Anybody else a college football fan? All this expansion talk is crazy! I'm not sure any of this will actually go down but I guess there is some substance to some of these rumors.
College Football Conference Expansion
- Thread starter thunda123
- Start date
In my opinion...Notre Dame will never have anything to worry about in college football. Notre Dame is and will always be Notre Dame.
The thing about Nebraska is that they really are in limbo. They are a viable option for the B10 but there is no guarantee that the B10 would offer them a spot. Say the B10 gets ND then stops, The B10 doesn't get ND and decides not to expand, or The B10 scoops up Mizzou and some Big East schools then Nebraska is left without a major conference. I think it is all more dependant on what Notre Dame does THEN what Nebraska does.
I don't think there's any way the Big 12 would take TCU. Another texas team? They don't add anything in terms of revenue (the big 12 already has the whole texas market). They get poor fan support even though they have been very good in the last 8-10 years. TCU's coach Patterson though, will keep them rising. It's a smaller school and not a whole lot of alumni to support the school.
In my opinion, if the B12 lost Mizzou, I believe they would pick up BYU. Most people don't know this but BYU was actually offered a spot in the B12 quite a few years ago. However, the governor of Texas at the time was an alum of Baylor and she demanded the B12 take Baylor instead. And, that's why Baylor is in the Big 12. So, in my opinion....the offer would more than likely go to BYU. The geography fits pretty well too.
---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:18 PM ----------
Okay, so here's what I've heard lately. Big 10 guys and NOtre Dame guys have supposedly been meeting for 5 hours to discuss Notre dame to the Big 10. I don't know how much interest there is from the NOtre Dame side but they're at least willing to listen. The Big 10 would be a revenue powerhouse if they got NOtre Dame but i'm sure ND would have stipulations based on what they would bring to the table. If the big 10 gets ND they will be done with their expansion. I'm not sure ND is willing to give up their independence. They don't have too.
It's looking like Texas may be "bluffing" with regards to leaving the B12 for the Pac16. Their bluff, as well as, the ultimatum for Nebraska to commit in writing to stay with the Big 12 is to force Nebraska's hand, as well as, the Big ten. Nebraska is in a bind right now. They have to find out if the Big 10 will take them if they reject the Big 12. But, the Big 10's first priority is ND so that really puts pressure on Nebraska. The other reason for the ultimatum is to give the B12 time to find a replacement school or schools if Mizzou and Nebraska both leave. Could Texas bolt to the Pac 16 if Nebraska and Mizzou bail on them? Sure, but I believe texas would rather stay in the Big12 instead of joining the pac 10. Why? Because they have all the power in the Big 12. Why give that up?
The MWC may or may not offer Boise STate. Word on the street was that is was close to being a done deal, but now the MWC may wait to see how everything unfolds after this weeks other developments. In my opinion, they will extend the invite to Boise State should no other expansion occur.
My overall opinion is that there won't be a significant amount of expansion happening this summer.But, the big 10 and Pac 10 are really needing 12 teams in order to have a conference championship, which they are noticing is a big revenue generator.
Anyways, very interesting times. Many meetings going on between presidents, AD's, coaches from many schools in many conferences.
---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------
I think if the Big 10 expands to 12 and the twelfth isn't notre dame then it will be Mizzou. Mizzou wants out of the big 12. that much is known. Nebraska is also unhappy with some of the stuff going on in the big 12 but they may be bluffing also, to see if they can get things to change. who knows.
If the big ten can't get Notre dame to expand to 12 then I'm 100% they will go to 14. It's either Quality or Quantity, but not both.
I'm actually worried that four 16 team conferences may signal the end of college football as we know it. Any non-bcs league (other than maybe the MWC if it add Boise state and a couple other schools) would have no chance of succeeding in Div I football. These non bcs teams are already at such a disadvantage but some still manage to be very successful against BCS teams. But, the majority of them will have no chance.
What happens to these other conferences and teams? Div II? Doormats for the mega conferences? I'll admit....I liked college football a whole lot more before the BCS. Give everyone a fair and equal chance to be successful. Why are teams like Baylor, ISU privileged enough to have the chance to be successful when they pitiful? I also like college football when they had less bowl games. I can't stand the greed, corruption, politics etc in college football. I really hate these people. Same goes for those who were pushing for a 96 team Ncaa b-ball tourney.
