Candidates for Big Ten Expansion

[cashisking884]

Television will have a HUGE say as to how this will go down.

So imagine ESPN, CBS, FOX, NBC and ABC and streaming companies like Amazon and Apple (and whomever else is out there), bidding for the TV rights for only two super conferences? Some big time network is going to be left out as well. So to satisfy everyone and make sure there is enough to go around, there will be 3-4 super conferences…

I go back to what I said before, people are not thinking this through and are in a panic. Pitt will be fine.

When the smoke clears, it will be The PAC 12, SEC, The Big Ten and the ACC, each with expanded teams….

You’re missing the point everybody is making.

We get that there will literally be more than two conferences. But so what? That doesn’t mean two conferences can’t just dwarf the other ones to the point where the other ones aren’t really playing what anybody considers to be meaningful college football.

You saying, “well Fox will never let that happen” is saying absolutely nothing. Fox couldn’t keep its two prized possessions from leaving.

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

The future of College Football is about brands not markets. If a school wants to stay relevant and be prepared for the future they need to be building their brand nationally.

This is the hill college athletics will die on. Way too much talk of "brand" for minor league athletics. Once college football isn't college football anymore, the brand of an inferior product won't matter.

 

[Phillypanther2]

BULLSH*T…Your view is shortsighted and predictable. Doom, gloom and it’s ALWAYS bad for Pitt. Everybody and their dog can’t jam into the SEC and Big Ten. There has to be two more viable conferences. If not the super conferences will need to be more than 40 - 48 teams.

You’re stupid act is getting old and tiresome. Get another schtick or get a life, Bozo….

A little too much caffeine this morning?

 

[pafootballguy]

Your assumption doesn't make sense. How does attaching themselves to those other schools make Texas a better brand when their brand is already number one? Part of their brand is being able to dictate terms in their own corner of the world. If anything, this move hurts their brand in the long run because they won't be the big fish in the pond anymore. They'll just be another fish along with their old conference chums like Arkansas, A&M, and Mizzou. If they can't find a way to be successful, they risk ending up like Nebraska.

It's probably very reasonable to assume that the Big12 wasn't going to grow the TV deal. Might have even been heading downward. Media markets still matter to the TV people who are paying the bills. Just still more people watching games in the north and east. With the LH network, UT was doing well but ESPN hasn't exactly been quiet about how much that deal has sucked for them. Less TV money was the reality UT was facing and there is no way to build the Big12 up with schools that matter. They tried and failed. The writing is on the wall so unless there is some way for them to unbalance revenue, they're leaving. Either way, UT views this as the only way to improve revenue while they still can.

I am not sure what you are not understanding, conferences expansion is now and in the future about bringing in the biggest brands they can into there leagues. This is a big shift over the last round of expansion which was about TV market size (Missouri, Rutgers, and Maryland). I don't really care about the individual reasons a school makes a jump to another conference, I am more interested in the motivation of the conferences themselves l.

It may be a failure for Texas but they get the benefits (recruiting) that come from being in the SEC.

 

[pafootballguy]

This is the hill college athletics will die on. Way too much talk of "brand" for minor league athletics. Once college football isn't college football anymore, the brand of an inferior product won't matter.

I agree this is bad for college football as a whole. College football became a national sport when there were competitive teams and conference distributed all over the country and now it is in danger of becoming a regional sport again.

 

[pittdan77]

I am not sure what you are not understanding, conferences expansion is now and in the future about bringing in the biggest brands they can into there leagues. This is a big shift over the last round of expansion which was about TV market size (Missouri, Rutgers, and Maryland). I don't really care about the individual reasons a school makes a jump to another conference, I am more interested in the motivation of the conferences themselves l.

It may be a failure for Texas but they get the benefits (recruiting) that come from being in the SEC.

I'm not sure you understand what you're saying because you were arguing that Texas was jumping to improve its brand. Now you're saying it's about the conference which is true. The SEC is trying to improve it's brand.

So far as recruiting goes, Texas isn't hurting for prized recruits. They can stay home for all but a few kids and have top 10 classes.

 

[pafootballguy]

I'm not sure you understand what you're saying because you were arguing that Texas was jumping to improve its brand. Now you're saying it's about the conference which is true. The SEC is trying to improve it's brand.

So far as recruiting goes, Texas isn't hurting for prized recruits. They can stay home for all but a few kids and have top 10 classes.

Texas brand does need a boost, look at recruiting ranks since A&M made the move to the SEC and look over the last few years. Texas is no longer the stand alone leader of college football in Texas.

