Big 10 expansion -- will Pac 10 be forced to expand?

[ScottyBuff]

Nebraska would be nuts to go to the B10, doesn't make any sense at all. They are one of the "Big Draws" in the Big 12. They are on TV all the time, no matter who they play. The Big 10 is the only conference that shares it's revenue equally. They would get the same $ as Northwestern and Purdue. They get way more staying in the Big 12. Now MU is a different matter. With the condition of our football program, we are lucky to be in the Big 12.

That is the same argument people had for Penn State to join the Big East back in the 80's & 90's, when they joined the Big Ten everyone thought they would be "diluted" in prestige.

Getting the same $ as Northwestern or Purdue would be just fine with them, as they collect $20+ million in conference money.

Nebraska currently gets less than half of that from the Big 12.

So, your argument is that getting $9 million a year from the Big 12, while the other teams in your division get $6 to 8 million is better than everyone getting $23 million a year?

The corn would still sell more tickets to home games at much higher prices, more merchandise, etc. so they would NOT be on the same playing field as those schools.

The main Big 12 TV contract has 6 1/2 years remaining at the payouts that now look miniscule compared to B10 and SEC teams. The ACC and Pac Ten will be renewing theirs in 2011 & 2012 respectively; don't be surprised if they are able to get contracts that are competitive with the Big 12, if not better. The Big 12 is losing ground in the national "arms race".

The SEC and Big Ten are on another level with TV contract payouts, and bowl game payouts; any athletic director worth a dime is hoping for a chance to go there.

The "tradition" arguments are certainly more valid, but more than doubling your conference payout would test those loyalties to the extreme...

So Nebraska would lose the annual CU game? They could schedule that as an OOC game.

They would lose the annual OU game? That's already happened within the Big 12 scheduling rotation.

They would lose the Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Iowa State games? To be replaced with Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Northwestern maybe.

They would lose access to Texas recruiting? There would be some drop off for the kids that wanted to play in front of home crowds, but there would be gains in the Chicago area, and Ohio; and with nearly all Big Ten games on national TV many kids would still want to go there anyway. It's not like the coaching staff is going to stop calling the high school coaches in Texas the moment that they move to the Big Ten.

It's not like they would be joining the SEC or Big East. They would still be a Midwestern team playing in a Midwestern conference with rival programs on their border and nearby. An annual game with Iowa would pretty quickly turn into a rivalry to match the OU-Nebraska games of the Big Eight days.

 

[OKCBuff]

I think you'd have to see the league split into divisions. The Arizona, SoCal and NoCal pairs in one division, Oregon/Washington/Mountain schools in the other. Probably with 8 conference games (5 division, 3 inter-division) just like the Big XII does now... And just like the Big XII, the southern division would own most of the big markets... :huh:

Not if the Pac-12 followed the ACC model, which didn't emphasize geography, but rather placing the arch-rival of a team in the opposite division. They did that with the thought of always having a Miami-Florida State or VT-FSU title game, though that has rarely happened. They use a format that locks that rival in the other team's schedule, so that they always play, no matter what. I think this is what the Pac-10 should do. This would also solve the "SoCal problem" the northern Pac schools have so they could keep the one road game a year in SoCal:

Div 1/Div 2
Arizona/Arizona St.
USC/UCLA
Stan/Cal
Ore St./Oregon
Wash/Wazzu
Utah/Colorado

This would do two things. For starters, it would split up the SoCal schools so that each Pac school could keep a SoCal game on its schedule each year. So, for example, Colorado would always play home/home with UCLA because they're in the same divison, as they would with the other D-2 squads, then every year they'd had Utah as the cross-division rival lock, then the last two conference game slots would go to teams in the opposite division and would be rotated every two years. So for two years, CU would get Zona and USC, then after that Stanford and Oregon St. for two years, then the next year get Washington and Zona for two years, etc. This setup would keep the geography even in that every school would make a visit to each region every other year and could use that as recruiting in-roads, etc.

