Big 10 Report: Conference Realignment

[Mr. Laz]

A source in St. Louis familiar with the situation told NewsCenter 16 Thursday afternoon that Missouri will leave the Big XII and soon join the Big 10. Other schools expected to follow the Tigers are Syracuse, Pitt, Rutgers and Nebraska.

Many have speculated that such an expansion would include Notre Dame but ND athletic director Jack Swarbrick told me today that the Irish prefer to stay independent in football and in the Big East for other sports. Swarbrick said maintaining football Independence is such a part of what Notre Dame is.

He went on to say the Big East is a great partner for the University in other sports.

"We do have to monitor what is going on," Swarbrick said. "There will be significant shifts. "Hopefully we can navigate them by keeping our football independent and keeping our Big East affiliation because that is what we care about."

The move of Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers to the Big Ten from the Big East could categorically change the landscape of the Big East itself. Thus, what Swarbrick is referring to when stating the University must continue to monitor what is going on.

The interview with Swarbrick was done before the late afternoon announcement.

http://www.wndu.com/sports/headlines/92447574.html

[kchero]

Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry

Linky?

I second the motion.

[WoodDraw]

It's already been debunked. KOMU ran with a ESPN guy guessing about what would happen. They've already retracted, but the story has spread.

[Titty Meat]

Sweet Espn lied again

[Titty Meat]

Anyway Nebraska said they'll take the call http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...n=ncaaf,236834

[KcMizzou]

Pretty good read....

Big Ten Buzz: The Week that Was

By Dave Matter

Posted May 2, 2010 at 11:37 a.m.

This might have to become a weekly feature on the blog, a roundup of the latest coverage on the biggest storyline in college sports, Big Ten expansion. After some links I’ll share some of my thoughts on the expansion buzz.

● We start with our own Joe Walljasper, who touched on the topic last Sunday.

Walljasper writes …

The Big Ten gets 70 cents a month per subscriber within the conference’s footprint. So, 70 cents x 12 months x 2.2 million homes = $18,480,000. That’s how much the conference would make per year from the Big Ten Network alone if Missouri were to join the league.
Whether that, along with the school’s academic credentials, is enough to merit an invite is the question that will linger until the holidays, but I believe Missouri would be more than happy to join the club if asked. It would be foolish to refuse the offer.

● Austin Murphy, one of my favorite people in the biz, has a thorough sketch of three different realignment scenarios in this week’s Sports Illustrated. In all three, Murphy has Missouri joining the Big Ten.

Murphy writes …

Like many of their conference brethren, the Tigers are irked by what they perceive as the Big 12's Longhorn-centrism and how it distributes (or, more accurately, fails to distribute) its football TV revenue. Where the Big Ten and SEC dispense equal shares, the Big 12 has a weighted formula favoring its strongest teams. While the gentry rakes in $10 million, bottom-feeding Baylor must settle for $7 million — well shy of the $22 mil that its Big Ten analogue, Indiana, is pulling down.

● The Chicago Tribune’s Teddy Greenstein has been all over this developing story for months and shared some thoughts on expansion with the guys at Lake The Posts, a Northwestern blog. He raises an excellent point about revenue sharing in an expanded Big Ten.

Greenstein writes …

Keep in mind that these invitations probably won't be cut-and-dried. Let's say the Big Ten wants Missouri but doesn't think Missouri should get a 1/12th (or 1/14th) split of the revenue pie in its first few years. Then a negotiation ensues.

● Wisconsin AD Barry Alvarez has some words of wisdom for anyone falling for the latest expansion "report" that cites anonymous speculation: "Anything said right now is anyone's imagination."

● Tom Shatel of the Omaha World-Herald addresses expansion from the Cornhuskers' perspective.

Shatel writes ...

Don't assume that (Tom) Osborne is sleeping on this and don't assume that he's Big 12 loyal. The former coach never liked the idea of the Big Eight/Southwest Conference shotgun marriage and all of his predictions about the power shift to Texas have come to fruition. While he's in the A.D. chair, it's Osborne's job to set up Husker football for the future. A move to the Big Ten does that. If he could send a seismic shift through Austin, Texas, on his way out the door, that's called a bonus.

● David Jones of The Patriot-News makes an important point regarding possible Big East targets, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Jones writes …

The Big Ten is hardly interested in the game-to-game ratings Rutgers or Syracuse would bring – which, by the way, are historically comparable to several Big Ten schools. It's the new cable footprint and prospect of a deal with NYC metro provider Cablevision, one similar to the pact arduously hacked out by the BTN with Time-Warner in the Midwest and Comcast in Pennsylvania. That's where the big money is these days in TV sports.

● Dave Sittler of the Tulsa World puts the pressure on Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe, who is "the second coming of either Nero or Teddy Roosevelt."

● Finally, my quick thoughts. And, yes, they include the world's greatest archeologist.

