GOR's?

[Cleanface]

I've never seen anything RE KU/KSU being joined at the hip.

I have seen something RE OU and OKST, but then again, I heard the same about TX and TA&M.

 

[B1GALUM]

I've never seen anything RE KU/KSU being joined at the hip.

I have seen something RE OU and OKST, but then again, I heard the same about TX and TA&M.

Agree with you that Kansas being #16 to UCONN being #15 for the B1G would make a great basketball conference. Certainly trying to find a #16 to UCONN being #15 is one of the challenges for our UCONN friends being extended an invitation to the B1G. As you mentioned you have heard about OU and OSU being joined. I have heard this too but also have heard it about KU and KSU and the article I mentioned above is one of those places. Aside from the Big12 GOR, I think this is another reason why Kansas being #16 is a less likely option.

 

[Cleanface]

Can you link that article??

I believe you, I'd just like to read it.

Like I said, TX & TA&M were ALWAYS considered joined, more so than either KU/KSU or OU/OKST. They were (((supposedly))) LOCKED for life.

Since they were able to split, IMO, that means any two might be able to split.

 

[pj]

This is an interesting thought and agree with you this seems like a lot of moving parts to pull off. Do you even think the PAC 12 would be interested in K-State and OSU and TT without Kansas and OU and Texas? It is my sense that the PAC12 would only be interested in former members of the Big12 if Texas were a part of the group. Certainly, the B1G is not interested in OSU or TT.

Fox would have to mediate this in order to bring the B12 properties into the Pac/B1G orbit. The Pac would not want K-State, OSU, and TT if it could get anything better, but if Texas, OU, and Kansas prefer B1G or SEC -- both of which would take those -- then what can the Pac do? Fox may bribe the Pac to accept KSU/OSU/TT rather than let the SEC encroach further on B12 territory, and enable the B1G to capture Texas/OU/KU.

If it gets to be a bidding war with the SEC/ESPN on one side and Pac/B1G/Fox making offers to B12 teams, the states of Texas, Oklahoma, and Kansas will assure that all 6 state schools get good landing places. This limits the SEC's ability to poach because it can't take all 6 and due to the ESPN/Fox rivalry it can't coordinate a deal with the B1G or Pac. But it might try to play spoiler to a B1G/Pac poaching effort and bid up the payouts. In addition to the big prizes Texas and OU, it might consider TT/OSU for example to solidify Texas for A&M and it might believe that OSU in the SEC could beat out OU in popularity; or OSU/K-state to complement Missouri and A&M.

Not really sure how this would play out and to what degree the Pac wants to expand or Fox would pay up to see the B12 teams migrate to conferences it has firmer control over. Overall it's not clear carving up the B12 would be beneficial for anyone, except the leading B12 teams who can probably arrange a bidding war for themselves that increases their income.

 

[B1GALUM]

Can you link that article??

I believe you, I'd just like to read it.

Like I said, TX & TA&M were ALWAYS considered joined, more so than either KU/KSU or OU/OSU. They were (((supposedly))) LOCKED for life.

Since they were able to split, IMO, that means any two might be able to split.

Of course. Here is the link: http://cjonline.com/sports/football/2010-06-05/big_12_best_option_for_ku_ksu

 

[Cleanface]

I don't think OKST is a bad school RE athletics, and I think the PAC would be fine with them if they were fine taking Utah.

TTech is the weakest of the TX/OK package. The other three, def OU and TX, would be GREAT additions IMO.

Kansas is the wild-card, IMO. I don't think ANYONE wants KState, while I think KU would have many options. KState needs to go the way of IAST and head to the AAC, leaving KU for the B1G.

 

[B1GALUM]

I don't think OKST is a bad school RE athletics, and I think the PAC would be fine with them if they were fine taking Utah.

TTech is the weakest of the TX/OK package. The other three, def OU and TX, would be GREAT additions IMO.

Kansas is the wild-card, IMO. I don't think ANYONE wants KState, while I think KU would have many options. KState needs to go the way of IAST and head to the AAC, leaving KU for the B1G.

I think we are both in agreement that UCONN at #15 would be a great addition for the B1G. I just question if Kansas would really be an option. I apologize to our UCONN hosts, but as a new member to this board I do not know your answer, who do you think would be a realistic #16 for the B1G?

 

[Cleanface]

Nobody.

Aside from ACC schools whom don't seem to be going anywhere now, UConn is the only school left that would fit.

Notre Dame was always the final hope, but they may have found a permanent home that will take them w/o FBall, so they may be gone as well. We would never let them be a 'partial-member' and it seems the ACC is OK with that. Their loss, IMO. I know the Domers covet B1G Hockey.

