Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Jerry Sandusky's Wife Tries To Run A Reporter Over

What If The Big 10 Is Just Bluffing?

After a couple days of hyperventilating speculation triggered by a Chicago Tribune report that the Big 10 may be accelerating its expansion timetable, the Big 10 yesterday, through its human constituents, popped out and said "just joking!"  Apparently we're going to have to wait a modern eternity -- i.e., another seven to 13 months -- to find out whether the Big 10 is going to 14 or 16 schools.

Or if they're adding anyone, or just one.  Yeah, I really just typed that line.  Ever since December, we've been so wrapped up in speculation about what could happen if the Big 10 expanded, and how many teams they may add, that we've completely forgotten about the possibility that they don't expand at all, or if they do, that they only add one school.

Of course, there are good reasons for that.  For one, all of the official information has tended to indicate that expansion will occur.  Expansion to as many as 14 or even 16 teams has been bandied about, making expansion to 12 almost a passe topic.  It certainly makes sense for the Big 10 to add at least one team, so it can play a conference championship game and expand its Big 10 Network at least somewhat.  And what fun is it to speculate about the possibility that the Big 10 adds nobody?

Going back to the penultimate sentence of that previous paragraph, my gut feeling is that the Big 10's most prudent course of action is to expand by one school.  Adding one school brings in a championship game and new subscribers and possibly cable carriers for the Big 10 Network.  Some candidates would be better than others, but the value of a championship game and some level of BTN expansion is probably financially wise.

Star-divide

I've said before, in so many words, that the Big 10 is a relatively conservative conference.  It expanded to 10 in 1950 by adding Michigan State, and then to 11 in 1990 with Penn State.  Notre Dame was offered membership in 1999, but declined.  In other words, it has been shockingly stable compared to most of the other automatic qualifier conferences.  So would Commissioner Jim Delany really add three or even five new members in one fell swoop and enter a world that has not been successfully navigated by any conference?

Maybe.  If the accountants and the consultants he has hired and presumably trusts all tell him it's not only financially feasible but a potential money printing press, then maybe the Big 10 becomes the first AQ superconference.  Delany dreamed big with the Big 10 Network, and that has been a resounding success for the conference.  Beyond that, the conference has some level of cushion.  Even if things didn't work out as planned and the three or five new schools didn't bring in enough new pie that all 14 or 16 schools now had at least an equal -- and preferably larger -- share than they'd had before, they'd still be getting a helluva lot of pie.  The Big 10 already distributes more money to its member institutions than the Big 12 and Pac-10 do, and all those schools still seem to be getting by to some degree.

But I want to imagine a reality that is so unimaginable given what we've all read for five months that I may lose some of you here.  What if Delany never had any intention of adding even three teams, let alone five?  Other bloggers have suggested that the Big 10 may have used Missouri as a stalking horse to get to Texas, theorizing -- probably correctly -- that Texas would not make the first move on its own, but if it believed the Big 12 were in peril, it would happily throw the other 11 (OK, 10 when you take out Texas A&M) schools under the bus to save its own ass.  Let's take the same theory, but apply it to a different situation.  What if the Big 10 is using superconference-style expansion as a stalking horse to get Notre Dame to join?

Granted, this theory makes a lot of assumptions that aren't particularly popular.  Most blogs, BOTC included, have foregone extended discussion of Notre Dame as a candidate.  There are various reasons.  I have foregone that discussion because I have considered it the obvious choice from the beginning, and also because it would have no effect on the Big 12.  If the Big 10 wants to go to 12 schools and that school is Notre Dame, then there'd be no point in even discussing this issue on this site.  Other sites may think they're not worth discussing because they're too obvious, or because they think the Big 10 is still stung by their public denial in 1999, or because they don't think they're as valuable as they used to be, or because they just don't want the Big 10 to add them.

I still think Notre Dame makes sense as an addition to the Big 10, however.  For one, it obviously gets the Big 10 a championship game, which provides revenue and relevance later in the season.  Second, it gets the Big 10 a large national viewership associated with the Catholic Church, an institution that probably isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  That could potentially be a windfall of new subscribers to the Big 10 Network.  In other words, Notre Dame is the safe, conservative choice; assuming, of course, they are interested.

How would the Big 10 go about getting Notre Dame?  Funny I should ask.  It became clear in 1999 that simply asking Notre Dame to be the league's 12th member was not going to work.  Even now, after another two failed coaches, the Fighting Irish's independent streak still seems to be running strong (at least among fans).  And as mentioned in a previous post, Notre Dame probably still has the financial backing -- for now -- to remain independent if it wants to do so.  Further, if the status quo remained, Notre Dame's administrators would always know in the back of their head that, if worst came to worst, they could always ask the Big 10 to join.

