SB Nation - Kansas St. Wildcats

Part II: Why the Big 12 Needs to do Everything It Can to Keep Missouri

TB — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 06:00:18 -0000

The continuation and conclusion of our series examining the possible effects of Big 10 expansion on the Big 12.

In Part I of this post, we examined the possibility that Big 10 expansion could target a Big 12 school, specifically Missouri. That post should have demonstrated that Missouri would consider a move to the Big 10, the Big 10 would be likely to consider Missouri, and that if Missouri left, the Big 12 would almost certainly end up a weaker conference. Today, we'll discuss this topic further, and offer a few conclusions.

5. Aren't we wasting our time discussing Missouri? Won't the Big 10 take Notre Dame?

As mentioned in Part I, my outsider's opinion is that Notre Dame is probably the school coveted most by the Big 10. It's been mentioned elsewhere, and I believe it's possible that the Big 10 is trying to force Notre Dame's hand. The conference is basically telling Notre Dame that it's considering the addition of a twelfth school, and that if Notre Dame is not that twelfth school, it will never get another chance to join the Big 10.

Currently, NBC's TV contract with Notre Dame pays the school $15 million per year. If Notre Dame could ever get eligible for a good bowl game again, any profit from the bowl payout would be Notre Dame's to keep, unlike in a conference where each bowl payout is pooled and shared by all conference members. Remember also that Notre Dame receives $1.3 million each year from the BCS, whether it makes a BCS game or not, and would get $4.5 million if it could ever rebound to go 8-4, thereby guaranteeing itself a top-eight BCS ranking and, thus, a BCS bowl. In other words, Notre Dame is guaranteed $16.3 million every year under its current arrangement, and could receive as much as $19.5 million per year if it made a BCS bowl. That's not too far away from the payout Big 10 schools receive from the conference each year if it makes a BCS bowl. Even if it doesn't, Notre Dame may place sufficient value on its independent status that an extra $5-6 million wouldn't be worth it.

The real question at this point is whether Notre Dame believes it can continue to garner such a TV contract. In the article linked above, NBC claims it has no qualms about its deal with Notre Dame at this time. Its ratings for Fighting Irish games are also competitive, though not outstanding, when compared with the rest of televised college football games. Basically, if the Big 10 extends another invitation, and the Irish say no, they are gambling that they will improve in the near future, or that NBC will continue pouring money into South Bend. As Dawg Sports' T Kyle King so eloquently put it, Notre Dame is likely in the throes of a manic episode, believing that Brian Kelly will lead them back to domination, so this might be a bad time for the Big 10 to ask.

As you can see, I think it's entirely possible that either Notre Dame turns down the Big 10, or the Big 10 is looking elsewhere. Notwithstanding all that, the mere fact that Missouri could be interested were the Big 10 to look its way is sufficiently concerning for the Big 12 that it needs to be ready to deal with that possibility.

6. If keeping Missouri is such a big deal, what can the Big 12 do to entice the Tigers to stay?

On Between the Lines this week, Kevin Keitzman discussed this very issue and concluded that the Big 12 needs to eliminate the requirement that changes to the bylaws be passed by a 9-3 vote of member institutions. The upshot of all that would be that changes could be passed by a bare majority vote of 7-5, and presumably we would end up with equal revenue sharing.

While equal revenue sharing in this conference has long been a goal of mine, it simply won't be enough to convince Missouri to stay. As noted in Part I, Missouri would only gain a couple hundred thousand dollars per year if the Big 12 shared all revenue equally. If the jump was about the money, this would pale in comparison to the extra $10 million or so Missouri would garner every year as a member of the Big 10. Therefore, I believe any plan to keep Missouri needs to include not only equal revenue sharing, but exploring additional sources of revenue as well.

