I have not read anything stating this as a possibilty, but why not? (legitimate question...trying to spark discussion). I really feel that having 14 or 16 football teams in one conference is unwieldy. It's possible some teams may play each other once every 3 years, and that's how you're going to determine a regular season champ? Unless they go with 2 divisions, playing the regular season strictly along division lines, and then having the winner of each division play in teh big ten championship So, alternatively, why couldn't the big ten invite 1-3 football schools, and then invite 2-4 basketball only schools for a total of 14-16 schools? This would still have the effect of crippling the big east, and making the big ten not only THE power house football conference, but also the best basketball conference in the country. Geographically, marquette obviously fits. Depaul, Georgetown, nova would probably jump at the chance. Hopefully this is something cottingham is whispering in someone's ear at least as an idea, cause otherwise we are a little bit screwed. Thoughts?
Marquette, and the other basketball only schools, bring nothing of substance to the Big Ten that it doesn't already have.
I threw up a little in my mouth when I read the subject of this thread.
Please no.
Hypothetically, even if they were to take a bball only school, one would think it would be either Nova or GTown since both are in tv markets that the BTN is interested in expanding into (they already have Milw). Plus, either of those schools would have stronger rivalries with any fball school(s) they take from the BE. It wont happen anyways.
worst idea ever.
Marquette is not an AAU memeber (association of American universities) It is not a research institution, its private and religious. All of those things make it the exact oppsite of a perfect fit in the Big Ten. If all this shifting happend what most likely would happen is all teh basketball only schools in the Northeast Midwest get together, form a new big east, and conitnue to ball with the best of them. There is enough money in the big basketball only schools that they will survive in some way or form.
You will win the lottery before MU joins the Big 10.
Isnt joining the B10 kind of like winning the lottery ($20 MM per)?
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on April 29, 2010, 01:15:44 PM
I have not read anything stating this as a possibilty, but why not? (legitimate question...trying to spark discussion). I really feel that having 14 or 16 football teams in one conference is unwieldy. It's possible some teams may play each other once every 3 years, and that's how you're going to determine a regular season champ? Unless they go with 2 divisions, playing the regular season strictly along division lines, and then having the winner of each division play in teh big ten championship So, alternatively, why couldn't the big ten invite 1-3 football schools, and then invite 2-4 basketball only schools for a total of 14-16 schools? This would still have the effect of crippling the big east, and making the big ten not only THE power house football conference, but also the best basketball conference in the country. Geographically, marquette obviously fits. Depaul, Georgetown, nova would probably jump at the chance. Hopefully this is something cottingham is whispering in someone's ear at least as an idea, cause otherwise we are a little bit screwed. Thoughts?
What about you buying me a Lamborghini?
Big Ten expansion is about increasing revenue for their cable network. The University of Wisconsin already gives them the bulk of the Wisconsin market, so Marquette's addition is likely to
cost the Big Ten more by adding another school with which to divide TV money without adding a greater amount to the pool of revenue from which to make the payments. This is the opposite of what the Big Ten is trying to do.
Then there is the lack of compatibility due to the fact that Marquette does not have an NCAA football program, and there seems no feasible way for Marquette to obtain the immense investment necessary to start one.
Then there is the lack of perceived academic compatibility due to the fact that Marquette is not a member of the Association of American Universities, a group of 62 major research universities to which each member of the Big Ten and all of the credible targets of Big Ten expansion belong.
Quote from: LittleMurs on April 29, 2010, 03:34:48 PM
What about you buying me a Lamborghini?
Big Ten expansion is about increasing revenue for their cable network. The University of Wisconsin already gives them the bulk of the Wisconsin market, so Marquette's addition is likely to cost the Big Ten more by adding another school with which to divide TV money without adding a greater amount to the pool of revenue from which to make the payments. This is the opposite of what the Big Ten is trying to do.
Then there is the lack of compatibility due to the fact that Marquette does not have an NCAA football program, and there seems no feasible way for Marquette to obtain the immense investment necessary to start one.
Then there is the lack of perceived academic compatibility due to the fact that Marquette is not a member of the Association of American Universities, a group of 62 major research universities to which each member of the Big Ten and all of the credible targets of Big Ten expansion belong.
1. No.
2. good point.
3. My whole point was that Marquette does not have a football team. Seems to me that a 16 team football conference is just too big since the regular season is 12 games. Taking BE basketball schools would still cripple the conference, sending more revenue and players to the big ten.
4. UCONN is not a member, and they are a "credible target."
dwaderoy should be banned.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on April 29, 2010, 03:53:29 PM
dwaderoy should be banned.