I think this would be much better than the Big 12/SEC mindset of a geographic rivals setup, which serves as a wall to seperate teams in the same conference.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I think this would be much better than the Big 12/SEC mindset of a geographic rivals setup, which serves as a wall to seperate teams in the same conference.

I agree that a non-geographial alignment could work in the Pac-10 for all the reasons you mentioned.

The geographical model works in the SEC because there is only 1 team in Florida, and that other states have prime recruiting hotbeds as well. Plus in the SEC it is more important to play your rivals rather than the "team in the big recruiting state".

This isn't quite the same in ACC but there are many reasons why the ACC model isn't producing the results they expected.

The Big 12 model should be avoided by a Pac-12 as they would have 1/3 of the teams coming from one state which also is the recruiting hotbed for many of the conferences players.

 

[OKCBuff]

I agree that a non-geographial alignment could work in the Pac-10 for all the reasons you mentioned.

The geographical model works in the SEC because there is only 1 team in Florida, and that other states have prime recruiting hotbeds as well. Plus in the SEC it is more important to play your rivals rather than the \"team in the big recruiting state\".

This isn't quite the same in ACC but there are many reasons why the ACC model isn't producing the results they expected.

The Big 12 model should be avoided by a Pac-12 as they would have 1/3 of the teams coming from one state which also is the recruiting hotbed for many of the conferences players.

Great points on the SEC and why that works for them but doesn't really work for the Big 12.

I'm a dork and came up with a realignment of the Big 12 in a previous thread. I think something like this would end the disparity between conferences and nearly always produce a solid title game: http://www.allbuffs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=588144&postcount=25

 

[MiamiBuffs]

The Big 12 has been great for Colorado.. Its just that Colorado hasn't made the proper investment into their athletic program in terms of facilities, marketing and hiring good coaches. Its been pretty consistent through the years that if you win the Big 12 with 0 or 1 loss you are playing in the national championship game guaranteed. I don't know what else what you guys want out of a conference.


I laugh at you guys who think the Pac 10 would be so much better.. Nothing is changing until the administration starts putting a premium on athletics.. CU has been in the conference for over 13 years now.. How many new facilities have been built? Has Coors Event Center been updated? Has a state of the art indoor practice facility been built for the football team? NO, NO, NO.. Other than Tharp building us football suites for the Football stadium (which was by far his sharpest move) this program has sat on their hands and done nothing while other programs like Texas, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma State have put the proper investment into their programs... Changing conferences isn't going to build new facilities for the program..

The geography for CU to join the Pac 10 doesn't make sense. Our travel expenses would double or tripple. Your all thinking of football and forgetting the travel costs for the other 14 or so sports that now have to go 2 to 3 times further for intraconference play. The distance to ISU, NU, KSU, KU are drivable currently while nothing in the PAC 10 is. Is there a direct flight from Denver to Pullman? Corvalis?

Our Athletic Dept is essentially broke from buyouts and and investment in facilities (stadium expansion and score board upgrades) that have not paid for themselves. The only enticement I could see is if the Pac 10 sells a much larger revenue potential to CU then they currently get from the Big 12.

It's probably not going to happen.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

Div 1/Div 2
Arizona/Arizona St.
USC/UCLA
Stan/Cal
Ore St./Oregon
Wash/Wazzu
Utah/Colorado

It'd be a North and South more than likely.

UA, UCLA, USC, ASU, CU, Utah

UO, OSU, UW, WSU, Cal, Stanford

East West doesn't make as much sense

UCLA, USC, UO, OSU, Cal, Stanford????

UA, ASU, CU, Utah, WSU, UW????

 

[BeachBronco]

I like the idea of the MWC if they became a BCS conference. Right now their quality of play in football is as good as any of the bottom BCS Conferences. Same time zone for games. We recruit mountain states anyhow. There are some good academic schools in the conference. CSU and Air Force every year would be great for college football fans in a dominant NFL state.

 

[OKCBuff]

It'd be a North and South more than likely.

