CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

Expansion Thoughts

by GolfDiveNCougs · 5/16/2010

Advertisement
G
GolfDiveNCougs
Thoughts on Expansion, generally unrelated to one another, and how they might affect BYU. Feel free to discuss any and all of them, or add your own. There are many theories floating around, SOME of 'em might even be worth a bit of chatter.



Most people are assuming that Colorado and Utah to the PAC is the pair they'll take (or have access to), which it's been pointed out to me is shortsighted. I've seen a good bit of buzz (not the least of which being found on the afore-topic'd HornFan site) saying UT Austin and TAMU are just as viable a pair, if not moreso. Big question is whether Texas would give up the kind of sway they have in the Big 12, but if it's all crashing down around them anyway, I don't think they're above jumping ship either, and if Texas were to choose going east (SEC) or west, I think they'd go west, just because they'd have a better chance of a national presence each year (Fla, Ga, LSU, Bama is a tougher group to best for conf champ than...umm...oh yeah, USC was). While the PAC wouldn't be getting markets in two different states, there's PLENTY enough Texas TVs to go 'round, and the West Coast would LOVE access to some of the Texas recruiting base. Could we see Utah left out of a PAC expansion?



Everybody's talking about how destabilized the Big 12 and Big East could be depending on the bredth of expansion within the next 2 years. Are there enough midwest to western teams to make a competative (read: full-BCS-fellowship) conference if the Big 12 loses a Texas and/or Oklahoma and/or Nebraska? Would a conglomeration of the Okies, CO's, KS's, BYU/Yew, maybe the NM's? and a few of the lesser Tx's be given BCS status, expecially if the traditional powers were supersizing???



I read a VERY unique thought regarding TCU. Interestingly, it wasn't even in an article, it was just a nobody commenting on an article: It's been explained ad nauseum how the Frogs (and basically any other non-BCS school in Texas) are of no interest to the Big 12, because there's no market expansion in it. The B12 commish has come out and said as much (please don't make me go and find the article with the quote in it!). Thing is, if it's about market exposure, what's keeping, say, THE SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE from throwing a surprise invite out to TCU, either as expansion or replacement? Admittedly, it doesn't make sense from a stadium-size perspective, but it's a GREAT idea for the SEC from the perspective of breaking the STRANGLEHOLD on Texas recruiting that Austin and Norman have, to say nothing of the fact that TCU is really on the rise, they'd be a plug-n-play competitor addition to the SEC (especially if for some stupid reason Vandy or some other school jumped the SEC for an expanding Big10 or regrouping Big East (less likely, admitted)), and the fact that the SEC would be coming to town every other weekend would be SURE to garner MUCH more local interest than TCU's gotten from lil ol' CUSA and MWC schools the last decade. The SEC has enough money that they'd have the LUXURY of adding a "lesser name" with smaller stadium (and slicing the pie smaller), given the advantages of a previously, for them anyway, untapped #5-in-the-nation Dallas TV market and THE Texas recruiting hotbed.



I've been reading snippets about the PAC-10 appealing the 12-team-for-champ-game rule to bring it down to 10 (the concept is basically being viewed as an expansion alternative). I honestly don't know all that much about it, but most people think it'll pass. I do agree that if the PAC could get that passed, they'd probably prefer not to bring in any new faces, especially if there were downsides to them ( :utard: , jus' sayin', :lol: ), and just hope their Championship Game got them where they wanted to be. I really don't know much about the process, however. My question is, if the PAC were to get permission, would that a)open the door for any conference over 10, b)keep the Big 10 from going out and getting anyone else if they can't land Notre Dame, and c) assuming Boise's acceptance of a reported sure-thing invite, give the MWC its own title game, and with it, give BYU, Utah, TCU and/or Boise enough reason to stick around and try getting BCS status on their own merits?



