Big Ten Talks About Expansion

JonDMiller

JonDMiller

Publisher/Founder
Park Ridge, Ill. – The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) discussed the future of the Big Ten Conference at its winter meetings on Dec. 6 in Park Ridge, Illinois. The following statement is issued by the Big Ten office on behalf of the COP/C.


Penn State joined the Big Ten Conference in June of 1990 and its addition has been an unqualified success. In 1993, 1998 and 2003 the COP/C, in coordination with the commissioner’s office, reviewed the issue of conference structure and expansion. The COP/C believes that the timing is right for the conference to once again conduct a thorough evaluation of options for conference structure and expansion. As a result, the commissioner was asked to provide recommendations for consideration by the COP/C over the next 12 to 18 months.


The COP/C understands that speculation about the conference is ongoing. The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions. If and when such discussions become necessary the COP/C has instructed Commissioner James E. Delany to inform the Chair of the COP/C, Michigan State University President Lou Anna K. Simon, and then to notify the commissioner of the affected conference(s). Only after these notices have occurred will the Big Ten engage in formal expansion discussions with other institutions. This process will allow the Big Ten to evaluate options, while respecting peer conferences and their member institutions. No action by the COP/C is expected in the near term. No interim statements will be made by the Big Ten or the COP/C until after the COP/C receives the commissioner’s recommendations and the COP/C determines next steps, if any, in this area.
 
Jon,

Before the unwanted formatting you posted a long thread about ND and Big Ten expansion. One of the paragraphs mentioned that ND receives 4.5 million for their qualifying for a BCS game, but in years they do not go to a bowl they receive 0 dollars. You went are to say that is why the bottom teams in the Big Ten fair better than ND in these instances. (I am paraphrasing to the best of my ability.

I quoted your paragraph, and then I offered up this quote from BCS 101.
Link: http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/bcs_explained.html


"Under the new BCS arrangement Notre Dame will be guaranteed one of the at-large slots in a BCS bowl if it is ranked No. 8 or better in the final BCS Standings. It is also guaranteed annual payment for its participation in the BCS. In those seasons in which the Irish play in a BCS game, the school will receive $4.5 million (an amount equivalent that received by a conference that places a second team in a BCS bowl). In those seasons in which Notre Dame does not play in a BCS game, it is projected to be paid $1.3 million for its participation in the BCS arrangement."

It does not mention that ND must play in a bowl to be eligible for the 1.3 million that ND will receive for being a part of the arrangement. Am I missing something here?
 
I came back in that thread and said I was unaware of that. I don't like admitting an oversight twice (smiles)
 
The B10 Network site has the same statement. This statement, "The COP/C has asked the conference office to obtain, to the extent possible, information necessary to construct preliminary options and recommendations without engaging in formal discussions with leadership of other institutions." is interesting. Essentially the conference office is to put together the options and recommendations before there are any formal talks with other institutions.

So if you are a qualified institution and read this statement do you "informally" tell the office to mull my institution's worthiness over? If you are a disenchanted Missouri chancellor do you drop the hint? If you're Notre Dame are you put in a position to risk being on the outside looking in? If Syracuse, Rutgers or Pitt do you begin to make plans to make your case formally.

What goes into preparing the recommendations? It is known academics and research will be a must. We know proximity to current B10 states will be considered. The recommendation criteria will be the intriguing part.

Adding Missouri brings in the St Louis and Kansas City markets. Rutgers brings in the New York City and Philadelphia markets. ND brings a national audience with a dominate east coast market. It should be interesting to hear the speculation.
 
I am in agreement with the others that have advocated for Notre Dame as the 12th team. There are just too many drawbacks with the other possibilities.

Notre Dame is the complete package and they have to see the writing on the wall with their television contract with the NBC, as I do not think NBC will extend the contract beyond its expiration.

I will be sick to my stomach if the Big Ten adds Syracuse, Rutgers, or Missouri.

Go Hawks!
 
I checked out the Scout forums for Rutgers and Missouri. Most Rutger posters are really wanting to join, almost universal. Missouri posters are kind of divided. A majority would be interested, but it isn't large.

Could we be looking at 14 teams rather than 12? It is an option. Missouri, Rutgers, and ND in one swoop?
 
Jon,
Copied this from a poster on Illini Scout, fun to see what others are thinking.

"I was talking to someone just this weekend who mentioned that they read somewhere that the proposed buyout of NBC Universal by Comcast would affect ND's status at the network and could make ND interested in joining the B10. Is there anything to this?"

I realize this is third hand, but the basis of the comment might have merit. Comcast ponied up like $6.5B to buy its stake from GE. To service the debt Comcast is going to have to control costs. It is not like they can't find games to broadcast.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top