Whether the Pac-10 wanted it or not, it just stole a whole lot of headlines, no? I warned you that my post from last week could be debunked immediately. Chip Brown from orangebloods.com is reporting that the West Coast-based conference is looking to swallow half of the Big XII by inviting Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado. Please note that Mr. Brown is not a hack (unlike me) and was the former Texas beat writer for the Dallas Morning News, so don't let the fact that this is originating from the Texas Rivals site fool you into thinking that this is standard message board fodder. Colorado's AD has now stated that he believes that his school is getting a Pac-10 invite, which may or may not be an indication of more things to come (as CU has long been rumored to be the most likely Big XII school to end up in the Pac-10). For what it's worth, Pac-10 Commissioner Larry Scott has issued a standard denial which no one on the interweb will believe unless/until nothing happens over the next few days.
Here's what I've heard:
A source from a Big XII school other than Texas has stated to me that the main basis of this story is legit and it has known for several days that this proposal was on the table for the schools in question. A Texas A&M insider that runs the premium content on TexAgs.com also has stated that these invitations are forthcoming, with the Aggies (at least publicly) being wary of making the move. What's extremely unclear is whether the Pac-10 is making these invites before it knows whether it's receiving a "yes" answer from everyone. One would think that the Pac-10 isn't going to be inviting Texas Tech unless it has been assured that Texas is coming along. This seems to be a contingent offer where everyone would need to sign on for it to happen and then official invites would be sent out.
The Big Ten not being interested in Nebraska, though, is the one piece of the article that doesn't correlate with any of the information that I've received. My understanding is that Nebraska is a lock to be invited to the Big Ten. I have had multiple independent corroborations that the main substance of the infamous Northwestern message board rumor (which has disappeared from the Rivals site in the same manner as the missing minutes from the Watergate tapes) is correct, where the Big Ten's intended invitees are Nebraska, Texas and Notre Dame. Now, things may have changed in the last couple of weeks, but if the Big Ten were to have to choose between Nebraska and Missouri, there is little doubt that it would take Nebraska. In fact, if a school needs to "break the seal" of causing an avalanche of schools to leave the Big XII, do not be surprised at all if Nebraska ends up being the first mover in all of this. I've received indications that Nebraska could be invited to the Big Ten quickly (possibly in the next week), where the conference would grant the school a fully vested revenue share (including a full stake in the Big Ten Network) in order to cover the higher Big XII exit fees for a 1-year notice period for leaving. This would allow the Huskers to begin Big Ten play for the 2011 football season. It could also set into motion something similar to what I had theoretically posed in the "Multi-Phase Big Ten Expansion: How to Build a Super Death Star Conference" post, where the Big Ten inviting Nebraska puts pressure on Texas to join. Now, that could ultimately just give Texas and other Big XII schools the political cover necessary to bolt to the Pac-10 en masse as rumored, but let me be clear on this one: THERE IS NO SCHOOL MORE LIKELY TO END UP IN THE BIG TEN THAN NEBRASKA.
There continues to be mixed messages about where Missouri stands in this process. Chip Brown stated in his article today (along with his previous articles) that the Big Ten has sincere interest in Missouri. However, I've received separate indications from people in positions in the know from Big Ten and Big XII schools that Missouri would be very unlikely to receive an invite. My understanding is that Missouri would probably need to have a 16-school Big Ten that has either Texas or Notre Dame in order to get invited. Otherwise, in a 14-school Big Ten scenario, Nebraska and Rutgers would be likely choices, with Syracuse getting the nod over Missouri. If neither Texas nor Notre Dame are in the fold for the Big Ten, then securing the New York City market specifically and an East Coast presence generally is going to be the only way that a multi-school expansion can work out financially for the conference. Please note that the Big Ten's argument to move into the New York area is NOT about believing that Rutgers and Syracuse alone can deliver that market. Instead, it's about the "penumbra effect" of combining those schools with the existing large Big Ten alumni bases in that market (particularly Penn State and Michigan) that could theoretically grab the area. Whether the Big Ten would pull the trigger on that move and if that would work remains to be seen.