Lastly, and more for fun than anything, if Boise State takes the MWC up on its imminent invitation, and the University of Montana (with its 2 FCS titles in the last 15 years, and 5 title games in the last decade), as is widely theorized, is added to the WAC to take its place, Griz is WAC champion within 2 years. Discuss. =)
M
Mars
GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
I've been reading snippets about the PAC-10 appealing the 12-team-for-champ-game rule to bring it down to 10 (the concept is basically being viewed as an expansion alternative). I honestly don't know all that much about it, but most people think it'll pass. I do agree that if the PAC could get that passed, they'd probably prefer not to bring in any new faces...

This was going to be my crazy expansion thought of the day (you beat me to it!)...



Say the Big Ten goes all-out and adds 5 teams (Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers, Syracuse, and Notre Dame) to go up to 16. They then file an appeal to allow up to 3 teams per BCS conference into BCS bowl games. As a counter, the PAC-10 finally files their petition to allow a 10-team conference to have a championship game. The Big Ten's appeal is denied, and the PAC-10's is approved. So while the Big Ten is stuck at 16 members...

-The PAC-10 stays put and begins a championship game.

-The Big XII, now at 10, stays put and gets to keep their championship game.

-The Big East adds Memphis, ECU, Army, and Navy to go to 10 and adds a championship game.

-C-USA stays at 10 and keeps their championship game.

-The MWC adds Boise State and creates a championship game.

-The WAC adds North Texas and Louisiana-Monroe and creates a championship game.



All of a sudden nationally, there's a 16-team conference, a 13-team conference (the MAC), two 12-team conferences (the ACC and SEC), and SIX 10-team conferences. And the Big Ten just looks dumb, as the average PAC-10/Big XII/Big East/MWC team is almost twice as likely to make a BCS bowl game each year as Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc.
G
GolfDiveNCougs
Ooooh. Here's another one that I'd been mulling over of late that I forgot to mention. While Football IS king, there still is something to be said for the draw Basketball has. If the Big 10 is interested in getting the NY market, would there be any reason (besides proximity to the city) that the Big 10 would go after Rutgers before Syracuse? It just seems like I've seen a lot more articles listing Rutgers alone or Rutgers before Syracuse. I mean, Syracuse has a 50,000 seat basketball arena (okay, okay, they play their "football" there too), and they do a darn good job of getting butts in seats... for the basketball, and at least Syracuse once upon a time HAD a football tradition. Can't say as Rutgers has either going for them. Additionally, for as much press the Big 10 gets for Basketball, they sure haven't lived up to the hype outside of Mich State. Ohio State has been up lately, but in my opinion is as much due to the BCS machine as anything. To say that the BCS doesn't affect all sports, even (especially) in recruiting, is stupidity. I'm sure the Big 10 would LOVE another legit basketball title contender, and to break up the Big East Basketball CHOKEHOLD even if by only one team. Maybe then they'd win the Big 10 - ACC Challenge more than once in ten years...



Extrapolating this scenario to all conference expansion rumors, how much will Basketball play into school moves? And if Notre Dame says no to the Big 10, but the Big 10 is interested in rounding out to 12 teams for the CCG anyway, how much likelier is the Big 10 invite Syracuse for the superb basketball and the market, than Nebraska or Missouri for the average football and the cornfields?
M
Mars
GolfDiveNCougs wrote:
While Football IS king, there still is something to be said for the draw Basketball has... I'm sure the Big 10 would LOVE another legit basketball title contender, and to break up the Big East Basketball CHOKEHOLD even if by only one team. Maybe then they'd win the Big 10 - ACC Challenge more than once in ten years... Extrapolating this scenario to all conference expansion rumors, how much will Basketball play into school moves? And if Notre Dame says no to the Big 10, but the Big 10 is interested in rounding out to 12 teams for the CCG anyway, how much likelier is the Big 10 invite Syracuse for the superb basketball and the market, than Nebraska or Missouri for the average football and the cornfields?

Missouri basketball hasn't been too bad lately. That being said, I think that basketball matters very little to expansion (see: TCU). A lot of conferences seem to be looking at 1-TV Market, 2-Academics, 3-Cultural Fit, and 4-Football. That's why West Virginia isn't getting a second look, but Rutgers is looking strong (for once).



