star2city

Practically every Big Sky school has major APR issues. What's one more? At least Southern Utah isn't being banned from BB postseason like Portland State.

Great Falls paper on WAC taking Big Sky schools Assistant Big Sky Commissioner Kasper: "I think UC Davis or Cal Poly andmore likely than our guys if the WAC looks for teams," said Kasper. Kasper may just be saying that to create the impression of stability. With the recent athletic cuts at UCDavis as well as a 10,000 seat stadium, a WAC invite is of very low likelihood for the Aggies at this time. There is still a good chance that Boise State receives a bid to the MWC this month. If Sac St or Portland St are chosen immediately thereafter, the Big Sky has no choice but to offer SUU.

If the Big12 had totally balanced revenue, Nebraska would lose money. Nebraska isn't pleased with a number of things: including limited partial qualifiers, Jones' stadium rather than KC as championship venue, the 1 second put back on the clock last year, etc. etc. Since Notre Dame is hemming and hawing on going to the Big Ten, it appears only Nebraska (not Missouri) is heading there. The Big 10 might stop for the time being. Orangebloods.com: NU to Big10 Missouri may have really screwed themselves, as they might be left in the Big 12. Pac16 USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, OSU, OU, UW, Wazzou ASU, UA, OU, OSU, TTU, aTm, UT, CU New Big 12 Kansas Kansas St Missouri Iowa St +BYU or Utah +Colo St or Air Force Baylor +Houston +TCU +Memphis +Louisville +Cincinnati New Big East (football) - very vulnerable if SEC / ACC go to 16 Rutgers Syracuse UConn Pitt WVU USF +UCF +Temple MWC (losing TCU, AFA or CSU, BYU or UTah) UNM AFA or CSU BYU or UU +Boise St Wyoming UNLV SDSU +Fresno St +Nevada WAC (losing Boise, La Tech, Fresno, Nevada) may not survive Hawaii - might go independent in FB and in Big West otherwise San Jose St - drop to FCS and Big West? Idaho NMexSt UTah St (add three of UCDavis, Cal Poly, Sac St, Portland St, Montana, MSU, Texas St) CUSA (losing UCF, Houston, Memphis) Adds La Tech Adds UTSA Adds FAU or FIU Sunbelt Adds Ga St

Blue bomber punting situation - past and future Camerons punting? - bad link

O'Grady, Tesoro (CA) 6'3, 230 lb, DE Offers: San Diego St, Washington St, Arizona St, UND

With the football program still suffering through a number of athletes leaving the program and academic eligibility issues, will it's APR drop? With hockey losing two players to Major Juniors, how does that affect APR? APR: Portland State Vs Kentucky ESPN on how APR favors large schools Supposedly, the Big Sky will continue to be rocked by APR issues: Portland State will be banned from post-season in basketball and Idaho State will lose another six scholarships and have practice time limitations imposed.

It's not adding "top" football schools: if it did it would consider Cincinnati and West Virginia. Rutgers has never accomplished anything meaningful in football except play the first collegiate game. Missouri's has effectively been a non-player throughout it's history. Notre Dame's program has been a recent joke. The Big 10 is filled with bottom feeder programs (Minn, Indiana, NW, Illinois) and would be quite satisfied with more (Syracuse, Missouri, Rutgers) if they brought in more TV sets. A football playoff, if truly inclusive, opens up the possibility of a TCU or Boise State to win it all. That was the Big 10's, Big 12's, and Pac 10's concern: it tears down the myth of their invincibility. The Big 10 is especially concerned about a playoff, because it knows it chances of ever winning one are minimal: the Big Ten simple doesn't have the talent base that the SEC, Big 12, Pac10, or even ACC has. Boise St - by recruiting California, TCU with Texas, and USF, with Florida (earlier it was Miami) all have the potential to blow out Big 10 teams. The Big 10 can not tolerate such scenario: so it squelches any "newcomer" with placing financial and competition hurdles to frequent that from happening. The Big 10 wants monopoly control.