That's what I know. Now, here's my general interpretation of everything:
I previously noted that one of the underrated players in this conference realignment process would be Texas Tech because, in reality, there are plenty of conferences that would gladly take A&M either alone or in order to get Texas but having to add Tech on top of that was an entirely different matter. Texas Tech got into the Big XII because of political willpower and it's exactly the type of school that would need to lean on political protection again. Oklahoma State has a similar political relationship with Oklahoma with T. Boone Pickens as a benefactor, to boot. Well, I don't believe that it's an accident that this Pac-10 rumor includes both Texas Tech and Oklahoma State as opposed to, say, Kansas and Utah (who would be more desirable from an additional market perspective). On the one hand, the inclusion of those schools lends support to the validity of this story because it takes into account what might be politically necessary moves. On the other hand, with the unanimous vote requirement of the Pac-10 for expansion, is Stanford seriously voting in favor of inviting Texas Tech and Oklahoma State?! Seriously?!
The other thing that I don't understand whatsoever, though, is if Texas has been pushing so hard for the Longhorn Sports Network and maximizing TV revenue, why it would choose joining an expanded Pac-10, which Brown's article itself stated would only project to make a little less on a per school basis than each Big Ten and SEC school makes today guaranteed. Indeed, a couple of people connected to the Texas program have told me flat-out that the Big Ten and SEC (in that order) have been the primary choices for the school in this process because it knew that the Pac-10 could never match either financially in any scenario. Now, it's fully possible (if not likely) that political factors became intertwined here and Texas simply couldn't go to its prospective highest revenue home. This TV revenue issue along with how Standford could have been convinced to vote for Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are the two items that are holding me back from jumping on board with this rumor completely.
Regardless, while the situation for Missouri is somewhat worrisome, it's completely rosy compared to Kansas. I don't believe that a Big Ten invite is forthcoming for the Jayhawks, the school might be shackled to Kansas State for political purposes if it tries to move by itself and it doesn't help that the school is in the middle of an embarrassing ticket scalping scandal. It's hard for me to believe that Kansas could end up with the leftovers of the Big XII in a Frankenstein league with some current MWC and WAC members, but it's a very real possibility if this rumor is true.
Finally, the seismic shift that Jack Swarbrick had stated that would force Notre Dame to join a conference might be coming. I have long been a skeptic that we would see 4 16-team superconferences so quickly, but this type of move by the Pac-10 would start an immediate shift of massive proportions. So, if the Big Ten doesn't end up with Texas but Notre Dame finally ends up joining, then maybe it really is mission accomplished for Jim Delany. We might be going back to the traditional "Big Ten adds Notre Dame/Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Syracuse" rumors as opposed to a Southern demographic shift, yet at least we might be finally getting some closure on this issue sooner rather than later. UT President Bill Powers is supposed to have a press conference with Big XII Commissioner Dan Beebe tomorrow, which should be extremely entertaining for all of us expansion junkies.
LINK
Frank the Tank blogger still thinks NU is a Big Ten lock
- Thread starter Nexus
- Start date
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Searching for a term.... thinking..... Oh yeah - WOW!!!!
I always figured that if the Big 10 added its Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Syracuse targets (in varying agglomerations) that other conferences would follow suit, but I did not think this would happen so quickly, or that the rumors would have such teeth.
For those inclined to worry, let me state again for the umpteenth time:
THERE IS NO WAY NEBRASKA GETS LEFT OUT OF A MAJOR UPGRADE IN THIS SITUATION.
I sincerely doubt Missouri gets left out, too. And I would be surprised if a school with the basketball pedigree of Kansas is left high and dry. If Armageddon happens, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri and Iowa State are not going to be on the outside looking in. While they may be junior members of the Big XII athletically, they're not much junior (and in some ways superior to schools like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, etc).
No matter what, the next several weeks should be very interesting.
So much for being bored during the offseason.
I always figured that if the Big 10 added its Nebraska/Missouri/Rutgers/Syracuse targets (in varying agglomerations) that other conferences would follow suit, but I did not think this would happen so quickly, or that the rumors would have such teeth.
For those inclined to worry, let me state again for the umpteenth time:
THERE IS NO WAY NEBRASKA GETS LEFT OUT OF A MAJOR UPGRADE IN THIS SITUATION.