Not if the Pac-10 really wanted a title game. My plan would solve the gripes from the northern schools about missing their trips to LA. I think my model would be the only way a 12-team, divisional Pac-12 would work. Since there would be LA teams in both divisions, it would make the north feel less isolated.

 

[Sportsfan101]

CU should NOT agree to any divisional split that doesn't guarantee it at least one game against USC or UCLA. We need access to Southern California for recruiting purposes. If we're stuck in a division with Oregon/OSU/Washington/WSU, then we're not going to get the bump in recruiting California kids that people would expect with a jump to the Pac-10.

 

[absinthe]

The geography for CU to join the Pac 10 doesn't make sense. Our travel expenses would double or tripple. Your all thinking of football and forgetting the travel costs for the other 14 or so sports that now have to go 2 to 3 times further for intraconference play. The distance to ISU, NU, KSU, KU are drivable currently while nothing in the PAC 10 is. Is there a direct flight from Denver to Pullman? Corvalis?

Our Athletic Dept is essentially broke from buyouts and and investment in facilities (stadium expansion and score board upgrades) that have not paid for themselves. The only enticement I could see is if the Pac 10 sells a much larger revenue potential to CU then they currently get from the Big 12.

It's probably not going to happen.

This travel cost argument is dumb every school but Wazzu can be easily rached by a major airport, I jsut spot checked flights for you three months out you are looking at:

$175-225 to fly in to any pac10 school except wazzu (400) which incidentally is exactly comparable to flying to any and all big12 destinations $156-315

 

[MiamiBuffs]

CU should NOT agree to any divisional split that doesn't guarantee it at least one game against USC or UCLA. We need access to Southern California for recruiting purposes. If we're stuck in a division with Oregon/OSU/Washington/WSU, then we're not going to get the bump in recruiting California kids that people would expect with a jump to the Pac-10.

Not if the Pac-10 really wanted a title game. My plan would solve the gripes from the northern schools about missing their trips to LA. I think my model would be the only way a 12-team, divisional Pac-12 would work. Since there would be LA teams in both divisions, it would make the north feel less isolated.

Div 1/Div 2
Arizona/Arizona St.
USC/UCLA
Stan/Cal
Ore St./Oregon
Wash/Wazzu
Utah/Colorado

Your lineup breaks up the in state rivalry game up for each team. That means the five division games would have the six game be the rivalry then 2 games from the other division which works I suppose. Our rivalry game would then be with Utah. :huh:

I am also hard pressed to see what Utah and Colorado have to offer the Pac 10. Sure, were good schools and yatta, yatta, yatta but were not in super sized markets and there are not tons of Pac 10 alums living here. It *might* benefit us more then them. Adding CU and Utah are not very compelling from matchup or strength of conference perspective either.

 

[Duff Man]

Your lineup breaks up the in state rivalry game up for each team. That means the five division games would have the six game be the rivalry then 2 games from the other division which works I suppose. Our rivalry game would then be with Utah. :huh:

I am also hard pressed to see what Utah and Colorado have to offer the Pac 10. Sure, were good schools and yatta, yatta, yatta but were not in super sized markets and there are not tons of Pac 10 alums living here. It *might* benefit us more then them. Adding CU and Utah are not very compelling from matchup or strength of conference perspective either.

Adding a top 20 TV market is going to be appealing for any conference. Salt Lake City is just outside the top 30. Plus it is about the future, Denver and SLC are going to only going to continue to grow. Do we offer as much as we did a decade ago? No. Do we still have some very nice things to offer? Yes.

 

[ScottyBuff]

This travel cost argument is dumb every school but Wazzu can be easily rached by a major airport, I jsut spot checked flights for you three months out you are looking at:

$175-225 to fly in to any pac10 school except wazzu (400) which incidentally is exactly comparable to flying to any and all big12 destinations $156-315

For football it certainly isn't too different, but the basketball travel-pairs of flying into one city and taking a bus to the next would be more difficult with Utah-CU.

I still think the revenue gains (TV contract, CCG, etc) and national exposure would more than offset the cost of travel.

