Just a quick poll. We knew the money would be higher than the last rights deal, we just didnt know how much. After reports of the new deal what are you all thinking in regards to expansion. It seems clear to me that with tier 1 + CFP & bowls + BTN + NCAA tournament... the per team cut should be in excess of 50 million. Does a number like that temp the triumvirate of Virginia, Carolina, & Duke? Do the football powers of Texas, Florida State, Oklahoma, or Notre Dame have interest in a sit down?
One thing Im sure about is that we need only add schools we feel are the perfect fit and they have mutual feelings. Put another way if they join the B1G they wouldn't / couldn't be lured away. The further south you go the higher the likelihood IMO of defections down the road or formation of a spin off league. The Southern Conference was once over 20 schools and though it still exists practically all SEC & ACC schools left the unwieldy conference for something more proximate. Additionally I think can also be said that by bringing in a small group (such as the tobacco triumvirate) it lessens the desire to want to leave because a good chunk of your ruvals are in conference and you can play VT, NCST, WAKE, etc. Non-conf. The trick is the number of schools total in the league so it doesnt get too big and that you get to play you rivals every year.

the chances of conference expansion within the next 10 years was already pretty high... I don't think the contracts change anything other than perhaps pushing some of the G5 teams that are already unhappy about their current conference (Oklahoma particularly, and FSU at a lesser degree) to maybe open up discussions with B1G brass a bit more.

B1G made a few short deals that got them PAID..while also ending just as the Big 12 GOR is coming up....Coincidence?

New deals in 6 years just going to get bigger, probably with provisions to add for additional teams.

It takes a willing party for expansion to happen. I do not see ND or the ACC schools as willing partners before Delany retires.

I see the Big 12 schools as willing parties since the gap is so large now and that conference is a shell of its former self. And you know Kansas would jump at a B1G offer. So it is possible to get Big 12 schools.

Next contract will probably be 3 billion dollars or so depending on the number of years.

I just don't know how many schools would increase the payout for the conference. Then you have to narrow it down to who would accept an invitation and then you have a list of schools that the Big Ten could invite.

The state of Texas would be the revenue for BTN. Oklahoma and Kansas would be Tier 1 contract increases.

Texas could ask for a regional school and that would likely be Texas Tech.

(06-25-2016 09:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The state of Texas would be the revenue for BTN. Oklahoma and Kansas would be Tier 1 contract increases.

Texas could ask for a regional school and that would likely be Texas Tech.

Why would Kansas be a Tier 1 contract increase? They weren't wanted by the PAC when they wanted to make the PAC 16 super conference, they weren't wanted by the Big Ten or SEC in the last round(s) of realignment, and they were in serious jeopardy of ending up in the Big East (now AAC) at one time. The Big Ten could have easily taken Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri at once and locked up the western side of the Big Ten but Kansas is a step below. They weren't as good as Rutgers and Maryland and I think that is the benchmark for the next additions.

Don't even get me started on Texas Tech. They are so far from Big Ten material that it isn't worth discussing.

(06-25-2016 10:51 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 09:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The state of Texas would be the revenue for BTN. Oklahoma and Kansas would be Tier 1 contract increases.

Texas could ask for a regional school and that would likely be Texas Tech.

Why would Kansas be a Tier 1 contract increase? They weren't wanted by the PAC when they wanted to make the PAC 16 super conference, they weren't wanted by the Big Ten or SEC in the last round(s) of realignment, and they were in serious jeopardy of ending up in the Big East (now AAC) at one time. The Big Ten could have easily taken Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri at once and locked up the western side of the Big Ten but Kansas is a step below. They weren't as good as Rutgers and Maryland and I think that is the benchmark for the next additions.

Don't even get me started on Texas Tech. They are so far from Big Ten material that it isn't worth discussing.

Basketball.

(06-25-2016 09:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The state of Texas would be the revenue for BTN. Oklahoma and Kansas would be Tier 1 contract increases.

Texas could ask for a regional school and that would likely be Texas Tech.

Rice would probably be a great compromise... great football historically, great baseball, elite academics, NASA relationship, city of Houston.

(06-26-2016 10:15 AM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 10:51 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 09:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The state of Texas would be the revenue for BTN. Oklahoma and Kansas would be Tier 1 contract increases.

Texas could ask for a regional school and that would likely be Texas Tech.

Why would Kansas be a Tier 1 contract increase? They weren't wanted by the PAC when they wanted to make the PAC 16 super conference, they weren't wanted by the Big Ten or SEC in the last round(s) of realignment, and they were in serious jeopardy of ending up in the Big East (now AAC) at one time. The Big Ten could have easily taken Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri at once and locked up the western side of the Big Ten but Kansas is a step below. They weren't as good as Rutgers and Maryland and I think that is the benchmark for the next additions.

Don't even get me started on Texas Tech. They are so far from Big Ten material that it isn't worth discussing.

Basketball.

Kansas has a great basketball program but it isn't as valuable as a great football program. You could argue that the Big Ten is pretty full on basketball programs with Indiana, Michigan State, Maryland as the cream with Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Illinois all having moments at the top for periods. Must-see football is worth more than must-see basketball and Kansas doesn't provide that.

