Big Ten Expansion

[Donoghus]

Are the Syracuse; Columbia, MO; or New Brunswick, NJ markets that big, compared to Pittsburgh?  I disagree that Penn State has the Pitt market covered; they're three hours away from one another, and the surrounding communities are very different from one another.

TV markets, not actual location.  Syracuse basketball has enough clout that it could probably get the Big Ten Network on cable in New York City.  Missouri can get the Big Ten Network on Kansas City and the rest of St. Louis.  That is the key.  Penn State already provides the Pittsburgh tv market and the Big Ten Network is already on cable tv in Pittsburgh.

I read an article which hypothesized that Texas would leave the Big 12 and go to the Big Ten if asked.  Apparently the only two games Texas cares about in conference are Oklahoma and Texas A&M so it could play those as non-con games.  There is also a thought that if Missouri were to leave for the Big Ten, that Colorado would bolt for the Pac Ten and the Big 12 would collapse anyway.  If that is the case, why wouldn't Texas leave for the Big Ten.  It is obvious why the Big Ten would want Texas as it has the pull to get the Big Ten Network on Dallas, Houston, and Austin television which would provide a ton of extra dollars to the Big Ten.  And before anyone says this is crazy (aside from the possible conference implosion), the Big Ten's revenue from television was 242 million (evenly split at 22 million a team) while the Big 12's tv revenue was about 80 million (though it isn't an even split and Texas took in about 10-11 million of the total).  So just joining without additional markets gets Texas twice the tv revenue.  However, joining would not only get more revenue from tv in dallas, houston, austin, etc., it would also allow the Big Ten to have a football championship game which would be even more money.

I would have thought it was crazy before reading the article, but the article has me convinced that Texas should join the Big Ten.

All solid points. Pittsburgh adds little to no additional media coverage, whereas the inclusion of the New York market would be huge. Saint Louis would be a nice consolation prize. Pittsburgh, as Moranis stated very well, is already a Big Ten market.

St. Louis already has some interest because of ILlinois.  Missouri would definately tie up the whole city, but Missou wouldn't add a ton there and most of K.C. is Kansas not MIssouri, but there is some interest in K.C. for Missou so that would help.

I still think Texas is the school that makes a lot of sense after reading that blog I referenced.

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to Texas.  At some point, you have to consider the toll it would take on "student-athletes".  If they joined the Big 10, the closest geographic rival would be University of Illinois.  That's a pretty big geographic discrepency. 

That's a lot of travelling for the athletes (and time away from the classroom) not to mentioned much increased travel expense for the athletic program.

I think the idea that Texas only cares about two conference games is pretty exagerated also.   Did the article mention why they felt that way? 

The notion of Texas in the Big 10 just doesn't make much sense to me.  You can talk about additional revenue for the Big 10 and tapping into the Texas market but I just don't see much benefit from Texas' standpoint.  Its not like the Big 12 is a problematic conference, either.

[Moranis]

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to Texas.  At some point, you have to consider the toll it would take on "student-athletes".  If they joined the Big 10, the closest geographic rival would be University of Illinois.  That's a pretty big geographic discrepency. 

That's a lot of travelling for the athletes (and time away from the classroom) not to mentioned much increased travel expense for the athletic program.

I think the idea that Texas only cares about two conference games is pretty exagerated also.   Did the article mention why they felt that way? 

The notion of Texas in the Big 10 just doesn't make much sense to me.  You can talk about additional revenue for the Big 10 and tapping into the Texas market but I just don't see much benefit from Texas' standpoint.  Its not like the Big 12 is a problematic conference, either.

Texas wasn't a part of the Big 8, it was in the SW with Baylor, A&M, and TTech so it doesn't have the history with the vast majority of the conference.  Baylor and Tech for the most part have never been in Texas' league in any sport so they aren't strong rivals.  Which leaves just A&M.  Texas and Oklahoma have always been rivals and have played for years and years even before they were in the same conference.

It is definately a lot of travel, but realistically Texas isn't busing to any conference games so they are always flying everywhere (Iowa State is 850 miles, Colorado is 800 miles, etc.).  Sure the Big Ten schools are further away, but the Big 12 is spread out all over the place to begin with.

[Donoghus]

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to Texas.  At some point, you have to consider the toll it would take on "student-athletes".  If they joined the Big 10, the closest geographic rival would be University of Illinois.  That's a pretty big geographic discrepency. 

