I think Pitt's light dimmed when Delaney found out the Baltimore/DC and New York TV markets had come into play. Louisville is supposedly very weak academically... at least that what all the ACC folks down here complain about constantly and I wonder if Ohio State hasn't quietly expressed it's desire to keep Cincinnati out of the conference.
OU to Big Ten?
- Thread starter TheBoris
- Start date
I think Pitt's light dimmed when Delaney found out the Baltimore/DC and New York TV markets had come into play. Louisville is supposedly very weak academically... at least that what all the ACC folks down here complain about constantly and I wonder if Ohio State hasn't quietly expressed it's desire to keep Cincinnati out of the conference.
Louisville and Cincy are both commuter schools with shameful academics. Pitt is a great school but already in the BTN footprint and the Steelers own that town. Pitt attendence is atrocious. The stadium is four miles from campus and the students must take busses from the campus to the stadium.
Let me clarify.
Iowa ST was MY #1 priority ! I wanted a team Purdue could beat. I believe I've mentioned Iowa st many times as they would create a conference wrestling dynasty. We'd have the greatest wrestling conference in the WORLD ! There are other sports besides football . choke choke swimming , track and golf exist choke choke But everybody else said , NO WAY, they would not help create more money !!!!! my #2-5 priorities were Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee ! But everyone else said NO WAY , they'll NEVER leave the SEC for the BIG 10.
Actually, my real #1 priority expressed several years ago was Notre Dame, but that board thought I was crazy and that Notre Dame would NEVER join any conference, and they'd always remain an independent for all sports. So I left that forum and board of crazy uninformed fans. Hammer, please ?
I mentioned Louisville and cincy and pitt because I hate all three choices, but they seem to match the logical need for greed choices of others. they make as much sense as adding Ok or Texas. I lived in Choctaw, Ok for a couple of years. Ok has no interest in academics. if we're looking for money, why not also add the University of phoenix ? it makes as much sense, and we could play in their stadium every other year .
it's time the BIG 10 said enough is enough for the need for greed. Adding Stanford makes more sense than adding OK or Texas. the only thing more need for greed creates is players now wanting a piece of the pie. At some point in time, you realize haaving all the money in the world doesn't bring you everything you want. and university presidents should start telling the networks where they can go with their money and go back to playing Saturday afternoon football with bands playing at half time and throwing students on people's arms up to the top of the stadium. and bringing back Block P and eliminating all those TV timeouts too!
Iowa ST was MY #1 priority ! I wanted a team Purdue could beat. I believe I've mentioned Iowa st many times as they would create a conference wrestling dynasty. We'd have the greatest wrestling conference in the WORLD ! There are other sports besides football . choke choke swimming , track and golf exist choke choke But everybody else said , NO WAY, they would not help create more money !!!!! my #2-5 priorities were Missouri, Kentucky and Tennessee ! But everyone else said NO WAY , they'll NEVER leave the SEC for the BIG 10.
Actually, my real #1 priority expressed several years ago was Notre Dame, but that board thought I was crazy and that Notre Dame would NEVER join any conference, and they'd always remain an independent for all sports. So I left that forum and board of crazy uninformed fans. Hammer, please ?
I mentioned Louisville and cincy and pitt because I hate all three choices, but they seem to match the logical need for greed choices of others. they make as much sense as adding Ok or Texas. I lived in Choctaw, Ok for a couple of years. Ok has no interest in academics. if we're looking for money, why not also add the University of phoenix ? it makes as much sense, and we could play in their stadium every other year .
it's time the BIG 10 said enough is enough for the need for greed. Adding Stanford makes more sense than adding OK or Texas. the only thing more need for greed creates is players now wanting a piece of the pie. At some point in time, you realize haaving all the money in the world doesn't bring you everything you want. and university presidents should start telling the networks where they can go with their money and go back to playing Saturday afternoon football with bands playing at half time and throwing students on people's arms up to the top of the stadium. and bringing back Block P and eliminating all those TV timeouts too!
Last edited:
Big Ten is already the best conference in wrestling. And it's not even close.
Iowa State would get a bid to the Big Ten around the same time Alaska-Fairbanks got one.
4 paragraphs later and I'm still waiting for clarification.
You're right because they do not improve the conference in hardly any way. You are simply trying to add teams that Purdue might be able to beat (as if Rutgers didn't fit that bill).