---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:39 PM ----------
14 just seems odd though. But yeah, they've already said 14 is a real option for them. But, I could see them stopping at 12 only to become eligible for a conf. championship game.
---------- Post added at 10:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:41 PM ----------
wow, I just read this. I hadn't heard this before. Incredible.
Big 12 blew it by eschewing playoff
By Dan Wetzel, Yahoo! Sports
2 hours, 30 minutes ago
Email Print Follow Dan Wetzel on Twitter at @DanWetzel
Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe all but killed his own conference on April 30, 2008.
That’s when he decided to team up with the Big Ten and Pac-10 to reject a four-team playoff being pushed by the SEC and ACC. If the Big 12 (and/or the Big East) had supported it, the so-called “Plus One” model likely would’ve happened.
Even that modest playoff would have meant hundreds of millions of additional revenue for college athletics. It would have then allowed for easy expansion for an even more lucrative 16-team postseason. That would have solved all the monetary concerns that have left the Big 12 on the verge of collapse at the hands of its one-time allies, the Big Ten and Pac-10.
More From Dan WetzelHow hard will USC be hit? Jun 3, 2010 RichRod's real response May 25, 2010 ADVERTISEMENT
Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe listens to questions from reporters following his conference's meetings on Friday in Kansas City, Mo.
(AP Photo)
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany admitted to Congress a 16-team playoff could gross four times what the current Bowl Championship Series does – in other words about $900 million annually.
He opposed it anyway. Beebe and the others never seemed to ask why. They’re finding out now.
Conference expansion is about to forever alter college athletics: destroying traditions, hammering taxpayers and increasing competition. It will leave once-major programs out of the loop, consolidate power and extend the gap between haves and have nots – even within leagues such as the Big Ten.
No one is in a more desperate spot than the Big 12, which this week could see as many as eight league members receive invites to leave.
It’s all because of money. And when it comes to money in college athletics it all comes back to one thing – the leaking oil disaster that is the BCS.
There are two major revenue streams left in college sports – football television contracts and a football postseason. (The men’s basketball tournament is essentially maxed out.)
Larry Scott It’s clear now that Delany used opposition to a football playoff not to preserve some bit of “tradition.” His expansion plans clearly indicate he cares nothing about that. It certainly wasn’t done for the sake of aiding Big Ten football, since a playoff with on-campus home games likely would’ve helped his teams.
The goal was to starve out the Big 12, Big East and even the ACC of the hundreds of millions a playoff would’ve given them and thus turn the future of college sports into a battle of television sets.
Delany couldn’t assure that the Big Ten would’ve done well in a football playoff. Maybe the league would’ve succeeded, maybe not. With 26 percent of the nation’s population, tradition rich clubs and its own cable network though, the Big Ten will always dominate if everything boils down to TV revenue.
It was a genius, cutthroat throat play. He set the terms of the game so he’d win. The Pac-10, led by aggressive new commissioner Larry Scott, is taking advantage also. I’m not blaming Delany here. I may not believe a 16-team Big Ten (or Pac-10) is in the best interest of the league’s current members (or the NCAA as a whole), but it’s not that big of a deal to me. Whatever happens, happens. Besides, it’s not Delany’s fault he’s smarter than the other guys.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I being too hard on Beebe? Not even close. He’s been played like a fiddle. In April, while Delany was assuring the other commissioners his league wouldn’t contact schools about expansion without informing them first, Beebe offered this bit of naïvete.
“I expect that Jim, who I have known for many, many years and trust implicitly, [will] do what he said he’s going to do,” Beebe said. “If and when the time comes that they’re going to do anything – and if that includes any of the institutions in the Big 12 – he’ll let me know first.”
Gordon Gee This week the Columbus Dispatch printed emails between Delany and Ohio State president Gordon Gee that detailed Gee reaching out to the University of Texas to broach interest about the Big Ten.
So much for Mr. “Trust Implicitly.”
Why Beebe and Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese ever felt safe with Delany is a mystery. The guy is an assassin. He’s always been public about his desire to do whatever he feels is best for the Big Ten (or at least his “legacy”).
Rather than helping him block the Plus One, they should’ve been explaining to their presidents that a full playoff was imperative to survival.
And let’s forget the ridiculous notion that the presidents are vehemently opposed to a playoff. The presidents will do whatever their commissioner says. It’s always been that case and the expansion chaos proves it. Ohio State’s Gee has been an anti-playoff guy in part because of “missed class time,” even if none would be missed under a playoff that takes place during semester break.