The only place I see #16 coming from is the BXII. I know TX was rumored for a long time, but I see the TX/OK schools going PAC if they go anywhere.

If that does happen, then KU would be the only one left that would interest the B1G, IMO. Otherwise, we stay at 14.

 

[WestHartHusk]

I think we are both in agreement that UCONN at #15 would be a great addition for the B1G. I just question if Kansas would really be an option. I apologize to our UCONN hosts, but as a new member to this board I do not know your answer, who do you think would be a realistic #16 for the B1G?

Buffalo . Totally joking.

I think Mizzou is the best chance if we aren't waiting for GORs to expire. If the B1G is willing to wait then we are back to the OU, UT, UVA, UNC, GA Tech discussions again in 12 years.

 

[FfldCntyFan]

I don't know how much of this was factual and how much was speculation on their part but a few years ago, when Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to the PAC appeared to be a done deal (until Beebe saved the B-12, at the cost of his job, although he did receive roses from Marinatto), there were hundreds of Kansas fans throughout the internet who blamed their needing to take KSU along with them as the reason they were left behind.

 

[pj]

I think we are both in agreement that UCONN at #15 would be a great addition for the B1G. I just question if Kansas would really be an option. I apologize to our UCONN hosts, but as a new member to this board I do not know your answer, who do you think would be a realistic #16 for the B1G?

This is our problem, it's hard to find any realistic #16. Missouri if they were willing to leave the SEC; maybe Vanderbilt likewise if the B1G was interested in a non-flagship school not geographically contiguous. Kansas, OU, or Texas if they were willing to leave the B12. UVa etc have already been tried and proved unwilling to leave the ACC. Notre Dame is unwilling to give up independence. With all due respect to Buffalo, Syracuse, and BC, none fit the B1G. West Virginia is maybe a notch above Buffalo, they are a flagship state university but for a small state with weak academics, though they do support the DC market. Another possibility is a swap with the Pac, Colorado to B1G and Pac poaches B12, but then why wouldn't the B1G poach the B12? None of those possibilities seem to have more than the slenderest chance. It looks like barring dissolution of the B12, for UConn to enter the B1G would most likely have to go to 15.

 

[WestHartHusk]

Buffalo . Totally joking.

I think Mizzou is the best chance if we aren't waiting for GORs to expire. If the B1G is willing to wait then we are back to the OU, UT, UVA, UNC, GA Tech discussions again in 12 years.

Also, we are generally full of shit and alternatively: a) hopefully optimistic; b) dreadfully pessisimistic. So if you see a poster extoll UConn as the second coming of UVA in one post, then write us off as Florida Gulf Coast in the next that is about what you should expect here until we land in a decent conference.

 

[Cleanface]

As a fan of college basketball, I would enjoy watching Kansas and UCONN play in the B1G but question whether Kansas is an option.
With respect to your mention of Kansas, yes according to Lee Barfknecht, the B1G apparently gave consideration to Kansas and there are some who do feel the Big 12 GOR could be successfully challenged.
http://sports.omaha.com/2013/04/22/realignment-expansion-not-out-of-the-question/#.UYblxFvD-Un

From the article:
As a sidenote, two sources have told The World-Herald that the Big Ten has done prior “homework” on Oklahoma, Kansas and Vanderbilt among other schools who might some day be expansion targets. The Big 12 grant-of-rights deal didn’t stop a look-see for OU and KU"

By the schools “granting” media rights to the conference for 14 years, the theory is that it would be too costly for a school to change leagues because it wouldn’t have much of value to “carry” to a new league.
Several old friends in the business of college athletics I talked to Monday said they wouldn’t bet their own money on that. These people — from conference offices and major-college athletic departments — all agreed that any number of lawyers would be delighted to challenge those deals in court. The ACC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-12 have such deals. As one buddy with a wicked sense of humor said, “Do you really think Texas would sign up for something it couldn’t get out of?”

Aside from the Big 12 GOR, which I still think would be an issue of concern to the B1G though, another potential issue is splitting from Kansas State. Kansas and Kansas State are governed by the Kansas Board of Regents and there have been statements that these two schools would not be permitted to separate into different conferences and Kansas State is not of interest to the B1G. Granted this particular article is from 3 years ago when it looked like the Big 12 would dissolve but I find it difficult to believe this sentiment does not remain.
http://cjonline.com/sports/football/2010-06-05/big_12_best_option_for_ku_ksu

From the article:
"What makes me happy and proud is that both KU and K-State have worked as a team throughout these meetings in Kansas City, basically as one voice," said Dan Lykins, a member of the Kansas Board of Regents. "I think that's helped a lot. Both ADs, Lew Perkins and John Currie, are working closely with other ADs. President Schulz gave a real inspirational speech at one of the meetings. I know he's very well respected among the other presidents and ADs." If the Big 12 falls apart, KU and K-State will be looking for a new home. Wherever they go, Lykins said, they will go together. "KU and K-State will always be in the same conference together," Lykins said. "There's not going to be a split."

