In your scenario JP, the Mountain West loses its autobid for basketball since it fell below six schools-it would need at least six schools from Conference USA to retain it. The WAC also ceases to be an official FBS conference because it has fewer than eight FBS members. To keep the Mountain West compliant, perhaps they could add Tulane and SMU instead of the Metro, and get Rice as well:

Metro (10)
Cincinnati, Rutgers, West Virginia, South Florida, East Carolina, Central Florida, Memphis, UAB, Southern Miss, Marshall

Mountain West (12)
Mountain Division: Wyoming, San Diego St, Air Force, UNLV, New Mexico, Boise State
Western Division: Rice, Tulsa, SMU, Houston, Tulane, UTEP

WAC (8)
Hawaii, Fresno State, San Jose State, Nevada, Utah State, Idaho, New Mexico State, Louisiana Tech

MAC (13/12)
West Division: Northern Illinois, Ball State, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Toledo
East Division: Bowling Green, Miami-OH, Ohio, Kent, Akron, Buffalo, Temple (football only)

ESPN article discussing possible Big Ten expansion impact on the Big 12 with comments from Big 12 Commish Beebe who doesn't believe that he will lose any current members to the Big Ten.He says any differences on revenue sharing and the new tv contracts can be worked out by the time the new tv deals are finalized by the spring of 2011.
If the Big 12 has it's own tv network will that stop members from leaving?
Link at http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4755750

Article out of Omaha comparing Big 10 vs Big 12 revenues and Big 12 exit penalties.Link at http://www.omaha.com/article/20091225/SPORTS/712259910

Blog article(previously posted on another thread) out of Austin with comments(scroll down) from Texas AD who says that the Big 12 will likely not be affected by Big Ten expansion and that Texas will stay in the Big 12.Link at http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/ ... om_ne.html

The one positive of the Big 12 contract is that is is loaded for a team like Texas who will get the bulk of the Tv appearances. I'd be curious what their TV revenue was as a school compared to Big Ten schools.

It's amazing that the Big 12 and CUSA have something in common: the non-Texas schools seem to resent the ones in Texas.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Quinn,article out of Missouri(previously posted in another thread) with comments from MU AD who says that MU makes about $9 million per year in Big 12 revenue sharing,Texas makes about $12 million per year in Big 12 revenue sharing and Illinois(same as all Big Ten schools) makes over $20 million per year in Big Ten revenue sharing.The revenue sharing numbers would include tv revenue.Although the Big 12 numbers should rise after their new tv deal is negotiated and kicks in,the question is by how much?
Link at http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/200 ... temptation

I had forgotten that the Big 12 has that TV contract for four more years. Thanks for reposting it freaked.

Panther,thanks for the post.
There has been some confusion regarding the Big 12 tv contract renegotiation schedule.The FSN portion runs out after the 2011-2012 season while the ABC/ESPN portion is SCHEDULED to run until 2016.According to SBJ article(previously posted on this board) the Big 12 has a clause in that contract to allow it to be "altered" if they start a conference tv network.That is why we are apparently hearing from the Big 12 Commish that he is considering a league network in their new deals in 2011.Link at http://www.sportsbusinessjournal.com/article/63036

12 million in the Big 12 vs say 20 million in the Big Ten. I bet Texas benefits with their own deals (attendance, locally) by having 3 Texas and 2 Oklahoma teams scheduled each year. Texas is clearly one of the biggest fish in any pond in their own regards.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Thanks for the clarification freaked! I knew about the different expiration dates on the the contracts (ABC vs. FSN) but didn't know about the 'alteration' clause.

Freaked,
The figures you provided are informative and important, and may reflect why within the B12 there is some displeasure. It appears the revenue sharing formula have schools such as Texas & Oklahoma comparatively more happy with it based on "in conference" available revenue; while others, mostly in the north, not so pleased with the conference's distribution criteria. That's just an interpretation, though, since conferences tend to avoid "dirty laundry" issues being so open. But the distribution figures are there. But comparing to B10 earnings per school, has to make the B12 take notice as to what needs changed or developed.
While the B12 looks impressive in it's overall composition, it tends to still come across as a bit unsettled and a "marriage of convenience" though they are contiguous schools south to north. With the "south" largely dominating in fb, and others having fondness for the old Big Eight days, gelling, after all this time, doesn't look near perfect. There's some big egos, and others thankful for the ride.

It's so funny how there is resentment by the B12 north schools towards the south and CUSA East teams towards Cusa West (Texas).

Makes me almost wish there were some sort of 16 team expansions just to make everyone happy

SEC: adds Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St.
Big Ten: adds Missouri, Syracuse, Rutgers, Iowa St.
Pac 10: adds Utah, Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas
Big 12 leftovers Baylor, TTech, Kansas St could join CUSA.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

It's funny how every time this comes up, everyone in the media unveils their brilliant plans of realignments that "make sense" and divide into even groups with better geography.

Which will never happen because each conference is essentially a business and no one cares about making sense and geography. They care about money. It's survival of the fittest.

The Big 12 won't split if they lose one team. Because there's more money to made with a group of the big schools who hate each other than there is with smaller geographical rivals.

The Big 12 has no reason to split, if they lose a member, or two, they steal from the MWC or C-USA for the most profitable group they have.

The SEC and Big Ten are the top two conferences, by what matters in alignments: Revenue.
The Pac-10, Big 12, ACC are 3-5, and will do whatever they can to raise themselves above the other two into that #3 position.
The Big East is #6, the MWC is #7, and so on.

If the Big Ten takes Missouri, Syracuse and Rutgers; the Pac-10 takes Utah and Colorado, the Big 12 is better off just stealing BYU and Colorado State and trying to be #5 ahead of the Big East instead of splitting in half and each competing for #6 with the other half.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

Perhaps you missed the emoticon, as I was making a joke.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

I didn't mean you. I can clearly see that you get it. I just mean that the people in the media who like to redraw things based on geography like this is the NHL or MLB and present it like "the solution."

That's not a solution, its a fantasy... unless those top 40-80 teams leave the NCAA and form their own governing body, set up a sports league with equal geographic divisions. Which could happen... but probably not because they'd have to work together to make it lucrative.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942