*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[Judoka]

16 and ISU would not make sense for the Big 10.

If there really are 4 leagues of 18-20 teams, any solution with ISU not grouped with the Big Ten teams really doesn't make sense.

Hypothetical (and it could go numerous ways):
ND - national add for B10
Missou, a VA team, an Eastern team or two, an NC team or two.

That still leaves them 2-4 teams. They've become gigantic geographically and TV market to the point where they'd prefer just taking another school with BCS facilities that is a quality school and a good geographic fit. Plus other leagues would be expanding and they'd just run out of good options.

4, 16 team leagues, and ISU is most likely one of the 5 current BCS/ND/BYU teams that gets purged (69 teams right now, 64 spots). If not purged, slight chance at being in some Big East/Big 12 coalition survival.

4 18-20 team leagues and ISU is most likely with the Big Ten schools.

I really don't see us going to the Big 10 in any scenario, but other than that I agree with your post. Here's how I see the odds

Four 16 team superconferences: 80% chance ISU gets left in the cold

Four 18 team superconferences: 30% change ISU gets left in the cold

Four 20 team superconferences: less than 5% chance ISU gets left in the cold

16 teams is bad for us because there are more than 64 BCS schools right now, and the lower tier Big 10, SEC, and Pac-12 teams are all safe. 18 teams is better, but we couldn't be confident that we'd get the call over some Big East schools that bring more TV sets. At 20 teams you're to the point where every school that has the infrastructure in place to play big time college football will be there, at that includes ISU.

 

[CycloneErik]

Wouldn't it be a shame if this thread got political and was sent to the cave.

We're not going into a partisan discussion, so we should be OK.

Basically, we're just discussing whether athletic departments deserve a tax-free status in this current format.

 

[Bestaluckcy]

We're not going into a partisan discussion, so we should be OK.

Basically, we're just discussing whether athletic departments deserve a tax-free status in this current format.

In that case, our convoluted tax system subsidizes, oil, farmers, home buyers.
Why not basketball and football entertainment too?

 

[jbhtexas]

The schools are getting money? More like the athletics departments are getting more money they can throw at each other in the form of equipment, facilities, etc.

Pretty much.

Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool Website

I downloaded data for the 119 FBS schools (the ones that would be "benefitting" from the TV revenue and conference realignment) from the above site for 2003 and 2009 (earliest and latest years) and did a quick analysis

2003
Average revenue: $31,633,734
Average men's and women's teams per school: 16.7
Average male participants per school: 303
Average female participants per school: 241

2009
Average revenue: $49,717,405
Average men's and women's teams per school: 15.5
Average male participants per school: 306
Average female participants per school: 267

Participation has increased by about 5% on an athlete basis, the number of teams fielded per school has actually dropped (women's rosters are getting a little bigger), and revenue has gone up by 57%. So what's being done with the money? It certainly doesn't seem that it is being used to provide additional opportunities for student athletes.

 

[Bestaluckcy]

[QUOTE
" If there really are 4 leagues of 18-20 teams, any solution with ISU not grouped with the Big Ten teams really doesn't make sense."

Not really very much sense to anything going on that I can see.

 

[alarson]

Pretty much.

Equity in Athletics Data Analysis Cutting Tool Website

I downloaded data for the 119 FBS schools (the ones that would be "benefitting" from the TV revenue and conference realignment) from the above site for 2003 and 2009 (earliest and latest years) and did a quick analysis

2003
Average revenue: $31,633,734
Average men's and women's teams per school: 16.7
Average male participants per school: 303
Average female participants per school: 241

2009
Average revenue: $49,717,405
Average men's and women's teams per school: 15.5
Average male participants per school: 306
Average female participants per school: 267

Participation has increased by about 5% on an athlete basis, the number of teams fielded per school has actually dropped (women's rosters are getting a litte bigger), and revenue has gone up by 57%. So what's being done with the money? It certainly doesn't seem that it is being used to provide additional opportunities for student athletes.

Well hell, look at something like our basketball practice facility. We had to build it if we wanted to compete because everyone else has or is getting them. But think of it objectively, outside of the arms race. We're talking about a multi million dollar facility, that serves what, maybe 30 students a year? How does that make sense?

