DI Conference Speculation

[MplsBison]

It's been laid out by me a million times, but you're just too obstinate to acknowledge it.

You have not even once laid it out.

[82SiouxGuy]

As you stated, the Summit is building an I-29 division. So why would they not have interest in UND beyond November when UND is basically the only school that fits that criteria?

I'll state again: UND has a better TV contract than basically the entire Summit League. Who has leverage here that wasn't in place before the Summit nickname proclamation? UND.

The Summit League is like a potential employer telling a prospective employee to divorce an estranged wife as an employment demand, when the employee still has hopes of saving the marriage. Not Kosher.

It is very possible that they could add UND some time in the future. But something could happen that would change their plans and they could go in a different direction. Or they could find other schools that also make sense. And we don't know how long it would take before they would add schools again. Assuming that the Summit will hold a place for UND is taking a risk. I'm sure you know what happens when you assume. The SBoHE and UND administration will assess the risk of waiting before they make a decision whether to wait or not on making the final nickname decision.

[homer]

None of those schools have an issue with their respective tribes. UND does.

Life's tough.

No none of those schools have an issue with their respective TRIBE, UND already has approval from one tribe. The NCAA is forcing them to get it from two.

[MplsBison]

I could live with waiting until Nov 2010 if UND has it on firm grounds that the Summit will hold a place for them until that time.

If they can't get the Summit's guarantee, then they know what needs to be done: drop the nickname before Nov 2010.

[MplsBison]

No none of those schools have an issue with their respective TRIBE, UND already has approval from one tribe. The NCAA is forcing them to get it from two.

Yeah? And?

Life's tough. That was the settlement that was agreed upon.

[The Sicatoka]

I could live with waiting until Nov 2010 if UND has it on firm grounds that the Summit will hold a place for them until that time.

If they can't get the Summit's guarantee, then they know what needs to be done: drop the nickname before Nov 2010.

Aren't you the guy that says the Summit owes UND nothing?

Why would they guarantee anything to UND?

[MplsBison]

Aren't you the guy that says the Summit owes UND nothing?

Why would they guarantee anything to UND?

There is no reason for them to guarantee UND anything.

I'm saying, if UND can get such a guarantee then waiting until Nov 2010 is acceptable, while still irrelevant. No great "justice" will be upheld but such a ridiculous thing, but if it helps the pro-nickname group sleep better at night for another 9 months, fine.

[homer]

Yeah? And?

Life's tough. That was the settlement that was agreed upon.

Never said life was easy or the situation was easy. I was just correcting your post and providing you facts since you always ask for them. Every other university had to get approval from one tribe. NCAA required UND to get it from two.

[star2city]

Two opposing views on Texas to the Big Ten.

Texas is supposedly working on a Longhorn Sports Network. If they accomplish that, they could conceivably become easily the most profitable athletic department and be an independent in football.

Milwaukee Journal: Big Ten, Big Plans, Big Gains

But for what is coming down the road, the massive three or four Super Conferences that will gobble up everything in sight, the Big Ten is going about expansion the right way by trying to take the lead in a very big and very aggressive way.

Credit Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany for being somewhat transparent with the process. He has been upfront with his colleagues in the Big 12 and the Big East that the Big Ten is prepared to set out on an imperialistic binge to expand its reach and influence as far as the Big Ten Network can take it on a national level, traditional and archaic geographical borders notwithstanding.

Make no mistake about it, the Big Ten Network has made the Big Ten the Big Dog with almost $250 million in TV revenue last year. . . . and it will eat.

That's why you'd want Texas in the Big Ten, even if you had to take a football beating for a few years.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Big Ten got its TV tentacles into Texas' mega-TV markets such as Houston, Dallas and San Antonio because the Big 12 began to crumble with the Big Ten and Pac-10 poaching its schools, and the remaining high-profile teams scrambling for cover in the SEC.

Omaha World-Herald: On Conference Reshuffling

Texas going to the Big Ten.

The answer to this isn't no. It's Hell No!!!

This borders on the comical. Texas already has more money than God. It doesn't need a measly $8 million more annually from changing leagues.

The Longhorns battled to get revenue-sharing rules in the Big 12 that favored the more prominent schools. Why in the world would they go to the only league that equally shares all money, thus limiting future Texas-driven projects?

Big Ten membership would create other difficulties, too.