 

[pittdan77]

Texas brand does need a boost, look at recruiting ranks since A&M made the move to the SEC and look over the last few years. Texas is no longer the stand alone leader of college football in Texas.

UT always has gotten the vast majority of the best players from the Texas. But if you look at the top talent in Texas that doesn't end up at UT, it's not running to the SEC unless it's A&M which has been true for a while. Also, tell me how the SEC is helping A&M with recruiting when NONE of the kids in their class are from other SEC states?

 

[pafootballguy]

UT always has gotten the vast majority of the best players from the Texas. But if you look at the top talent in Texas that doesn't end up at UT, it's not running to the SEC unless it's A&M which has been true for a while. Also, tell me how the SEC is helping A&M with recruiting when NONE of the kids in their class are from other SEC states?

Because kids from all over the country are flocking to play in the SEC.

Texas has been getting it's clock cleaned in recruiting.

 

[pittdan77]

Because kids from all over the country are flocking to play in the SEC.

Texas has been getting it's clock cleaned in recruiting.

They finished 3rd in 2018 & 2019, 8th in 2020, 15th in 2021, and are at 10 right now in the composite.

Texas is not getting its clock cleaned in recruiting.

 

[WannyandWalt]

The future of College Football is about brands not markets. If a school wants to stay relevant and be prepared for the future they need to be building their brand nationally.

So we are done soon then ?

 

[pafootballguy]

They finished 3rd in 2018 & 2019, 8th in 2020, 15th in 2021, and are at 10 right now in the composite.

Texas is not getting its clock cleaned in recruiting.

Anything outside the top 5 is not good Texas and they are not having enough success in state.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

Anything outside the top 5 is not good Texas and they are not having enough success in state.

Pretty sure Enabler U is spending top 5 $$ on coaching sooooooo

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

Colin Cowherd Reacts To Developing Big Ten Rumor

www.msn.com

“Heard today from several people that B1G only would be interested in adding schools from the AAU (Nebraska no longer, but was when it joined league). Texas is AAU member, along with Pac-12 schools like Cal, Washington, Colorado, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Stanford. Oklahoma is not AAU,” Rittenberg reported. “Notre Dame obviously would be an exception.”

 

[TheSpecialSauce]

But everyone in the conference knew they were getting tossed from the AAU, and the push to remove them was made by Michigan.

The B10 has also been after ND forever, which is not an AAU.

AAU isn't a requirement for the B10. It just so happens all but one of their members are in the AAU and bloggers picked up on this similar characteristic. No one knew what the heck the AAU was before conference realignment became click bait. It is always a preference for any conference to have like institutions be members, and AAU schools are similar in other characteristics to most of their membership, but the Big 10 has certainly demonstrated that it is not a requirement.

It isn’t a written requirement, but there are very few exceptions. I would not be surprised to see the top AAU schools from the Pac12 join with the Big10.

 

[CrazyPaco]

It isn’t a written requirement, but there are very few exceptions. I would not be surprised to see the top AAU schools from the Pac12 join with the Big10.

There are only few exceptions because they formed the conference before any of this mattered to anyone and the Big 10 is historically comprised of large land grant schools with large graduate/research enterprises that ended up in the AAU. For instance, Michigan State was added to the Big10 14 years before it was admitted to the AAU. If Texas and Oklahoma were available, they'd take non-AAU Oklahoma with Texas, just like they took Nebraska knowing well ahead of time they were going to be out of the AAU two minutes after they joined the conference. Institutionally, OU looks nearly identical to UNL. Someone stating that UNL was AAU when they joined the Big10, as if it confirms some requirement, is major historical whitewashing of what actually went down. They'd take ND in a second, and have tried repeatedly for decades, because ND would make them a boat load of money, but ND doesn't look anything like the other Big10 institutions and will never have AAU status. They did not take Pitt, despite it being top 10 research institution in the gold standard of federal R&D obligations.

I also wouldn't be surprised if the AAU schools in the Pac12 was approached by the B10, but not so much because they're "AAU," but because they are firstly the best athletic programs on the West Coast. Non-AAU schools like Washington State and Oregon State are cast-aways athletically. It is a bonus that the better West coast athletic schools are the better academic schools. Usually the two go hand in hand because the schools with better academic reputations have more resources to bring to bear on athletics. For athletic conferences, whose business is athletics only, it's about athletics 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. Institutional fit helps the pill of expansion go down better for the academic administrators that are involved in the process, but academics prowess of an expansion candidate is primarily a bonus point useful for grandiose college president press releases and academic back patting that dilutes the modern stench of a money grab.