Supposedly, Louisville makes the largest profit - by a large margin - from basketball, not Kentucky. Louisville requires a large annual seat license. Louisville's AD is also terrified that Louisville may left out of BCS conferences, even with a new 22,000 seat KFC YUM arena opening this fall. As far as the latest, sounds as if Notre Dame may very well accept a Big Ten Conference offer on a couple of conditions: that all eleven other Big 10 schools sponsor Notre Dame's AAU membership for research universities and that Notre Dame gains immediate 100% payment and equal sharing of Big Ten profits with no buy-in required. The whole conference alignment situation seems to hinge on Notre Dame. If NDU accepts, then the Big 10 stops at 12 members. If NDU says "no", then the PAC10, SEC, ACC, and Big10 might all move to 16 members, effectively destroying the Big East. The Big East football members reportedly got a Big East resolution passed that Notre Dame must play Big East Conference football or be evicted for all sports. Notre Dame's special status was becoming even a cancer within the Big East: if the football schools could push them off the deck, the whole conference could be saved.

If Missouri is added to the Big10, they'll be another program like Indiana, as their Texas recruiting pipeline will dry up. Nebraska, if it can still recruit nationally, may be O.K. This is all about money, not winning. I actually sympathize with Texas, as they are trying to hold a conference together, even if it means less money. Texas isn't really the money-grubbing bastard here, it's the Big Ten. The sad thing is there's probably too much ill will within the Big 12 for it to survive. Missouri and Nebraska are basically throwing Kansas, Kansas State, and Iowa State to the wolves. A PAC16 will never be harmonious like it was with 10. A Big10 with 16 teams won't be either: how excited will Minnesota or Nebraska be to play Rutgers? With the direction of the Big 10, it's very clear UND will not be an affiliate in a Big Ten Hockey conference.

Big Ten and BCS caused college football's armegeddon Imagine, with a 16-team playoff, the Big 12 would have been much wealthier than the football-poor Big 10. By opposing a playoff, the Big 10 becomes the winner. Delaney is going to destroy college athletics as we know it (including hockey) and install himself as the new NCAA.

Because Sac State has an FBS-ready stadium, I still view them, as well as Portland State, as the favorite to move to the WAC. If both are gone from the Big Sky, the Big Sky would almost have to go to an expanded football conference. Sac State and Wanless want move to WAC Cal Poly has interest in FBS, but has no concrete financial plans for a stadium expansion Opportunity for Cal Poly into FBS?

Missouri and Nebraska given ultimatums by Big 12 Texas legislators working to replace Colorado with Baylor to Pac16

The PAC 10 will likely be voting this weekend on accepting UT, aTm, TTU, OU, OSU, and CU for full membership. Texas has essentially given Nebraska an ultimatum to stay within the Big 12 or Texas will accept the Pac 10 offer. In the mean time, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowas State, and Baylor may very well be left out of the action. All four have posted letters on their website stating their belief that the Big 12 can survive. None of the other Big 12 schools have done that. Iowa State's statement Kansas State's statement Baylor's Statement Kansas' Statement New Pac 16 USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon St, UW, WSU Texas, TA&M, TTU, OU, OSU, CU, Ariz, ASU New Big 16 Nebraska, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Notre Dame Michigan, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers, Syracuse New Big 12 Kansas, Kansas St, Iowa State, Cincinnati, Louisville, Tulsa Memphis, TCU, Houston, Baylor, Tulane, UTEP

