Bad Bad Bad News... 6 Big 12 Teams Potentially to Pac Ten

[jdoggivjc]

isugcs and jdoggivjc, I am not one of those fans to beat you while you are down. I also applaud isugcs for a creative solution, but in reality it is very untenable and would end up hurting the entire state and both universities.

Not directed at you - it's directed at the numerous trolls that have been showing up in droves (some of whom have been here for years) rubbing salt in our wounds ever since it was determined that nationwide realignment could be the atom bomb dropped on our athletic department.

 

[StPaulCyclone]

IF anything ISU is going to be forced to join a different conference and make cuts to their athletic program in order to become self-sustaining. I think the BOR already gave them a deadline to balance their athletic budget.

ISU is only $3 Million from being self-sustaining and I believe was going to be completely self-sustaining in 1-2 years. I believe UNI receives more non-athletics money than ISU does. Joining a different conference and making cuts (to what?) will only make ISU less self-sustaining. If the B12 can just stay together and negotiate their new TV deal, problem solved. I am not holding my breath...

 

[Ace000087]

If this whole Pac16 thing is true.. then why doesn't the Big10 just go to 16 also?

Big16 West

Nebraska
Missouri
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa

Big16 East

Michigan
Michigan State
Illinois
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue
Ohio State
Penn State

 

[cyclonedave25]

If this whole Pac16 thing is true.. then why doesn't the Big10 just go to 16 also?

Big16 West

Nebraska
Missouri
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Iowa

Big16 East

Michigan
Michigan State
Illinois
Northwestern
Indiana
Purdue
Ohio State
Penn State

This would be the best case scenario. Chance of happening = slim to none.

 

[sunset]

If these dominos fall then it is only a matter of time for schools like Iowa, Indiana, etc. Do you think the big schools will just up and say "we're satisfied now"?

 

[isugcs]

.wysiwyg { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 5px 10px 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 10pt verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND: #f5f5ff; COLOR: #000000; PADDING-TOP: 0px } .wysiwyg A:link { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg_alink { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg A:visited { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg_avisited { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg A:hover { COLOR: #ff4400 } .wysiwyg A:active { COLOR: #ff4400 } .wysiwyg_ahover { COLOR: #ff4400 } P { MARGIN: 0px } .inlineimg { VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle }

isugcs, I see where you are coming from, but I really think the only thing Iowa could do is show some solidarity with ISU and vote no on Missouri and Nebraska expansion as alarson and others mentioned. This would of course have not teeth since it would be a 10-1 vote against Iowa to invite Missouri and Nebraska. University of Iowa officials would be able to come back to the state and say they did all they could to prevent the collapse of the Big 12 while secretly starting the marketing campaigns for the Iowa v. Missouri and v. Nebraska football games.

You assume the PAC 10 won't act first. That is a big assumption especially since the PAC 10 presidents have authorized their commissioner to explore expansion.

You make a point about Iowa leaving as a penalty to the Big Ten, but everyone outside of yourself and a few others recognize the penalty is far worse for the University of Iowa (no BCS conference outside of the Big 10 would take Iowa), the state of Iowa (those research dollars will not be coming in as much after the loss of Big 10 collaboration) and subsequently Iowa State University (as you mentioned, what hurts one school hurts another). The Big Ten would shake its head on losing a 100 year member as it shows it the door while all its new friends are lavishing it with gifts. Iowa might even get a thank you note or two from Vanderbilt, Maryland or some other university that would take its spot.

As hawk fans often remind us, the UI football program is a top 15 revenue program, the school has storied athletic tradition, and is a charter B10 member. If the ultimatum is issued UI, they would be forced into the situation (by the BOR, not by choice or favor to ISU). Basically, the B10 would be forcing out Iowa of the conference against their will, due to the actions of the conference. So if the B10 agrees to this cannibalization of it's members when they would have obvious alternatives (expand east), how are others B10 members going to vote knowing they'd could be subject to the same treatment in the future?



Side note: Does admission of new conference members require a unanimous vote in the B10? If so, maybe there wouldn't be much drama, Iowa simply needs to vote no.

 

[everyyard]

If these dominos fall then it is only a matter of time for schools like Iowa, Indiana, etc. Do you think the big schools will just up and say "we're satisfied now"?