That said, there's only so much tolerance on the academic side for less academically established because they aren't in a must take situation. The Big 10 is not going to take a school so academically far off the map, like a Boise State, even if they performed on the field like Clemson. For instance, there is no way the ACC was taking a school like Louisville, until it absolutely had to. Situations change. The Big 10 isn't anything near survival mode. The B10 can select.

But the fact that there are no major football programs left out there that the B10 would realistically select to improve its financial situation, that aren't already AAU schools, doesn't mean that it is a condition of membership; rather it is a corollary of the institutional qualities they are already looking for in potential members: big, resourced, moneyed, powerful, stable.

 

[pittchagg]

A few thoughts:

(1) I think the person who said that brands are more important than markets is correct. The Big Ten made a pretty big long-term mistake in being so focused on TV markets when it added Rutgers and Maryland (moreso Rutgers). Sure, they added a bunch of TV sets in New Jersey...but a lot of those TV sets don’t subscribe to cable anymore, and that was pretty much the only thing bringing a school like Rutgers to the table.

(2) so what does a school bring to the table besides raw potential television subscribers? Things like brand loyalty, which means future *streaming* subscribers, regardless of the state where they’re located. Texas was ahead on this with the Longhorn Network, but it failed by relying on the old “surcharge on cable Bill” model. Notre Dame is now trying to do it via streaming with Fighting Irish TV. But Texas fans subscribing to ESPN+ because it has Longhorn Network is really what they’re shooting for.

(3) how else can a school bring value? By being good and helping to improve the quality of play in the conference. A whole lot more unaffiliated fans tune in to watch two ranked teams playing a conference game than they watch a ranked team beat a lousy one. Nobody new is tuning in to watch #2 Ohio State beat the brakes off of Kansas, but they might tune in to watch #2 Ohio State play #14 Oklahoma State. Teams ebb and flow between being good and bad, sure, but being consistently good (in all sports, but mostly football and basketball) is huge.

(4) a school has to make logistic sense. Covid changed a ton with athletic department finances. No school wants to sign up to start chartering planes for all of their teams to go from Boston to College Station or Stillwater. Sure, they’ll do it in football or basketball and make their money back, but it’s a huge sink for schools to send the rest of their teams to these far-flung areas. At the end of the day, Texas and Oklahoma are still contiguous states to the SEC footprint, and that’s important. But I’m positive that Penn State loves the financials of being able to bus their soccer teams to Rutgers or Maryland versus flying them out to Iowa City.

(5) so what does that mean for college sports? I think you’ll end up seeing two rough partnerships - you’ll see the Fox conferences (B1G and PAC-12) and the ABC/ESPN conferences (SEC and ACC), with each having their own subscription service for $15 a month. You’ll see teams from those two conference pairings play each other more OOC to maximize revenue, and things like that. The B12 teams will get scooped up by conferences in one of those two groups.

(6) so what should the ACC do? I think the answer’s obvious: hope like hell that Notre Dame runs into the Longhorn Network problem and doesn’t see massive subscribers for FITV (but enough subscribers that ABC/ESPN believe that they’d get a sizable bump from ND fans by adding it to their service), and that they join the ACC as a full member. You also add West Virginia - the teams are good and would raise the quality of play in the conference, the brand is solid (Nike wouldn’t have made them an Elite basketball school if they weren’t making money out of it), and it makes logistic sense. I don’t think that’s necessarily a great thing for Pitt (except for adding quality games that the fanbases would care about), but I think it’s a net positive for the conference.

 

[9nationalchampionships]

Reputable schools have sold there soul for sports $$$. AAU no longer matters.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Nobody new is tuning in to watch #2 Ohio State beat the brakes off of Kansas

Actually lots and lots of people would, which is why games like Ohio State - Purdue are frequently Fox national network games.

 

[CrazyPaco]

A few thoughts:

(1) I think the person who said that brands are more important than markets is correct. The Big Ten made a pretty big long-term mistake in being so focused on TV markets when it added Rutgers and Maryland (moreso Rutgers). Sure, they added a bunch of TV sets in New Jersey...but a lot of those TV sets don’t subscribe to cable anymore, and that was pretty much the only thing bringing a school like Rutgers to the table.

(2) so what does a school bring to the table besides raw potential television subscribers? Things like brand loyalty, which means future *streaming* subscribers, regardless of the state where they’re located. Texas was ahead on this with the Longhorn Network, but it failed by relying on the old “surcharge on cable Bill” model. Notre Dame is now trying to do it via streaming with Fighting Irish TV. But Texas fans subscribing to ESPN+ because it has Longhorn Network is really what they’re shooting for.

