an equal vote in the Big 10 while they have been able to essentially call all the shots with the Big 12 conference. For instance, they were largely behind the choice for the first Big 12 commissioner, refused to join if other schools in the Big 12 were allowed to take Prop 48 recruits as they had done as members of the Big 8, got the conference HQ moved to Dallas from KC and are also pushing to have the conference championship game moved permanently to Cowboy Stadium. Ultimately they would not be able to run roughshod over the Big 10 conference politics because of the big players like PSU, OSU, UM while they can in the Big 12.
Click to expand...

Fair points GG. My question would be with the bolded. Would they really be able to make more than $22 million per year with their own network (which is what B10 teams make in TV revenue right now...a number that would likely jump with the additional markets Texas would add)? The entire BXII only makes $78 million per year (of which Texas gets about $12 million). Despite its stranglehold on Texas I wonder whether they could secure a deal worth almost 30% of the entire BXII deal. Especially since they'd lose all the non-Texas markets (and the Texas markets that would buy in would still have to pay for the BXII via the current agreements with ABC/ESPN/FSN).

I'm not saying they'd leave. Financially and academically it makes a lot of sense for Texas (in fact on those 2 reasons alone its probably a no-brainer). But that doesn't mean other factors like politics, rivalries, equal voice vs. lots of power, etc won't trump that. Because at the end of the day Texas still has one of the best financed athletic depts in the country despite being handicapped by the BXII's terrible TV deal.
 



if this happened

it would be the beginning of the end for the big ten, and would usher in an entirely new 'super conference." the big ten would no longer be about historic rivalries and regional universities, it would be all about the money. the big names in the big ten will get tired of playing the also-rans and they would demand that they put up or shut up.

these also-rans (of which minnesota is one) would be forced out of the conference in favor of the better teams that would bring more revenue. i wouldn't be surprised to see a sort of english premier league set up, in which the three or four worst teams in the 'super conference' perennially drop off and the three or four best teams waiting in the wings would be added.

there is absolutely no way to justify adding texas to the big ten other than money.
 

froggopher said:
It will never happen. Way too far to travel for the rest of the teams. Let's just stick with Mizzou or Pitt for another team. Makes more sense.
Click to expand...

Once you hop on a plane it really doesn't matter how far you have to fly. And any of the proposed schools from the East or West would result in a majority of the conference hopping on a plane to play them. For example, any team that flies to PSU would still have to do so for Pitt. Any team that flies to MN or Iowa would have to do so for Mizzou. Texas simply increases travel by a majority of schools for a new member (read 8 or 9) to all of them. Also, the increased revenue from adding the Texas TV markets would dwarf the additional travel costs each school would incur.
 

bigtenchamps1899 said:
it would be the beginning of the end for the big ten, and would usher in an entirely new 'super conference." the big ten would no longer be about historic rivalries and regional universities, it would be all about the money. the big names in the big ten will get tired of playing the also-rans and they would demand that they put up or shut up.

these also-rans (of which minnesota is one) would be forced out of the conference in favor of the better teams that would bring more revenue. i wouldn't be surprised to see a sort of english premier league set up, in which the three or four worst teams in the 'super conference' perennially drop off and the three or four best teams waiting in the wings would be added.

there is absolutely no way to justify adding texas to the big ten other than money.
Click to expand...

I just don't see it. As I noted in an earlier post, the "also rans" have enough votes to keep changes like this from taking place. Also, the historic rivalries would not be affected by Texas anymore then they would by Mizzou or Pitt (though both of them add a rival into the conference for Ill and PSU respectively). And to be a super conference we'd need more than 12 schools.
 

Travel concerns? Alaska Anchorage plays in the WCHA and Fairbanks in the CCHA, don't they? If travel was a major concern for college sports teams they would a) not follow the above conference configuration in hockey, b) immediately stop scheduling Hawaii with any mainland school and c) terminate regular season cross-country non-conference games. It just seems like travel will be the least point of contention.
 

maxwellsmart said:
Travel concerns? Alaska Anchorage plays in the WCHA and Fairbanks in the CCHA, don't they? If travel was a major concern for college sports teams they would a) not follow the above conference configuration in hockey, b) immediately stop scheduling Hawaii with any mainland school and c) terminate regular season cross-country non-conference games. It just seems like travel will be the least point of contention.
Click to expand...

I am not saying that travel costs alone would be a reason but in your example the long travel of the WCHA only affects one sport here at the U. If Texas joined the big 12 these additional travels costs would be felt by football, M &W basketball, track and field, soccer, cross country, tennis, golf, wrestling, etc. These costs would be felt by all the sports that do not generate self sustaining revenue to begin with.
 