I do agree with this. Large conferences are volatile (see WAC) and if all the elite teams are in the same conferences there will be a lot less conference titles and national title shots to go around. That is REALLY gonna torque some teams and money eventually won't make that pill go down easier. At that time there WILL be a breakup and some of these other teams will be looking down the same barrel we are.

 

[everyyard]

.wysiwyg { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 5px 10px 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 10pt verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND: #f5f5ff; COLOR: #000000; PADDING-TOP: 0px } .wysiwyg A:link { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg_alink { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg A:visited { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg_avisited { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg A:hover { COLOR: #ff4400 } .wysiwyg A:active { COLOR: #ff4400 } .wysiwyg_ahover { COLOR: #ff4400 } P { MARGIN: 0px } .inlineimg { VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle }

As hawk fans often remind us, the UI football program is a top 15 revenue program, the school has storied athletic tradition, and is a charter B10 member. If the ultimatum is issued UI, they would be forced into the situation (by the BOR, not by choice or favor to ISU). Basically, the B10 would be forcing out Iowa of the conference against their will, due to the actions of the conference. So if the B10 agrees to this cannibalization of it's members when they would have obvious alternatives (expand east), how are others B10 members going to vote knowing they'd could be subject to the same treatment in the future?



Side note: Does admission of new conference members require a unanimous vote in the B10? If so, maybe there wouldn't be much drama, Iowa simply needs to vote no.

this is probably Iowa's best and classiest play. I doubt it changes anything and they aren't going to risk getting booted, but this would at least be a bone that not everyone that isn't an ISU alum doesn't care.

 

[LutherClone]

This is interesting (especially the last line):

Pac-10 commish given authority to advance expansion process | CollegeFootballTalk.com

Pac-10 commish given authority to advance expansion process

Posted by John Taylor on June 6, 2010 4:22 PM ET
Uh-oh? Did you hear that rumbling?

That's the landscape of collegiate football shifting right underneath our very feet.


Pac-10 commissioner Larry Scott is currently holding a press conference after a meeting involving conference chancellors/presidents and, according to a tweet from Chip Brown of Orangebloods.com, it's so on.


"Pac-10 commish Larry Scott says he's been given authority to 'advance' expansion process (hand out invites) at today's Pac-10 meetings," Brown wrote in a post on his Twitter account.


As Brown has very deftly reported over the past few days, there have been a few scenarios laid out by Scott to those with the authority and power to give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to future league plans. The preferred scenario for Scott, reportedly, is for six teams from the Big 12 -- Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Colorado -- to be invited to join what is currently called the Pac-10.


So, with Scott's own words, we are now to the point, it seems, where it's not a question of "if" expansion will happen, but "when". And, with "who".


With Jim Delany stating during his press conference today that there will be "no action on their end" right now when it comes to expansion, can Nebraska and Missouri afford to not give a pledge of allegiance to the Big 12?


Suddenly, those two schools find themselves in quite the predicament, when it seemed like just a month ago they were dealing from a position of "power", what with the reported interest from the Big Ten -- and the revenue that would flow from a move -- and all.


This is far from a fluid situation, with the moving conference and institutional parts and all, but Scott's sudden and shocking aggressiveness when it comes to expansion has turned it from a 12-18 month Big Ten process to the Pac-10's follow-my-lead-and-try-to-keep-up approach.


And that cannot sit well with Delany, regardless of what stance he takes publicly.


UPDATE 4:31 p.m. ET: Here's a tweet from Pete Thamel of the New York Times, one that will make Buff Nation very ****** off. And fans of Oklahoma State and Texas Tech somewhat concerned.


Source: Baylor appears to have bumped Colo in Pac-10 expansion. Also, Pac-10 pres have concern over TT and OSU academics.

 

[StLouisClone]

UPDATE 4:31 p.m. ET: Here's a tweet from Pete Thamel of the New York Times, one that will make Buff Nation very ****** off. And fans of Oklahoma State and Texas Tech somewhat concerned.

Source: Baylor appears to have bumped Colo in Pac-10 expansion. Also, Pac-10 pres have concern over TT and OSU academics.