I sincerely doubt Missouri gets left out, too. And I would be surprised if a school with the basketball pedigree of Kansas is left high and dry. If Armageddon happens, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri and Iowa State are not going to be on the outside looking in. While they may be junior members of the Big XII athletically, they're not much junior (and in some ways superior to schools like Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, etc).
No matter what, the next several weeks should be very interesting.
So much for being bored during the offseason.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
I read that, Nexus. It's freaky how much you and I think alike. I was chatting with a coworker at the water cooler yesterday saying almost exactly what you were saying in that post. The Big 10 didn't just wake up one morning last December and decide they'd like to be bigger. This has been an ongoing process for years, and I will guarantee that many schools have been talked to in backdoor channels over several years about potentials and possibilities.
It is not a surprise to me that just about when the Big 10 starts talking seriously about expansion, a conversation that they've necessarily had in private for some time before going public, Nebraska is moving forward with a major arena upgrade athletically and a MAJOR academic upgrade in Innovation Park. These two things ramping up at this time is not an accident in my opinion.
Nebraska is a decent, but not exciting, academic school. We're OK, but we're not on par with many of the schools in the Big 10. I would venture a guess that, sometime in late 2006 or early 2007, NU was approached by the Big 10 with the possibility of a merger, but with stipulations including improvements academically and athletically. Later that year the University announced plans to acquire the land then occupied by State Fair Park, which serendipitously became available when the State Fair Board, through mismanagement and laziness, allowed the State Fair to fall into such a sad state that nobody went anymore. The land became available, UNL snatched it up, and announced plans for a very modern research campus in about 11/2007. I do not see this occurring in a vacuum. I see this as laying groundwork to improve the University for acceptance into the Big 10, which has traditionally been at the forefront of research amongst public universities.
This is one of the reasons I don't get too scared when people talk about blowing up the Big 12, and what might happen to Nebraska as a result. We're not starting to form plans on what to do if Armageddon happens. We have our plan. We have our strategy, and we'll execute it when the time is right.
I see nothing but good things for Nebraska in a move to the Big 10. I'm very excited about this.
It is not a surprise to me that just about when the Big 10 starts talking seriously about expansion, a conversation that they've necessarily had in private for some time before going public, Nebraska is moving forward with a major arena upgrade athletically and a MAJOR academic upgrade in Innovation Park. These two things ramping up at this time is not an accident in my opinion.
Nebraska is a decent, but not exciting, academic school. We're OK, but we're not on par with many of the schools in the Big 10. I would venture a guess that, sometime in late 2006 or early 2007, NU was approached by the Big 10 with the possibility of a merger, but with stipulations including improvements academically and athletically. Later that year the University announced plans to acquire the land then occupied by State Fair Park, which serendipitously became available when the State Fair Board, through mismanagement and laziness, allowed the State Fair to fall into such a sad state that nobody went anymore. The land became available, UNL snatched it up, and announced plans for a very modern research campus in about 11/2007. I do not see this occurring in a vacuum. I see this as laying groundwork to improve the University for acceptance into the Big 10, which has traditionally been at the forefront of research amongst public universities.
This is one of the reasons I don't get too scared when people talk about blowing up the Big 12, and what might happen to Nebraska as a result. We're not starting to form plans on what to do if Armageddon happens. We have our plan. We have our strategy, and we'll execute it when the time is right.
I see nothing but good things for Nebraska in a move to the Big 10. I'm very excited about this.
Last edited by a moderator:
:thumbs +1
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I would add that I would love to see Notre Dame and Texas join us in the Big Ten for the obvious reasons, but only if Texas is willing to play nice and accept the terms that makes the Big Ten work the way that it does and that is through equality.
Last edited by a moderator:
fro daddy
All-Conference
** WARNING.... I AM LONG WINDED. :lol: **
This guy is a complete hack, admittedly so. I have heard squabbles about his "facts" and "numbers" in regards to Big10 expansion and he is freaking clueless. I have no inside sources and I have no deep AD/Admin connections to any school in the big12 or big10. And I have no clue if MU will or will not get an invite to any conference or if any of this stuff will go down for sure.
