The Big Ten could stand pat but in the end I see them acting. By inviting Kansas and Missouri the B1G adds two AAU schools along with one of the fiercest and oldest rivalries in the country, which only adds to the reputation of the conference for having such traditionally rich rivalries. Also, you boost the market area for the Big Ten Network by adding the St. Louis and Kansas City markets while increasing the basketball brand with those schools.

I don't see the $20 million fee being a HUGE obstacle for ACC teams. If they join the SEC or B1G, they could easily recoup that money in a year. That's why I see Boston College leaving for the Big Ten if they receive an invite to pair with Notre Dame. Adds the Boston television market and a prestigious academic university while being a solid addition for athletics. It also adds to the Big Ten rivalries with Notre Dame having rivalries with Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue to go along with the BC/ND rivalry.

That would still leave UConn and Rutgers going to the ACC.

really, I think that for the Big Ten, they might be very slow to make a move. Think about it: Kansas is not Big Ten material. If they were, they'd be Pac12 material as that is a lower league in most eyes. Kansas is a school you add when you have no other options. Kansas is the school, the top one, that you add to the Big East. Is Kansas going to give the Big Ten schools anything worthwhile? A project school like Rutgers has a thousand times more value just for the chance of NY/NJ penetration. That 1% of TVs in the NY and NJ area is gonna do more based on the demographic than 10% of every TV in Kansas. And 10% is being generous...likely more like 40%

_________________


@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.

Are you touched? Ku has nothing to add to the Big Ten. Really? They have a national tv brand with basketball. I realize conference realignment is not about that sport but KU sports gross more in revenue than over half of the Big ten ( gross revenue is raniked in the top 25 of all colleges almost every year). KU has value, more so than anyone else once OU and UT leave. OU and UT have enough clout to bring their little bros along to the PAC. They are both better or equal brands, in terms of value, than OSU or Michigan. KU does not bring the market that MU or Rutgers brings, however, media markiets don't mean a thing if no one watches. The big 12 learned that when CU left. When the Big 12 entered into the, soon to be defunct, big 12 contract with fox, we learned that CU was costing the conference money because noone in Denver cares about CU (unless they are playing CSU). Yeah KU football is down, but they won a BCS gowl game just a few years ago. If KSU does not land in a BCS conference than KU will be the one competitive school in the state (which has been a problem all along). KU is a member of AAU and they will generate more media contracts in B-Ball than any school in the Big 10. You have bottom feeders. If KU joins they will not be among them. They grossed between 85 mil and 75 mill over the last five years in sports revenue. Does Rutgers bring this much to the table? How about UCONN? We were given a BCS bowl over MU a few years ago because our fans travel better. Yes KU will need to step in football, but the Big 10 is not the SEC nor the current Big 12 (NE would be the fourth best team in the Big 12 this year, but they are the Big's best team). KU makes 20 million plus more than KSU, Tech, ISU ect. in media contracts ect. Aside from OSU and MIchgan State the Big ten
s basket ball is laughable. Why don't they change that. right now Kentucky and Kansas are the only teams not in the ACC (or going to the ACC) that are relevent, historic b-ball power houses. So keep on saying that the Big gains nothing from Kansas. Honestly, based on the arogance of BIG TEN fans, I would rather go to the SEC, which is culturally retarded for KU, and at least be able to play UK every year in B Ball. Their is value in that.

If one were to compare Kansas to Troy, WKU, Akron and others, yes, Kansas is a good option. Compare them to Memphis and lower tier CUSA schools and yes, Kansas is a good option.

Compare Kansas to Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., every ACC school, perhaps some Big East schools, perhaps even Missouri and NO, Kansas is not a good option.

Why? Because expansion is driven by football television money.

There is no financial incentive for the Big Ten to expand with Kansas. And the moment the Big 12 implodes, the Kansas brand will be worth even less. Now, if something happened and the NCAA REQUIRED the Big Ten to expand to 16, then that is different. At that point, if no ACC schools were in the mix, and a gun is held to the Big Ten's head, then sure, Kansas would make sense.

But I cannot envision an economic scenario in which voluntarily adding Kansas to the Big Ten, would generate more revenue to the Big Ten schools. I am sorry, but Kansas football is not something people line up for...and it's football that drives expansion decisions. And without the market incentive, why take something that has proven not to work in the Big 8 and Big 12, and pass on that which at least has a market incentive, that if it didn't work, would still be more valuable to the revneue figurees.

_________________


@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.

Adding Kansas was an idea I've thought about but the more I think about it the more I don't see it happening. As Quinn pointed out, the market just isn't there and something I have to keep in mind is that two things drive expansion: football and markets. Kansas adds neither. If the Big Ten were to expand to 16 I think the most likely teams would be Notre Dame, Boston College, Rutgers, and Missouri.

I could be wrong about Boston College especially now with the additions of two former Big East schools and with UConn pining for membership into the ACC as well. Notre Dame could also be out the picture because they could still remain an independent while still keeping their non-football sports in a basketball only Big East. Given that scenario of ND & BC not joining then Kansas becomes an attractive option but the B1G could just as easily stay pat at 14 teams with just Missouri and Rutgers being added.