 

[OKCBuff]

Your lineup breaks up the in state rivalry game up for each team. That means the five division games would have the six game be the rivalry then 2 games from the other division which works I suppose. Our rivalry game would then be with Utah. :huh:

Yes, that's correct. That is done to address the gripes from the Oregon and Washington schools about losing a game against an LA-based team every year. This way, both divisions are always playing USC or UCLA and tied into SoCal recruiting.

So yes, the scheduling format for the Pac-12 I put together would be: Five in-division games, one locked-in cross-division game (arch-rival school) and then two rotating spots (or really, they could make it three since they have nine games now anyway) against non-divisional opponents. If they did a nine-game schedule, that would mean only missing two teams every two years. That's pretty doable if it means new TVs by expanding geography and the jack coming from a title game.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Your lineup breaks up the in state rivalry game up for each team. That means the five division games would have the six game be the rivalry then 2 games from the other division which works I suppose. Our rivalry game would then be with Utah. :huh:

I am also hard pressed to see what Utah and Colorado have to offer the Pac 10. Sure, were good schools and yatta, yatta, yatta but were not in super sized markets and there are not tons of Pac 10 alums living here. It *might* benefit us more then them. Adding CU and Utah are not very compelling from matchup or strength of conference perspective either.

The reason we are attractive to them is essentially: lack of any other feasible options. Unless they wait another decade or two for UNLV to become a tier I school with better athletic facilities.

I don't think they would make any moves based on the on-field results of the past few years, by itself.

CU football (as well as some other sports) and Utah basketball (and football) would offer very compelling matchups, IMO.

The SEC was successful by adding two teams to the "middle" of the pack to get to 12 teams (Arkansas and South Carolina). The ACC expansion is considered unsuccessful because they added top teams that diluted the power in the conference. The Big 12 did the same with Texas.

Adding Utah & Colorado would be considered two more teams in the middle, therefore not upsetting the balance of power but providing quality nonetheless.

 

[absinthe]

For football it certainly isn't too different, but the basketball travel-pairs of flying into one city and taking a bus to the next would be more difficult with Utah-CU.

I still think the revenue gains (TV contract, CCG, etc) and national exposure would more than offset the cost of travel.

True but UW/Wazzu are similar to us they are 300 miles apart, so that is a tough bus ride.

 

[BuffNut99]

Not sure if anyone else caught this, but something I didn't know about the CU-Pac 10 "discussions" in 1994:

Also, the Pac 10 tends to follow along with the Big 10. Those two leagues are very much in tune with each other, their visions, how they think, etc. I could see the Pac 10 expanding to 12 and adding the conference title game, etc. If that happens, I could also see Colorado and Utah being high on the Pac 10 list. Boulder Camera columnist Neil Woelk told me last month at the CU-NU game that Colorado had the chance to go to the Pac 10 in 1994 but it lost by two regents votes. Woelk said if the opportunity came again, he thought CU would go.

If true, I didn't know it was voted upon or came that close. I knew we were being courted but that is shocking to me. Link

 

[MiamiBuffs]

This travel cost argument is dumb every school but Wazzu can be easily rached by a major airport, I jsut spot checked flights for you three months out you are looking at:

$175-225 to fly in to any pac10 school except wazzu (400) which incidentally is exactly comparable to flying to any and all big12 destinations $156-315

You just want da buffs in your back yard every other year. :dbt:

:smile2:

 

[MiamiBuffs]

This travel cost argument is dumb every school but Wazzu can be easily rached by a major airport, I jsut spot checked flights for you three months out you are looking at:

$175-225 to fly in to any pac10 school except wazzu (400) which incidentally is exactly comparable to flying to any and all big12 destinations $156-315

For football it certainly isn't too different, but the basketball travel-pairs of flying into one city and taking a bus to the next would be more difficult with Utah-CU.

I still think the revenue gains (TV contract, CCG, etc) and national exposure would more than offset the cost of travel.

CU like, most schools this size, charter a plane for basketball and football game because its hard to fit in a flight following a 7pm kickoff or tipoff and adding in a hotel stay for a next day departure gets expensive. There is also the getting the kids back to class the next day factor.

