Paterno Wants Eastern Team In Big 10

MeanGreen61 · May 28, 2009

Don't know how others in the Big 10 feel, but Paterno wants an Eastern team. He list some interesting choices.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4210656

GreenStreet · May 28, 2009

So Since they could not call it the Big 12, I guess they would call it the Big 11 Conf.

UNTflyer · May 28, 2009

The big shakeup is coming...

If a Big East team bolts for the Big 11, they'll look to pluck a couple of C-USA teams. One or two C-USA teams may then jump ship and go to the Mountain West. C-USA will need to look in its own backyard to backfill these spots because there is already grumbling about the wide geographic makeup of the league.

GreenStreet · May 29, 2009

The big shakeup is coming...

I think the Big East will be hurting for reliable teams should the ones such as Pitts/WV/Rug move on. Not to say all those teams will go. But the Big East will not be able to replace as qualified traveling schools. Conf USA will easily be able to replace teams as they come and go, but the Big East will need to start catering to D-1A.

Should the Big East pool from the MAC or Even Conf USA do to geography I think we would be looking at East Carolina, Marshall, and possibly Central Florida. However, those three teams vans base fails in comparison to what the Big East will be losing.

Mean Green 93-98 · May 29, 2009

I imagine he is alone among the Big Ten schools in those preferences. The other schools want to keep it a Midwest conference. I could see them looking to pluck Iowa State, or maybe even Missou, out of the Big XII. There is no secret that the Big 10 has long coveted Notre Dame, but $$$ won't let that happen anytime soon.

stebo · May 29, 2009

I don't see a big shake-up even if he gets his wish. One team from the Big East goes and in return, either Southern Miss or Memphis moves into that place. CUSA then adds one team and that is the end of it. Would we be that team? Maybe. Our biggest competition is La Tech in my opinion and while they are building a jumbotron, about 5 years after every other school in the nation has built one, we are building a brand new stadium to complete our brand new athletic complex. They don't have the hoops that we have and they don't have the market that we "could" have. But this is probably all for nothing because I doubt that one old man wanting another team will talk the conference into splitting the pie 12 ways instead of 11. Yes, a championship game brings in money - but not as much as two bids to the BCS and championship games have been kind of a killer for autobid conferences and their seeding. The underdog seems to always win.

May 29, 2009

So Since they could not call it the Big 12, I guess they would call it the Big 11 Conf.

They already are the Big 11. Look at their graphic... It has 11 between G and T. Cleverly slipping in the fact they have eleven.

NT80 · May 29, 2009

Something needs to happen to shake things up again so we can have a shot to move up, but not until we get our house in order. Economics will rule many of the future decisons (travel distance) more than it has in the past. All schools will crunch the numbers to see how the candidates affect them. The Pac10, MWC, Big10 and Big East could all be searching for the right fit to get to 12, then the trickle down will happen to the WAC and CUSA. All schools from the MAC and SBC will have "For Sale" signs up.

NT03 · May 29, 2009

Syracuse has been contacted and is interested. I don't know all the legal issues or contracts that are currently in place , but I know that there is mutual interest on both sides. Im not sure if it will get done or how long it would take , but my 1st thought was if this happens does the Big East go for MeMphis ???

NT80 · May 29, 2009

Syracuse has been contacted and is interested. I don't know all the legal issues or contracts that are currently in place , but I know that there is mutual interest on both sides. Im not sure if it will get done or how long it would take , but my 1st thought was if this happens does the Big East go for MeMphis ???

Jersey paper says Rutgers should be the obvious choice...

"The Big Ten, which already owns Pennsylvania thanks to the Nittany Lions, does not need Pittsburgh. The conference, which has just one private member in Northwestern, does not want Syracuse. Rutgers, on the other hand, fits in the Big Ten in almost every way..."

http://www.nj.com/sports/ledger/politi/ind...ind_it_rut.html

Edited May 29, 2009 by NT80

Chrisattsu · May 29, 2009

I imagine he is alone among the Big Ten schools in those preferences. The other schools want to keep it a Midwest conference. I could see them looking to pluck Iowa State, or maybe even Missou, out of the Big XII. There is no secret that the Big 10 has long coveted Notre Dame, but $$$ won't let that happen anytime soon.

The Big 10 is as much an academic conference as it is an athletic conference. All of the Public School (this excludes Northwestern and Purdue) are considered Public Ivies. Mizzou and Iowa State bring nothing to the conference academically, and nobody besides Iowa plays ISU on a regular basis.

Rutgers is considered a public Ivy, and offers up the NJ/NYC media market, but to me the B10 will always be midwestern conference. I know PSU has made their mark, but they always seem like the odd man out in this group

UNTflyer · May 29, 2009

Syracuse has been contacted and is interested. I don't know all the legal issues or contracts that are currently in place , but I know that there is mutual interest on both sides. Im not sure if it will get done or how long it would take , but my 1st thought was if this happens does the Big East go for MeMphis ???

The Big East wants a championship game. If they lose one to the Big 11, that means they need to pick up 5 teams.