But what I do not have is an agenda. And Frank comes off as having an agenda. A clear and direct issue with the University of Missouri. I will list some things he has stated that are very, very wrong. Then I post why below. Lets look.
What Frank the Tank claims:
#1. He claims Nebraska would add $21 mil in value for "added footprint" while Missouri brings in $16mil, kansas $12mil. This is clearly wrong and slanted.
#2. kansas brings in $7.4mil in "cable carry increase," Missouri brings in 6.6mil and Nebraska brings in 5.5mil.
#3. Old Frank and his "TV Friend" are saying that 60% of the Big 10 revenue is coming from advertising, while only 40% are from subscription fees. This is why they think Nebraska brings more to the table.
#4 His big knock on MU is they dont bring added sets and revenue because of STL. He claims that STL is already in the Big 10 footprint because of Illinois.
Why Fro Daddy thinks Frank is an idiot:
#1. A footprint for the big10 would be states where they have teams. It is home base. States that carry the network throughout the vast majority of their cable networks. Not the same as national subscriptions. Pennsylvania has the lowest footprint for the big 10 with 83% (per the big 10 network) So with that said, when did Nebraska become a bigger state that Missouri and Kansas?? The real numbers are like this. Per the Big 10 Network they receive $.70-.80 cents per footprint subscriber. So using population numbers from 2006 (only ones I had quickly available) and multiplying by .$70 the real numbers for foot print subscribers are, MO-$4.09 million, KU-$1.93 Mill & NU-$1.23 Mill. They obviously does not include fees and ad revenue, and are done by people not cable households, but you get the picture. The real numbers would not be exactly this, but the ratios in most cases will hold.
#2. Through what I have seen this can be figured at about $4.3 per person/subscriber. So, again 'Frank' is multiplying what he thinks is 'added' households. His values of new households are: kansas 1.7 mill, Missouri 1.5 mill, Nebraska 1.2 mill. So Kansas, a state less than 1/2 the population size of Mo has more households?? And MO only has 300K more households than NE despite nearly 3 times the population. Clearly wrong.
#3. The only problem with this line of thinking is that the Big 10 Networks own website says that revenue is primarily made up of subscription fees, with some advertising as well. For cable networks, this is a commonly known fact. Fee's paid by the carriers and subscription fee's are where cable channels make the bulk of their money. Not ads.
#4. This is also wrong as well. There are only 8 states in the Big 10 footprint where they can charge .70 cents per subscription. Those eight states: Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Penn happen to be the only states where the Big 10 universities are. So again, wrong.
I know there has been talk on here because Nebraska is a 'National' team that they will carry the most money. That is not necessarily true. According to the TV numbers I have seen, networks would receive $.05 - .10 cents per national subscribers compared to the $.70-.80 cents for regional (footprint) subscribers. The big10 network already has more than 10 million more national household subscribers than regional (17.6 to 27.5). I have no doubt that Nebraska is worth taking and that they will bring in enough money to carry their weight. But Husker fans out of the region would have to to have 14 subscribers to every 1 regional to break even. Just to give you an idea of the numbers. Lets divide MO and NE state population by 2 to equal a house hold (not exact I know). That means 2.92 Million for MO and 884K for Nebraska. Then since we all know everybody in NE is a husker die hard I will keep that as their number. For MO i know not everyone is a Tiger fan, so just for giggles lets say 50% (i believe its higher than this, but just for arguments sake) so 1.47 Million for MO. That leaves a difference of 586K. So Nebraska would have to produce 8.2 million national subscribers just to break even with a %50 Missouri footprint. Obviously this is just a made up example. But it shows the value of a regional footprint. What makes Nebraska valuable despite their small foot print is the national subscription. Nebraska will bring in the national eyes. But I am just demonstrating that the money that some are claiming are clearly wrong. More specifically that Frank the Tank is wrong.
This guy is a complete hack, admittedly so. I have heard squabbles about his "facts" and "numbers" in regards to Big10 expansion and he is freaking clueless. I have no inside sources and I have no deep AD/Admin connections to any school in the big12 or big10. And I have no clue if MU will or will not get an invite to any conference or if any of this stuff will go down for sure.