More so than even Notre Dame, the Big Ten salivates at the thought of adding Texas. With almost 10,000,000 homes, adding Texas to the Big Ten Network is worth as a bare minimum nearly $60 million annually just in Big Ten Network cable revenue ($1month x 12 months x 10 million x 50% penetration). Adding Texas would mean nearly $5-10 million more revenue to every Big Ten school. If gaining UT meant stripping the Big 12 of five schools, like Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, and TAMU, the Big Ten would do it in a heartbeat. UT more than anything craves academic credentials: the Big Ten provides that. Notre Dame would be a huge addition, but UT is the bigger prize. The Big Ten's criteria for admission (except for Notre Dame) is membership in the AAU - Association of American Universities - which is a group of 60-some high intensive research universities. All Big Ten members are also AAU members. Only 2 SEC members are AAU members (Fla and Vanderbilt), only 5 of the ACC (UNC, Duke, Md, UVa, GT), 7 of the Pac 10, 7 of the Big 12 (ISU, CU, KU, NU, MU, aTm, and UT), and 3 of the Big East (Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse). With the exceptions of Florida, Duke, Colorado (the Pac10 is interested, though) and Iowa State (not enough media power) all of the schools specifically listed above have been rumored as possible targets. Rumors have been mostly focused on Texas, TAMU, Missouri, Nebraska, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, as well as Notre Dame.

What's so sad is that there are so many departments that are so hateful against the name that they would prevent any kind of constructive talk. They talk all about victims, but few raise a hand to do anything helpful or constructive. It would take incredible leadership for Kelley to pull off what you described. Hope I'm wrong, but doubt he even wants to attempt it.

As stated before, football is by far the driving consideration with basketball also of serious but secondary concern. Sports like hockey, lacrosse, and baseball would all be the extra gravy needed for programming but still profitable for the whole Big Ten Network. Remember, the Delaney and the Big Ten are thinking big: they just don't want a Big Ten Network, they want a mini-NCAA network that can essentially dictate to the NCAA what they want. They want programming that will rival ESPN (longer-term), and be more than say the NFL Network, or the Baseball Network, etc. As it is, a Big 10 hockey conference would have interest in three states (MN, WI, MI ). If the Big Ten could expand those boundaries to PA, NJ, NY, NE, and MO (or even TX), the impact on the Big Ten Network's bottom line would be significant enough to warrant program investments by new schools. It would also have the effect of cementing the new schools into the Big Ten. Right now, the Big Ten is waving around a $20 million annual annuity and asking prospective partners what they can offer for that cash. For schools like Rutgers or Missouri or even Nebraska, adding M/W hockey and M/W lacrosse plus an indoor baseball practice facility would all be enticements for the Big Ten to select those schools. Personally, I think something like college hockey would be huge in places like Austin, Syracuse, and Lincoln. After all, Nebraska can attract 17,000 fans to women's volleyball in Omaha. But the bottom line is hockey could lose a million a year in Lincoln but Tom Osborne would still see $20 million extra floating into his coffers. Big Ten Hockey may very well not occur in the next decade, but it's getting to the point where it would be foolish to bet against it happening. I just hope that our leadership isn't caught blind-sided by what could happen.

Chicago Tribune: Big Ten Expansion Revenue Increase Based on this info, Nebraska and Missouri's conference revenue would increase from around 8 million in the Big 12 to 22 million in the Big 10 and later to 30 million with the increased power of the Big 10 Network. Nebraska and Missouri could essentially triple their take home pay for a conference change. If hockey was a precondition to acceptance (with a 2 million annual price tag), those schools would still take in $18 million more.

The change in recruiting technique is on the verge of stunning. Not only are early offers going out regionally (ND/MN/WI/IA), but to areas (CA/AZ/TX/CO/KN) where athletes mostly would have had very late offers. Also, the offer quality seems to have stepped up, as recruiting competition tends to be more MAC/CUSA/WAC. Mussman's staff definitely must have been putting some major overtime in this offseason.

Sorry, should have been more clear. Delany is basically asking what kind of extras each of those schools can deliver to the Big Ten. One of the more recent rumors another set of schools the Big Ten is pondering is Texas, Texas A&M, Rutgers, Maryland, and Virginia. In that case, hockey certainly wouldn't be as prominent in the discussions.

