OU, OSU, UT, TT, CU and A&M to the Pac 10?

[stoops4pres]

I disagree. I think K-State will go wherever KU goes. Lew Perkins and Self have both said they believe KU & KSU are tied together and they want it that way. Similar to OU & OSU. Plus K-State has really stepped up their basketball program and football has great support and has shown they can put a winner on the field. But the emergence of Frank Martin's basketball program has really helped them in these talks I believe. He may have the 3rd best program of the Big 12 teams over the next decade.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't agree with it. There's a reason why K-State isn't in the talks of re-alignment with the power conferences. Their product just isn't as valuable as others that are in the discussion. And regardless if their bball program is on the rise, that's not what will get an invitation from the power conferences. From a television market, geographical, academic, and athletic budget standpoint, they aren't as coveted as the other schools. And if KU is tied with KSU (which you're right, it makes sense) then it may not bode well for KU. KSU could bring down KU with them, because there are more viable options then having to take KU if that means having to take K-State with them.

If conferences expand more than the aforementioned 16, then I can see KU-KState getting invited. But if the Big 10, Pac 10, and SEC just go to 16, I simply don't see it happening.

 

[Sid]

Uh, no. KU basketball isn't going anywhere. If KU joined C-USA it really wouldn't be a huge drop-off from a basketball standpoint. Where it would hurt is in football. The only positive for football is KU could compete for league titles. But basketball wise if C-USA added KU they'd definitely add KSU and the probably Baylor because they would need somewhere to go.

MONEY! By being a member of the Big 10 conference, NW and Indiana got 20 million dollars last year. By being in the Big 12 conference, Texas received around 10 million dollars last year. KU will not come close to receiving that much money in C-USA. When a school from one of the super conferences comes knocking on BS door, KU will not be able to match their offer.

Baylor/KSU? Are you kidding me. How much money will they generate for a conference? How many eyeballs will they bring to the table? Forget about KU football. As a KU basketball fan, you better hope the ACC and the Big East merge. Basketball wise, it would be a perfect fit for KU.

Personally, I would like to see OU and aTm bolt to the SEC. aTm would bring the tv market and OU would bring its national presence as a football power. Texas can stay in the Big 8 and create its own tv network while the rest of the members struggle to make money. One thing is for sure, OU will not get caught with their pants hanging down around their ankles.

 

[campbest]

Uh, no. KU basketball isn't going anywhere. If KU joined C-USA it really wouldn't be a huge drop-off from a basketball standpoint.

lol.

Yeah, moving from a top three conference the past three years (#1 last year) to C-USA wouldn't be a drop.

Not saying KU basketball would disappear (see examples listed above).

 

[bocabull]

I don't see why Texas & Texas A&M can't be in different conferences.

They are as different as night and day just like the SEC and Pac-10 are. Texas A&M culturally fits better with the SEC and Texas culturally fits better with the academically superior Pac-10.

As for Kansas State being the 3rd best basketball program over the next decade of the Big XII teams I laugh at that.

If all of this goes down Kansas & Kansas State's best place would be in the Big 10. If not there they will end up in the moutain west which actually is the best fit for both of them competitively.

 

[Sawyer]

I find it amazing this sawyer person is so deluded he thinks that Missouri is more attractive than Nebraska or Kansas to any conference.

There is a reason Missouri makes less money in the Big XII than Kansas, Nebraska, OKlahoma, Texas, etc. The Big XII pays based on the revenue you bring in and nobody gives a flip about Missouri in any sport.

There are rumblings that A&M really wants to be in the SEC to get out from under Texas shadow. I would love to see Kansas in the Pac-16 instead of A&M.

How about Kansas-UCLA and Kansas-Arizona in basketball every year?

The Big 12 pays based on TV appearances in football and non-conference basketball games. The last data the Big 12 released on revenue distribution was from 2006-07, which wasn't a great year for MU athletics (8-5 football team and no post-season appearance for basketball). In a mediocre year for MU, we ranked 6th in the Big 12 in revenue... but the difference between 6th and 3rd (kansas) was only $800k. That's not that much of a difference.