That's a lot of travelling for the athletes (and time away from the classroom) not to mentioned much increased travel expense for the athletic program.

I think the idea that Texas only cares about two conference games is pretty exagerated also.   Did the article mention why they felt that way? 

The notion of Texas in the Big 10 just doesn't make much sense to me.  You can talk about additional revenue for the Big 10 and tapping into the Texas market but I just don't see much benefit from Texas' standpoint.  Its not like the Big 12 is a problematic conference, either.

Texas wasn't a part of the Big 8, it was in the SW with Baylor, A&M, and TTech so it doesn't have the history with the vast majority of the conference.  Baylor and Tech for the most part have never been in Texas' league in any sport so they aren't strong rivals.  Which leaves just A&M.  Texas and Oklahoma have always been rivals and have played for years and years even before they were in the same conference.

It is definately a lot of travel, but realistically Texas isn't busing to any conference games so they are always flying everywhere (Iowa State is 850 miles, Colorado is 800 miles, etc.).  Sure the Big Ten schools are further away, but the Big 12 is spread out all over the place to begin with.

I'm quite aware of Texas' affiliation with the old Southwest Conference/Cotton Bowl, etc.  The move to the Big 8 was pretty much necessitated by the collapse of the Southwest Conference.  However, Texas moved into a conference that still made geographic sense. 

Moving to the Big 10 really doesn't make much sense.  The Big 12 is not headed in the direction that the SWC was.  Texas is still enjoying successes in the conference and has built some new rivalries along the way.  Is the money really going to be that much better at the expense of losing some regional rivalries and forcing themselves to travel to Pennylvania & Ohio in every sport ranging from football to diving?  With the occasional bowl matchup, there hasn't been any historical relevance with many of the Big 10 teams. 

I just don't see it.

[Donoghus]

Also if you have a link to that article, I'd love to read it.

[guava_wrench]

Plus, I'm for any opportunity to stick it to the Big East Conference.

Grrr, I love the Big East, and do not like when I hear a good team thinking about leaving.  Any insight on the Big East hate?

I'm also a Big East fan, though I care zilch about college football and can only stomach college basketball in the NCAA tourney. I nevertheless root for the Big East always.

I am a St Johns fan, and they have been hideous for a while now.

[Moranis]

Also if you have a link to that article, I'd love to read it.

Here You Go

[Moranis]

I'm quite aware of Texas' affiliation with the old Southwest Conference/Cotton Bowl, etc.  The move to the Big 8 was pretty much necessitated by the collapse of the Southwest Conference.  However, Texas moved into a conference that still made geographic sense. 

Moving to the Big 10 really doesn't make much sense.  The Big 12 is not headed in the direction that the SWC was.  Texas is still enjoying successes in the conference and has built some new rivalries along the way.  Is the money really going to be that much better at the expense of losing some regional rivalries and forcing themselves to travel to Pennylvania & Ohio in every sport ranging from football to diving?  With the occasional bowl matchup, there hasn't been any historical relevance with many of the Big 10 teams. 

I just don't see it.

I guess what I'm saying is, is the difference in cost of flying the swimming and diving team to Boulder, Colorado really that much less then flying them to Lansing, Michigan.  I'd argue the cost difference isn't that much, though it is a bit more wear and tear on the players due to the extra distance.  Sure if half of Texas' games were in the Dallas/Austin areas the cost would increase greatly, but that just isn't the case.  Even Lubbock, Texas is 331 miles away from Austin and those two schools are in the same state. 

And the obscene amount more money Texas would get in the Big Ten would more then make up for it.  At least that is the thinking.

[Moranis]

Also, from the Big Ten and a football standpoint adding a power to the new West Division would be a lot better then adding a power to the East Division that already has Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Michigan State.

If Texas were added it would fit in nicely in the West with Wisconsin and Iowa as "powers" with Illinois, Minnesota, and Northwestern, while the East would have the four above and Purdue and Indiana.  That would flat out be a better balance.

[Fafnir]

Texas has a sweet gig in the Big 12. They are able to dominate the conference structurally along with all the other Texas teams, which usually vote Texas's way.

They recently passed a vote requiring more than a simple majority to change conference rules. No way does Texas bail on being the leading school to join the Big 10.