Memphis (C-USA)

East Carolina (C-USA)

UCF (C-USA)

Marshall (C-USA)

Army or Navy (IND)

Heck, they may even target Army and Navy, plus 3 others. The key for a big shakeup is the desire of the Big East and Mountain West to get to 12 teams.

May 29, 2009

In the words of the immortal Rhett Butler, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!"

I guess I blame that statement primarily on the Big 10 commissioner, who in his greed, screwed up the regional aspect in the first place. Delaney wields such power and control (except for Notre Dame) that he will get whatever he wants. If Joe Pa can convince him that he wants Rutgers, Pitt, or even Syracuse then Delaney will make it happen.

If it were to happen (taking a team from the East) the choices should be West Virginia or Pittsburgh. They have the most tradition and draw the most fans. But, if it happens, look for Rutgers or Syracuse to fill the slot.

Any way you cut it, it could be bad for the Big East and could be a death blow to their SBC automatic bid status. Losing Virginia Tech, Boston College, Miami and one of the above in a decade could be the death knell. If they should take an East Carolina, Central Florida or Memphis they are arguably no better than the Mountain West.

If the Big East loses their auto bid status then I think that we see a lot of dominoes fall. I think that the rest of the conferences, insofar as possible, go to twelve teams. It will give them additional revenue for a championship game and a better chance at the three open bids. It will also save a ton of travel costs. So, while I don't really want to see this happen, it might be better for college football.

AnotherEagleFan · May 29, 2009

The Big East has been struggling with their football identity. They really only care about basketball. I just do not see the dominos being lined up here (even if a team leaves for the Big 10). This could be far worse for the non AQ conferences but it will come in sheeps clothing. The AQ BCS pie will have 1 less conference not a replacement. And the Bid East is already worse then a couple of the non AQ conferences.

NT80 · May 29, 2009

The Big East wants a championship game. If they lose one to the Big 11, that means they need to pick up 5 teams.
Memphis (C-USA)
East Carolina (C-USA)
UCF (C-USA)
Marshall (C-USA)
Army or Navy (IND)
Heck, they may even target Army and Navy, plus 3 others. The key for a big shakeup is the desire of the Big East and Mountain West to get to 12 teams.

The Pac10 has been rumored for a few years to be silently looking for 12 members. Candidates at one time included Texas but now center among Colorado, BYU, and Utah. MWC candidates include Fresno, Boise, Hawaii and perhaps UTEP.

VideoEagle · May 30, 2009

The Pac10 has been rumored for a few years to be silently looking for 12 members. Candidates at one time included Texas but now center among Colorado, BYU, and Utah. MWC candidates include Fresno, Boise, Hawaii and perhaps UTEP.

I've heard the rumors as well and just don't believe them. The Pac 10 is extremely proud of their academics and if anything consider themselves even better than the Big 10 in this regard. Fresno, Hawaii and UTEP simply would not fit their profile. I don't know enough about Boise to judge them.

As for BYU, their code of conduct directly conflicts with the liberal lifestyles promoted by many of the PAC 10 schools.

There is also a practical consideration for the Pac 10 in that the eight other teams want the revenue from playing USC and UCLA. I don't see them agreeing to divide into divisions that would make that impossible.

SCREAMING EAGLE-66 · May 30, 2009

The Big East wants a championship game. If they lose one to the Big 11, that means they need to pick up 5 teams.
Memphis (C-USA)
East Carolina (C-USA)
UCF (C-USA)
Marshall (C-USA)
Army or Navy (IND)
Heck, they may even target Army and Navy, plus 3 others. The key for a big shakeup is the desire of the Big East and Mountain West to get to 12 teams.

---The Big East will have to spit apart for that to happen... They have a lot of teams that do not play football (eight?) so if they added enough football teams to get to twelve then the basketball part would have about 20 teams.... that is a really impossible siuation. Not saying they won't try to go to 12 football teams but expect a split-up of basketball if they do. Doubt Army/Navy will join a conference.

stebo · May 30, 2009

I've heard the rumors as well and just don't believe them. The Pac 10 is extremely proud of their academics and if anything consider themselves even better than the Big 10 in this regard. Fresno, Hawaii and UTEP simply would not fit their profile. I don't know enough about Boise to judge them.
As for BYU, their code of conduct directly conflicts with the liberal lifestyles promoted by many of the PAC 10 schools.
There is also a practical consideration for the Pac 10 in that the eight other teams want the revenue from playing USC and UCLA. I don't see them agreeing to divide into divisions that would make that impossible.

Boise still is part JUCO - with a truck driving program available (seriously, not kidding)... Idaho does not have a huge population and schools like Boise fill those needs for tech training as well as normal UG and Grad work.

BYU simply will not play on Sundays, that is all. That might not sound like much of a problem for football... but with TV contracts and 20 sports scattered between men and women, it would take the entire conference agreeing to let them take off every Sunday... and in the past, that has been a deal breaker for them. Funny that Baylor, SMU, and TCU do not follow the same strict rules about the "day of rest"... gotta admire the Mormons for not being hypocritical, if nothing else.