But none of that matters when talking about the Big 10. The Big 12 divides revenue based on TV appearances only. All Big 10 schools are on TV for every game. They're more interested in the number of new subscribers they'll get for their Big 10 network. Because Missouri is 2-3 times larger than both kansas and Nebraska, they're going to add a lot more subscribers... which means a lot more money for the Big 10.

There's a reason Missouri's frequently in the Big 10 discussion and kansas rarely is.

 

[bocabull]

What are you talking about? Big 10 network is already on Direct TV nationally for free. I would imagine it's already available on cable in the St Louis market.

So either of the 3 teams would add Kansas City, but we all know that nationally Kansas and Nebraska would add 10 times as many viewers. Probably more.

 

[Sawyer]

If all of this goes down Kansas & Kansas State's best place would be in the Big 10. If not there they will end up in the moutain west which actually is the best fit for both of them competitively.

kansas state won't even be considered by the Big 10. Bringing in two states from a small state (or even one) wouldn't help them expand their network base as much as they want. But far more important than that, ksu isn't an AAU member school. That's a pretty firm requirement for almost any school to be considered (Notre Dame being the only exception).

That's also another reason ku isn't going to the Big 10, assuming they're tied to ksu.

 

[Sawyer]

What are you talking about? Big 10 network is already on Direct TV nationally for free. I would imagine it's already available on cable in the St Louis market.

So either of the 3 teams would add Kansas City, but we all know that nationally Kansas and Nebraska would add 10 times as many viewers. Probably more.

It's not part of the basic package in St. Louis now, and it won't be in KC unless Missouri is added. Cable companies in St. Louis and KC can choose to make it available with their basic package, but the Big 10 Network doesn't make as much money that way because of how the network deal is structured.

Same with national subscribers. They don't add as much as the cable subscribers added in each school's state.

 

[sooner333]

I have heard the Big 10 network makes $.10 per subscriber either on the sports tier or in non-Big 10 markets (I'm not sure which), but up to $.70 per subscriber in Big 10 markets.

Of course, the impact of Missouri over Kansas is large, but you have to throw out KC when comparing the two schools becuase KC would assuredly receive the Big 10 Network if Kansas was there, with or without Mizzou.

 

[Sawyer]

Those are the numbers I've seen, as well, but I'm not 100% sure they are accurate. I do know it's close to that, though (those are per month numbers, by the way).

Even throwing out the KC metro area (and I'm not sure it'd be guaranteed with kansas but no Missouri), Mizzou still brings 1.5 million more people, and those 1.5 million people equate to roughly 600,000 households. Say 60% of those households are cable subscribers (which is the national average) and the Big 10 makes $0.70 per month for each subscription per month. That's about $3,000,000 more per year that Missouri brings in via the Big 10 Network. To make up the difference, kansas would need to bring in an additional 2,500,000 cable subscribers to the Big 10 Network from outside kansas and the KC area.

 

[bocabull]

St Louis already has the Big 10 network as part of the basic cable package.

link

 

[sooner333]

You don't think the KC Metro would be guaranteed with Kansas but not Mizzou? I don't know the numbers of KU alumni in KC, but I know that it's not like a few live there and the rest live in Wichita, Hays, and Colby. I don't think the KU fans in KC would put up with not being able to see the Jayhawks play basketball on the network, as the majority of the games are on there.

 

[bocabull]

At the end of the day if Notre Dame says no the Big 10 would be best suited to add Rutgers, Boston College, Maryland, Missouri & Nebraska.

Adding the New York, Boston and Washington DC markets would be a home run and adding the Husker Nation would too.

Kansas State will be what forces Kansas to end up in the Moutain West most likely.

This all makes too much sense not to happen.

 

[Sawyer]

I didn't realize Charter recently added the Big 10 Network as part of their extended package. If you go to the Big 10 Network's website and use their gamefinder page, any St. Louis zip code will show up with a "service not provided" message.

Regardless... since Missouri/St. Louis is outside the Big 10's state footprint, I don't believe those subscriptions aren't being maximized per their current setup. They would make millions more per year by turning those St. Louis subscribers into $0.70/month as opposed to $0.10.