Hey, the Big Ten could always add UConn, North Carolina, and Duke! But Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Pitt are serious candidates already.
M
Mars
Mars wrote:
Say the Big Ten goes all-out and adds 5 teams (Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers, Syracuse, and Notre Dame) to go up to 16. They then file an appeal to allow up to 3 teams per BCS conference into BCS bowl games. As a counter, the PAC-10 finally files their petition to allow a 10-team conference to have a championship game. The Big Ten's appeal is denied, and the PAC-10's is approved. So while the Big Ten is stuck at 16 members...

-The PAC-10 stays put and begins a championship game.

-The Big XII, now at 10, stays put and gets to keep their championship game.

-The Big East adds Memphis, ECU, Army, and Navy to go to 10 and adds a championship game.

-C-USA stays at 10 and keeps their championship game.

-The MWC adds Boise State and creates a championship game.

-The WAC adds North Texas and Louisiana-Monroe and creates a championship game.



All of a sudden nationally, there's a 16-team conference, a 13-team conference (the MAC), two 12-team conferences (the ACC and SEC), and SIX 10-team conferences. And the Big Ten just looks dumb, as the average PAC-10/Big XII/Big East/MWC team is almost twice as likely to make a BCS bowl game each year as Ohio State, Notre Dame, etc.

" The deadline to submit legislation to change the rule for the following calendar year — it’s a nine-month process (this is the NCAA, remember) — is July 15. Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott told me last week that he would not attempt to change the 12-team requirement this summer — but he didn’t rule out doing it next year. “The scenarios we’re looking at are for 2012-13,” he said, referring to the first year of the Pac-10’s yet-to-be-negotiated TV contract. (That means, for those scoring at home, that the Pac-10 would have to submit legislation by July 15, 2011 for a new rule to take effect for the 2012 football season.)



The impact of fielding a championship game with a 10-team league cannot be overstated because it would create at least $10 million annually, according to sources, and possibly much more — and that windfall would be split 10 ways, instead of 12. As noted numerous times on the Hotline but must be repeated: The central expansion question facing the Pac-10 is whether there’s a combination of two new teams that would make a 1/12 revenue split greater than a 1/10 split. If the league can hold a football title game with 10 teams, then it seemingly makes expansion much less necessary, and hence much less likely.



Based on conversations with college sports officials and media consultants, a football title game would create a bevy of new revenue streams. In addition to the TV rights to the game itself, there would be revenue from a title or presenting sponsor, plus secondary sponsorships and all the ancillary money-making festivities that come with major sporting event. Plus, it would add value to the Pac-10’s brand, which is grossly undervalued, in Scott’s opinion. So potentially, we’re talking a $12-15 million annual windfall for a football title game, which isn’t SEC money — the kingpin is believed to make $18-20 million off its marquee event — but is still $12-15 million more than the Pac-10 is making now.



Which brings us to the question of the day: Is a Pac-10 title game even possible with a 10-team league? According to numerous sources familiar with NCAA legislation, including those with no ties to the Pac-10, the answer is: Yes. Changing the 12-team/two-division rule, which would require a majority vote of the 31-member NCAA legislative council, (made up of one member from every Division I conference), is well within the realm of possibility. "



http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2010/05/24/pac-10-expansion-scott-wont-seek-change-in-ncaa-legislation-for-now/
Advertisement
M
Mars


The Big Ten to add a championship game without expansion?



" Option 2:

The Big Ten doesn't expand but adds a championship game.



The current rule states conferences must have at least 12 teams to hold a championship game. NCAA rules are made to be broken. Or in this case, made to be rewritten. The Big Ten needs the title game. The SEC says it made $14.3 million from its last championship game, and the Big 12 brings in $12 million to $15 million from its game. If one of the sport's two biggest conferences — and a powerful player such as Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany — says it wants a championship game with 11 teams, it'll get it. This really is option 1A for the Big Ten — right after adding Notre Dame and Notre Dame only.



"I would think that would have a chance to pass," says Florida athletic director Jeremy Foley, a former member of the NCAA's management council, which oversees, among other things, legislative review.



