I would think that the PAC 10 would increase their ratings leverage more by adding Utah and Boise State than by adding KU and Iowa State. Maybe not I guess.
Academics is a huge part of the conference, too. It’s not just about football. Boise State has no chance to join the Pac 10. Colorado, Texas, and Texas A&M are all members of the Association of American Universities. Utah is not, but would be considered for admission.
Exactly. Boise has little or no chance of getting a PAC10 invite
Despite all their recent success, Boise St football games are not a guaranteed sell-out. And they only have ~35K stadium.
Other that a very good football team, I really don’t see what Boise State can bring to the PAC10 conference. Boise State would take more from the PAC10 than what they could bring into the conference.
IMO, if there are super-conferences forming, we will see a near-BCS conference forming with the foundation of the conference being the remaining Big XII schools, KU, KSU, ISU, Colorado, Baylor, Texas Tech. They would add schools like TCU, Colorado St. New Mexico, New Mexico St, Utah.
I don’t see how Texas might succeed as an independent, especially if ND becomes part of the Big 10. I really think at least three of these team joining the SEC: UT Tex A/M OU and OkSU.
apparently FSU has been approached, but I don’t know if they had a lot of value to the SEC. FSU does not open any additional TV market, that a Texas or Oklahoma school would.
Actually, FSU has a very widespread fan base. When we played ND a few years back the Windy City Seminole Booster club had over 2000 members (IIRC - and that’s just the people willing to pay). FSU puts out thousands of grads every year and very few of them stay local. It’s one of the reasons that FSU gets so many televised games (even when we aren’t doing all that well).
IMO, SEC games will not begin broadcasting in Chicago, NYC, or LA any other city outside the Southeast just because FSU joined the conference.
Texas/Oklahoma schools would open up Tulsa, OK City, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Houston and the entire state of Texas and additional advertising revenue.
IMO, the Northeast Television market is the only reason why Rutgers is being courted by Big 10. If Rutgers (and only Rutgers) joins the Big 10, they will generally be a below average team in most every sport. Rutgers might fit the Big 10’s academic profile, but that is NOT the reason why they are being courted.
But, as I indicated up-thread, I think the Big 10 is not assessing the Northeastern TV market correctly. It is Professional sports-centric; and there is little passion for college sports unlike the Southeast and Midwest.
I don’t think that the northeast is a sleeping giant ready to be awakened by the entry of the Big Ten into the market. But it can solidify markets where they may have a foothold. Adding Rutgers probably helps make the Philadelphia market a Big Ten market. You already have lots of Penn State fans here thanks in large part to a big satellite campus network. Rutgers gives you some fans in South Jersey which is part of the Philadelphia TV market. It’s not enough to win over North Jersey and NYC but it gets you a foot in the door. That may be what they are looking for.
How can you possibly make a statement like this? Do you really have knowledge of the quality of all of Rutgers programs in relation to all of the other programs in the Big Ten? Their soccer or baseball teams? Wrestling? Lacrosse? Do you have any empirical evidence whatsoever to support your claim?
So? True or not, it won’t matter except to those athletes and their families. It’s mostly about football, with a nod to basketball. The revenue sports, they’re called. This is strictly business, not academics and only incidentally about sport.
According to the Director’s Cup rankings (found here), Rutgers was ranked 92 for the 2008-2009 season. As a point of comparison, 10 of the Big Ten teams were in the top 50 and the bottom team, Indiana, was 55. The Director’s Cup is the measure of success of all sports, not just the revenue sports. Texas was 6 and Notre Dame was 21.
Thanks, just checking back in this thread, and the director’s cup standings would have been my evidence.
I casually follow the college polls that are listed in the usatoday website. Rutgers seldom shows up (they are currently about 18th in Womens Lacrosse).
Ignorance fought, thank you.
That’s a funny thing…apparently the Big Ten Network is basically a license to print money for the conference, no matter the ratings or ad sales (Rotel seems to be their only big buyer). I’m a Wisconsin alum…I watch the Big 10 Network anytime the Badgers football or men’s basketball team are on it, and I watch the Badger coach’s show in the fall and winter. Its actually pretty nice…basically except for a couple of blowout basketball games, every Wisconsin football & basketball game was on TV for me on the sports tier of my local cable system in San Antonio, Texas. If I was a Texas fan in Wisconsin, I wouldn’t have seen nearly has many Longhorn games, even though Texas is a bigger team nationally in basketball & football.