But what I do not have is an agenda. And Frank comes off as having an agenda. A clear and direct issue with the University of Missouri. I will list some things he has stated that are very, very wrong. Then I post why below. Lets look.
What Frank the Tank claims:
#1. He claims Nebraska would add $21 mil in value for "added footprint" while Missouri brings in $16mil, kansas $12mil. This is clearly wrong and slanted.
#2. kansas brings in $7.4mil in "cable carry increase," Missouri brings in 6.6mil and Nebraska brings in 5.5mil.
#3. Old Frank and his "TV Friend" are saying that 60% of the Big 10 revenue is coming from advertising, while only 40% are from subscription fees. This is why they think Nebraska brings more to the table.
#4 His big knock on MU is they dont bring added sets and revenue because of STL. He claims that STL is already in the Big 10 footprint because of Illinois.
Why Fro Daddy thinks Frank is an idiot:
#1. A footprint for the big10 would be states where they have teams. It is home base. States that carry the network throughout the vast majority of their cable networks. Not the same as national subscriptions. Pennsylvania has the lowest footprint for the big 10 with 83% (per the big 10 network) So with that said, when did Nebraska become a bigger state that Missouri and Kansas?? The real numbers are like this. Per the Big 10 Network they receive $.70-.80 cents per footprint subscriber. So using population numbers from 2006 (only ones I had quickly available) and multiplying by .$70 the real numbers for foot print subscribers are, MO-$4.09 million, KU-$1.93 Mill & NU-$1.23 Mill. They obviously does not include fees and ad revenue, and are done by people not cable households, but you get the picture. The real numbers would not be exactly this, but the ratios in most cases will hold.
#2. Through what I have seen this can be figured at about $4.3 per person/subscriber. So, again 'Frank' is multiplying what he thinks is 'added' households. His values of new households are: kansas 1.7 mill, Missouri 1.5 mill, Nebraska 1.2 mill. So Kansas, a state less than 1/2 the population size of Mo has more households?? And MO only has 300K more households than NE despite nearly 3 times the population. Clearly wrong.
#3. The only problem with this line of thinking is that the Big 10 Networks own website says that revenue is primarily made up of subscription fees, with some advertising as well. For cable networks, this is a commonly known fact. Fee's paid by the carriers and subscription fee's are where cable channels make the bulk of their money. Not ads.
#4. This is also wrong as well. There are only 8 states in the Big 10 footprint where they can charge .70 cents per subscription. Those eight states: Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Penn happen to be the only states where the Big 10 universities are. So again, wrong.
I know there has been talk on here because Nebraska is a 'National' team that they will carry the most money. That is not necessarily true. According to the TV numbers I have seen, networks would receive $.05 - .10 cents per national subscribers compared to the $.70-.80 cents for regional (footprint) subscribers. The big10 network already has more than 10 million more national household subscribers than regional (17.6 to 27.5). I have no doubt that Nebraska is worth taking and that they will bring in enough money to carry their weight. But Husker fans out of the region would have to to have 14 subscribers to every 1 regional to break even. Just to give you an idea of the numbers. Lets divide MO and NE state population by 2 to equal a house hold (not exact I know). That means 2.92 Million for MO and 884K for Nebraska. Then since we all know everybody in NE is a husker die hard I will keep that as their number. For MO i know not everyone is a Tiger fan, so just for giggles lets say 50% (i believe its higher than this, but just for arguments sake) so 1.47 Million for MO. That leaves a difference of 586K. So Nebraska would have to produce 8.2 million national subscribers just to break even with a %50 Missouri footprint. Obviously this is just a made up example. But it shows the value of a regional footprint. What makes Nebraska valuable despite their small foot print is the national subscription. Nebraska will bring in the national eyes. But I am just demonstrating that the money that some are claiming are clearly wrong. More specifically that Frank the Tank is wrong.
girlknowsfootball
Starter
If Texas, Tech, OU, OK St, A&M, and Colorado leave for the Pac 10, I think we need to leave for the Big 10... and I think our benefits for leaving would end up being better than those who bolt to the Pac 10...