We've heard similar talk about academics from some of the Big 10 presidents. That is why I'm holding out hope that ISU will find a spot in one of the superconferences. It seems that KSU, TT and OSU would be out if not for their affiliations with Kansas, Texas and OU.

 

[Al_4_State]

We've heard similar talk about academics from some of the Big 10 presidents. That is why I'm holding out hope that ISU will find a spot in one of the superconferences. It seems that KSU, TT and OSU would be out if not for their affiliations with Kansas, Texas and OU.

All three would be in a worse boat than us on their merits alone.

 

[bhawk326]

Sunset, there are some significant leadership and structural differences between the Big Ten and Big 12. First, the Big Ten has a system that has a very equitable power structure (equal revenue sharing, rotating committee chairs, etc.) to prevent the domination of any one university's opinion. Also, the Big Ten will not bend to any demands by invited schools like the Big 8 did when they brought in the Texas schools. Essentially the Big 8 has been bending since they allowed the Texas legislature to force them to take Baylor, Texas A&M and Texas Tech to get Texas. This gave Texas a monolithic voting block to block votes that would go against Texas (Big 12 needs 9 votes to change anything). When you combine this with unequal revenue distribution, recruiting advantages, moving the championship game to Dallas, etc. it was only a matter of time before the power of the conference shifted the South division.

isugcs, I think the advantages you discussed are because of the lack of professional sports in Iowa, but more importantly because of the effect of the Big Ten on Iowa, not nearly as much the opposite. I understand the powerplay you are discussing/ While I think you are looking at this pretty logically, I don't think you are looking at this realistically. The Big Ten functions more or less like the United States in that the whole is much greater that the sum of the parts. If New Mexico starts making unrealistic demands about wanting Sonora (its bordering Mexican state) to join the USA or it will secede. The USA will give New Mexico a chance to rescind its ultimatum and allow it to secede if it will not follow the rules established. New Mexico might gripe and complain to Arizona or Louisiana about how they are next, but those other states will keep their mouth shut because they know how good it is to be apart of the USA. Also, if my sources are correct, any invitation will require only 8 of the 11 universities to agree. Hence, Iowa showing solidarity with ISU will probably result in a 10-1 vote in favor of adding Nebraska and Missouri to the Big Ten.

everyyard, championships don't mean as much to the people that make the decisions than they do to fans. In a down economy, revenue is king. Look at the fact that Cal and UCLA may accept not one but two Tier 3 academic institutions (Texas Tech and Oklahoma State) to their PAC 10 conference (7 AAU members). They need the money. Schools aren't going to look at $20+ million right now (projections have revenue growing to $35+ million in 3 years for Big Ten schools because of expansion) and say I'd rather go back to $10 million so I can win more championships.

The more I think about this subject, I really think ISU fans should be cheering for 2 events. One, ND joining the Big Ten tomorrow so the Big Ten holds off any further expansion. Two, the Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas legislatures being incredibly overreaching by enacting laws that would prevent 1 state university from ditching another state university during realignment. This would create a stand-off where Texas, Oklahoma or Kansas decline another conference invitation or where this goes to the courts where it will take years to resolve.

 

[sunset]

Sunset, there are some significant leadership and structural differences between the Big Ten and Big 12. First, the Big Ten has a system that has a very equitable power structure (equal revenue sharing, rotating committee chairs, etc.) to prevent the domination of any one university's opinion. Also, the Big Ten will not bend to any demands by invited schools like the Big 8 did when they brought in the Texas schools. Essentially the Big 8 has been bending since they allowed the Texas legislature to force them to take Baylor, Texas A&M and Texas Tech to get Texas. This gave Texas a monolithic voting block to block votes that would go against Texas (Big 12 needs 9 votes to change anything). When you combine this with unequal revenue distribution, recruiting advantages, moving the championship game to Dallas, etc. it was only a matter of time before the power of the conference shifted the South division.

Like I said, this is the first domino. If you think the big10 schools are going to somehow remain pure and innocent then you are living in fantasy land. This isn't just the Big12, it's the Pac10, Big10, everybody else.

 

[bhawk326]

sunset, I understood what you said the first time, but I just don't agree with you, especially since you haven't given any further information in your 2nd post. First, you have to explain how conference realignment as you see it happening and then explain how changing dynamics would cause a second or third realignment down the road that would eventually put Iowa, Indiana and other universities of that ilk out in the cold.