Football will always be the driver. Hockey wouldn't be anywhere near a linchpin, but it would be a consideration. Any of the five schools mentioned would gladly take the offer: with all the extra money they'd be pulling in from the Big Ten contracts, hockey would be paid for even if no tickets were sold. Iowa, Northwestern, Purdue, etc won't be forced to start hockey, by any means. Big Ten Commish Delaney will extract all the money he can from all sports - hockey included. Minnesota soon won't have the influence to stop the changes Delaney wants. The Big Ten would gladly take in Texas and Texas A&M without any such precondition. In that case, Texas would demand that the Big Ten upgrade it's baseball capability - and the Big Ten would almost surely comply because Texas is worth huge $'s.

With the Big Ten in the middle of expansion talks, apparently the schools being considered for addition are all being asked what the potential is for each of them to add college hockey and become part of a Big Ten hockey conference. It's possible that the Big Ten may require their new schools to add hockey as a condition of acceptance, thereby giving the Big Ten more content for it's Big Ten Network. A new arena has been approved by the city of Lincoln and Nebraska will be playing all its BB games there. The arena will be hockey capable. Lincoln (NE) new Haymarket Arena In Columbia, Missouri, all of the sudden, possibly coincidental to the Mizzou/Big Ten talks, but possibly not, there is talk of building an ice arena. Possible Columbia (Mo) ice rink Pittsburgh, Rutgers, and Syracuse all have off-campus arenas they can access for games.

There actually is another option that doesn't get discussed: Summit for both all-sports and for football I find it very curious that Douple hasn't even responded yet in the media to UND dropping the Sioux nickname. An issue with UND being added to the Summit is that the Summit would then have six FCS teams: SUU, WIU, UND, NDSU, USD, and SDSU. The Summit would then satisfy requirements for an FCS auto-bid. By adding UND before SUU leaves, that opens up a whole new can of worms: USD and UND could insist that the Summit add football. ORU, IUPUI, IPFW, Oakland would likely all support that. Much like the CAA took over the football sponsorship from the A-10, the Summit would be in position to do that from the MVFC. But WIU, NDSU, and SDSU would fight tooth and nail to prevent it, as they want the association with the MVC. It seems the nickname has been in part used as a ruse to prevent Summit football from happening. When SUU is gone, UND will be accepted. USD was taken to prevent a UND/USD possiblity to the Big Sky.

Roughrider fans keen on new retractable-roof stadium

Ground broken for new Blue Bombers Stadium

In a sense, the proper choices for this poll should show all-sport / football conference affiliation. I highly doubt most Big Sky schools would consider UND for all-sports membership. They would change their rules and offer Utah Valley State full membership (without football) while offering UND football-only membership. In that sense, the possibilities are: BB-VB etc / Football Great West / Great West Summit / Great West Summit / Big Sky Summit / MVFC Big Sky / Big Sky But if UND alumni could come up with $50 - $100 million, there might actually be other possibilities: Summit / WAC WAC / WAC. The WAC is quite likely going to be desperate for members come this fall ( Boise State likely gone, La Tech petitioning CUSA). All of the possible replacements have issues: Sac St (fan support, BB facilities are bad, California budgets woes), UCDavis (no FBS facility, Cal budget woes), Cal Poly (no FBS facility, Cal budget woes), Portland State (BB facilities are bad, Oregon budget woes), Montana (President is saying "no", needs two more sports), Texas State (travel, poor fit, but otherwise ready). I know this is highly unlikely, but if UND could - expand the Alerus into a horseshoe with 17,000 seats (costing probably $30 mill) - or a major revamp of Memorial to 20,000 seats ($30 mill?) - increase scholarship endowment by $20-30 mill UND could possibly get consideration from the WAC for at least as a football-only member. The Sunbelt conference was able to sustain itself as an FBS member by having temporary football-only members life Florida Atlantic (FAU was only FCS eligible for a year), Idaho, Utah State, La-Monroe. ULM has a current budget lower than UND's, and Idaho's is about the same. The WAC needs a school that can flash some cash - showing capability to sustain FBS - and a school that isn't threatened by state funding cuts. The WAC has other choices for all-sports members - like Denver and Seattle - that make a regional sense. The issue for them is maintaining at least 8 FBS schools.