If the Big Ten expands at all, I feel their best options would be to go with Notre Dame and Missouri. Some would say Rutgers for their market, but Rutgers was a rumored candidate last year as well and the Big Ten went with Nebraska! ND and Missouri will provide both competitive teams and viewers, as well as fit in nicely academically. They can still be called the Big Ten, where "Ten" would refer to the number of states that the conference has a presence in. Also, the Tigers and Fighting Irish fit in nicely to my "Animals" vs. "People and Nuts" divisions for the Big Ten:

Animals:
Michigan
Iowa
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Northwestern
Penn State
Missouri

People and Nuts:
Michigan State
Nebraska
Purdue
Indiana
Illinois
Notre Dame
Ohio State

Far Better than Legends and Leaders. East to remember, they don't start w/ the same letter. Leg & lead=to South div & Southwest div.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

Quinn, if you think Mizzou isn't good enough, what about the B1G moving now to add Maryland and Rutgers before ND joins the ACC, making it hard to see any school leave after that.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

It's not about passing judgement on a school being good enough. All that matters is that in the end, a conference only expands if it improves their value (value determined primarily by revenue, but for the Big Ten, they made it clear academics are a factor...hence they rejected Oklahoma).

I don't see any schools that would 100% for sure prove to give the Big Ten the type of revenue they would need to IMPROVE the per-school payout. Remember, not only do they make a killing on the regular season contract, but they make all that Fox money for the championship game. So that's what, roughly $20 million regular season per school and an additional 2/14th of the $24 million per year from Fox (championship game).
So all that matters is this: can the Big Ten get an additional $40 million per year to pay the 2 new schools AND an additional $7 million per year from Fox...a total of roughly $47 million a year by adding ANY 2 schools available? Notre Dame could make that happen. Just don't think any other schools are a lock to do that...hence the Big Ten being slow on expansion. If something was a lock, they would have done it already, as they are and always will be due to their contracts, in a position of power. As for Maryland, who knows...maybe Maryland isn't a lock to generate the type of money. It's not like when people think college football power, Maryland is the school that comes to mind. And maybe Maryland is best off in the ACC for their own sake (money, relevancy, etc).

_________________


@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.

when I say good enough I mean make at least 1 dollar more per year by adding them.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

That's not the full question, the question is does the B1G get left behind if the PAC16, ACC16, and SEC14 all get to renegotiate their contracts once they add schools and divide up those allotted money that was going to the Big12/BigEast? If these new schools are pulling say 30 million per school while the B1G is getting 20 they will look foolish and naive...then if everyone else is making bank who does the B1G add? Kansas St, Iowa St, West Virginia, Cinncy? I doubt they will fetch them the same increase as Mizzou, Kansas, Rutgers, and UConn would. This is why I think like FSA that the B1G needs to expand at least to 14...

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Yes.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

If that were the case, and the Big Ten simply needed to make a move to remain in it's top spot, would that logic dictate that the Big Ten could STILL just cherry pick the schools they want. People throw around names like ACC schools, Big 12 schools, etc. But just liek Missouri, any school could just move to the Big Ten.

And if it were any type of priority, wouldn't the Big Ten leadership (that has been pretty dead on in setting the trends for the sports world) simply make a move now? Or already? Like last year?

_________________


@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.

Yes

Would they want to? If Mizzou went through everything last year and this year without more than a look from the B1G would they want to leave? If everyone gets PAID I don't think the B1G can just cherry pick anyone...some schools yes but what if ND joins the ACC with UConn and Rutgers (if FSU or Clemson go SEC) why would any of those Northeastern schools leave the new all East coast league to join a geographically awkward MidWest league, Pitt could to jump to be with Penn St, Mizzou could especially if they took Kansas but if they think they can wait and take ANY school they want (ND, Cuse, Rut, BC) then they are just arrogant.


1st SEC CCG 1992
1st Big 12 CCG 1996
1st WAC CCG 1996
1st MAC CCG 1997
1st ACC CCG 2005
1st CUSA CCG 2005
1st PAC12 CCG 2011
1st B1G CCG 2011
not exactly trendsetters 20 years later...I'll give you the BTN but still that was originally an idea that Keven Weinberg that he came up with with the Big 12 schools that he took with him when the Big Ten hired him after the Big12 couldn't agree on terms. BTW he is also the one who took the idea of the BTN and LHN to the PAC12 to make their national/regional network deals...

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

You're confusing important distinctions. If you don't feel that the Big Ten has been run as effectively or most effectively in the business of college sports, then there is nothing left to say. That's your opinion. My opinion is the one that falls in line more with the networks, where Fox gave the Big Ten more money for a single game than the entire Big East makes in a season. Where the per school annual revenue was tops in the NCAA. All while having what is considered the top academic conference in the NCAA after the Ivy League.

And yes, we're all well aware of Kevin Weiberg and his role with the BTN and as deputy of Pac12 for the past 2 years. But a network is hardly proprietary knowledge. In fact, it's not a stretch to say that the Big 12 might be one of the worst run conferences on record, if Weiberg "took" an idea originally from the Big12 in 2007, and over the span of 4 years, the Big 12 has yet to have it's own network.

_________________


@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.