[Donoghus]

Texas has a sweet gig in the Big 12. They are able to dominate the conference structurally along with all the other Texas teams, which usually vote Texas's way.

They recently passed a vote requiring more than a simple majority to change conference rules. No way does Texas bail on being the leading school to join the Big 10.

I agree.  They're one of the anchor schools of the conference. 

[celticinorlando]

dont think psu will like this

[Moranis]

Texas has a sweet gig in the Big 12. They are able to dominate the conference structurally along with all the other Texas teams, which usually vote Texas's way.

They recently passed a vote requiring more than a simple majority to change conference rules. No way does Texas bail on being the leading school to join the Big 10.

Texas certainly has the power, but it hasn't exactly won conference titles in the two sports that matter.  For as good as Texas has been in football it has just three conference championships since the Big 12 was formed (96, 05, and 09) and it has yet to win the Big 12 mens basketball tournament (it does have 5 second place finishes).  It may have a structural hold, but it certainly doesn't win titles on a regular basis.  No idea if it wins titles in the Big Ten more often, but it wouldn't be any worse.

And how often do you see rule changes where that would come into play?

[Donoghus]

Texas has a sweet gig in the Big 12. They are able to dominate the conference structurally along with all the other Texas teams, which usually vote Texas's way.

They recently passed a vote requiring more than a simple majority to change conference rules. No way does Texas bail on being the leading school to join the Big 10.

Texas certainly has the power, but it hasn't exactly won conference titles in the two sports that matter.  For as good as Texas has been in football it has just three conference championships since the Big 12 was formed (96, 05, and 09) and it has yet to win the Big 12 mens basketball tournament (it does have 5 second place finishes).  It may have a structural hold, but it certainly doesn't win titles on a regular basis.  No idea if it wins titles in the Big Ten more often, but it wouldn't be any worse.

And how often do you see rule changes where that would come into play?

I'm not sure how much more you'd expect out of them in football.  They've still been fairly consistent over the years.

They're second to Oklahoma in conference titles and tied for second place in wins.  5 appearances in 14 years is nothing to hang you head in shame about.  Especially when you consider they play in the same division as Oklahoma which has also had quite the program going.

Whether you like it or not, they're still very much one of the anchor teams in the conference. 

Moving to the Big 10 doesn't assure more conference titles in football or basketball.

Plus a conference change affects a lot more sports than just football and basketball.

[Fafnir]

Texas has a sweet gig in the Big 12. They are able to dominate the conference structurally along with all the other Texas teams, which usually vote Texas's way.

They recently passed a vote requiring more than a simple majority to change conference rules. No way does Texas bail on being the leading school to join the Big 10.

Texas certainly has the power, but it hasn't exactly won conference titles in the two sports that matter.  For as good as Texas has been in football it has just three conference championships since the Big 12 was formed (96, 05, and 09) and it has yet to win the Big 12 mens basketball tournament (it does have 5 second place finishes).  It may have a structural hold, but it certainly doesn't win titles on a regular basis.  No idea if it wins titles in the Big Ten more often, but it wouldn't be any worse.

And how often do you see rule changes where that would come into play?

I think you underestimate how much structural power is important to a school like Texas.

You're also forgetting Baseball, Baseball is very important to Texas. Meanwhile its basically non-existent in the Big 10.

[Moranis]

Texas has a sweet gig in the Big 12. They are able to dominate the conference structurally along with all the other Texas teams, which usually vote Texas's way.

They recently passed a vote requiring more than a simple majority to change conference rules. No way does Texas bail on being the leading school to join the Big 10.

Texas certainly has the power, but it hasn't exactly won conference titles in the two sports that matter.  For as good as Texas has been in football it has just three conference championships since the Big 12 was formed (96, 05, and 09) and it has yet to win the Big 12 mens basketball tournament (it does have 5 second place finishes).  It may have a structural hold, but it certainly doesn't win titles on a regular basis.  No idea if it wins titles in the Big Ten more often, but it wouldn't be any worse.

And how often do you see rule changes where that would come into play?

I think you underestimate how much structural power is important to a school like Texas.

You're also forgetting Baseball, Baseball is very important to Texas. Meanwhile its basically non-existent in the Big 10.

10 of the 11 Big Ten schools have baseball programs.  I realize they aren't on the same level as Texas, but it isn't like the rest of the Big 12 is on Texas' level either.