I assume everyone knows by now, but I think we can all assume this is a precursor to Nebraska to the Big Ten and the Big-12 disintegrating.

the who what? i definitely don't know what you're talking about

probably porrige basckettbal?

/me shakes fists at the Canucks

bo wi gra na weep ninibon!

Ba weep gra na weep ninny bon

This is going to be a really really stupid conference realignment.

You're an ACC guy right? If so I could certainly imagine your potential displeasure in how things might go. I've been hearing lots of crazy stuff today but latest is UT and TAMU to Big Ten

It's not a matter of displeasure, it's a matter of this being really stupid. It's driven by the Big10 and Pac10 TV networks. I make the following predictions:

The Big 10 and/or Pac 10 network will fail within 10 years.

Conferences that go above 12 teams will see a net punishment in NCAA Tourney bids ala the Big East. (The Big East and Conference USA generally got more bids seperately then the combined 16 team conference which has never gotten more then 8).

This will blow up in at least one conference's face because the conferences themselves will become way too unwieldly and teams travel and accomodation expenses are going to skyrocket on average. Ratings for individual games and bowls have consistantly declined, so the TV money factory is not going to last long term.

It won't blow up in the PAC-16's face if they can secure the Big XII's BCS bid, giving them 2.

No way in hell the ACC/Big East/SEC will allow the PAC16 to get two bids.

Who says they won't get two bids too? The Big Ten may only be adding Nebraska at the moment, but for the most part nobody seems to think that they're stopping there. Once they dismantle the Big East, they can get their 2nd bid too. Shoot, with the way the SEC has been going lately, they can almost command 2 bids from the current 12 teams.

Anyways, the two bids theory is just a tangent of the larger discussion.

There are plenty of valid reasons for both the Big Ten and PAC-10 to expand. #1 is the fact that neither have enough teams to have a championship game. 12, 16 or somewhere in between, it was only a matter of time before at least 3 teams were added to these two conferences. Colorado has always made the most sense for the PAC-10 (and had been in discussions previously that didn't pan out). Assuming Notre Dame will never join the Big Ten (which they won't now and never will), Nebraska makes as much or more sense than any other school except maybe Pitt.

I agree with you though, it does start to get a little ugly when you think about the Texas and Oklahoma teams in the same conference as the Washington and Oregon teams. However, my mind is eased slightly (though not totally) when I think of it as two 8 team conferences (The PAC-8 is back! Woo hoo!) that have such a close relationship that they do everything together.


What will ultimately be the downfall of these "Super Conferences" will be the same thing that has lead to the down fall (or at least weakening, if it can survive) of the Big XII. They have to care about each other's interests, not just their own. The Big XII was 12 separate universities whose interests just happened to usually be in alignment. Contrast that to the Big Ten which was 11 universities united for their mutual benefit. The Big Ten is expanding because they have a good working model. The Big XII is dissolving because they are a model of what a conference should not be.

The Big Ten network is very profitable. I really doubt it will fail.

I think they will get two BCS bids BECAUSE the BCS knows it will fall apart without the Pac-10 and Big Ten which make no mistake, could destroy the BCS if they each grow to 16 teams. I think the BCS will allow it out of self preservation. I think we can also expect to see the SEC grow to 16 and then the remaining ACC and Big East merge to become a fourth 16 team major conference.

I've read some interesting stuff indicating this was all pre-meditated and that the Big Ten has been actively working towards it for years. At first I thought it was just a bunch of conspiracy theories, but it actually seems to have some legs. I wouldn't espouse it as truth, but definitely interesting to consider.

The BCS is doomed anyway. You're gravely mistaken if you don't think the NCAA is going to take a slice out of that pie and make an official championship to start getting their cut which is my ultimate bet on why this conference realignment is going to end up being so disastrous in the long run.

The NCAA has precedent for this already. They made the NCAAT to compete with the NIT. THen when some BCS schools decided to go to the NIT instead as it was more profitable the NCAA simply made NCAAT participation mandatory and the NIT got relegated to 2nd tier. The NCAAT makes more money then the BCS Bowls or the Super Bowl for that matter, but universities don't see nearly as much money from it as bowl games because the NCAA takes the lion's share.