Chrisattsu · May 30, 2009

In terms of Academics and DMAs (TV market shares), it would make sense for the PAC10 to look at Colorado. Academically they are considered a Public Ivy, their research dollars rank in the Top 10 nationally, and they consistently bring in top notch faculty.

Based strictly on Media Markets, It would allow the PAC10 to extend their brand into Colorado. The includes the #18 Denver market, the only Top 25 DMA close enough to their footprint that is not part of the conference. They have shown interested in the Colorado before, it is just hard for me to imagine a team in the Pacific 10 conference who is located in the Boulder.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Chrisattsu

GreenStreet · May 31, 2009

In terms of Academics and DMAs (TV market shares), it would make sense for the PAC10 to look at Colorado.

Would it make sense for Colorado to look at the PAC-10. that may be a step down, but if the money is there and the market is right hey more power to them. But I think a Utah or Boise would go to the Pac first.

Arkstfan · May 31, 2009

The Big East has been struggling with their football identity. They really only care about basketball. I just do not see the dominos being lined up here (even if a team leaves for the Big 10). This could be far worse for the non AQ conferences but it will come in sheeps clothing. The AQ BCS pie will have 1 less conference not a replacement. And the Bid East is already worse then a couple of the non AQ conferences.

Not where it matters. Their power ratings under the BCS formula places them securely in the top 6 (they've topped the Pac-10 more than once) and they are in absolutely no danger of losing the auto berth by losing one member.

Arkstfan · May 31, 2009

I actually spent several days working the phone and have my realignment analysis up. Took too many hours Saturday and after church working through my notes.

http://www.beltboard.com/?p=241

NT80 · May 31, 2009

I actually spent several days working the phone and have my realignment analysis up. Took too many hours Saturday and after church working through my notes.
http://www.beltboard.com/?p=241

Nice writeup on the "what-ifs". Can you explain when the BCS contract cycles again and the chances that the SBC would be included within the next version...

"2) The BCS contract exists with specific conference plus Notre Dame. When the Big West fell apart and was replaced by the Sun Belt, the BCS refused to give the Sun Belt the spot held by the Big West arguing that the contract specifically named the Big West and they would not modify the contract mid-cycle. Again staying within the framework of existing leagues can be vital to BCS standing and revenue sharing."

Arkstfan · May 31, 2009

Nice writeup on the "what-ifs". Can you explain when the BCS contract cycles again and the chances that the SBC would be included within the next version...
"2) The BCS contract exists with specific conference plus Notre Dame. When the Big West fell apart and was replaced by the Sun Belt, the BCS refused to give the Sun Belt the spot held by the Big West arguing that the contract specifically named the Big West and they would not modify the contract mid-cycle. Again staying within the framework of existing leagues can be vital to BCS standing and revenue sharing."

The current contract expires in January with the BCS championship in Pasadena. This cycle started with the 2006 season and we were a full participant under the same voting and revenue sharing rights as the other non-AQ leagues.

While not signed yet, in June or July the next contract will be signed and unless something amazingly dramatic happens, it will be for the 2010-2013 seasons under the same terms as the current deal except there will be whole lot more money to divide.

Basically the five non-AQ leagues take about 9% of the BCS revenue. That 9% is divided 5 shares to the highest rated LEAGUE among the five, 4 shares to #2, three shares to #3, two shares to #4, and one share to #5. If any team in the five leagues makes a BCS game the distribution is doubled mostly along those same lines with a bit extra to the team to cover expenses. So if the MWC is the highest rated league (think it has been the last three years), the MWC actually ends up benefiting more from Hawaii or Boise going to the BCS than the WAC does.

That is why there was so much happiness when the Sun Belt pulled ahead of the MAC in 2007, we took two shares rather than one share, and it is also why there was so much disappointment that one or two more non-conference wins could have pushed us ahead of C-USA, that would have meant taking 3 shares.

NT80 · June 1, 2009

The current contract expires in January with the BCS championship in Pasadena. This cycle started with the 2006 season and we were a full participant under the same voting and revenue sharing rights as the other non-AQ leagues.
While not signed yet, in June or July the next contract will be signed and unless something amazingly dramatic happens, it will be for the 2010-2013 seasons under the same terms as the current deal except there will be whole lot more money to divide.
Basically the five non-AQ leagues take about 9% of the BCS revenue. That 9% is divided 5 shares to the highest rated LEAGUE among the five, 4 shares to #2, three shares to #3, two shares to #4, and one share to #5. If any team in the five leagues makes a BCS game the distribution is doubled mostly along those same lines with a bit extra to the team to cover expenses. So if the MWC is the highest rated league (think it has been the last three years), the MWC actually ends up benefiting more from Hawaii or Boise going to the BCS than the WAC does.
That is why there was so much happiness when the Sun Belt pulled ahead of the MAC in 2007, we took two shares rather than one share, and it is also why there was so much disappointment that one or two more non-conference wins could have pushed us ahead of C-USA, that would have meant taking 3 shares.

Thanks, I never really understood the financial breakdown for us before. I guess 9% going to our 5 conferences is better than nothing but the remaining 91% going to 6 conferences is BcS !