For argument sakes, let's say the PAC 10 & Big 10 go to 16 teams, the ACC and SEC expand to 14 to 16 teams dissolving the Big 12 and Big East in the process. ISU and the other Big 12 hold overs join the MWC to make a nice lower BCS or high 2nd tier conference. What next step occurs that fundamentally changes things to where conferences start kicking out schools? In the case of the Big 12 and Big East they are actually disbanding not rearranging. You need to come up with plausible scenarios for what could happen that would be detrimental to the smaller schools in these large conferences.

 

[sunset]

sunset, I understood what you said the first time, but I just don't agree with you, especially since you haven't given any further information in your 2nd post. First, you have to explain how conference realignment as you see it happening and then explain how changing dynamics would cause a second or third realignment down the road that would eventually put Iowa, Indiana and other universities of that ilk out in the cold.

For argument sakes, let's say the PAC 10 & Big 10 go to 16 teams, the ACC and SEC expand to 14 to 16 teams dissolving the Big 12 and Big East in the process. ISU and the other Big 12 hold overs join the MWC to make a nice lower BCS or high 2nd tier conference. What next step occurs that fundamentally changes things to where conferences start kicking out schools? In the case of the Big 12 and Big East they are actually disbanding not rearranging. You need to come up with plausible scenarios for what could happen that would be detrimental to the smaller schools in these large conferences.

I have explained it, money and greed. If you don't understand human nature enough to know that greed only begets more greed, then I can't explain it to you. This round of moves will create a new status quo that willl leave the bigger institutions looking around for thei next conquest, they always have to fulfil that desire to have more than their neighbors. They will find a way to get more, and it will come at the expense of the remaining schools similar to ISU (see Iowa, Indiana, etc., etc.). But you go on believing that Ohio State and Michigan are going to look out for Iowa out of the goodness of their hearts. It's nice that there are still people around that believe in the tooth fairy.

 

[bhawk326]

Sunset, I have been nothing but courteous to your point of view, so there is no need to get hot under the collar. Ohio State and Michigan have great interest in expanding the Big Ten this round and in the future since more teams equal more money if they are chosen for a reason that increases the Big Ten brand and revenues. You cannot point to generalizations of money and greed and win a discussion with me. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Use your brain and resources to come up with a scenario in which 10 or 20 years from now a Michigan or Ohio State decides to make a move that would endanger Iowa's ability to remain in a BCS-level conference. I'm not saying a scenario doesn't exist, I just haven't been given a plausible one yet that gives me pause for concern.

First of all, the Big Ten requires a 75% vote to make any changes to the conference. No matter how many new teams come into the conference that percentage will not change. That means that a pretty big contingent of universities would have to come together to discharge a member. I just don't see this being a realistic scenario, since this isn't even what is happening in the Big 12. In the current conference realignment scenario, no one is kicking out ISU, KSU or Kansas, instead they are being left behind as other universities leave for new conferences.

If you and I can agree that the Big Ten won't have the power and will never remove Iowa, then the only way Iowa gets into danger is if the Big Ten disbands. Under what circumstances would the Big Ten disband? Too often it is forgotten that the Big Ten wasn't formed and still doesn't exist solely as an athletic conference. Instead of an athletic marriage of convenience (ex: Texas and the Big 8), the Big 10 conference has partnerships and collaborations in research that greatly dwarf athletics. Keep in mind that the Big Ten discharged $6 billion dollars worth of research expenditures last year where as the athletic departments budgets totaled approximately $0.9 billion. Research is 7 times the dollars of athletics. Of course, athletics is still very important to the Big Ten, but money is king and the money is in academic research. The Big Ten will want to keep it research collaboration structure (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) and subsequently its conference even if Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State or all 3 left for greener pastures. Even though I don't see why they would leave since the other options (ACC and SEC) don't offer the academic collaborations they get from being in the Big Ten.

So I look forward to hearing some scenarios you can come up with.

Also, I have faith in a lot of things, but the tooth fairy is not one of them.

 

[Bierman5NCs]

Just spitballing, but I do believe that ISU and Minnesota have played around 35 times, so maybe that's it.