ND hasn't been independent in all sports for half a century. They're in the ACC in everything except football. Before that, they were in the Big East in all sports except football. Prior to that, they were in the Horizon Conference in all sports except football.
Maybe they can join the mo valley with Valpo and Murray state!
I am academics first then athletics.....my dream schools into the Big Ten would be Vanderbilt (Growing market with money) and Georgia Tech (Atlanta is a huge market plus we all can go to The Varsity for some grub!)
is that bad thing? Who in their right mind invites mich or OSU to their homecoming other than maybe Purdue ? is it wrong to invite a bad team and one you hope you can beat to your conference? if you feel like arm wrestling, do you go out and challenge some 400 pound WWE wrestler ? if you form a chess league, do you invite Stephen Hawkins? Do you challenge MJ to a game of horse ?
How much more revenue do you believe bringing in Ok is going to mean over ISU ? and what's the real reason for inviting OK, other than greed? What would OK offer to our conference other than wins and TV revenue? Is that what it's come down to? Hasn't it already bee n proven if the BIG 10 champ is undefeated, they will get an invite to the football final 4 ? by adding Iowa St, wouldn't that help produce an undefeated BIG 10 champion and secure the same result?
Why make life rough on yourself ? Pike's Peak has a road you can drive on. And you still want to walk and climb it? As I see it, adding OK, you could risk Mich and OSU losing their perfect seasons and risk losing the ratings of the OSU/Mich game if they have a loss, and you could lose that invite to the final 4 championship. Whereas, adding ISU would help secure that invitation.
I am fine with bringing in a program that we can beat but what's the purpose if they bring nothing to the table? Rutgers is such a program and they helped expand the footprint of the conference to bring in some lucrative television markets. Iowa State does nothing of the sort. Not to mention that they would have beaten the Hazell teams anyway and just reduced our revenue by taking an extra cut from the pie.
The reason that the SEC Network is making more money than the BTN is because the SEC added Mizzou and Texas A&M. That added 30 million people to the SEC footprint.
The B1G can do essentially the same thing by adding Oklahoma and Texas. Adding in-footprint schools like Iowa St or Pitt does nothing to improve out bottom line.
The B1G can do essentially the same thing by adding Oklahoma and Texas. Adding in-footprint schools like Iowa St or Pitt does nothing to improve out bottom line.
Why do you keep talking about greed? It's ALL about the money. Money=winning. The more money you have, the better facilities you can build, the better coaching staff you can attract, the better recruits you will sign, the more your players will develop, etc, etc. You say you want to win, well, the conference with the most money will be the one on top. Iowa State ain't getting us there.
Says the guy who thinks a sure win over a FCS team is preferable to a 50/50 game against a peer.
Another possibe B1G expansion candidate: Colorado. Things are not going well for the Buffs in the Pac-12.
http://www.thepostgame.com/college-football-colorado-pac-12-big-12-expansion
http://www.thepostgame.com/college-football-colorado-pac-12-big-12-expansion
let's look at it from a different perspective. If OK joins the BIG 10, they would most likely be joined with OK State. As such, a conference realignment would follow and Purdue most likely would be placed in the eastern division with IU, OSU, Mich, PSU and the rest. Some Purdue fans would love this.
With two additional teams, revenue will be increased, but revenue sharing will decrease. Rather than increased revenue from bowl games, we may see OK and OK St going to Bowl games that were previously filled by lower tier BIG 10 teams who may end up staying home as a result. I doubt any new Bowl games will be created or that the BIG 10 makes any new bowl alliances. This could mean a BIG 10 team would need at least a 7-5 record to receive one of the BIG 10 Bowl bids. Several Bowl games have shut down due to lack of revenue generated and several others may follow. Rather than placing another BIG 10 team in another big bowl game, what we could see is a team like Penn ST, MSU, UW or Nebraska playing in a much lesser bowl game than in previous years.
With the addition of OK, it will become harder for any BIG 10 team to go undefeated. While our conference RPI may go up, our chances of being guaranteed a final 4 football spot may be placed in jeopardy if our Conference Champion has 1-2 conference losses. or if we end up with a 3 way tie during the regular season. If Michigan, OSU and OU all have 1-2 losses, and OU beats Michigan in the conference championship giving mich its third loss, who is better? a 1 loss OSU team? or a 3 loss Mich team? or a 2 loss OK team? or on a national scale, a 1 loss Baylor team or a 2 loss Big 10 champion? Adding OK would make BIG 10 football a lot like BIG 10 basketball where the champion could easily have 1-3 losses.