Public pressure certainly would force UT to keep its rivalry football games with Oklahoma and Texas A&M. With those two games and regular contests with Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin, you're looking at some three- and four-loss seasons. And that invites the mess of a coaching search.

Also, why would Texas essentially want to invite an entirely different group of schools into the already crowded recruiting world that is the Lone Star State?

Then consider the travel time and expense for all of the Olympic sports. Good luck getting that volleyball team back to Austin in a timely matter after a midweek game on the dark side of the moon, better known as Penn State.

And you think that Texas would lump its precious powerhouse baseball program into the mediocre, cold-weather Big Ten? No chance.

The final evolution of all future movements will be six 12-team leagues. They all break away from the NCAA, host their own eight-team football playoff (six champs, two wild cards) and hold a 72-team basketball championship.

[star2city]

A 16-team Pac 10?

Expansion is all about greed and maximizing revenues. It isn't about giving Utah a step up into the BCS world or giving Colorado entrance into a more geographically desireable location. A twelve team Pac 10 doesn't work very well for the existing members. It causes scheduling problems and it has the real potential of alienating the Northwest Pac 10 schools from the recruiting hot bed of Southern California.

A sixteen team Pac 10 on the other hand is probably a much better fit from all angles. It would expand the television market dramatically if done correctly. It would solve current and future scheduling problems. It would preserve regional rivarlies, It would allow a championship game. Most importantly it would protect the original members of the conference by allowing them to play a round robin schedule in all sports.

This is an example of what a sixteen team Pac 10 could look like in an ideal sports marketing scenario. It preserves the alliance of the eight traditional West coast schools. It allows seemless expansion into the Rocky Mountains, Texas, and Plains markets without breaking up traditional rivarlies that have existed for over a century for all teams.

Pac 10 Super Conference

Division A

Washington

Washington State

Oregon

Oregon State

California

Stanford

UCLA

Southern California

Division B

Arizona

Arizona State

Colorado

Nebraska

Texas

Texas A&M

Oklahoma

Oklahoma State

[MplsBison]

I'm not sure if a 6 conference/12 teams per conference or a 4 conference/16 teams per conference is more plausible for an "elite" division.

There are currently 66 BCS football teams. 6 into 12 is 72, giving 6 more teams a shot at BCS dreams: 4 into the new Big East split away football conference and 2 more to the Pac 10 (assuming Notre Dame joins the Big Ten).

On the other hand, 4 into 16 is 64, meaning two current BCS teams will be left out. It is more fun, though.

Pac 10 adds:

Colorado

Nebraska

Texas

Texas A&M

Kansas

Kansas St

Big Ten adds:

Notre Dame

Rutgers

Mizzou

Iowa State

Pitt

SEC adds:

Okla

Okla St

Texas Tech

Louisville

ACC adds:

Syracuse

Uconn

South Florida

West Virginia

(Cincinnati and Baylor get screwed)

[nodakvindy]

I think it's interesting that all these leagues are so willing to gamble on what is ultimately short term TV money. TV as we know it is dying, just like newspapers. The networks are going to start dialing back on overbidding sports because they can't keep hemorrhaging money. And at some point, cable will move to a la carte pricing because the total saturation will require it. Internet content is the future, with on-demand being huge. This is why baseball is so well poised for the future. You'll never hear it from the NFL-loving media, but MLB has done an outstanding job with it's online ventures and has a virtually limitless amount of content to provide.

As for a top level of schools bolting from the NCAA and the "mid-major" schools, well that ignores the perhaps most driving principle of developing a sports fan base and making money - Al Davis's "Just Win Baby". In a top heavy division you will quickly turn a lot of "haves" into "have nots". That will not fly with those schools, their fans and alumni. The system as it exists now works because you have many schools willing to be cannon fodder because it allows them to be associated with the "power schools". The mid majors are the Washington Generals to the BCS schools' Harlem Globetrotters. The Generals' know their role, but without them you ultimately don't have the show.

[nodakvindy]

I'm not sure if a 6 conference/12 teams per conference or a 4 conference/16 teams per conference is more plausible for an "elite" division.

There are currently 66 BCS football teams. 6 into 12 is 72, giving 6 more teams a shot at BCS dreams: 4 into the new Big East split away football conference and 2 more to the Pac 10 (assuming Notre Dame joins the Big Ten).