So if you follow me down the trail I'm blazing in my little tin foil hat, the Big 10 has taken away ND's safety net.  Or, more accurately, they're threatening to take it away.  By adding three or five teams, they'd effectively foreclose forever the possibility that Notre Dame could join the Big 10.  Further, by most likely killing the Big East -- and maybe the Big 12 (with a Pac-10 assist) -- in the process, they'd cut off the next two most desirable alternatives for the folks in South Bend.  Thus, if we assume that the staid old Big 10 really has no intentions of expanding to 14 or 16 teams, then they are bluffing in the hopes that ND will evaluate its options, swallow its pride, and join the Big 10 (fold).

Not that there aren't plenty of holes in this theory.  Presumably, the Big 10 is paying a lot of money to consultants to evaluate these schools as possible additions.  It wouldn't make sense to spend all that money knowing there was no way they would add any school other than Notre Dame.  Further, there's the potential for the Big 10 to look even more foolish than it did in 1999 when Notre Dame publicly declined membership.  It's bad enough to get turned down when you propose in front of everyone; it's infinitely worse to concoct an elaborate lead-up to the proposal and then get turned down in front of everyone.

But for the moment, let's assume that this is a bluff, and the Big 10's only real goal is Notre Dame.  As I said, it puts the Irish in a tough spot, because if Brian Kelly doesn't lead them back to prominence respectability, and nobody is interested in giving them a new TV contract when the current one expires, then they're really going to wish they had a conference to join.  Are Notre Dame's administrators willing to take that risk?

Maybe the Big 10 is going to draw this out for several more months, with occasional speculation that Schools X, Y and Z are on the verge of being added, and let ND marinate in its predicament.  Ultimately, maybe there's a private meeting between Big 10 officials and Notre Dame officials, wherein the Big 10 makes its play, telling ND that if the Irish are willing to join, they will be the only addition, but if they don't, the Big 10 will add three teams and ND will never get another opportunity to join, even if they really have no intention of adding three more teams.

What if, however, Notre Dame calls that bluff?  At that point, is the Big 10 willing to add three other teams to save face, or is it banking on ND folding, joining the conference, and just accepting that it will look foolish if ND calls its bluff?  Obviously I don't know the answer, but I thought the theory was just plausible enough to type out.  What do you think?

Comment 12 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Lets hope for the best. I like the Big 12 the way it is now and it would be too bad to lose one of the original Big 8 teams like CU or MU. Especially since CU is keeping Dan Hawkins around for another year!

by ElephantHouse on Apr 22, 2010 10:52 AM CDT reply actions  

I like the Big 12 how it is too

It simply makes sense, except for the one (increasingly irrelevant) rivalry that was split up between OU and NU. It works. And I like being part of the little school that could sometimes rise up and bite big bad UT on the ass.

by Sean T on Apr 22, 2010 3:36 PM CDT up reply actions  

Notre Dame has always been the obvious choice.

They play 2-3 Big Ten teams every year and geographically are situated in the heart of the conference. Their inclusion allows for a fairly convenient east/west conference separation. One should also remember that ND only remains independent in football as they are a member of the Big East in all other sports (at least as I understand it).

Secretly I am hoping that the folks in the Big D have been looking to be the first to pull the trigger on expansion. It is interesting how speculation is running rampant among the Big 10 and/or Pac-10 expansion. There is even slight discussion surrounding the SEC and ACC. However the big elephant in the room remains silent. What if the Big 12 has been investigating expansion all along. Perhaps with their eyes on TCU, Utah and BYU for example. Let’s remember that they already hold the copyright on the Big 14 name. Seems like expanding our league by two teams would make for a better television network (anyone seeing the connection).

I agree with TB in that the most likely scenario is that the Big 10 is looking for one worthy member to expand so that they can get the title game money of the other BCS conferences. ND would be wise to join this time or as TB states get left behind for good. It just makes too much sense and really can Cinderella turn down the slipper twice?

by Catbacker98 on Apr 22, 2010 11:19 AM CDT reply actions  

State schools in Tejas

“It(UT) would happily throw the other 11 (OK, 10 when you take out Texas A&M) schools under the bus to save its own ass.”
As a Tech alum (B.S.) and TAMU alum (M.S.), I was always under the assumption that it was all or nothing in regard to taking a Texas Taxpayer school. I don’t think the state legislation lets UT go anywhere without A&M or Tech (see the piggybacking of Tech and Baylor in 1996). I honestly don’t even know if they’d let Tech join the PAC 10 (assuming they’d have us) if we were the first to bolt. For that matter do you honestly believe Topeka would EVER let KU go somewhere without State going to same conference? (OU/OSU??)I’d really like to see your thoughts TB, thanks.

Give 'Em Hell Tech!!!!!

by Plano Jeff on Apr 23, 2010 11:18 AM CDT reply actions  

It's hard to say...

…because I’m not even sure who has actual, final approval of a decision regarding conference affiliation in Texas (or Kansas, for that matter). Especially in Texas, with its various boards of regents (UT System, TAMU System, Texas Tech System, UH System, etc.), it’s anyone’s guess how that would work out. My suspicion is that the Texas Legislature doesn’t have final approval over any individual school’s conference affiliation, although they obviously control the purse strings and could threaten in that way.