IndianaJones.com
Reporters are on a mission to uncover something grand.
I was skeptical of the initial Big Ten buzz only because I doubted the Big Ten’s sincerity about adding teams. For years the Big Ten has wondered aloud about expansion only to table the idea. This time, though, Commissioner Jim Delany is serious about adding schools, and for the first time since Penn State joined the league 20 years ago, there appears to be a groundswell of support for expansion within the conference.


Will Delany ask Missouri to the dance? Seems likely. He might have already picked up the corsage. That said, be wary of any unconfirmed reports from anonymous sources, like the ones that popped up last week and will predictably pop up for weeks, maybe months, to come. There’s a lot of guesswork going on right now and very little, if any, hard news to report. The person who will ultimately break the news of who’s been invited and who’s been accepted into the Big Ten is Delany. No one else. Expansion is his baby to conceive and deliver.

Meanwhile, for sportswriters chasing the expansion story, we get to play Indiana Jones this summer and beyond, trying to uncover a priceless relic/enormous scoop. If so, and if the list of Big Ten additions is the Lost Ark, then we’re just escaping the boulder in Peru — still a while away from all those snakes in the Well of Souls. (That doesn't mean we have to wave our torches at every rumor that slithers on the Internet and out from under other outlets.)

Delany said he's sticking with the 12-18 month timetable he originally laid out in December. I'm with Greenstein in guessing the job gets done sooner than that but no earlier than August or September. The Big Ten’s annual athletic director meetings take place later this month, followed by the Big 12’s annual meetings the first week of June. I can't imagine landmark decisions being made before these meetings commence.

So, when this week's inevitable batch of unsubstantiated "done deal" reports surface on the Internet and elsewhere, remind yourself that before a school can join a new conference it has to be contacted first, then invited. Then again, if negotiations are taking place behind the scenes, the parties involved are surely working under strict confidentiality agreements. Some lies will be told to protect the process.

At this point, we're building stories based on little more than our own conjecture. But unless it’s coming straight from Delany, I’d advise to take any unconfirmed report cum grano salis. (It's Latin, look it up.)

http://ht.ly/1FYbD

[Titty Meat]

**** Texas

[kchero]

It seems the more details I keep hearing the more I want for this deal to go down. It is nice to hear Missouri and Nebraska's name so much being since the pinheads in Texas at the Big 12 office probably couldn't even find us on a map.

[Bugeater]

Like many of their conference brethren, the Tigers are irked by what they perceive as the Big 12's Longhorn-centrism and how it distributes (or, more accurately, fails to distribute) its football TV revenue. Where the Big Ten and SEC dispense equal shares, the Big 12 has a weighted formula favoring its strongest teams. While the gentry rakes in $10 million, bottom-feeding Baylor must settle for $7 million — well shy of the $22 mil that its Big Ten analogue, Indiana, is pulling down.

Well boo ****ing hoo for Baylor, they also get an equal share of bowl revenue even though they haven't been to a bowl game since the league's inception. I don't feel sorry for them at all.

Don't assume that (Tom) Osborne is sleeping on this and don't assume that he's Big 12 loyal. The former coach never liked the idea of the Big Eight/Southwest Conference shotgun marriage and all of his predictions about the power shift to Texas have come to fruition. While he's in the A.D. chair, it's Osborne's job to set up Husker football for the future. A move to the Big Ten does that. If he could send a seismic shift through Austin, Texas, on his way out the door, that's called a bonus.

**** yeah!

[Sully]

Did that guy write the phrase "Sooner than but no earlier than..."

what does that mean?

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by kchero

It seems the more details I keep hearing the more I want for this deal to go down. It is nice to hear Missouri and Nebraska's name so much being since the pinheads in Texas at the Big 12 office probably couldn't even find us on a map.

They probably couldn't find Texas on a map, either.

[KcMizzou]

Originally Posted by Sully

Did that guy write the phrase "Sooner than but no earlier than..."

what does that mean?

Nevermind... I gotcha.

Delany said he's sticking with the 12-18 month timetable he originally laid out in December. I'm with Greenstein in guessing the job gets done sooner than that but no later than August or September.

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

Well boo ****ing hoo for Baylor, they also get an equal share of bowl revenue even though they haven't been to a bowl game since the league's inception. I don't feel sorry for them at all.


**** yeah!

It doesn't work that way in the Big 10 or Pac 10 as far as I know. Regardless of how much you suck, you get an equal share.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

It doesn't work that way in the Big 10 or Pac 10 as far as I know. Regardless of how much you suck, you get an equal share.

And that's fine since most teams have their ups and downs, but Baylor is just abysmal in football. Is there any team in the Big 10 or Pac 10 that hasn't been to a bowl game since 1996?

[Mr. Flopnuts]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

And that's fine since most teams have their ups and downs, but Baylor is just abysmal in football. Is there any team in the Big 10 or Pac 10 that hasn't been to a bowl game since 1996?

Northwestern was abysmal for decades. I think they lost something like 60 games in a row back in the 90's. A 14 year stretch is pretty bad though.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Mr. Flopnuts

Northwestern was abysmal for decades. I think they lost something like 60 games in a row back in the 90's. A 14 year stretch is pretty bad though.

Yeah, I look forward to playing them regularly.