With a new powerhouse in the conference, a lot of the BIG 10 coverage of sporting events on the BIG 10 network, and other sports networks will be given to Oklahoma as they face their new BIG 10 rivals. For some reason, I doubt any network would want to cover Purdue as the BIG 10 game of the week, when the possibility of having an OK game would be available. I see Purdue as an afterthought in all football programing. With the addition of two teams, I see Purdue's network coverage being diminished regardless. We're not must see TV.
I can see a lot of advantages for the BIG 10 to add OK, but I can see very few advantages or benefits for Purdue. Will Purdue fans flock to see a Purdue / OK game ? There was a lot of red when Purdue played Nebraska and also a lot of Iowa Gold and black at last year's homecoming. Purdue fans lately have not shown a tendency to show up against big time opponents.
So why are so many Purdue fans in favor of this addition? It looks great for the BIG 10, but not so great for Purdue. In all likelihood, Purdue is realigned to the East, and will play OK once in 10 years. It will make the conference depth stronger, but may also create havoc with the conference championship chances especially if perfect seasons are no longer the norm. And will also push Purdue down lower on the totem poll. I liken Purdue's chances of competing with OK in football as the same as competing with OSU.
Are super conferences coming in the near future with Mich, OSU, OK, NEB, ND in their own conference ? with ALA, FLO, TEX, Clemson, and LSU in another ? and USC and ORE looking for a super conference to join?
With two additional teams, revenue will be increased, but revenue sharing will decrease. Rather than increased revenue from bowl games, we may see OK and OK St going to Bowl games that were previously filled by lower tier BIG 10 teams who may end up staying home as a result. I doubt any new Bowl games will be created or that the BIG 10 makes any new bowl alliances. This could mean a BIG 10 team would need at least a 7-5 record to receive one of the BIG 10 Bowl bids. Several Bowl games have shut down due to lack of revenue generated and several others may follow. Rather than placing another BIG 10 team in another big bowl game, what we could see is a team like Penn ST, MSU, UW or Nebraska playing in a much lesser bowl game than in previous years.
With the addition of OK, it will become harder for any BIG 10 team to go undefeated. While our conference RPI may go up, our chances of being guaranteed a final 4 football spot may be placed in jeopardy if our Conference Champion has 1-2 conference losses. or if we end up with a 3 way tie during the regular season. If Michigan, OSU and OU all have 1-2 losses, and OU beats Michigan in the conference championship giving mich its third loss, who is better? a 1 loss OSU team? or a 3 loss Mich team? or a 2 loss OK team? or on a national scale, a 1 loss Baylor team or a 2 loss Big 10 champion? Adding OK would make BIG 10 football a lot like BIG 10 basketball where the champion could easily have 1-3 losses.
With a new powerhouse in the conference, a lot of the BIG 10 coverage of sporting events on the BIG 10 network, and other sports networks will be given to Oklahoma as they face their new BIG 10 rivals. For some reason, I doubt any network would want to cover Purdue as the BIG 10 game of the week, when the possibility of having an OK game would be available. I see Purdue as an afterthought in all football programing. With the addition of two teams, I see Purdue's network coverage being diminished regardless. We're not must see TV.
I can see a lot of advantages for the BIG 10 to add OK, but I can see very few advantages or benefits for Purdue. Will Purdue fans flock to see a Purdue / OK game ? There was a lot of red when Purdue played Nebraska and also a lot of Iowa Gold and black at last year's homecoming. Purdue fans lately have not shown a tendency to show up against big time opponents.
So why are so many Purdue fans in favor of this addition? It looks great for the BIG 10, but not so great for Purdue. In all likelihood, Purdue is realigned to the East, and will play OK once in 10 years. It will make the conference depth stronger, but may also create havoc with the conference championship chances especially if perfect seasons are no longer the norm. And will also push Purdue down lower on the totem poll. I liken Purdue's chances of competing with OK in football as the same as competing with OSU.
Are super conferences coming in the near future with Mich, OSU, OK, NEB, ND in their own conference ? with ALA, FLO, TEX, Clemson, and LSU in another ? and USC and ORE looking for a super conference to join?