I must have completely blown by this post earlier. Totally missed it.

Thx.

 

[B1GALUM]

I must have completely blown by this post earlier. Totally missed it.

Thx.

You're welcome.

 

[Gfunk]

Instead of picking a fight with the Pac12 over Colorado, I think Colorado State has tremendous upside, but it's long term investment that would be slighted by many at first, but truly embraced within a decade.

CSU is in a a difficult battle to build an on campus stadium that seats 50k - plus. I guarantee a BIG membership would inject the necessary muscle to get the stadium built. They don't have very many Men's sports, but I could see them adding hockey (both sexes), baseball & maybe lacrosse (both sexes) via BIG membership - that would be enough over time.

Colorado can support both the Pac12 & BTN, statewide.

Ft Collins is gorgeous & worth visiting every couple of years.

The state is growing at a rapid pace, drawing lots of midwestern folks and Californians.

Coloridians, in general, are caring more and more about their public education, k-graduate research.

The nice thing about CSU and UConn additions, both would want to join the BIG, both have long-term upside.

 

[pj]

Colorado State, intriguing idea, they are a research university, $330 mn in annual research expenditures, enrollment 27,500, there is upside there. I've wondered why you never hear their name with the B12 but never considered them for the B1G.

 

[frankthetank]

I don't know how much of this was factual and how much was speculation on their part but a few years ago, when Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma St to the PAC appeared to be a done deal (until Beebe saved the B-12, at the cost of his job, although he did receive roses from Marinatto), there were hundreds of Kansas fans throughout the internet who blamed their needing to take KSU along with them as the reason they were left behind.

I think it's very real. It was always a misnomer to think Kansas was possibly going to get left behind if the Pac-16 came to fruition as if KU alone had anything to do with it. The reality was that they can't really proactively move without endangering Kansas State. It's the same thing with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. In the game of conference realignment, Kansas and Oklahoma are easy adds for any conference (including the Big Ten) on their own. However, if you have to add KSU and/or OSU on top of them, then that's a different equation for even the wealthiest conferences that can "afford" to take another school like the Big Ten and SEC. I know that I've seen a lot of fans from both KU and OU that believe that they could move on their own if they wanted to, but I've heard and seen quite a bit to the contrary.

 

[frankthetank]

Colorado State, intriguing idea, they are a research university, $330 mn in annual research expenditures, enrollment 27,500, there is upside there. I've wondered why you never hear their name with the B12 but never considered them for the B1G.

There's a pretty massive gap for Colorado State to become an AAU school and they aren't really that strong of a sports brand name. They're just nowhere on the radar for the Big Ten. If the Big Ten was interested in heading into the Rocky Mountain region, they would have grabbed Colorado itself. Now, CSU ought to be a Big 12 candidate if they had any pulse in football, but they simply don't have that pulse. (We could say the same about New Mexico and UNLV, too.)

While the Big Ten certainly expanded to add Rutgers and Maryland because of the markets that they sit in, please don't forget that they fit other critical Big Ten criteria that would have applied even before the days of the Big Ten Network: they're AAU institutions (not just possible ones - they are *in*) with favorable demographics in excellent (for the North) football recruiting grounds. If you have to start making exceptions in terms of explaining why a school would be a candidate to the Big Ten that's not an unambiguously elite and powerful football brand name (e.g. Nebraska and Notre Dame), then they're not a realistic candidate. The Big Ten simply won't be expanding without schools from the Big 12 and/or ACC involved. I know people here want/need further realignment chaos (and it might still happen with the Big 12), but it just won't happen with the Big Ten here. Heck, remember that the Big Ten PASSED on Missouri multiple times when the school was on knee pads for the conference for the better part of 18 months. Why the heck would the Big Ten suddenly want them now and, even if they did, why would a school leave the SEC no matter how good the B1G money might be when ACC schools didn't? Nothing makes sense about that scenario at this point. There has never been a reason for the Big Ten to expand for the sake of expanding - too many people think 16 members (or 18 or whatever number they think the Big Ten will expand to that will include their favorite school) is the goal in and of itself when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[kingdobbs]

I am also hoping the B1G adds Johns Hopkins for LaCrosse (only) and CIC membership. Maybe even Univ Toronto for B1G Hockey (only) and CIC membership.