Better yet, ban the Big (we only have ten fingers to count with) Ten.
Quote from: goodgreatgrand on April 29, 2010, 02:51:18 PM
Isnt joining the B10 kind of like winning the lottery ($20 MM per)?
The Nigerian State Lottery, that is.
(I would wait to see if that $20MM check clears first before spending the money.)
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on April 29, 2010, 03:44:41 PM
1. No.
2. good point.
3. My whole point was that Marquette does not have a football team. Seems to me that a 16 team football conference is just too big since the regular season is 12 games. Taking BE basketball schools would still cripple the conference, sending more revenue and players to the big ten.
4. UCONN is not a member, and they are a "credible target."
Please reconsider number 1. Pretty please.
If UConn was really a credible target, would Rutgers even be in the discussion?
Today, Eamonn Brennan of ESPN summed it up, ...
This expansion is driven by two things: money and football. Saturday afternoon football is, after all, where the majority of athletics department revenue comes from. Where money and football are concerned, Big Ten expansion is win-win.
Quote from: dwaderoy2004 on April 29, 2010, 03:44:41 PM
3. My whole point was that Marquette does not have a football team. Seems to me that a 16 team football conference is just too big since the regular season is 12 games. Taking BE basketball schools would still cripple the conference, sending more revenue and players to the big ten.
The goal of the B10 isn't to cripple the BE. It is to increase their own per team revenue. I doubt they care one bit about the BE.
There is no reason for the B10 to add basketball only teams because it wouldn't increase the per team revenue. I doubt even adding Georgetown and Nova only would do that.
Quote from: houwarrior on April 29, 2010, 05:39:41 PM
Today, Eamonn Brennan of ESPN summed it up, ...
This expansion is driven by two things: money and football. Saturday afternoon football is, after all, where the majority of athletics department revenue comes from. Where money and football are concerned, Big Ten expansion is win-win.
Didn't we talk about this a while ago? Isn't it a fact that only 5 or 6 schools actually make money with football? Wasn't that the main reason MU doesn't have a team?
Quote from: ErickJD08 on April 29, 2010, 06:03:10 PM
Didn't we talk about this a while ago? Isn't it a fact that only 5 or 6 schools actually make money with football? Wasn't that the main reason MU doesn't have a team?
You are kind of blending--recent thread asked whether MU should add f'ball --this one proposes MU in the B11 expansion joinder, but ignores that expansion is totally a football/money/fit issue...
as to the query on FB profitability, ALL B11 FB programs run nicely in the black, to wit:
Ohio State
FB Revenue — $65,162,179
FB Expenses — $33,063,248
Men's recruiting expenses — $794,284
Michigan
FB Revenue — $57,463,603
FB Expenses — $16,785,667
Men's recruiting expenses — $929,383
Penn State
FB Revenue — $53,766,038
FB Expenses — $16,537,705
Men's recruiting expenses — $534,741
Michigan State
FB Revenue — $43,826,312
FB Expenses — $17,910,444
Men's recruiting expenses — $744,715
Iowa
FB Revenue — $37,998,729
FB Expenses — $26,166,182
Men's recruiting expenses — $637,685
Wisconsin
FB Revenue — $37,733,698
FB Expenses — $22,979,031
Men's recruiting expenses – $452,958
Illinois
FB Revenue — $25,370,427
FB Expenses — $12,210,666
Men's recruiting expenses — $862,681
Minnesota
FB Revenue — $24,275,876
FB Expenses — $9,306,397
Men's recruiting expenses — $866,117
Indiana
FB Revenue — $21,774,074
FB Expenses — $12,493,144
Men's recruiting expenses — $633,002
Purdue
FB Revenue — $21,641,794
FB Expenses — $14,501,436
Men's recruiting expenses — $810,016
Northwestern
FB Revenue — $21,080,405
FB Expenses — $12,113,946
Men's recruiting expenses — $482,588
OK, lay off dwaderoy. Having been a Big 10 hater my whole life, i have to admit I still had to look at exactly what he was wondering. We certainly don't want to give up being in the elite basketball conference to be a partial member of the Big 10. HOWEVER, the nightmare scenario that is a game-changer is the potential for four 16-team tournaments to take over and basically replace the NCAA, It is a horrible scenario, but if the Big 10 decides to pull mainly from the BE (Rutgers, UConn, Pitt say), then the SEC probably goes to 16 teams including raiding the ACC, then the Pac10 goes to war to get Texas and Texas A&M to go with Colorado, Boise State and Utah, and what you have then is the Big 12, BE and ACC in tatters and figuring out who will be the fourth of four - and only four - major conferences. Under that scenario, I would love to see the BE grab BC and Maryland, and be the survivor.