 

[Bestaluckcy]

Well hell, look at something like our basketball practice facility. We had to build it if we wanted to compete because everyone else has or is getting them. But think of it objectively, outside of the arms race. We're talking about a multi million dollar facility, that serves what, maybe 30 students a year? How does that make sense?

Got to remember, these students are incredibly talented with a basketball. That's why ISU recruited them. They can do things that you and I only wish.:smile:

 

[jbhtexas]

How is taking away non-profit status help the athletes?

It's probably not going to help the student athletes, and that's a very sad thing. On the other hand, it's not right or fair for schools behaving like for-profit businesses to be hiding under the guise of a non-profit organization and avoiding taxation when other businesses have to pay taxes.

as long as they are in compliance with IRS regulations there is no threat. Now if the IRS changes regulations, that's one thing, and then they will simply comply with the new regulations.

The reality, its not the big boys that would be hurt by this, its the little boys.

The regulations could be written to protect the smaller schools. Formulas could be developed to determine some kind of normalized operating budget for each school based on the number of sports offered, maintenance of facilities based on size, etc, adjusted for location. It might be complex, but it could be done. All income above that required for this calculated budget is either donated to the school's general scholarship fund, donated to charity, or taxed if the AD wants to keep it for whatever (i.e. build or expand facilities, pay high salaries to some coaches, etc).

 

[Bestaluckcy]

It's probably not going to help the student athletes, and that's a very sad thing. On the other hand, it's not right or fair for schools behaving like for-profit businesses to be hiding under the guise of a non-profit organization and avoiding taxation when other businesses have to pay taxes.



The regulations could be written to protect the smaller schools. Formulas could be developed to determine some kind of normalized operating budget for each school based on the number of sports offered, maintenance of facilities based on size, etc, adjusted for location. It might be complex, but it could be done. All income above that required for this calculated budget is either donated to the school's general scholarship fund, donated to charity, or taxed if the AD wants to keep it for whatever (most likely to build or expand facilities).

I agree that this has all become a farce. I seriously doubt whether any of it can be effectively corrected. Schools lobby for breaks. Politicians are in Washington to do the will of the people. Nobody stands for justice anymore, or so it feels. Sorry if this is cynical. It is the way the system appears to be working anymore to me. And yes I agree we should try to make things better. But where is the justice anymore?

 

[boone7247]

Off the current topic.

At what point does a 16 or 18 team conference just become two 8 or 9 team conferences?

 

[CycloneJames]

Off the current topic.

At what point does a 16 or 18 team conference just become two 8 or 9 team conferences?

Thats the part I think most people don't like. It is essentially a 8/9 team conference with rotating "non-conference" games. In my opinion, there isn't a point of being in the same conference with other teams if you don't play them every year, or darn close to every year.

 

[Bestaluckcy]

Off the current topic.

At what point does a 16 or 18 team conference just become two 8 or 9 team conferences?

A few pages back the guys did some work with a 3 pods of six teams thing. It really was quite interesting and had some merit. I think this is the whole reason that the Big 12 was trying to make 10 teams work. This still can work if A&M can see the light and forget about TU

 

[snowcraig2.0]

Thats the part I think most people don't like. It is essentially a 8/9 team conference with rotating "non-conference" games. In my opinion, there isn't a point of being in the same conference with other teams if you don't play them every year, or darn close to every year.

It wouldn't be just 2 divisions, it would be 3 or 4.

 

[stateofmind]

3000th Post?!?

 

[stateofmind]

Dang it wasn't the 3000th, how about now?

 

[stateofmind]

Almost there

 

[VeloClone]

3000th Post?!?

Not yet...

 

[stateofmind]

I cheated, yeah me! ***Somebody beat me...

 

[stateofmind]

Not yet...

How'd I know it would be you that got it...

 

[boone7247]

It wouldn't be just 2 divisions, it would be 3 or 4.

Ok. So it goes to a 16 team conference. You would have 4 groups of 4, then have NFL style scheduling where you play 3 games against your division, 4 against another division (rotated every year), then 2 games as strength of schedule games? IMO if you don't play every team with 3 years it is point less.