You multiply me by 10 other teams’ fanbases and you have a big potential viewer base who will turn in for their own alma mater’s sporting events. But I’m guessing the actual viewers for anything on the network rarely gets a number anything close to a comparable event on ESPN or ESPN2 or even Fox Sports.
But given all of that…the network is providing the schools with a nice fat chunk of change to their budgets…and that’s a big reason why Big Ten membership is a desirable thing right now.
I think this article confuses the issue even more.
hmmm, no one wants to talk about CFB?
Big 12 gives Mizzou and Nebraska an ultimatum. Basically sh*t or get off the pot by Friday.
And PAC10 officials are laying out some possible expansion scenarios.
And Texas politicians :dubious: want Baylor (and not Colorado) :dubious: to be in the PAC10 expansion plans.
As a Pac-10 fan, I’m surprisingly excited about this proposal (surprising, because I’m generally a traditionalist who hates all change). Two 8-team divisions: one, the old Pac-8; the other, Arizona + Texas + Oklahoma. Some awesome cross-division matchups every year.
I am just really curious on how this is going to shake out. I think the proposed scenario is good for the PAC10, although if I were a PAC10 AD, I would want Colorado over Baylor and Utah over Texas Tech. Apparently Stanford and California are concerned about the “academics” of Texas Tech.
if the changes get made, there are at least 4 old Big 12 schools that will be “homeless” Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa St, and the Baylor/Colorado loser, and possibly Texas Tech.
It looks like the SEC will be pilfering ACC schools if they want to expand to 16. FSU, Miami, Ga Tech, Clemson, Virginia Tech look to be the low hanging fruit.
And then whats left of the ACC will merge with the Big East and the Big East will be forced to give Notre Dame an ultimatum. Play football with us or get the **** out of our conference. Notre Dame bolts to the Big 10.
And the Big 10 also picks up Neb, Mizzou, Rutgers, and a team to be named later (Maryland, WVU, Pitt, UConn). Lets assume it is WVU for a minute.
That leaves the ACC and Big East with these 13 football teams:
- UNC
- NC State
- Duke
- Virginia
- GT/VT/Clemson leftover
- Maryland
- BC
- UConn
- Louisville
- Syracuse
- Cincy
- Pitt
- South Florida (possibly getting kicked out) as no one wants 13 teams.
What left of the Big East (Georgetown, Villy, SH, SJ, Depaul, Marquette) asks schools like Temple, Richmond, UMass to join the Big East.
Of course, this is all conjecture, but pretty reasonable, IMO.
These super conferences in the making will be able to ignore the NCAA. They will control football and basketball, while deciding their own rules. I wonder if it would shake out that way?
Think there’s a rule that says no state can have more than two schools in the SEC, so they couldn’t get both Miami and Florida State, while keeping Florida. Of the two, I think I’d rather have Florida State. Ga Tech, Clemson, and VT would be great to bring on board as well. The down side would be knocking each other out of the BCS picture playing a 7 game division schedule plus some cross-division games like Florida-LSU.
Still, if this thing boils down to four Super-Conferences, say PAC-16, SEC Expanded, Big 12 Revised, and Big 10 Updated, there could be football nirvana for fans. And a convenient 4-team playoff for the BCS title. Non-aligned schools can play for 5th place.
there won’t be a “Big 12 Revised” That conference gets totally cannibalized by the moves. The 4th super conference is the ACC/Big East leftovers.
Never heard about a SEC rule of no more than two teams from a state.
Same here. They float the idea of taking in Utah and Colorado pretty regularly and I cringe every time I hear it. But I love, LOVE, the idea behind a 16 team league preserving the original PAC-8. To my knowledge AZ and ASU don’t have much a rivalry with anybody in the PAC-10 anyway. I’d think the Big XII teams would be happy, much for the same reason. OU/TX, TX/A&M, OK/OKS, all the rivalries remain. Also we’d get USC/Texas, USC/Oklahoma, Oklahoma would have a chance for revenge against Oregon. As a Coug fan the idea of Oklahoma or Texas walking down the tunnel into our humble little Martin Stadium* is quite a thought. :eek:
Play each team in your division + 2 from the other + 3 non-conference. I’m for it.
*We try to play one game at Qwest Field in Seattle every year. Unfortunately, my guess is the school will opt for a 72K seat Qwest over 35K seat Martin whenever possible if the big schools come to town.