Done.

U-Toronto isn't going to leave the CIS, not even for hockey; the only way that's happening is if there's a SERIOUS move by a number of teams to the NCAA, with the promise they can get a landing spot in Division I as a group.

CIS hockey is a serious step below NCAA D-I, and pretty much a step below NCAA D-III. A middle of the road CIS team like U-Toronto will get pummeled in B1G hockey.

And Hopkins lacrosse values its independence about as highly as Notre Dame does its football independence. If the B1G came with an offer that said "If you join and let us get the automatic bid to the NCAA tournament, we will just straight up GIVE it to you," Hopkins would still think about it.

 

[upstater]

I think it's very real. It was always a misnomer to think Kansas was possibly going to get left behind if the Pac-16 came to fruition as if KU alone had anything to do with it. The reality was that they can't really proactively move without endangering Kansas State. It's the same thing with Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. In the game of conference realignment, Kansas and Oklahoma are easy adds for any conference (including the Big Ten) on their own. However, if you have to add KSU and/or OSU on top of them, then that's a different equation for even the wealthiest conferences that can "afford" to take another school like the Big Ten and SEC. I know that I've seen a lot of fans from both KU and OU that believe that they could move on their own if they wanted to, but I've heard and seen quite a bit to the contrary.

Why would a Kansas be an easy add for the Big Ten? Poor football, small market.

Missouri seems a much bigger grab.

 

[B1GALUM]

Why would a Kansas be an easy add for the Big Ten? Poor football, small market.

Missouri seems a much bigger grab.

Agree. This exact issue was discussed a few weeks ago on the ESPN Big Ten Blog: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/75325/big-ten-mailblog-207

Adam Rittenberg: Greg, I think it ultimately comes down to how much the Big Ten actually wants to expand again. Remember, the last expansion was all about bringing in new markets and becoming a true bi-regional conference (Midwest and East Coast). Although Missouri and Kansas also bring in new markets -- most notably Kansas City -- they're not located in a new region like Maryland and Rutgers are. If the ACC is indeed out of poaching play, there aren't many if any attractive expansion options on the East Coast, so the Big Ten once again has to ask itself, is getting bigger any better? I've always thought Missouri would be a good fit in the Big Ten and seems to be out of place in the SEC. Kansas doesn't do much for me because the football program has been erratic, to put it nicely. This isn't about basketball, as much as fans wish it were. Missouri is one to watch in my view, but I'd be surprised if another Big Ten expansion doesn't include a team closer to the East Coast.

 

[pj]

I think Rittenberg underestimates the value of Kansas, for much the same reason many national pundits are underestimating UConn. For the ACC and SEC expansion has been about football, but for BTN and Delany basketball is just as important as football, because 3x greater inventory and games 7 days per week more than makes up for 1/4 the value per game. Also, Missouri is geographically split with divided loyalties, St Louis co-roots for Illinois and Missouri and Kansas City co-roots for Missouri and Kansas, so arguably Kansas adds more value than Missouri to the BTN since Kansas + Illinois will get BTN coverage in Missouri, even though Missouri is a bigger state than Kansas and KU splits Kansas with K-State. Kansas is better academically and Kansas basketball is a national brand. I think Missouri would be a great addition for the B1G but Kansas might be just as good.

 

[pj]

Why would a Kansas be an easy add for the Big Ten? Poor football, small market.

For the same reason UConn will be an easy add, when it happens: Great basketball, national brand, good academics, rabid fans, dominates its market.

 

[upstater]

For the same reason UConn will be an easy add, when it happens: Great basketball, national brand, good academics, rabid fans, dominates its market.

Market is different.

 

[Cleanface]

I think Rittenberg underestimates the value of Kansas, for much the same reason many national pundits are underestimating UConn. For the ACC and SEC expansion has been about football, but for BTN and Delany basketball is just as important as football, because 3x greater inventory and games 7 days per week more than makes up for 1/4 the value per game. Also, Missouri is geographically split with divided loyalties, St Louis co-roots for Illinois and Missouri and Kansas City co-roots for Missouri and Kansas, so arguably Kansas adds more value than Missouri to the BTN since Kansas + Illinois will get BTN coverage in Missouri, even though Missouri is a bigger state than Kansas and KU splits Kansas with K-State. Kansas is better academically and Kansas basketball is a national brand. I think Missouri would be a great addition for the B1G but Kansas might be just as good.