Yet now he’s in favor of adding Texas to the Big Ten, meaning he’ll ship all of his athletes all the way to Austin which would cause … missed class time for hundreds of students.
It’s all a pile of garbage. Here’s guessing the schools that could be left behind – which could include Kansas, Kansas State, Baylor, Iowa State, Colorado, Louisville, West Virginia, South Florida and so on – will soon be furious they weren’t told the truth about what they were really opposing. The Plus One wasn’t a postseason plan, it was a lifeline.
Those presidents deserve their own blame, of course. They should’ve learned the truth about the BCS and recognized the need to find revenue outside of just television deals. They should’ve been building their own alliance for a richer and more equitable postseason.
In 2008, the smaller leagues and Notre Dame would’ve almost assuredly gone along. The ACC and SEC were clearly open to discussion. If a 16-team playoff wasn’t possible, at the very least the Plus One was. It’d be a different ballgame right now if just that was in place.
Instead the leagues blindly followed along with a revenue model that has left them susceptible to destruction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This isn’t the time to deal with all the issues surrounding the BCS or explain how a 16-team playoff works (on the field or in the checkbook). I’ve covered it extensively in the past and helped write a book on the subject – “Death to the BCS,” due out in October. Sorry for the shameless plug, but when I say it takes an entire book to show all the scams and lies that really power the system, I mean it.
Just know this, the BCS offers not a single, real world, tangible benefit to college athletics. Its only defense is that it’s better than the old system, which isn’t saying much.
Financially is where it performs most poorly. The current bowl system/BCS generated $220 million in gross revenue in 2008-09 and just $140 million in profit due to the high cost of keeping most bowl games afloat. If this sounds good, it isn’t.
Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany talks with the media during a news conference in May in Chicago.
(AP Photo)
Delany estimates a playoff could gross $880 million. The more conservative, yet exhaustively researched estimate we used in the book comes in at around $780 million. In each case profits would exceed $700 million, meaning the BCS is costing college athletics over half a billion in annual profit.
Delany was one of the people instrumental in hiring public relations flaks Ari Fleischer and Bill Hancock to spread factually bankrupt propaganda about the system in an effort to create the illusion of a debate – hey, maybe the BCS works! Please. It doesn’t. The current chaos is just the latest proof. The real purpose of the PR campaign was merely to buy time for the Big Ten Network to get fully operational.
The BCS has killed everyone financially. It’s killed them to the point only a dozen or so schools break even each year on athletics. Most athletic departments need student fees or taxpayer funded general university budgets to cover expenses (nearly $900 million combined in 2008-09 according to USA Today).
That includes even Big Ten schools such as Illinois ($4.5 million), Wisconsin ($3.4 million) and Minnesota ($3.4 million). Even a powerhouse such as Ohio State needed to raise ticket prices this year to balance future books.
All while that pile of playoff money sat there, untapped.
Protecting the BCS wasn’t about greed. It wasn’t about determining a real champion. It was about power. Now the Pac-10 and Big Ten have it.
The 16-team playoff was the only route to save the Big 12, Big East and likely the ACC as its now constructed. Under our detailed plan (essentially the NCAA’s model for lower divisions), every time a team plays a game it would receive a share of revenue, in this case $25 million.
Consider the 2008-09 season where Big 12 members Oklahoma, Texas and Texas Tech all would’ve been selected. If the seeds held, those clubs would’ve combined to play nine playoff games meaning the league would’ve walked with $225 million in revenue. The conference then could’ve written each league school an $18.75 million check just from the playoff. That year the Big Ten would’ve earned just three shares for $75 million, a per team share of $6.8 million.
If that’s happening, do you think Missouri and Nebraska still want out? You think the Big Ten’s TV revenue advantage still matters?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This all goes back to the cost of inaction, the penalty for not dealing with the sport’s most pressing problem.
There should be no reason for these leagues to expand (other than the Big Ten adding one team).
Sixteen-team leagues won’t make life better for anyone. They’ll likely prove to be logistical and philosophical wars. The commissioners have sold the public on the idea that more money is always a good thing – using the fail-proof, if unproven, “it’s good for recruiting” line. Here’s the thing, if all your rivals build a new weight room, then recruits aren’t impressed with a new weight room.