That is possible. I know people have thrown around the possibility of leaving the NCAA - I don't really know how viable that is. Obviously individually it isn't but if people aren't buying in anymore it becomes meaningless.

The NCAA has their nuts in a vice quite frankly. They can leave the NCAA, but then they forfeit participation in the NCAAT, College World Series, Frozen Four, etc... while they may not be as big of money makers as football the student body and alumni would be in open revolt if they lost all of that.

It would certainly require an organized exodus. A school definitely couldn't afford to do it on their own.

More importantly than forfeiting all those tournaments, they'd lose tax exempt status.

Not neccesarily, keep in mind that the NCAA is a private entitiy, its not actually sanctioned by authority. If a group of schools wanted to form there own atheletic sanctioning body (ie the old NAIA), it would be an easy task to get 501.3c status and go into business.

The real showstopper is that the NCAA currently has all of the TV contracts locked up, which is a huge barrier to any competition.

I see the formation of these super conferences as a precursor to the end of the BCS. As it stands right now, several of the 'mid-majors' have grounds for legal action against the NCAA for allowing the BCS to selectively discriminate against publically funded schools.

So far, the BCS has gotten lucky and had enough leftover scraps to throw at Boise, Utah, BYU, TCU, etc. to keep the barking quiet. Its only a matter of time before an undefeated mid-major has to sit on the sideline watching a 2 loss TX Tech rake in a huge payday; while they decide to dial up the lawyers.

That's exactly why it's going to be hard for teams to break away. Do you think any non BCS schools will leave the NCAA? Hell no. Do you think teams like Duke, UNC or Syracuse who rake in cash from the NCAAT and it's related merchandise on equal footing with football will leave for this football league? Not gonna happen.

http://widerightandnattylight.wordpress.com/2010/06/09/blogs-from-afar/

In my opinion, hilarious

I wouldn't be surprised if UNC makes a lot more money off football than you're thinking orkin. I know UK makes absurd money off basketball and our team sucks.

Interestingly with Boise moving I think we've got a new BCS conferences in the making if the BCS doesn't go away.

MWC was going to become BCS conference even if Boise State didn't join. They were just positioning themselves to potentially pick up Big-12 stragglers.

hoop: I didn't say that one made an astounding amount more then the other. I said at a school like UNC it's close to 50/50. You have to understand that while TV money produces a lot of income for school, the other huge chunk of money = boosters. Now how much booster money do you think UNC generates when compared to football booster money? I would bet my last dollar the basketball program makes millions more then football in that regard. Then comes merchandising, is it UNC FOOTBALL that drives athletic apparel sales for UNC? Hell no. The same applies to a lot of big univerisites with moderate to poor football programs and elite basketball programs. e.g. Kansas, UNC, Duke, Indiana, Kentucky, Syracuse and ALL of the BE schools that don't play Division I A football of which nearly half of the conference does not.

Even schools like Florida State where football is king. Florida State turns a profit in the range of a million on men's basketball and breaks even on women's basketball. There are drawbacks on breaking away from the NCAA, namely two programs that are self sufficient, and in the case of men's basketball profitable now become money sinks when they go into the red and the money to support them has to come from the extra football money you now have.

You think if all the BCS schools broke away they wouldn't create their own basketball tourney? It would without a doubt be a bigger profit maker, and it would take away the NCAA's huge cash cow that is the tourney.

But yeah no doubt UNC's basketball program makes a lot more...and being in the ACC certainly doesn't help since they aren't getting the big football cut that say the SEC or big 10 gets.

Of course they would. But the super elite traditional basketball schools would not be in it. The NCAAT would still destroy the new tournament especially because CBS just signed a new long term contract. The NCAAT makes more money then the Super Bowl and the BCS Bowls. It's a bigger, more revenue generating event then either, the difference is the NCAA keeps the lion's share of the money so it's not as profitable to schools as the BCS.

Kentucky would definitely stay with the SEC. OSU, Texas, OU, UCLA, Michigan St, and well anyone in the SEC, big 10, and whatever becomes of the pac 10/Big 12 who ends on the money side would go with the pack. There would be no logical reason not to. Odds are this would turn into a more profitable move for the basketball schools.

So the Big Ten becomes the Big 12 and the Big 12 becomes the Big Ten.


Ironic. Don't you think?