I agree with the five you mentioned for the Big 10 except for Boston College. Syracuse is more likely IMO. For one, BC isn't an AAU member school. Plus, Syracuse, being in New York, would help seal up that market (I'm not sure Rutgers would be enough since it's in New Jersey). Rutgers, Syracuse and Missouri would help the network seal up a handful of good markets, and Notre Dame and Nebraska, while not adding a ton in state-based subscriptions, would add two national names. Also, all five are relatively unthreatening when it comes to conference titles (I don't know about Rutgers or Syracuse, but the other three would likely compete well in most sports without winning in many, which would be good for the overall strength of the conference).

sooner333... KC would probably have access to the Big 10 Network, but I doubt it would be at the higher rate. As I understand their deal, subscription rates are based on states, not where large concentrations of alumni may live.

But ultimately it probably doesn't matter at all if ksu and ku really are tied together in any move.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

Regarding move from KC to Dallas, it was a move that gave the teams in the North division reason to feel slighted by the B12 and feel like everything was becoming about the South division. It doesn't really matter where the office is IMHO, but it does provide additional ammunition to those folks that the South (UT and OU espescially) was going to be the focus.

Regarding various state legislatures, shocked that so many of you think that this is something that they would, or should, be involved in. Heard about OU/oSu being joined at the hip quite a bit in the last few months, and that the "legislature" would ensure that they were in the same conference no matter what. Same with UT and aTm. In Oklahoma at least, barring a passage of a new law and a substantial dimunition of the office of regents, the "legislature" wouldn't do or say anything. It is not their role; moreover, very few of them would want anything to do with an issue that would cost them an election.

 

[stoops4pres]

Regarding move from KC to Dallas, it was a move that gave the teams in the North division reason to feel slighted by the B12 and feel like everything was becoming about the South division. It doesn't really matter where the office is IMHO, but it does provide additional ammunition to those folks that the South (UT and OU espescially) was going to be the focus.

I can definitely see how the North schools felt slighted, but how does that move translate into the beginning of the Big 12's front office running the conference into the ground? Are you suggesting that the Big 12 wouldn't have been so inept had they not relocated their offices and remained intact in KC?

 

[campbest]

Regarding various state legislatures, shocked that so many of you think that this is something that they would, or should, be involved in. Heard about OU/oSu being joined at the hip quite a bit in the last few months, and that the "legislature" would ensure that they were in the same conference no matter what. Same with UT and aTm. In Oklahoma at least, barring a passage of a new law and a substantial dimunition of the office of regents, the "legislature" wouldn't do or say anything. It is not their role; moreover, very few of them would want anything to do with an issue that would cost them an election.

I would take that bet.

 

[Mr.B!!!]

I would take that bet.

Not sure how we make it, but you'd probably win. State Rep. in Pawnee county might make a fuss, but it would be irrelevant. Regents were created for the express purpose of keeping legislators and executive branch out of the decision making process EXCEPT for funding. Now, there probably is a legislator dumb enough to threaten to withhold funding, but I expect that it wouldn't be a enough to totally revise the regent system as it stands today becuase OU and oSu wouldn't be in the same conference.

 

[Sawyer]

I don't think it's direct threats to withhold funding that people are worried about... it's more the indirect or implied threats people worry about.

I don't know what it's like in Oklahoma right now, but in Missouri, state funding for higher ed is not in good shape. Anything that could pose even a small threat to Mizzou would be taken extremely seriously (for example, Southern Missouri State changing its name to Missouri State took a lot of political maneuvering, and that's small compared to conference realignment).

 

[Mr.B!!!]

I don't think it's direct threats to withhold funding that people are worried about... it's more the indirect or implied threats people worry about.

I don't know what it's like in Oklahoma right now, but in Missouri, state funding for higher ed is not in good shape. Anything that could pose even a small threat to Mizzou would be taken extremely seriously (for example, Southern Missouri State changing its name to Missouri State took a lot of political maneuvering, and that's small compared to conference realignment).

Anybody running against a candidate that explicitly or implicitly threatened to withhold the funding of the University of Oklahoma would win in just about any county in Oklahoma but Payne county. Really, it sounds like it is a non-issue and I'd rather be in a conference with oSu than not, I just get tired of hearing "the legislature will bind teams together" when in reality, without MAJOR changes in the way the state government is set up they couldn't and more importantly, shouldn't. Here is how it SHOULD go, AD makes a recommendation to the President, President makes a recommendation to the regents, and the regents approve or disapprove.