How about Colorado State. Land Grant University, an up an comer athletically, certainly couldn't be worse than Rutgers.
if OK left do you really believe Texas would just give up their network and try to join another conference? I would envision Texas would find a replacement and take a higher % of their network deal.
Delaney will only add schools that increase the per-team revenues, whether it be by brand name (Nebraska), by TV markets gained (Rutgers) or both (Texas).
Oklahoma State and Iowa State are out.
I have an outrageous idea! To improve their market share, rather than adding more teams to the BIG 10, if they want to expand their market share, they should be like Follets and cable networks and just buy out their competition. The BIG 10 Network should buy out the SECnetworks and other networks much like Cox and time warner do! They could allow the conference networks to keep their names, but form one giant ownership of all the college networks! This would be a lot more profitable than adding teams! Isn't that close to the reasoning Purdue bought out Kaplan college ? For it's online network? With all the college networks under one roof there would be mega profits! They could call it the Wolegib 500 network or NCAA Prime and compete with ESPN3 and ESPN college networks!
Texas will do what is best for Texas, whatever that is. I believe their strong preference is to be somewhere they call the shots and that's one reason they are still in the big 12.
Thing is, the BTN makes money for 14 schools and the LHN makes money for Texas, but ESPN has lost $48 million in six years on the LHN while Fox is making millions from the BTN.
I read the BIG 12 network gave Texas a huge % of revenue and OK received a nice share and the rest of the conference members all received a small slice. I could see Texas being happy to see OK leave, as they would find a way to increase their share.
And while it may be in Texas' best interest to leave the Big 12 and join the BIG 10, or PAC 12, I can't see them doing so at the expense of doing away with their network deal.
And while it may be in Texas' best interest to leave the Big 12 and join the BIG 10, or PAC 12, I can't see them doing so at the expense of doing away with their network deal.
Right. My claim is per school, BTN is currently paying out more. And if getting UT meant TX went to in network carriage fees for BTN, we'd all make even more even if we sliced the pie 16 different ways. I'm not advocating bringing in OU and TX necessarily, but I believe everyone involved would make more $$$ if they did compared to the status quo.
Another article on OU to B1G...
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/footba...cle_54469e07-11a3-5510-b584-df0ae0a98795.html
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/footba...cle_54469e07-11a3-5510-b584-df0ae0a98795.html
Texas doesn't want the SEC. The administration feels that league is beneath them academically & athletically. It will be either the Pac-12 or Big Ten for UTA. In either case, Oklahoma will quickly follow suit.
Though OU may not have the academic clout, if they came as a package deal with Texas would anyone vehemently oppose that idea? It would instantly make the B1G the premiere football conference, and not dilute BB. May not be great to have PU move to the east division, but staying in the west with OU and Texas wouldn't be much easier. Would TV and bowl revenue sharing increase for PU?
I can't really see many benefits for Purdue in adding any teams. the consensus here is that if the BIG 10 were to add a team, it would be a powerhouse team rather than an ISU or SIU. Purdue is never going to be able to compete in football against either OK or Texas. While the BIG 10 will be stronger overall, it would be debatable if the BIG 10 would pick up any additional bowl game. Perhaps if OK and Texas both leave the BIG 12, their conference's bowl games will look for different conferences to align with. If the BIG 10 doesn't pick up additional Bowl games, you are looking at the same amount of revenue to be split for two additional members. And Purdue's chances of ever hang a .500 season and playing in a future bowl game would take a huge hit. Maybe an Outback bowl every 10 years?
I also can't see a home crowd for Texas or OK being an bigger than a home crowd for Nebraska. and I would expect fewer Texas and OK fans to travel to Purdue to watch a Purdue / Texas match-up. I can see higher ratings for the BIG 10 network, but probably at the expense of providing Purdue football any exposure.
Sure, this would be great for the BIG 10, and bring our conference more prestige. but I see little benefit for Purdue.
I also can't see a home crowd for Texas or OK being an bigger than a home crowd for Nebraska. and I would expect fewer Texas and OK fans to travel to Purdue to watch a Purdue / Texas match-up. I can see higher ratings for the BIG 10 network, but probably at the expense of providing Purdue football any exposure.
Sure, this would be great for the BIG 10, and bring our conference more prestige. but I see little benefit for Purdue.