This is the preferred option for the old guard in the Big Ten. And that is more than just a vocal minority. "I'm more of a traditionalist," Northwestern coach Pat Fitzgerald says. "The Big Ten product is as competitive as it's ever been." "



http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/37297931/ns/sports-college_football/
G
gmj81
I'm beginning to think that the Big Ten and Pac-10 might just stay put with who they got and appeal the rule so they can have a championship game as is. The only real reason for either to expand other than the championship game is to get Notre Dame for the Big Ten (the only real additional revenue bringer) and the keep pace and not become a perennial one-BCS-bid league for the Pac-10 (no markets they could realistically add would bring additional revenue).



In which case, I'm starting to think it would be advantageous to add BSU now(which I've been opposed to in the past due to not feeling they brought enough to ensure becoming an AQ league all while screwing up the balance of a 9 team league) so we can get a championship game too the rule gets changed. But the BCS will still probably find a way to give it to the Big Ten and Pac-10 and restrict the MWC from having one.
Y
Y12
gmj81 wrote:
I'm beginning to think that the Big Ten and Pac-10 might just stay put with who they got and appeal the rule so they can have a championship game as is. The only real reason for either to expand other than the championship game is to get Notre Dame for the Big Ten (the only real additional revenue bringer) and the keep pace and not become a perennial one-BCS-bid league for the Pac-10 (no markets they could realistically add would bring additional revenue).



In which case, I'm starting to think it would be advantageous to add BSU now(which I've been opposed to in the past due to not feeling they brought enough to ensure becoming an AQ league all while screwing up the balance of a 9 team league) so we can get a championship game too the rule gets changed. But the BCS will still probably find a way to give it to the Big Ten and Pac-10 and restrict the MWC from having one.


I don't know how you could legally change the championship game rule and limit it to the Big Ten and Pac-10, unless you have a provision to the effect: "Conferences with a minimum membership of ten schools, on or before August 1, 2010, can have championship games for football." It seems to me that it would be in the BCS's best interest to let the MWC (if Boise State is added) to have a championship game. That means the second best MWC team will have one more loss, move down in the rankings, and make it that much harder to qualify for AQ status.



Why the Pac-10 would wait for next year to change the rule is beyond me. If that is really their first option, then why not go for it now. Then if it fails you can make all the extra effort to consider expansion alternatives, which the Big 10 would appreciate, too. Put me down as one who thinks the 12 team minimum will get changed. With the Pac and Big 10 together on it, it will be destined to pass, just like getting a Super Bowl in New York.
S
scott715
It is too late for PAc-10 to change their schdule for next year. My question is if you have 10 teams, do you split into 5 team divisions and how many games do you play in conference? You would not play everyone and then have a championship game.
M
Mars
Y12 wrote:
Why the Pac-10 would wait for next year to change the rule is beyond me. If that is really their first option, then why not go for it now.

1- They are looking to target the change with the end of their old TV contract, in time to negotiate a new one for more money.

2- They are very, very confident it will pass.

3- I think they will continue to play a round robin schedule, without divisions. Then the 1 and 2 get a rematch at the end of the season. Which yes, would hurt their rankings and computer numbers even further.
Advertisement
S
scott715
Does a rematch making for exciting tv? Unless the teams are evenly matched I don't think I would watch it.
M
Mars
scott715 wrote:
Does a rematch making for exciting tv? Unless the teams are evenly matched I don't think I would watch it.

You tell me? The rematches we could have seen last year:



#3 Cincy(undefeated)-#17 Pitt (a 1-point win the first go-around)

#8 Ohio State-#10 Iowa (tOSU won by 3 points at home during the regular season)

#4 TCU(undefeated)-#14 BYU

#7 Oregon-#21 Stanford (the conference champ Ducks lost to the Cardinal the first time around)

Troy-Middle Tennessee State

#6 Boise State(undefeated)-Nevada (an 11-point win in Boise the first time)



So the 6 new championship games would have featured 3 undefeated teams, 6 top 10 teams, 4 top 25 match-ups, a revenge game for a regular season champ, and two more games that were decided by a field goal or less the first time. The Big East, Big Ten, and PAC-10 games would decide BCS Bowl participants, and the MWC and WAC games would decide whether the regular season champ goes to a BCS bowl game or not. I say that makes 5 of 6 games "must-watch" TV!
Y
Y12
Mars wrote:
Why the Pac-10 would wait for next year to change the rule is beyond me. If that is really their first option, then why not go for it now.