fro daddy
All-Conference
Knappy,
I have been with you on alot of this. I see NO POSSIBLE SITUATION where NU gets left out. The money and name are there. Nebraska is solid enough in acadimics to fit with the big 10. They are financial strong. They have the big staduim and fan base. I would fall off my rocker if they did not get in.
fro daddy
All-Conference
I dont know if it would be better, but it certainly wouldnt be much worse. If the pac10 deal goes down like talked about they would have 7 of the top 20 markets in the US. That would reap huge amounts of money. But the big 10 deal would only grow also, so both would be on near equal footing.
knapplc
International Man of Mystery
Fro, I have no data to dispute your numbers so even accepting them as fact, the bottom line is that the national cachet of Nebraska makes them a HUGE target. We are a branded name, and our overall revenue is among the tops in the NCAA. No matter how you slice it, Nebraska is a major player in this game.
Certainly on a national scale in football Nebraska's name is more prominent than anyone else in the North. That really can't be debated. As for what we all bring to the table... there are various ways to look at it, and you can make an argument in favor of Missouri as well as Nebraska. Regardless, I think both are attractive to the Big 10, and I think both "get invited" to the Big 10.
With the announcement of the Pac-10 offer to half the Big 12, I think it only more likely that Missouri and Nebraska end up in the Big 10. Once we're there, does it really matter who they wanted more? Especially when we all know they want Notre Dame most of all?
Certainly on a national scale in football Nebraska's name is more prominent than anyone else in the North. That really can't be debated. As for what we all bring to the table... there are various ways to look at it, and you can make an argument in favor of Missouri as well as Nebraska. Regardless, I think both are attractive to the Big 10, and I think both "get invited" to the Big 10.
With the announcement of the Pac-10 offer to half the Big 12, I think it only more likely that Missouri and Nebraska end up in the Big 10. Once we're there, does it really matter who they wanted more? Especially when we all know they want Notre Dame most of all?
billdozer15
All-Conference
Personally I think NU and Missouri are already in the Big10. I think this six school thing is happening as a reaction to this move. I too believe the schools that move to the Big10 will be better off in the long run. The Pac10 has yet to set up a T.V. network, and you cant just set one up over night it takes years of planning. The Big10 network is already well established and will only get larger. While the Pac10 is scrambling to put one together and making mistakes because they are scrambling we will be in the Big10 reaping big rewards.
fro daddy
All-Conference
I wasnt debating NU's worth. More like a numbers laced rant at the dumb*** Ill. fan who is making stuff up. Nebraska brings the bucks Knappy. I was just showing the numbers are not skewed like he claims. As I said, NU is a national product. They more than make up for the small footprint with a great number of fans. as stated they would bring more than their share of revunue. Not at all a knock buddy. I just try to point examples to the board. I could have done it with MU/KU since he claims they bring in more $$ from TV, but I thought with it being a husker board and all...
I just think he was mad because Ill. dropped the MU game since they kept losing and now there is talk of it being a conference game :nutz
Last edited by a moderator:
Judoka
Starter
If things shake out the even half as what is speculated, I don't see much choice in the matter for Notre Dame. Texas' situation seems to different in that they may have to take a few others wherever they go.
irafreak
All-American
If all of this goes down don't you think every major conference will benefit from tv money? I'm assuming the 4 superconferences built so expansion for the other 2 means more bargaining power with even the cable channels like ESPN/ABC...
So who does the SEC target? ACC? Does ACC merge with what's left of Big East? What about MWC/WAC? Could they have a share in all this with Utah, Boise, TCU, BYU and then a possible Kansas/KSU merger? Who's going to be the 4th conference after the SEC takes their picks?
And this is such a great offseason!
So who does the SEC target? ACC? Does ACC merge with what's left of Big East? What about MWC/WAC? Could they have a share in all this with Utah, Boise, TCU, BYU and then a possible Kansas/KSU merger? Who's going to be the 4th conference after the SEC takes their picks?
And this is such a great offseason!
fro daddy
All-Conference
All I know for sure is it will cause me to by a new NCAA video game and that I will have to get some new mini-helmets for my rec room. Wont work with the ones I have now if half or more of the teams are no longer in the conference. <_<