(3) how else can a school bring value? By being good and helping to improve the quality of play in the conference. A whole lot more unaffiliated fans tune in to watch two ranked teams playing a conference game than they watch a ranked team beat a lousy one. Nobody new is tuning in to watch #2 Ohio State beat the brakes off of Kansas, but they might tune in to watch #2 Ohio State play #14 Oklahoma State. Teams ebb and flow between being good and bad, sure, but being consistently good (in all sports, but mostly football and basketball) is huge.

(4) a school has to make logistic sense. Covid changed a ton with athletic department finances. No school wants to sign up to start chartering planes for all of their teams to go from Boston to College Station or Stillwater. Sure, they’ll do it in football or basketball and make their money back, but it’s a huge sink for schools to send the rest of their teams to these far-flung areas. At the end of the day, Texas and Oklahoma are still contiguous states to the SEC footprint, and that’s important. But I’m positive that Penn State loves the financials of being able to bus their soccer teams to Rutgers or Maryland versus flying them out to Iowa City.

(5) so what does that mean for college sports? I think you’ll end up seeing two rough partnerships - you’ll see the Fox conferences (B1G and PAC-12) and the ABC/ESPN conferences (SEC and ACC), with each having their own subscription service for $15 a month. You’ll see teams from those two conference pairings play each other more OOC to maximize revenue, and things like that. The B12 teams will get scooped up by conferences in one of those two groups.

(6) so what should the ACC do? I think the answer’s obvious: hope like hell that Notre Dame runs into the Longhorn Network problem and doesn’t see massive subscribers for FITV (but enough subscribers that ABC/ESPN believe that they’d get a sizable bump from ND fans by adding it to their service), and that they join the ACC as a full member. You also add West Virginia - the teams are good and would raise the quality of play in the conference, the brand is solid (Nike wouldn’t have made them an Elite basketball school if they weren’t making money out of it), and it makes logistic sense. I don’t think that’s necessarily a great thing for Pitt (except for adding quality games that the fanbases would care about), but I think it’s a net positive for the conference.

FITV isn't going to make any money. All of ND's non-football sports, except hockey, are with the ACC and the ACC Network. All FITV will have is throw away NBC content like football replays, highlights, press conferences, maybe some coaches shows, and those sorts of things. It's like the Penguins app, or similar. It won't have live sports content.

 

[TD_6082]

Texas is not making this move for the money they are hoping the SEC will be the boast they need to the football program.

It would suck to be Texas in the Big 12.

They play OU in Dallas every year, which means their home schedule is mostly garbage. TCU, TX Tech, Baylor, etc... their season is made if they beat the Horns. To Texas, those games yield little to no reward if they win. And it's the same thing year, after year, after year.

At least this adds some spice to their schedule and should renew their rivalry with the Aggies.

 

[WVUinColumbus]

It would suck to be Texas in the Big 12.

They play OU in Dallas every year, which means their home schedule is mostly garbage. TCU, TX Tech, Baylor, etc... their season is made if they beat the Horns. To Texas, those games yield little to no reward if they win. And it's the same thing year, after year, after year.

At least this adds some spice to their schedule and should renew their rivalry with the Aggies.

3 of the Austin WVU games were amazing. But your point stands.

 

[jpoppa]

IDK. Pitt’s fan base is no worse than, say, Miami’s is. I’ve been there to see Pitt play. The crowd was WORSE than when Miami plays at Pitt.

It’s about TV appeal now. Not necessarily about in game attendance. In game attendance is Pitt’s problem in terms of generating revenue. The ACC isn’t worried about that. They need to be concerned about TV contracts. ACC programs like Miami, Duke, WF, BC, Syracuse, even UVA, struggle with in game attendance as much - or even more - than Pitt does.

I’d love to see Pitt draw more. So would the Pitt athletic dept. People in the area Pitt draws from want a winner and an “event” (2003 was the high water mark, with Larry Fitz; high pre-season expectations and a great home schedule). Until/unless they get it, Pitt will draw the same crowds as they do now. But that doesn’t necessarily impact what matters most: the tv ratings

FYI and Off record but Larry Fitzgerald was one of the best receivers I have ever seen before. I remember him going up between two of our defenders and just take the ball away like a grown man with all his other catches that day. I would rank him number one receiver I have ever saw at Mountaineer field.

 

[revampedpanthers]

This is the hill college athletics will die on. Way too much talk of "brand" for minor league athletics. Once college football isn't college football anymore, the brand of an inferior product won't matter.