For track and soccer there is no risk of TV changing the game and the teams are smaller to they fly domestic. My Cousin is a coach at Oregon and they mostly do.

All these programs will have additional costs due to longer travel but CU and Utah would bear much high fees.

The reason we are attractive to them is essentially: lack of any other feasible options. Unless they wait another decade or two for UNLV to become a tier I school with better athletic facilities.

I don't think they would make any moves based on the on-field results of the past few years, by itself.

CU football (as well as some other sports) and Utah basketball (and football) would offer very compelling matchups, IMO.

The SEC was successful by adding two teams to the "middle" of the pack to get to 12 teams (Arkansas and South Carolina). The ACC expansion is considered unsuccessful because they added top teams that diluted the power in the conference. The Big 12 did the same with Texas.

Adding Utah & Colorado would be considered two more teams in the middle, therefore not upsetting the balance of power but providing quality nonetheless.

The Pac 10 has other options but they don't like them. UNLV, Nevada, Fresno State, SDSU, BSU, Utah and BYU, and Im probably forgetting a couple. Adding any of those have nots or lesser peer programs to the Pac 10 would further legitimize them and infuse them with revenue that would pull them up to the quality the rest of the conference has.

 

[Flatirons2]

I'm going to sit back and wait to watch the PAC10 grab their rear when it becomes public that the Big10 made an overture to UT. Pop goes the weezle. No more UT for free, and getting A&M is the booby prize. LOL

They might as well re-name the conference because the behemoth known as UT won't even look in their direction unless they're willing to do that.

This gets better and better, what incentive could the PAC10 offer UT to move that they can't get in the B12 by virtue of being the biggest rat in the crapper? Soon the B12 will be bending over grabbing it's ankles just to pacify the beast.

 

[Sportsfan101]

Not sure if anyone else caught this, but something I didn't know about the CU-Pac 10 \"discussions\" in 1994:



If true, I didn't know it was voted upon or came that close. I knew we were being courted but that is shocking to me. Link

Great find.

I remember the talks in 94, and I remember Texas and Colorado being asked to join. I am most surprised by Woelk's statement that he thinks there is enough support right now at the regent level to approve a move to the Pac 10.

I remember reading in the past that there are some severe monetary penalties for leaving the B12 (ie, no conference payout). Anyone have any insight here? And could the Pac 10 swoop in to pay such penalties/reimburse CU the revenue lost from a move?

 

[OKCBuff]

I remember reading in the past that there are some severe monetary penalties for leaving the B12 (ie, no conference payout). Anyone have any insight here? And could the Pac 10 swoop in to pay such penalties/reimburse CU the revenue lost from a move?

In short, if CU announced tomorrow they were leaving for another conference, they would have to stay in the Big 12 for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 sports years as a lame duck, and would lose all bowl/conference money as a penalty for two years. This was put into the conference bylaws at the beginning because of the geography of the Big Eight and Texas schools (Pac-10 could take CU or UT; Big Ten could take North teams; SEC could take UT/A&M/OU/OSU). So that's why it's dang hard to leave this conference. I'm positive CU couldn't take the financial hit and two years as a lame duck would suck, though if the Pac really wanted us they could help cover the penalty. But waiting would still have to happen, so it would be a miserable stretch IMO.

 

[Sportsfan101]

In short, if CU announced tomorrow they were leaving for another conference, they would have to stay in the Big 12 for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 sports years as a lame duck, and would lose all bowl/conference money as a penalty for two years. This was put into the conference bylaws at the beginning because of the geography of the Big Eight and Texas schools (Pac-10 could take CU or UT; Big Ten could take North teams; SEC could take UT/A&M/OU/OSU). So that's why it's dang hard to leave this conference. I'm positive CU couldn't take the financial hit and two years as a lame duck would suck, though if the Pac really wanted us they could help cover the penalty. But waiting would still have to happen, so it would be a miserable stretch IMO.

Ouch -- that's a massive penalty -- approx. $17 million penalty. No way CU moves to Pac 10.