It won’t be better for fans or players or even, in many regards, coaches, who will face greater demands for success. More money only means something to the small group of people (athletic directors, commissioners, coaches) who will see their already huge salaries grow, will be able to charter more private planes and will continue to justify remodeling their already opulent “facilities.”
If you’re a powerhouse in your league, why would you want to change anything? It isn’t getting better for Texas and Oklahoma than the current Big 12, where the two programs have reached five of the last seven BCS title games.
If you’re in the middle of the pack, why would you add more competition in recruiting and a watered-down schedule? If you’re Minnesota or Northwestern and trying to sell tickets, do you want more Rutgers home games and less Ohio State? Or to deal with Nebraska recruiting the Twin Cities or Chicagoland?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It’s almost assuredly too late for the Big 12 and the Big East to make the bold moves that could save them.
Marinatto They could try though. If Beebe and current Big East commissioner John Marinatto want to display real leadership, they can tell their current members to sit tight and allow them to build a consensus for a real football postseason that will solve all their revenue problems. They need to stand up and declare Armageddon is here and it’s time to get serious. The other leagues and Notre Dame would be all for it. The SEC and ACC would be smart to approve simply as a defense against Big Ten and Pac-10 aggression. Or in the ACC’s case, the inevitable SEC pillaging of its teams.
Go ahead and dare the Big Ten and Pac-10 to not come along. See how long Gordon Gee lasts as Ohio State president when he tells Buckeye fans they will no longer be competing for the national title. In the meantime, send your recruiters to Cleveland and Detroit.
A 16-team playoff could be up and running by 2014 – which would immediately change all the revenue models.
Then Beebe could show that teams such as Nebraska and Texas could make more money while enjoying a clearer road to that thrilling postseason by staying home. He would be able to offer a future that’s brighter than the one offered by the Big Ten or Pac-10.
At the end of the day this has always been about the BCS and billions in revenue it has cost cash-starved college athletics.
Jim Delany just didn’t tell his peers. And they weren’t smart enough to figure it out themselves.
Okay, so I'm not too surprised the MWC didn't invite Boise state today. About two weeks ago, word on the street was that 7 of the MWC's presidents were on board to invite Boise st. That's enough to get them invited. However, due to this weekend's developments, when they actually voted on it only 5 of the 9 voted to invite boise. One of the teams to change their mind is believed to be a bottom dweller in the conference and the other is believed to be Utah. I'm not surprised if it was indeed Utah. They're doing everything they can to get an invite to the Pac 10 and they're still in a wait and see mode.
However, I believe the MWC will extend an invite within the next 3 weeks. The problem with Boise is that they don't add anything the MWC other than football. All their other sports and academics suck in comparison to the other MWC teams. The only reason the MWC would extend the invite in the first place is because the MWC believes they will bolster the conferences strength of football possibly or probably leading to becoming an auto qualifying BCS league (assuming that conference expansion doesn't happen).
Here is an interesting tweet from the guy responsible for dishing out all the good rumors and truths the past few days regarding expansion.....
"The Mountain West's decision to stand pat was pretty telling. Likely future home of any Big 12 refugees."
However, I believe the MWC will extend an invite within the next 3 weeks. The problem with Boise is that they don't add anything the MWC other than football. All their other sports and academics suck in comparison to the other MWC teams. The only reason the MWC would extend the invite in the first place is because the MWC believes they will bolster the conferences strength of football possibly or probably leading to becoming an auto qualifying BCS league (assuming that conference expansion doesn't happen).
Here is an interesting tweet from the guy responsible for dishing out all the good rumors and truths the past few days regarding expansion.....
"The Mountain West's decision to stand pat was pretty telling. Likely future home of any Big 12 refugees."
Well yea, It's about Money and Football. The only reason most of these schools consider going to the B10 is because the equal distribution of conference money amongst teams.
you feel the same way about the bcs then? this aint exactly a new tune ncaa football is dancing to. just a new beat
Yeah the BCS is crap to just earn more money for the power conferences. Should be a 16-32 team playoff. The bowl season takes around 2 weeks to complete with an extra 4 weeks of practice between games. Make the playoff 6 weeks long or 42 days. with 32 teams you would need 6 rounds, with 16, 5 rounds with 32 teams that's one game a week. with 16 that's one week off and then 1 game a week. Or you can make it a game every 5 days or so. and give them even more rest. It would be college football month, like march madness, and easily rake in more money than the BCS.