I got into a long argument on another board this week about whether, in a remote hypothetical situation, the powers that be in Texas would allow UT and TAMU to split up. My assumption was that the Big 10 expanded, triggering expansion by both the Pac-10 and SEC, which lead to Missouri (Big 10), Colorado (Pac-10), Oklahoma (SEC), and perhaps another school or two (Nebraska or KU to the Big 10). Now, I admit that’s a remote hypo, but if it occurred, I cannot imagine UT and TAMU would be interested in trying to salvage the Big 12. It’s a well-known fact that UT wants nothing to do with the SEC, but TAMU has always had an eye on that conference. Further, UT and the Pac-10 played footsie in the mid 1990s, but Stanford shot that down. What if, under these circumstances, TAMU wanted to go to the SEC, but UT wanted to go to the Pac-10, and it was pretty obvious the Big 12 wasn’t worth saving for those two schools?

In such a situation, there’d be no reason for a legislator with TAMU interests to block UT’s move to the Pac-10, because it wasn’t like UT was leaving TAMU in a doomed conference (and vice versa). Now, that overlooks the possibility that legislators representing Tech’s and Baylor’s interests could intervene again. But I assume in both situations the UT System and the TAMU System would approve such moves as in the institution’s best interests. Whether the individual schools had the stomach to risk budget cuts from state legislators with opposing interests is another story.

It’s a similar story in Kansas, but without the multiple boards of regents complications. I think we can safely assume that if KU gets an invite to the Big 10, we’re looking at massive conference realignment, and the real possibility that the Big 12 doesn’t survive (i.e., UT and TAMU don’t want to stick around). In that case, I’m sure the Kansas legislators representing K-State’s interests would probably fight to force KU to include K-State in a move to the Big 10. Now, the Big 10 probably has less than zero desire to add K-State, so most likely they tell KU that either they’re invited by themselves or they’re not invited at all. At that point, what does the Board of Regents do? Would they force both schools to remain in a weakened — if not doomed — conference? Or would they sacrifice K-State to the Big 12’s remains in order to provide a more lucrative future for KU?

The perspective of what might happen in the various state legislatures (and boards of regents) has been overlooked in this entire conference realignment discussion. It will obviously play a huge role, and my speculation as to what may happen is just that — speculation. That is why I think Missouri might be the Big 10’s easiest candidate. They bring a lot of population, two big TV markets, and they’re the only major-conference school in the state. They don’t have another institution that would be hurt by their move; in fact, a Mizzou move would benefit the entire MU system.

We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats

by TB on Apr 24, 2010 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions  

Two Words... Big Pac

Let Mizzu go to the Big 11 (even though I think you’re right about ND so this actually works if the bigXII doesn’t replace anyone).

Big 12 adds Arkansas, Pac 10 adds Utah and new Mexico to form a 24 team super conference. There would be two divisions, east and west with a division championship played in KC and the Rose Bowl (stadium) respectively with the conference championship played in Dallas.

Did I mention the Big Pac would own every tv west of the Mississippi?

by BlackCats on Apr 24, 2010 2:18 AM CDT via mobile reply actions  

What about a Big Mac

but just because it sounds so darn tasty. They could have their own McNugget Bowl. That would be sweet! Sign me up, I’m in.

by williewildcrack on Apr 26, 2010 8:51 AM CDT up reply actions  

ND and the Big 10,er,actually 11

     Being a life-long Irish fan I am truly torn as to whether the Irish should join. Economically it makes sense,BUT, will it limit their national appeal in the near and far future? This is the real question. Short term gain vs. long term loss. Will ND be able to schedule those one-time back-to-back series with schools like Alabama, Miami, LSU, Oklahoma, Oregon, Nebraska and still go through a brutal Big 10 schedule? The buzz these games produce are unique. But, while I was against the deal 10 years ago we are in a different economic environment that has changed, and will, change beyond everyone’s expectations. I think the Big 10 is offering a safe move but is it the best move? That is the question.

by Kenny Cahill on Apr 24, 2010 12:25 PM CDT reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the Kansas State Wildcats.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Collin_klein_small
2012 Recruiting Breakdown: Offense (Part 1)
Collin_klein_small
2012 Recruiting Breakdown: JUCO's

Recent FanPosts

Collegesportsvision_avatar_small
Texas A&M Channel Guide
Fbimgp0931_small
2/2/12 Community Links day.
Willie_small
#22 K-State v. Oklahoma - 60-63 (L) - Post-Game
Collegesportsvision_avatar_small
Oklahoma Channel Guide
Willie_small
#22 K-State @ Texas Tech - 69-47 (W) - Post-Game
Willie_small
#25 K-State @ Oklahoma State - 66-58 (W) - Post-Game
Collegesportsvision_avatar_small
Oklahoma State Channel Guide
Fbimgp0931_small
Texas @ #25 K-State - 80-84 (W) - Post-Game

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Manager

Dsc01361_small TB

Editor

Frye_small Panjandrum

2008-8_small BracketCat

Author

Jon2c_small jonfmorse

Small Ahearn Alley