GoAUpher said:
I just don't see it. As I noted in an earlier post, the "also rans" have enough votes to keep changes like this from taking place. Also, the historic rivalries would not be affected by Texas anymore then they would by Mizzou or Pitt (though both of them add a rival into the conference for Ill and PSU respectively). And to be a super conference we'd need more than 12 schools.
Click to expand...

actually, the gophers have played pitt nine times and mizzou 8 times. we have played texas once.

i am willing to bet that teams that are closer to the traditional 'midwest' (i.e. OSU, michigan, pen state, illinois, NU, purdue, indiana) have played these two teams even more that the gophers.

so yes, historically, pitt and mizzou are better rivals, both in numbers and regionally, than texas.

the only BCS team that we have played out of conference more than pitt is nebraska (and perhaps iowa state, washington and kansas would have similar numbers)
 

GopherGod said:
I am not saying that travel costs alone would be a reason but in your example the long travel of the WCHA only affects one sport here at the U. If Texas joined the big 12 these additional travels costs would be felt by football, M &W basketball, track and field, soccer, cross country, tennis, golf, wrestling, etc. These costs would be felt by all the sports that do not generate self sustaining revenue to begin with.
Click to expand...

Very, very true. But the additional revenue Texas would see would cover the difference multiple times over.
 

bigtenchamps1899 said:
actually, the gophers have played pitt nine times and mizzou 8 times. we have played texas once.

i am willing to bet that teams that are closer to the traditional 'midwest' (i.e. OSU, michigan, pen state, illinois, NU, purdue, indiana) have played these two teams even more that the gophers.

so yes, historically, pitt and mizzou are better rivals, both in numbers and regionally, than texas.

the only BCS team that we have played out of conference more than pitt is nebraska (and perhaps iowa state, washington and kansas would have similar numbers)
Click to expand...

I never said they weren't better rivals (in fact I noted that they added strong historical rivalries to the conference). All I was saying is that adding Texas doesn't upset the existing B10 rivalries more than any other 12th school does.

Also, playing someone 9 times isn't a rivalry. That kind of talk will get Lakes talking about NDSU being our rival again. :)
 

GoAUpher said:
I never said they weren't better rivals (in fact I noted that they added strong historical rivalries to the conference). All I was saying is that adding Texas doesn't upset the existing B10 rivalries more than any other 12th school does.

Also, playing someone 9 times isn't a rivalry. That kind of talk will get Lakes talking about NDSU being our rival again. :)
Click to expand...

it absolutely is a rivalry when it is another BCS school.

but the point i made is that texas doesn't fit in the big ten, not that it screws with our rivalries. texas is not a midwestern school in any stretch of the imagination, doesn't share a border, doesn't share midwestern culture, doesn't share the same side during the civil war (granted neither did missouri, but missouri is a strange bird in that respect) any addition is going to screw up the rivalries in the big ten as there is no way to keep them all and split the division into two, but the spirit of the big ten is midwestern, not money.

another thing that texas to the big ten does is kill the big twelve. OK would want to leave without texas and then what are you left with.
 

bigtenchamps1899 said:
it absolutely is a rivalry when it is another BCS school.
Click to expand...
Not in the sense that most people think of. 9 random games is not the same as OSU/Mich or MN/WI. That's what I consider to be a rivalry. Everyone else is just an opponent.
bigtenchamps1899 said:
but the point i made is that texas doesn't fit in the big ten, not that it screws with our rivalries.
Click to expand...
Rereading your OP I noticed that I missed the "regional university" part of the comment and focused on the "historical rivalry" part. My apologies for that.
bigtenchamps1899 said:
texas is not a midwestern school in any stretch of the imagination, doesn't share a border, doesn't share midwestern culture, doesn't share the same side during the civil war (granted neither did missouri, but missouri is a strange bird in that respect)
Click to expand...
I don't buy the whole Midwestern culture argument...Missouri's culture is different than Pennsylvania's which is different than Minnesota's. That's just how it is. Having a border with an existing B10 state doesn't mean you've got the same culture. I don't disagree it would severely muck up the traditional geographic makeup of the conference. That bugs me too but in the end I'd be able to deal with it. As for the whole Civil War thing...well, i just don't get that and I'd love to see the B10 justify not choosing Texas with that reasoning.
bigtenchamps1899 said:
any addition is going to screw up the rivalries in the big ten as there is no way to keep them all and split the division into two, but the spirit of the big ten is midwestern, not money.
Click to expand...
If the spirit of the conference is midwestern then PSU needs to go. Pennsylvania is part of the East Coast...it is not Midwestern in any way shape or form. And ya know what? That doesn't matter.
bigtenchamps1899 said:
another thing that texas to the big ten does is kill the big twelve. OK would want to leave without texas and then what are you left with.
Click to expand...
I could care less about what happens to the Big XII personally. But I agree, Texas leaving would put them in a huge bind when it comes to TV contracts.
 