1- They are looking to target the change with the end of their old TV contract, in time to negotiate a new one for more money.

2- They are very, very confident it will pass.

3- I think they will continue to play a round robin schedule, without divisions. Then the 1 and 2 get a rematch at the end of the season. Which yes, would hurt their rankings and computer numbers even further.


I understand the timing that the Pac-10 wants the new rule. Nothing is stopping them from making it effective a yearor two later, or making it optional, so that they could wait for the new TV contract to start holding the championship game.



Why go through all the motions and time, energy, and $$$$ to study expansion if you don't really want to do it?
Y
Y12
Mars wrote:
Does a rematch making for exciting tv? Unless the teams are evenly matched I don't think I would watch it.

You tell me? The rematches we could have seen last year:



#3 Cincy(undefeated)-#17 Pitt (a 1-point win the first go-around)

#8 Ohio State-#10 Iowa (tOSU won by 3 points at home during the regular season)

#4 TCU(undefeated)-#14 BYU

#7 Oregon-#21 Stanford (the conference champ Ducks lost to the Cardinal the first time around)

Troy-Middle Tennessee State

#6 Boise State(undefeated)-Nevada (an 11-point win in Boise the first time)



So the 6 new championship games would have featured 3 undefeated teams, 6 top 10 teams, 4 top 25 match-ups, a revenge game for a regular season champ, and two more games that were decided by a field goal or less the first time. The Big East, Big Ten, and PAC-10 games would decide BCS Bowl participants, and the MWC and WAC games would decide whether the regular season champ goes to a BCS bowl game or not. I say that makes 5 of 6 games "must-watch" TV!


So are you one who supported the Big 12 sending Oklahoma to the Championship Game instead of Texas in 2008? Why play the game in the first place if it doesn't mean anything in the end? It makes me sick that people would vote for a round robin and championship game--putting more value in $$$$ than on field competition.
B
blue42
I think one thing being overlooked here is the fact the BCS wants to keep the money where it's already at, in the BCS.



This is the biggest reason for talk of expansion while in addition wanting to add a championship game for the pac and big 10 and the benefits would be.



The potential for more money coming in for the conference overall for the season. Someone mentioned why would the Pac 10 want to split the revenue from a championship game 12 ways instead of 10 ways. I don't know if the money numbers thrown out here are gross profits or net profits. Let's assume the 12-15 million number for a championship game is net profit divided equally among all conference teams. In a 10 team league, the calcualation is easy, each team gets 1.5 million. Split 12 ways each team gets 1.25 a mere reduction of only $250k, peanuts to the football budgets of most of these schools. So why would they take a smaller piece? This is what I believe the whole idea behind the expansion talk.



Take the bigger schools from the non AQ conferences and add them to the existing BCS conferences. This does two things, it takes the teams that have been taking BCS money away from the conferences and adds them to a BCS conference bringing that money back "home". This weakens the remaining non AQ conferences which means they won't have to invite a 7th conference into the fold leaving the BCS money in the BCS conferences. This also means it will be harder for a non AQ school to qualify for a BCS game because of SOS, again keeping the money in BCS conferences.



They will not only expand the conferences but also expand to 5 BCS bowl games with a plus one. This will give the six conferences 12 BCS payouts so that will mean at least 2 BCS bowl payouts each year for each conference. Take away one from the Big East because they usually don't deserve one game let alone 2 and one of the other conferences will have 3 BCS payouts. Going back to the pac 10, last year they only had one BCS payout, under this new scenario, they still get their one BCS payout, the additional $12-15 million from a conference championship game and an almost assured another $12-15 million BCS payout for a second BCS bow game. So you see taking a $250k hit with 12 member conference actually brings in around $1 million more.



Of course this is just my rambling, and I apologize if someone else talked about this same scenario in an earlier thread, I haven't been around much the last couple of months and haven't read every thread. :blush:
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.