A combination of the frist two opinions means its option three. Because of the new deal and giant payout, more schools will be begging to get invited. But that same big payout means even fewer schools are worth inviting. So we are about the same. I don't think there is any coincidence that the BIG tv deal is up for renewal at the same tie as the B12 GOR is set to expire. My belief is the next round of expansion will be schools who have a national following. As internet streaming video becomes more widespread, cable markets become less important. There for schools like Kansas and Oklahoma that are in small market states, but have large national followings become more valuable.

(06-26-2016 11:14 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 09:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The state of Texas would be the revenue for BTN. Oklahoma and Kansas would be Tier 1 contract increases.

Texas could ask for a regional school and that would likely be Texas Tech.

Rice would probably be a great compromise... great football historically, great baseball, elite academics, NASA relationship, city of Houston.

When, pray tell, had Rice EVER been good at football? I see three 10 win seasons in the history of their program in 1949, 2008, & 2013 and a .44465 win % all time. What am I missing?

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/reco...?team=Rice

(06-25-2016 06:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  It takes a willing party for expansion to happen. I do not see ND or the ACC schools as willing partners before Delany retires.

I see the Big 12 schools as willing parties since the gap is so large now and that conference is a shell of its former self. And you know Kansas would jump at a B1G offer. So it is possible to get Big 12 schools.

I'm on board with a western expansion but only if the road leads to Norman, Oklahoma.

If it takes accepting both Kansas and Missouri to get Oklahoma, then I'd like to invite UConn as the 18th school. It opens the door to eastern hockey and would put the Big Ten on equal footing with ACC basketball.

(06-26-2016 07:37 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(06-26-2016 11:14 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 09:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The state of Texas would be the revenue for BTN. Oklahoma and Kansas would be Tier 1 contract increases.

Texas could ask for a regional school and that would likely be Texas Tech.

Rice would probably be a great compromise... great football historically, great baseball, elite academics, NASA relationship, city of Houston.

When, pray tell, had Rice EVER been good at football? I see three 10 win seasons in the history of their program in 1949, 2008, & 2013 and a .44465 win % all time. What am I missing?

http://football.stassen.com/cgi-bin/reco...?team=Rice

You're right about that. I guess I had that idea due to mostly one or two great seasons and were part of SWC for such a long time.

Either way, you get one of the elite academic institutions (a nice southern match for Northwestern) right in Houston that would give Texas a fellow Texan school without truly "threatening" UT in their own region like A&M always did. You'd basically guarantee BTN coverage throughout the state due to being situated right in Houston and Austin and having the #1 public and private schools in the state.

(06-27-2016 01:33 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(06-25-2016 06:55 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  It takes a willing party for expansion to happen. I do not see ND or the ACC schools as willing partners before Delany retires.

I see the Big 12 schools as willing parties since the gap is so large now and that conference is a shell of its former self. And you know Kansas would jump at a B1G offer. So it is possible to get Big 12 schools.

I'm on board with a western expansion but only if the road leads to Norman, Oklahoma.

If it takes accepting both Kansas and Missouri to get Oklahoma, then I'd like to invite UConn as the 18th school. It opens the door to eastern hockey and would put the Big Ten on equal footing with ACC basketball.

I doubt we'd need to accept KU and Mizzou to get OU. While generally the conference has always stuck to contiguity amongst states, I'm pretty sure if Oklahoma approaches the conference about joining, there won't be too many quams about adding them.

Wes Durham and Joe Ovies opine that one or a few Big 12 programs might leave for the Big Ten within the next six years.

http://www.wralsportsfan.com/colleges/audio/15813071/

(go to 16:00 for the relevant comment)

I like UConn and Mizzou: keeps the geographic footprint plus adds population. Additionally both schools could be added to the conference tomorrow at little to no conference buyout, hypothetically. Divisions could be:

1. 2.
Connecticut Indiana
Maryland Michigan
Penn State Michigan State
Rutgers Ohio State

3. 4.
Illinois Minnesota
Iowa Northwestern
Missouri Purdue
Nebraska Wisconsin

Play your pod annually, play everyone else biennially, approximately as Indiana-Purdue and Illinois-NW are the only protected cross-pod rivals. For basketball you could expand conference schedule to 19 games. Home and home with four teams (pod plus one random school, with Illinois, IU, Purdue, and NW having four permanent rivals), then everyone else once.

I really don't like the idea of a 16 team conference or even more than that. At least right now with the way the schedules are set up for football, you will play everyone in the other division once every 3 years. If you go to 16, you are looking at once every 4 years, or maybe even worse than that. In the end, money will win out, but the bigger the conferences get, the less they feel like conferences.

(07-06-2016 02:03 PM)General Mike Wrote:  I really don't like the idea of a 16 team conference or even more than that. At least right now with the way the schedules are set up for football, you will play everyone in the other division once every 3 years. If you go to 16, you are looking at once every 4 years, or maybe even worse than that. In the end, money will win out, but the bigger the conferences get, the less they feel like conferences.

Four pods of four and you play each school at least biennially with a nine game football conference schedule. Sixteen actually allows for greater schedule flexibility. I do think sixteen is the absolute limit.