 

[MiamiBuffs]

In short, if CU announced tomorrow they were leaving for another conference, they would have to stay in the Big 12 for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 sports years as a lame duck, and would lose all bowl/conference money as a penalty for two years. This was put into the conference bylaws at the beginning because of the geography of the Big Eight and Texas schools (Pac-10 could take CU or UT; Big Ten could take North teams; SEC could take UT/A&M/OU/OSU). So that's why it's dang hard to leave this conference. I'm positive CU couldn't take the financial hit and two years as a lame duck would suck, though if the Pac really wanted us they could help cover the penalty. But waiting would still have to happen, so it would be a miserable stretch IMO.

Ouch -- that's a massive penalty -- approx. $17 million penalty. No way CU moves to Pac 10.

I would assume the potential suitor would have to pick up the tab for that from the get go. Another deal killer compared to asking a UNLV, BYU, BSU or Utah.

 

[BeachBronco]

I vote to go, a breath of fresh air is what we need anyhow. CU football has been a program of peaks and valleys anyhow and right now we are in the Grand Canyon, so a move somewhere else would be exciting, let the Nubbers go back and have their dry humpathon with OU anyhow and still be Texas's bitch.

 

[BuffNut99]

I find this all very depressing. I want to go back to the Big 8, to be honest. The state of Texas has found yet another way to screw the state of Colorado.

 

[SINKRATZ]

I'm going to sit back and wait to watch the PAC10 grab their rear when it becomes public that the Big10 made an overture to UT. Pop goes the weezle. No more UT for free, and getting A&M is the booby prize. LOL

They might as well re-name the conference because the behemoth known as UT won't even look in their direction unless they're willing to do that.

This gets better and better, what incentive could the PAC10 offer UT to move that they can't get in the B12 by virtue of being the biggest rat in the crapper? Soon the B12 will be bending over grabbing it's ankles just to pacify the beast.

I've read this post 3 times and have absolutely no idea what you just said.

 

[SINKRATZ]

Ouch -- that's a massive penalty -- approx. $17 million penalty. No way CU moves to Pac 10.

There are several ways to deal with this:

1. The Pac 10 can "loan" this money which CU would pay back over several years in the form of reductions to its revenue sharing.

2. It can be negotiated into the Pac 10's new TV deal, sine the conference will be picking up a large TV market by making this deal.

3. Title game sponsor. Corporate sponsors who want to be asociated with the Pac 12 Championship Game (a la Dr. Pepper in Big 12) could contribute since there wouldn't be a championship game without us.

Some combination of the above could take care of the buyout. There's a lot more than $17M to be made by lots of interested parties with an expansion.

 

[OKCBuff]

I find this all very depressing. I want to go back to the Big 8, to be honest. The state of Texas has found yet another way to screw the state of Colorado.

I'm with you. It would lower the stature of the conference but I definitely miss the days when Norman was the southern edge of the league.

After that, I'd add Air Force and Colorado State to solidify Colorado and make us less remote in the league, then stay at 10 a few years and tell Wichita State we'd add them if they bring back football and couple them with Missouri State (if they would make the commitment to move up in 4-5 years) to get back to 12.

At least that way, we'd have the soul of the Big Eight back and would be adding programs that would be in the old Big Eight footprint.

Obviously, my plan would probably need 10-15 years to unfold to allow WSU and MSU to grow to be worthy of the 11th and 12th spots.

 

[Flatirons2]

I've read this post 3 times and have absolutely no idea what you just said.

I'll explain as best I can. Back in the day the PAC 10 made overtures to include UT/CU, and we all know what happened via politics in TX. UT is now in a position to sit back and wait to field offers as to any potential re-alignment, without A&M as baggage.

One Big problem, UT is going to require concessions to stay in the B12 or it will consider jumping to....say the B10.

Even if it doesn't happen, everyone in the B12 will have to accept that the conference gets really shaking (weaker) if UT leaves, just the fact that they would consider jumping should make some people a little nervous.

All that lost $$$$$ divided among the members