Trying to think from Texas' point of view. A reason for Texas to consider joining the Big Ten is they don't want to be left without a chair when the music stops, so to speak.

If Mizzou leave the Big 12 for the Big 10, suddenly the XII can't have a conference title game unless they add another team. There's not many options out there. Arkansas bolting the SEC for the Big XII? TCU? New Mexico? Colorado State?

Pretty much any option for a new Big XII team would not benefit Texas financially as much as other conferences could. They would possibly be better off seeking refuge in either the Pac Ten or the Big Ten. Suddenly, a long trip for the Horns to Detroit or Columbus doesn't sound as rough as one to Seattle. Happy Valley sounds like a quick jaunt to grandma's house compared to Pullman.

One thing that Penn State did was they were able to see how things were going to potentially play out, so they got in on the Big Ten while they had the chance. I think something similar could happen with Texas. The addition of many schools wouldn't really affect Texas, but if the Big Ten does grab Mizzou, that could trigger many things.

Personally, I'd love it. Texas may not share many things with Big Ten schools, but I don't exactly feel a tight bond with Penn State either. Academically, they're EXACTLY what the conference is looking to add. And MSP to DFW or wherever else isn't horrible. I think Minnesota would be better off travel wise than others. Not to mention the Big Ten Network windfall that would occur helping out that cost.
 

FireDaveLee said:
Trying to think from Texas' point of view. A reason for Texas to consider joining the Big Ten is they don't want to be left without a chair when the music stops, so to speak.

If Mizzou leave the Big 12 for the Big 10, suddenly the XII can't have a conference title game unless they add another team. There's not many options out there. Arkansas bolting the SEC for the Big XII? TCU? New Mexico? Colorado State?

Pretty much any option for a new Big XII team would not benefit Texas financially as much as other conferences could. They would possibly be better off seeking refuge in either the Pac Ten or the Big Ten. Suddenly, a long trip for the Horns to Detroit or Columbus doesn't sound as rough as one to Seattle. Happy Valley sounds like a quick jaunt to grandma's house compared to Pullman.

One thing that Penn State did was they were able to see how things were going to potentially play out, so they got in on the Big Ten while they had the chance. I think something similar could happen with Texas. The addition of many schools wouldn't really affect Texas, but if the Big Ten does grab Mizzou, that could trigger many things.

Personally, I'd love it. Texas may not share many things with Big Ten schools, but I don't exactly feel a tight bond with Penn State either. Academically, they're EXACTLY what the conference is looking to add. And MSP to DFW or wherever else isn't horrible. I think Minnesota would be better off travel wise than others. Not to mention the Big Ten Network windfall that would occur helping out that cost.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much how I see it too. If Mizzou jumps not only do they get replaced with a less attractive team but the Big XII loses those TV markets which means their TV contracts (already sucky) would likely be worse coming out of the next round of negotiations. Texas tried to be like PSU in the 90's when they approached the Big Ten. And I'm betting they'd already be in the conference if it weren't for the self-imposed 3 year ban on expansion that the conference enacted after PSU. They weren't part of the original Big 8 and don't have the ties to any of those schools (outside of the rivalry with Oklahoma which could continue).

Like you said, they'd be an academic home run, an athletic home run, and a TV home run. I'm not sold on it, but I like the idea more than Pitt, Syracuse, or Rutgers.
 

Gut feeling tells me this would just not be a good fit.. looking at the big picture, anyway.
 


Don't forget the 800 Pound Gorilla

The Texas legislature.

Remember back when UT made their last overtures? A & M threw a hissy fit and basically had the legislature force them into the Big XII.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
The Texas legislature.

Remember back when UT made their last overtures? A & M threw a hissy fit and basically had the legislature force them into the Big XII.
Click to expand...

Yea. This is the kind of stuff that I could see derailing the idea. The trifecta of TV money, academics, and competitive athletics all favor the move. Tradition, geography, politics, etc may stand in the way. Of these possible misc category reasons I'd go with politics as the most likely killer of a potential deal.
 

Ski U Mah Gopher said:
The Texas legislature.

Remember back when UT made their last overtures? A & M threw a hissy fit and basically had the legislature force them into the Big XII.
Click to expand...

I think it actually was Texas Tech & Baylor that threw the hissy fit more than A&M (I think Texas actually was in A&M's corner & said A&M was the only team they had to have come with them), but you're premise is correct.....Ma Richards, the governor at the time of Texas, was a Baylor grad, & there were more Tech representatives than any of the other SWC schools & threatened any UT additonal funding bills dead unless Tech was included.

I think politics would play more of a role of Texas not becoming a member of the Big Ten more than anything else.....
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom