Iowa is already in so they don't have to.
Plus, Iowa's fanatical fan follow does make them desirable. It's how they got in a BCS football game last year and that meant millions to the Big 10.
Big 10 expansion - it has begun.
- Thread starter TheHelgo
- Start date
Iowa is already in so they don't have to.
Plus, Iowa's fanatical fan follow does make them desirable. It's how they got in a BCS football game last year and that meant millions to the Big 10.
The added revenue will far, far outpace the added expense.
If you think the Big 10 wants us you are living in a dream world. Plain and simple!
And no, "no one here" knows whats actually going on. We are talking about what WOULD happen if certain things occurred. And what would happen isn't real good for us.
That might happen, which would suck. However as much as I hope the Big 12 holds together, I wouldn't blame Nebraska or Missouri for leaving the South-centric Big 12.
One thing I haven't seen much discussion on is the non-conf. value we have to Iowa - it does not help them in any way if the conference that we're in dissolves, becomes a joke, etc. They play us in lots of sports, and getting beat by a "joke team" from a "joke conference" hurts their strength of schedule and chances at championships (or major bowls.) It got me thinking about non-conf. BCS opponents in football that the Big Ten teams have - Michigan, MSU, and Purdue all play Notre Dame anually, but after that, I couln'd come up with one consistent anual contest. Maybe Mizzou/Illinois, but that one is pretty new. Rival or not, our conf. status matters to the Hawks.
The whole rival or not discussion was interesting, but a little silly (to me anyway.) Since the rumors say we're loosing three from the north, we've played Nebraska 104 times, Missiouri 102 times, and Colorado 64 times. Compare that to the 57 times we've played Iowa...
Financially, we have one guarenteed sellout every year in football (unless JP has got some stunt going...) - Iowa or Nebraska. Loosing the team we've played the most times in our history (rival or not) hurts temendously... And there's no way that we continue playing Nebraska if they go to the Big Ten. Missouri Valley to Big 8 to Big 12 to, well, nothing. I don't care if the Big Red has always dominated us, I'll miss that game a lot. It's like the Bugeaters are a member of our extended family. Ugh.
The whole rival or not discussion was interesting, but a little silly (to me anyway.) Since the rumors say we're loosing three from the north, we've played Nebraska 104 times, Missiouri 102 times, and Colorado 64 times. Compare that to the 57 times we've played Iowa...
Financially, we have one guarenteed sellout every year in football (unless JP has got some stunt going...) - Iowa or Nebraska. Loosing the team we've played the most times in our history (rival or not) hurts temendously... And there's no way that we continue playing Nebraska if they go to the Big Ten. Missouri Valley to Big 8 to Big 12 to, well, nothing. I don't care if the Big Red has always dominated us, I'll miss that game a lot. It's like the Bugeaters are a member of our extended family. Ugh.
They are, my mistake.
To understand what I was implying, read on how VaTech got into the ACC.
As far as Iowa in the BCS...winning close games against sub-par Big 10 teams is what got Iowa into the BCS, something many other schools can do.
Furthermore, Iowa is what it is in large part because of the Big 10...without the Big 10 it is ISU.
Last edited:
There would be benefits. If the Big 12 South remains intact, and the Big 12 replaces MU, NU, and CU with schools like BSU, BYU, Utah, TCU... it would be like ISU is in the current Big 10. In the past 10 years average Big 10 teams have profited from being in a weak conference.
Given that college sports is now 100% money driven assume that NU and MU are heading to the Big 10/11/14/16. ISU makes a ton of sense geographically and in terms of rivalries (Iowa, Mizzou, Nebraska). Who in the Big 10 is rivals w/ Rutgers? But that no longer matters. And I think the talk radio personalities are overhyping the academic aspect of it. If MU or Nebraska had K-State's academic ranking I think they'd still get the invite.
For ISU and the Big 12 it's time to get creative. I'd like to see Utah and BYU replace MU and NU. Salt Lake City, Provo, and the rest of Utah are a decent replacement for losing the St. Louis and Omaha markets and they are close to Colorado. Maybe CU hesitates to go to the Pac 10 if they are in a division with BYU, Utah, KU, KSU, and ISU. (maybe put OU in the north to balance the power and shift KSU to the south). Travel would be a lot easier.
As an ISU fan I'd much rather keep the current conference in tact and play neighboring Missouri and Nebraska. But there is some intrique in adding BYU and Utah if they would accept. It would be fun to wrap a ski trip around a November road game each year. Beebe and the conference would have to do something to boost revenues and distribute them more evenly to offset additional travel costs for the north schools.
Regardless of the final complexion of the Big 12 I take solace in boycotting the Big 10 forever if this happens. Unless ISU is playing a Big 10 team I won't watch that conference. The money grubbing in college sports has gotten WAY out of hand.
For ISU and the Big 12 it's time to get creative. I'd like to see Utah and BYU replace MU and NU. Salt Lake City, Provo, and the rest of Utah are a decent replacement for losing the St. Louis and Omaha markets and they are close to Colorado. Maybe CU hesitates to go to the Pac 10 if they are in a division with BYU, Utah, KU, KSU, and ISU. (maybe put OU in the north to balance the power and shift KSU to the south). Travel would be a lot easier.
As an ISU fan I'd much rather keep the current conference in tact and play neighboring Missouri and Nebraska. But there is some intrique in adding BYU and Utah if they would accept. It would be fun to wrap a ski trip around a November road game each year. Beebe and the conference would have to do something to boost revenues and distribute them more evenly to offset additional travel costs for the north schools.
Regardless of the final complexion of the Big 12 I take solace in boycotting the Big 10 forever if this happens. Unless ISU is playing a Big 10 team I won't watch that conference. The money grubbing in college sports has gotten WAY out of hand.
Oh, I agree with that 100%. I was just discussing the competitive side.
Any school not named Texas would be stupid not to join the big 10. The big 10 has population on their side and with that they get the $$$$. the only part of the country that can compete population wise is the SEC and the East Coast. the SEC is in as good of a position as the Big 10 and the East Coast/NE has proven time and time again that they are Pro Sports Territory.
IMO- The Big 12 is fine. Particularly if they get the TV alliance with the Pac 10. And I think both conferences understand they need each other. they have a choice...fight each other or join forces. The Big 12 needs the Pac 10 for the population base. The Pac 10 needs the Big 12 for exposure into Eastern markets. It will be interesting to see if the Pac 10 and Big 12 can move things along fast enough to appease Mizzou and Nebraska. If the money is even close Nebraska stays.
Interesting enough is Texas. I am assuming if their is a Big 12/Pac10 Alliance it will include revenue sharing. The package better be good enough to guarantee Texas the $$$ they are getting now or Texas would look elsewhere.
IMO- A lot rides on the Pac 10/Big 12 Alliance. I could see those two conferences get the alliance and then absorb most the MWC between them completely taking over the Western half of the US.
Travel costs and travel time would suck for the athletes. I think that is one thing people are missing when discussing things. I know we already travel to Texas but atleast we get a breake when we get to travel to NU and Mizzou. There is a reason we always play like crap in Colorado in every sport. Travel and altitude. I am not in favor of having every team we play have that advantage
I agree that this is the driving force behind the decisions. However, isn't the reason to have money ultimately because it is assumed it helps you win? The AD will spend what it has, in effort to win. So if you have a better chance at winning a national title in Conference X, why move for an extra X million? Schools like OSU and USC could potentially make more money with a BCS playoff, but it is easier for them to win without.
Just a point of clarification: MU and Nebraska meet the Big Ten's academic requirements as both are current members of the AAU (as are ISU, CU, KU, TAMU, Texas). K-State is not a member of the AAU, hence they do not meet the academic requirements of the Big Ten.
Neither is Notre Dame yet they are the prime target.
(I realize Notre Dame is a very good academic institution, but they have chosen to not be a member of the AAU...would the B10/11 insist they join?)
Notre Dame is the only school for which they would lax this requirement. But it's a moot point - ND's not going to join the Big 10 anyway, no matter how much the Big 10 and the national media wishes for it to happen.
That's a good point and question. I don't know where ND fails to meet AAU requirements for membership. I would guess they might lag behind in the research area of things. However, I would think that the Big Ten would certainly insist that they take the necessary steps to become an AAU member. It's a requirement in their by-laws.
Last edited:
A Big 12/Pac 10 TV deal would likely generate revenues close to what the Big 10 Network does for the Big 10 schools. Texas would likely double their TV revenue, even with equal sharing of TV money in a B12/P10 deal. There was an article linked here last week I believe that discussed what the B12/P10 TV deal would look like.
No matter what, they'd still have by far the largest athletic budget/revenues/profits of any Big 12 school, especially if NU leaves.
Nebraska is a good program, never said it wasnt. Colorado was on top for a bit, yes but they really havnt been a dominate team for 10 years now. KSU was also on top for a few years, I think they went to 8 bowl games in a row at one point, so they were good 10 out of the last 25 years. Besides Nebraska how many Big 12 N teams have been on top and able to stay there for the most part? Iowa has had a few bad years but for the most part they have had a good run the past 25 years.
There's a better than average chance we won't play Iowa as much should the Big 10 expand considerably. They already get mocked if we beat them in football and hoops is just one game of 30--minimal impact. Be very afraid that Iowa will not play us every year in football should the Big 10 go to 16 or even 14 teams.
And let's be frank--the only sports that really matter here are football and basketball.
Not only is that only a theory, but even if "similar revenue" were true, it would be split up like 20 ways instead of the 11 ways it's split in the Big 10.
I don't know how many times we have to detract this line of thought as a fallacy. If we move down to a lesser conference do you think we'll still have the ability to recruit Florida and Texas in the limited fashion that we currently do? What we have in those pipelines will be gone. And historically we have had problems competing with teams in the MAC, WAC, and MWC with the players we do get from those pipelines. We're suddenly going to dominate those conferences with even less talent?
We're not going to automatically dominate any lesser conference we might end up in. In fact, anything short of the MWC would be the death of ISU athletics, and even the MWC would hurt us greatly.
Latest posts
-
-
Severe Geomagnetic Storm Watch (and maybe big Northern Lights show)
- Latest: CycloneSpinning
-
-
-