If they failed and the ACC or Big 12 were to survive as the fourth conference - then I believe the lesser of two evils would be to be in the Big 10 as one of two basketball-only schools, then left over and no longer considered a Major Conference player. Yes, there are reasons the Big 10 would want us, but if they do expand big they will have to throw out the AAU membership and other requirements, and Alvarez doesn't want to lose some of his $22 million to five new football teams, so it's not impossible that it would be considered.
So I don't get stoned, along with dwaderoy, the scenarios are:
1. of course we want the BE to stay like it is or just lose a team,
2. if the B10 raids it, we may need to pick up a couple of teams that can play basketball and football, as little as I care about the latter (BC and Maryland would be the coup), and
3. only if the BE actually is completely diminished would it be possible we'd be better off in the B10
The simple answers are money and AAU membership. We wouldn't bring in much cash because we don't add a new media market, and the non-AAU targets (ND and UConn) could likely gain that status with the extra feather of Big Ten membership. I'd love MU to get a slice of that pie, but even if they do look at basketball onlies, we wouldn't match their target profile.
Yeah, I guess unless they were to go to 12 football/16 basketball.
There is unanimous support to go to 12 football teams (allows title game that is currently making the SEC $14 million a year, so Rutgers clearly pays for themselves and is in AAU), but there are a lot of questions about whether football teams no. 13, 14, 15 and 16 actually cost the other teams money by dividing up the pot. Also, many still don't like the fact that you don't play everyone every year like before Penn State, so I just don't know if they go all the way in football, where you might play 7 teams in your division every year and only 2 of the 8 in the other division every year.
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on April 29, 2010, 06:26:20 PM
OK, lay off dwaderoy. d be better off in the B10
LOL. i really don't mind. I was just hoping to generate a somewhat interesting discussion/topic in the offseason that wasn't bickering over who's coming/going. I think it was somewhat successful.
Do i think this is even on the big ten's radar, probably not. But even if crippling the big east isn't a direct objective, you have to admit it would help the big ten, so i'm sure they wouldn't mind it. I would rather throw up in my mouth a little bit and be a partial big ten member than to have to try and throw together a rag-tag conference after the football schools get what they want.
Quote from: bamamarquettefan on April 29, 2010, 07:18:27 PM
Also, many still don't like the fact that you don't play everyone every year like before Penn State, so I just don't know if they go all the way in football, where you might play 7 teams in your division every year and only 2 of the 8 in the other division every year.
Even before Penn State the Big Ten never really consistently played a full round robin football schedule. The last time they did so was 1984. They also had times in the 60s and 70s where they didn't play a full round robin.
Here's Wisconsin's past results as an example.
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/scores/Wisconsin.htm
I don't know, I think it would be interesting to see the Big 10 have 12 football schools, but pull a BEast move and have 16 BBall schools with MU being one of the 16. I'd love to see us compete against Madison twice a year as well as against some of the other traditional Big 10 powers. I could see some nice rivalries forming. Do I think it will happen, most likely not.
However, if anything, I think the whole Big 10 expansion talk shows just how important college football is. The Big 10 is going to expand and although I think they should look to Mizzou or Iowa St to join the conference, what ever decision they make it's going to have an impact on the rest of the NCAA.
Schools like Marquette have two choices in front of them right now, stay put and deal with the cards that are drawn in the wake of the Big Tens expansion, or start looking at starting up football programs. Yeah, I know, we'd have to start off at the D III level, but football is a cash cow whether you want to admit it or not and over the course of a decade we could see a D III program move up the ladder (see UConn and USF for examples).
Why on Earth would the Big 10 want to have 16 teams for basketball as opposed to 12? This is like one of those radio call in guys who says why don't we trade this prospect and our crappy first baseman for Albert Pujols? Of course this scenario makes sense for us, but why wouild the Big 10 want to do something like that?
In the current environment, the thing that makes the most sense for the Big 10 is to add a single school as soon as possible so they can get their championship football game. After that, they should logically look for football schools that expand the Big 10 Network's footprint in terms of media markets while sticking to their guns about only including quality academic institutions.
No, not only is it "not likely to happen" that the Big 10 will add basketball-only schools. It won't happen. There is a 0% possibility of it happening.
And the Big Ten will not be adding Iowa State. Its about new markets, and Iowa isn't new.
If MU had the money to start a football team, it couldn't go DIII. Per NCAA regulation, that cannot happen in football if the school plays DI in other sports. It would have to start as a non-scholarship DI playing in something like the Pioneer League, then move up to FCS.