Indeed sir. In thunda's post it explained how the BCS is already costing them around half a billion in profits that they could be making from a playoff. The BCS offers not one single benefit to college football. Not even money.
I always here people say that they should just move to a playoff.... but there will still be the last few teams shafted by not making it to the playoffs. You will still have to have some sort of voting system (or even the BCS) to determine who gets into the playoffs.
I know the BCS isn't perfect, but it does a pretty good job. It also has a section built in considering human voting. And with all this talk of conference rearranging, you can't tell me that someone like Utah or Boise St. can't get into a major conference. There are always whiners out there and the vast majority of these smaller schools are just that - WHINERS. Until those schools start actively seeking membership in major football conferences, I don't think they do deserve a shot at the national championship. They are still getting millions for going to a BCS bowl
I know the BCS isn't perfect, but it does a pretty good job. It also has a section built in considering human voting. And with all this talk of conference rearranging, you can't tell me that someone like Utah or Boise St. can't get into a major conference. There are always whiners out there and the vast majority of these smaller schools are just that - WHINERS. Until those schools start actively seeking membership in major football conferences, I don't think they do deserve a shot at the national championship. They are still getting millions for going to a BCS bowl
Was Watching The Herd this morning and Colin mentioned a very telling stat. UNC, which is the highest money producing brand in college basketball, produces around 17 mill a year. Texas football produces 17 million in 2 games, and not major games like Oklahoma or tech. Games like Oklahoma State and North texas.
If I hear Obama say that he is getting involved one more time then I'm moving to Europe... shouldn't he be worrying about our declining economy or the giant oil spill in the gulf? Perhaps the mob of terrorists running freely around our community with full citizenship?
I always here people say that they should just move to a playoff.... but there will still be the last few teams shafted by not making it to the playoffs. You will still have to have some sort of voting system (or even the BCS) to determine who gets into the playoffs.
I know the BCS isn't perfect, but it does a pretty good job. It also has a section built in considering human voting. And with all this talk of conference rearranging, you can't tell me that someone like Utah or Boise St. can't get into a major conference. There are always whiners out there and the vast majority of these smaller schools are just that - WHINERS. Until those schools start actively seeking membership in major football conferences, I don't think they do deserve a shot at the national championship. They are still getting millions for going to a BCS bowl
Hasn't Boise State been trying to get into bigger conferences for a few years now?
nothing that I've heard of, I could have missed a bit though. I will give them partial credit because they have stepped up their out of conference games the last few seasons. However, when they do it, they still refuse to do a 1-and-1. They are only willing to do one time matches on neutral soil. That way they get loads of money (from revenue and the large schools they play) and in the off chance that they get a victory, they don't give the other team any sort of chance at redemption.
Virginia Tech's opening game this coming year is against Boise St. and they would not agree to a 1-and-1 and furthermore, they would only do it if it was at Fed Ex feild (redskins stadium) and if VT paid them over 3 million.
I know alot about Boise States position. They are all for a 1 and 1 deal with the big boys (meaning a home and home series). However, most of the big boys will not return the favor and play AT Boise State. That's what Boise State wants. The BCS teams want a 1 and done deal and many BCS teams won't even schedule boise state. This is the issue Boise St. is facing every year. Every year, everyone tells Boise State, BYU, Utah, TCU, and a few other Non AQ schools to play more BCS teams out of conference. They are but they are struggling to find many BCS teams that will schedule them or will schedule a home and home series.
These Non-BCS teams like Boise, BYU, Utah, TCU have proven on the field that they can compete with the big boys. They feel they should be given a home and home series with teams from BCS conferences. And why shouldn't they feel this way. We all saw Boise State beat Oregon, BYU beat Oklahoma and pound 2nd place Oregon State in the bowl game, Utah crushed Cal, TCU beat Virginia, ACC conference champ runner up Clemson on their own fields. You can go back every year for these schools and see the same results. BYU actually has a national championship from 1984 and has had some amazing teams starting in the late 1970's to now. All they want is a fair chance to prove themselves and play with the "big boys". Afterall, why should teams like Washington State, Washington, UCLA, Iowa State, Baylor, KU, Duke, Vanderbilt etc. etc. be given the respect that BCS conferences receive? They haven't done crap lately. I mean...BYU beat ucla 59-0 two years ago. Iowa State hasn't been any good in football since the 1800's.
Similar threads
