scary article

[Litehouse]

BMA ...

For this to happen, university presidents would have to approve it.  As a group, they have been avoiding the appearance of chasing money because they opens the door to lots of other things, including paying players.

Do you think University Presidents are ready to change their stance and go after money instead of the higher ideals of the "student athlete?"

Regarding paying players, who pays them?  Don't rule out the idea that NBA players will draft players and send them to college for a year or two.  Imagine MU or Wisc. as a minor league for the Bucks.

They already did it in football with the BCS.

[RawdogDX]

I'm not getting it.  If all these conferences get bigger why wouldn't they also pick up some bball only private schools?  If the b10 goes to 12 and there is a few bball only schools out there why not make it: 12 fb and 14 bball?    If bigger is better than why wouldn't there be room for the bball only schools in these expanding conferences.  There won't be a 16 team football conference but the big east proved it would work for basketball. 

[GGGG]

I'm not getting it.  If all these conferences get bigger why wouldn't they also pick up some bball only private schools?  If the b10 goes to 12 and there is a few bball only schools out there why not make it: 12 fb and 14 bball?    If bigger is better than why wouldn't there be room for the bball only schools in these expanding conferences.  There won't be a 16 team football conference but the big east proved it would work for basketball. 

Why would they want to share any piece of the pie?  If the ACC wanted to add two basketball only schools, does adding Georgetown and Nova really help them *that* much?  Do their television deals get so much better that dividing them 14 ways instead of 12 still makes each school more money?  I doubt it.

[RawdogDX]

Why would they want to share any piece of the pie?  If the ACC wanted to add two basketball only schools, does adding Georgetown and Nova really help them *that* much?  Do their television deals get so much better that dividing them 14 ways instead of 12 still makes each school more money?  I doubt it.

Let's stick to the b10.

I don't know jack about this so please pardon my ignorance.  Why wouldn't adding the city of milwaukee as well of plenty of wisconsin and chicago through mu basketball not help land a larger basketball contract.  Why else did the big east do it?  Wouldn't it add to the number of big ten network viewers.
MU v WI, IL, IN, MI, ND  Wouldn't be big games?  Those games would be on the b10 network every year.  It would up their annual march bid count by one as well as the number of conference tourney games.

[GGGG]

Let's stick to the b10.

I don't know jack about this so please pardon my ignorance.  Why wouldn't adding the city of milwaukee as well of plenty of wisconsin and chicago through mu basketball not help land a larger basketball contract.  Why else did the big east do it?  Wouldn't it add to the number of big ten network viewers.
MU v WI, IL, IN, MI, ND  Wouldn't be big games?  Those games would be on the b10 network every year.  It would up their annual march bid count by one as well as the number of conference tourney games.

The Big Ten Network is in every cable household in Wisconsin as it is?  What does the addition of Marquette do at all to the conference? 

I mentioned the ACC because that at least brings you something new. 

Look, there is a reason MU can only get on WMLW now.  It's not a big television draw.

[Litehouse]

Because they already own Milwaukee and Chicago.  For the BTN, we already have to pay the monthly carrier fee ($1.10 or whatever)  if we live around here.  It's not like they care about viewers, since hardly anyone pays to advertise on there, most of the ads are for the BTN itself.  Also, the MU fan base is tiny compared to every B10 team besides Northwestern.  The potential bids would mean nothing.  If MU gets left behind, that's one more spot in the tourny for teams like Illinois.

[Litehouse]

If anything, MU might be more attractive to a conference like the Big 12, since they don't currently have a presence in WI, and at least we could offer something new.

[RawdogDX]

The Big Ten Network is in every cable household in Wisconsin as it is?  What does the addition of Marquette do at all to the conference? 

I mentioned the ACC because that at least brings you something new. 

Look, there is a reason MU can only get on WMLW now.  It's not a big television draw.

Ok, no mu to big 10.  But why wouldn't the big conferences in general want to add teams and have them be successful rather than just let them fail and have the market share go to no one.  I think that conferences expanding will mean that they will want to add bball only schools.  For the same reason that any league wants to add more teams.  They can only handle a certain number of football schools, they can handle more basketball schools.  It seems like bigger is better and they only have one expansion option once you hit 12.  If that theory holds up than someone will pick up the number 1 spending school from a disintegrating power conference.

Litehouse, bid spots won't matter when we go to 96, IL is in and so is mu even as a member of a mid-major.

[Litehouse]

I agree that MU remains attractive if the tournament stays the same, or even goes to 96 bids.  MU has clearly shown we're going to compete at the highest level and willing to make the necessary investments.

If MU can stick with a major conference, we'll be fine.  If we end up in the basketball-only version of the Big East, or the Catholic Conference, and stay in the same division as the major conferences, we'll still be fine.  The problem would be if the football schools decide to form their own division for basketball with their own tournament, and we get left behind in some lesser division.  Then we're screwed.  That could be a long way off though, if ever.  But if a person was cynical, they could see conference reshuffling as the first step in that direction.