On the other hand, 4 into 16 is 64, meaning two current BCS teams will be left out. It is more fun, though.

Pac 10 adds:

Colorado

Nebraska

Texas

Texas A&M

Kansas

Kansas St

Big Ten adds:

Notre Dame

Rutgers

Mizzou

Iowa State

Pitt

SEC adds:

Okla

Okla St

Texas Tech

Louisville

ACC adds:

Syracuse

Uconn

South Florida

West Virginia

(Cincinnati and Baylor get screwed)

If this were to come to fruition I think the Pac 10 would likely prefer Utah over K State - travel partners Utah-Colorado and Kansas-Nebraska. It would also make more sense for the ACC to take Cincy over South Florida. Cincy gives an opening into fertile Ohio football recruiting and a basketball program with a ton of tradition. Those additions would also make the ACC the best basketball league by a mile.

[star2city]

I think it's interesting that all these leagues are so willing to gamble on what is ultimately short term TV money. TV as we know it is dying, just like newspapers. The networks are going to start dialing back on overbidding sports because they can't keep hemorrhaging money. And at some point, cable will move to a la carte pricing because the total saturation will require it. Internet content is the future, with on-demand being huge. This is why baseball is so well poised for the future. You'll never hear it from the NFL-loving media, but MLB has done an outstanding job with it's online ventures and has a virtually limitless amount of content to provide.

Agree with what you wrote, but it seems that the internet future is something the cable systems and networks are attempting to hedge against. By locking in longer-term deals more or less ensures their survival. Consumers are the ones that need to rebel, as they are being charged $1 a month or more for many of these channels, unless they pick it up via free to air satellite. ESPN's deal with the SEC was such a blockbuster, it is practically forcing all the conferences to respond.

As for a top level of schools bolting from the NCAA and the "mid-major" schools, well that ignores the perhaps most driving principle of developing a sports fan base and making money - Al Davis's "Just Win Baby". In a top heavy division you will quickly turn a lot of "haves" into "have nots". That will not fly with those schools, their fans and alumni. The system as it exists now works because you have many schools willing to be cannon fodder because it allows them to be associated with the "power schools". The mid majors are the Washington Generals to the BCS schools' Harlem Globetrotters. The Generals' know their role, but without them you ultimately don't have the show.

Agree. If the top-level schools left, there would also be a political firestorm. With all the money being made at the top, a few scraps will continue to be thrown out to the mid-majors. The Pac10 and Big10 will be effectively destroying an emerging conference like the MWC before it can get a place at the table, keeping the oliarchy in place.

If this were to come to fruition I think the Pac 10 would likely prefer Utah over K State - travel partners Utah-Colorado and Kansas-Nebraska. It would also make more sense for the ACC to take Cincy over South Florida. Cincy gives an opening into fertile Ohio football recruiting and a basketball program with a ton of tradition. Those additions would also make the ACC the best basketball league by a mile.

AD's at schools like Kansas State, Iowa St, Baylor, Texas Tech, and and especially Wyoming have to be shaking in their boots. They have no natural landing spot that support their current budgets if the Big 12 and MWC breakup.

[MplsBison]

If this were to come to fruition I think the Pac 10 would likely prefer Utah over K State - travel partners Utah-Colorado and Kansas-Nebraska. It would also make more sense for the ACC to take Cincy over South Florida. Cincy gives an opening into fertile Ohio football recruiting and a basketball program with a ton of tradition. Those additions would also make the ACC the best basketball league by a mile.

I have no problem with Cincy to the ACC over South Florida. That probably does make more sense given Cincy is better academically and better bball.

But I disagree with Pac10 adding Utah. That means K State is left out of the new BCS, which would never happen. Kansas legislators would see to it that K State goes with Kansas. Plus, then you're also bringing up Utah into the elite division when they were not there before. Utah is not a bad football or bball team, pretty good facilities, pretty good academics (although not AAU). They would for sure make it into a 6/12 "elite" division. But in a 4/16, you've got to go with the BCS teams that are already established.

I think Colorado and Nebraska are pretty natural rivals and would be fine as travel partners.

[star2city]

I have no problem with Cincy to the ACC over South Florida. That probably does make more sense given Cincy is better academically and better bball.