And if they become to small say 28 teams in a power conference they could see a ratings drop as many fans of say Pitt,wvu, Indiana etc etc fans of teams no longer in big boy fb quit watching. I know if Pitt is no longer a player in a major conference I will watch less college football and I have to think many others will as well. It's something that has happened in baseball as well. Pirate fans aren't just running out of pirate games they aren't watching the Yankees/ red Sox either. Sure the style of play has a lot to do with it but one of the reasons for the NFL's success is a fan of all 32 teams can believe that there team has a fair shot. Then when their team loses they tune in to watch other games

 

[WannyandWalt]

And if they become to small say 28 teams in a power conference they could see a ratings drop as many fans of say Pitt,wvu, Indiana etc etc fans of teams no longer in big boy fb quit watching. I know if Pitt is no longer a player in a major conference I will watch less college football and I have to think many others will as well. It's something that has happened in baseball as well. Pirate fans aren't just running out of pirate games they aren't watching the Yankees/ red Sox either. Sure the style of play has a lot to do with it but one of the reasons for the NFL's success is a fan of all 32 teams can believe that there team has a fair shot. Then when their team loses they tune in to watch other games

Great point , a big hit , do the networks want this ? There needs to be 4/16 team conferences, geographic make up and use a governing body, not NCAA, as what the NFL does , like as a template, and go from there. Yes wishful thinking ...

 

[Gunga_Galunga]

And if they become to small say 28 teams in a power conference they could see a ratings drop as many fans of say Pitt,wvu, Indiana etc etc fans of teams no longer in big boy fb quit watching. I know if Pitt is no longer a player in a major conference I will watch less college football and I have to think many others will as well. It's something that has happened in baseball as well. Pirate fans aren't just running out of pirate games they aren't watching the Yankees/ red Sox either. Sure the style of play has a lot to do with it but one of the reasons for the NFL's success is a fan of all 32 teams can believe that there team has a fair shot. Then when their team loses they tune in to watch other games

Right. Everyone on this board is pretty much a die hard and there are many saying they'll lose interest, including me. This will permeate through other fanbases. The casual Pitt fan will be gone, as will the casual fans of every other Pitt like program.

 

[pittdan77]

Anything outside the top 5 is not good Texas and they are not having enough success in state.

Okay, LOL. If you say so.

 

[cashisking884]

but one of the reasons for the NFL's success is a fan of all 32 teams can believe that there team has a fair shot. Then when their team loses they tune in to watch other games

The NFL selectively picks its markets. The NFL wouldn’t go somewhere today with the equivalent of a Syracuse type fan base. And it constantly struggles with what to do with those legacy teams that most closely mirror that fan base (Buffalo for example seems to always be on its way out of Buffalo).

But what you’re talking about really has nothing to do with Super Conferences. Plenty of people on this board talk about how they have less and less interest every year, and we’re currently in a major conference with a theoretical shot of winning the NC. And the reason they frequently give is a lack fo parity and the gulf between us and having any realistic shot of winning a NC.

Teams with smaller fan bases that have become alienated from college football due to a lack of competitive balance, aren’t watching college football in great enough numbers *today*. Look at the top watched college football games of 2020 or 2019 or 2018, etc. They all involve teams that will be in any potential super conference.

The fans people on this board are talking about, are already a sunken cost. They are already a lost cause even before the Super Conferences.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

if this aau thing is a pre-requisite, and the big 10 wants to stay in the same universe as the sec, usc and some pac 12 partner would be it. ND has said no to everyone a thousand times so that's it. unc/uva wouldnt do a thing and quite frankly, if they left the acc, we could easily replace them without losing a second of sleep..

 

[pafootballguy]

Okay, LOL. If you say so.

You can laugh all you want but Texas expects to recruit at the highest levels, compete, and win national titles and they believe the SEC brand provides them a better opportunity to do that.

 

[pittdan77]

You can laugh all you want but Texas expects to recruit at the highest levels, compete, and win national titles and they believe the SEC brand provides them a better opportunity to do that.

I mean, they already are recruiting at the highest level. They’re moving to the SEC because they were going to take a huge cut in revenue. It’s that simple. You’re trying to make this more than what it is.

 

[Zeldas Open Roof]

You can laugh all you want but Texas expects to recruit at the highest levels, compete, and win national titles and they believe the SEC brand provides them a better opportunity to do that.

Texas’ problems and what is holding them back isn’t the big 12, it’s themselves. They pulled in 220million in 2019, so is the sec brand going to make them win more games?

They recruit well now, they had the 4th best class in ‘19, 4th best class in 2018. Any failures by Texas is their own doing.

Playing a harder schedule in the sec isn’t going to help their national championship chances.