Prior to last season's Insight Bowl game it had been 111 years (1898) since the Cyclones last defeated the Gophers. And prior to that Minnesota and ISU last met at the Metrodome in 1997; Minnesota won that contest by a score of 53-29.

Minnesota and ISU have only met 5 times since a 1923 game played in Minneapolis.

Minnesota leads the all-time series 22-3-1.


So to your point, yes the two teams have played several times, but the series has not necessarily been frequent over the last 100+ years nor has ISU been anywhere near successful against Minnesota when the all-time series is 22-3-1 in Minnesota's favor.

Not trolling or flaming......just stating some real facts and perhaps the reason why that Iowa guy's Minnesota buddy looked at him "like he was from Mars" when he was told that someone from ISU suggested Minnesota & ISU have "a lot of history" with each other.

 

[Bierman5NCs]

.wysiwyg { PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; MARGIN: 5px 10px 10px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; FONT: 10pt verdana, geneva, lucida, 'lucida grande', arial, helvetica, sans-serif; BACKGROUND: #f5f5ff; COLOR: #000000; PADDING-TOP: 0px } .wysiwyg A:link { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg_alink { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg A:visited { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg_avisited { COLOR: #22229c } .wysiwyg A:hover { COLOR: #ff4400 } .wysiwyg A:active { COLOR: #ff4400 } .wysiwyg_ahover { COLOR: #ff4400 } P { MARGIN: 0px } .inlineimg { VERTICAL-ALIGN: middle }

As hawk fans often remind us, the UI football program is a top 15 revenue program, the school has storied athletic tradition, and is a charter B10 member. If the ultimatum is issued UI, they would be forced into the situation (by the BOR, not by choice or favor to ISU). Basically, the B10 would be forcing out Iowa of the conference against their will, due to the actions of the conference. So if the B10 agrees to this cannibalization of it's members when they would have obvious alternatives (expand east), how are others B10 members going to vote knowing they'd could be subject to the same treatment in the future?



Side note: Does admission of new conference members require a unanimous vote in the B10? If so, maybe there wouldn't be much drama, Iowa simply needs to vote no.

huh? what iowa hogeye rube told you that? iowa is NOT a charter member of the big ten.

charter members of the big ten are: minnesota, michigan, wisconsin, illinois, purdue, northwestern and the university of chicago (dropped athletic membership in 1946, but still a full member of the CIC).

 

[snowcraig2.0]

So, you are saying research dollars are more than athletic dollars? Well, guess which school is really good at research?

 

[Bierman5NCs]

Drastic times call for drastic measures. Here's my best idea to assure ISU stays afloat in the sea of conference realignment depression.

ISU has a history of heartbreak and missed opportunties, right? Well how about we go for broke with a bold move. Hear me out: Leverage University of Iowa's position in the Big Ten to force the conference to permit Iowa State entry into the conference. The Board of Regents ultimately controls the UI conference membership correct? The BOR could in theory threaten to pull Iowa out of the B10 conference unless, lets say, ISU is given entry. Basically creating a two for one situation as OK and Kasans have. The motiation for the move would be that the viability of the institution (ISU) is reliant on its conference affiliation, Futerhmove the move is to assure equal viability of all Iowa higher education institutions.

In a sense, the benefactor of ISU's depressive atheletic history has been UI, it would be a way of equaling the score. If the B10 says "fine, UI can leave the conference", ISU stands a much better chance of landing in a BSC conference with Iowa strapped to its back. However, the B10 would likely be forced to accept ISU because its own conference realignment aspirations are the cause of the move in the first place. Basically, by tearing apart the B10, they'd be in danger of losing a charter member.

For this move to suceed, the BOR would need intense political pressure within the state, and I believe this is an election year. So lets get the word out! Strap Iowa and Iowa State's fate together, the two win and lose together.

iowa is NOT a charter member of the big ten. the big ten charter members are: minnesota, michigan, illinois, northwestern, purdue, wisconsin and univ. of chicago (dropped athletic affilliation in 1946, but remain full member of the CIC).

as others have said already, iowa does not have any leverage to dictate the expansion process/selections of the big ten. if they were to tie this fate to ISU the big ten would simply tell iowa "good luck, it is has been fun".