But I disagree with Pac10 adding Utah. That means K State is left out of the new BCS, which would never happen. Kansas legislators would see to it that K State goes with Kansas. Plus, then you're also bringing up Utah into the elite division when they were not there before. Utah is not a bad football or bball team, pretty good facilities, pretty good academics (although not AAU). They would for sure make it into a 6/12 "elite" division. But in a 4/16, you've got to go with the BCS teams that are already established.

I think Colorado and Nebraska are pretty natural rivals and would be fine as travel partners.

Kansas State and Iowa State may have great fans, but they are not wanted by other BCS conferences because they offer so little in media ratings. Kansas offers more because of BB history and has more of the KC market. Kansas legislators would not block KU from joining the Big10 or Pac10 if the alternative was that KU and KSU had to remain in a new Big12 full of old CUSA or and MWC teams. If the Pac10 takes CU first, then the Big10 takes Missouri, every school in the Big12 would be wanting in either the Big10 or Pac10 and there is no legislature that could stop it.

[The Sicatoka]

AD's at schools like Kansas State, Iowa St, Baylor, Texas Tech, and and especially Wyoming have to be shaking in their boots. They have no natural landing spot that support their current budgets if the Big 12 and MWC breakup.

If these conferences expand so as to no longer need non-conference games (or secede from the NCAA) the impacts to the schools and conferences that depend on "pay" or "body-bag" games will be devastating. The first that comes to mind is the MAC.

[MplsBison]

Kansas State and Iowa State may have great fans, but they are not wanted by other BCS conferences because they offer so little in media ratings. Kansas offers more because of BB history and has more of the KC market. Kansas legislators would not block KU from joining the Big10 or Pac10 if the alternative was that KU and KSU had to remain in a new Big12 full of old CUSA or and MWC teams. If the Pac10 takes CU first, then the Big10 takes Missouri, every school in the Big12 would be wanting in either the Big10 or Pac10 and there is no legislature that could stop it.

You're probably right from a perspective of negotiating more money from a TV deal for a conference. Adding Iowa State or Kansas State probably won't significantly increase the payout from the TV network.

What I should've said: Kansas (and Iowa) legislators will not allow K State (or Iowa State) to be shut out any new BCS or "elite" division. They're too big of state schools with too much taxpayer money being spent on them for the state government to allow them to be left behind.

Case in point: what did Virginia Tech add to the ACC in terms of market and ability to negotiate a better TV deal? I think the ACC originally wanted Syracuse, but the VA legislature forced the ACC to take VT instead.

[MplsBison]

If these conferences expand so as to no longer need non-conference games (or secede from the NCAA) the impacts to the schools and conferences that depend on "pay" or "body-bag" games will be devastating. The first that comes to mind is the MAC.

Some of the MAC schools would probably have to consider budget cuts, maybe moving down to 63 scholarship football.

I often wonder why does any school need 85 full scholarships for football? Aren't NFL rosters like 53?

[Herd]

We could also speculate about the sun not coming up tomorrow morning. That would be about as productive as the discussion about 64 teams leaving the NCAA. Not going to happen.

[Bison Dan]

We could also speculate about the sun not coming up tomorrow morning. That would be about as productive as the discussion about 64 teams leaving the NCAA. Not going to happen.

Remember if the sun doesn't come up I'm sure it'd be Chapman's fault.

[wyomingsiouxfan]

Remember if the sun doesn't come up I'm sure it'd be Chapman's fault.

Nobody had even brought Chapman's name up until you decided to go there. Stay classy......DAN!

[krangodance]

We could also speculate about the sun not coming up tomorrow morning. That would be about as productive as the discussion about 64 teams leaving the NCAA. Not going to happen.

i could start going backwards through all 70 pages of this thread until i figure out what's going on, but it would be easier if somebody would be kind enough to fill me in. what's this talk about making four super-conferences and what's the source of the idea?

thanks

[The Sicatoka]

i could start going backwards through all 70 pages of this thread until i figure out what's going on, but it would be easier if somebody would be kind enough to fill me in. what's this talk about making four super-conferences and what's the source of the idea?

thanks

http://forum.siouxsports.com/index.php?s=&...st&p=434995

[MplsBison]

i could start going backwards through all 70 pages of this thread until i figure out what's going on, but it would be easier if somebody would be kind enough to fill me in. what's this talk about making four super-conferences and what's the source of the idea?

thanks

Mostly just for fun, a lot of speculation by message boards and bloggers.