Let me add something to this.

Conventional wisdom says that both the SEC and the B1G would have taken UNC and Duke as a package deal, completely engulfing NC for their Networks (10MM pop). Both basketball blue-bloods, but both pretty bad RE FBall. UNC is completely sporadic (and has NCAA problems), and Duke is just terrible.

HYPOTHETICALLY, If the B1G were to consider adding UCONN (4MM + NYC) and Kansas to solidify MO as posted above (6MM pop + KS @ 3MM), would that be comparable to adding UNC & Duke?? Both are also blue-blood BBall programs with inconsistent football, but overall I think KU/UCONN would be at least as good if not better RE FBall than UNC/Duke. Both KU and UCONN have had greater recent FBall success than either, and RE BBall, Kansas is a national 'brand' ala NEB. Not a big market, but a HUGE well-known national power.

Academically, UNC/Duke would be much better, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

With UCONN and their NYC influence, which is impossible to calculate, the pull of the UCONN/KU combo could be greater than UNC/Duke RE eyeballs. As has been said many times, combining UCONN with PSU and RUTG would blanket NYC (20MM).

Overall, I think the UNC/Duke combo would be better for the B1G, but taking all of this into consideration, is the combo of KU/UCONN really that far behind??

 

[huskymedic]

Let me add something to this.

Conventional wisdom says that both the SEC and the B1G would have taken UNC and Duke as a package deal, completely engulfing NC for their Networks (10MM pop). Both basketball blue-bloods, but both pretty bad RE FBall. UNC is completely sporadic (and has NCAA problems), and Duke is just terrible.

HYPOTHETICALLY, If the B1G were to consider adding UCONN (4MM + NYC) and Kansas to solidify MO as posted above (6MM pop + KS @ 3MM), would that be comparable to adding UNC & Duke?? Both are also blue-blood BBall programs with inconsistent football, but overall I think KU/UCONN would be at least as good if not better RE FBall than UNC/Duke. Both KU and UCONN have had greater recent FBall success than either, and RE BBall, Kansas is a national 'brand' ala NEB. Not a big market, but a HUGE well-known national power.

Academically, UNC/Duke would be much better, I don't think anyone can dispute that.

With UCONN and their NYC influence, which is impossible to calculate, the pull of the UCONN/KU combo could be greater than UNC/Duke RE eyeballs. As has been said many times, combining UCONN with PSU and RUTG would blanket NYC (20MM).

Overall, I think the UNC/Duke combo would be better for the B1G, but taking all of this into consideration, is the combo of KU/UCONN really that far behind??

Help me out here... I get the "Boilers Up" part --- the "Hammer down" meaning escapes me.

 

[Cleanface]

Hammer Down is the second half of the saying. Boiler Up, Hammer Down!

You know, The Boilermaker, Purdue Pete, etc etc, all carry a big sledge hammer = Hammer Down

'Boiler Up' is the real questionable saying here, IMO. lol

 

[The Funster]

UNC/Duke, while better, is not a cultural fit.

 

[huskymedic]

Hammer Down is the second half of the saying. Boiler Up, Hammer Down!

You know, The Boilermaker, Purdue Pete, etc etc, all carry a big sledge hammer = Hammer Down

'Boiler Up' is the real questionable saying here, IMO. lol

£%#!@$ The sledgehammer. Totally forgot about the sledgehammer. Brain fart. I knew it was like the Rock/Chalk chant. Thanks!

 

[kyleslamb]

PJ hit the nail on the head in this thread RE: the Grant of Rights.

Like he said, the Grant of Rights is an addendum to the league television contract, which stipulates the rights to televise home games are then exchanged to the broadcast partner for distribution. In exchange for "granting" those rights, schools must be paid by the league. So if a school were to leave the conference, the rights to their home games would continue to be granted for the duration of the television contract. However, as long as they're still granting their rights, they must continue to be paid for said rights (as that is the consideration which binds the GOR).

The point here is that while so many people are talking about whether the GOR is "iron clad," that's not quite as big an issue as it's made out to be. The teams would continue to get paid if they left. This GOR is only designed to make teams less attractive to conferences rather than take away the incentive of schools to leave. Even then, if a school is still getting paid for their home games, broadcast on another league's media package, a new conference could simply deduct that share from the team's new conference distribution and you'd essentially have the old league paying part of the new league's share. Of course, there would be less inventory and slightly less revenue for the new league, but it would still be manageable for a league to take Texas, North Carolina, etc. in such a scenario.