As much as we may love this conference, it probably isn't going to garner a blockbuster TV deal like the SEC's or the Big 10's. Take a look at a comparison of top-50 markets in these three conferences:

Big 12 (8): Dallas (No. 5), Houston (No. 10), Denver (No. 18), St. Louis (No. 21), Kansas City (No. 31), San Antonio (No. 37), Oklahoma City (No. 45), Austin (No. 49)

SEC (10): Atlanta (No. 8), Tampa-St. Pete (No. 13), Miami-Fort Lauderdale (No. 16), Orlando-Daytona Beach (No. 19), Nashville (No. 29), West Palm Beach (No. 38), Birmingham (No. 40), Jacksonville (No. 47), Memphis (No. 48), Louisville (No. 50)

Big 10 (12): Chicago (No. 3), Philadelphia (No. 4), Detroit (No. 11), Minneapolis-St. Paul (No. 15), Cleveland-Akron (No. 17), Pittsburgh (No. 23), Indianapolis (No. 25), Columbus (No. 32), Cincinnati (No. 34), Milwaukee (No. 35), Grand Rapids-Kalamazoo (No. 39), Harrisburg (No. 41)

Unless the conference is currently working on an unforeseen new TV deal with ABC or ESPN that will dramatically increase income, the Big 12 is going to have to get creative in trying to find new revenue streams. It's been discussed that creating a Big 12 Network or exploring the possibility of Internet TV may be a new source of revenue. The Big 10 Network now generates $6 million per year for each school, despite its early growing pains. It's unrealistic to expect that a Big 12 Network would be as lucrative, but what if it provided another $3-4 million in revenue each year per school? An extra $4 million may sufficiently boost Missouri's take that tradition and history would win out over a few million.

In any event, I hope the Big 12 is more serious about keeping Missouri than conference commissioner Dan Beebe's comments seemed to indicate this week. Now, it's entirely possible that Beebe is posturing on this issue, just as it's possible that Missouri is posturing to get a sweeter deal out of the conference. However, given Missouri's demonstrated value to this conference, Beebe's comments reflect an alarming lack of concern over a potential Mizzou defection. In response to a question about how to keep Missouri in the Big 12, Beebe responded:

[We need to m]ake sure that they understand how well they're wanted in our conference, how well they're connected to the rivalries that have developed. There are a lot of Missouri fans that now enjoy playing Texas, playing Texas Tech, having the continued Big 8 rivalries with Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, not to mention Kansas, Iowa State and the others, so I think it would be a big departure for them to go try to establish rivalries with another part of the country.

Later, in response to a question concerning how the Big 12 would go about keeping Missouri should the Big 10 express formal interest, Beebe said:

As much as you can fight to keep them, we'd fight to keep them, [because] there isn't a member you want to lose. [But t]here isn't a lot you can do if they've already set the momentum in a certain direction.

First off, I know plenty of Missouri fans, and not one of them would list games against Texas and Texas Tech -- especially Texas Tech -- as a reason for staying in the Big 12. Frankly, rivalries will always pale in comparison to the lure of filthy lucre -- just ask Nebrska and Oklahoma -- and just as I believe he was doing when discussing the possibility of the Big 12 football championship game's permanent move to Dallas, I think he was avoiding an outright discussion of the real issue: money. Second, I agree that once the Big 10 makes a formal offer to Missouri, it is likely too late to change minds, but we damn sure better be doing something in the interim to show the Tigers that we're serious about offereing a deal that is, if not as sweet as the Big 10's, then at least close enough that the squishy factors like "tradition" and "rivalries" tilt the scales in our favor.

In short, we need equal revenue sharing and new streams of revenue. The question is whether any of the entrenched four -- Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Nebraska -- would agree that losing Missouri was sufficiently alarming that equal revenue sharing was worth keeping them. The possibility of more revenue might be enough to win one of them over, making the vote 9-3 in favor. As discussed in Part I, the Big 12 inevitably becomes a weaker conference without Missouri, diminishing the possibility of landing a blockbuster TV contract. The other consideration is the possibility that these schools would see Missouri's departure as the death knell of the conference. If they did, they wouldn't bother with trying to fix an obviously doomed situation, and would instead look out for themselves. The problem is, where would they go? Texas has no interest in the SEC, the Big 10 would already have 12 teams, and the Pac-10 seems awfully far away. The Longhorns could undoubtedly thrive as an independent, but would the Texas Legislature let them leave Texas A&M -- not to mention Baylor and Texas Tech -- out to dry like that? The possibilities are enough to be the subject of a separate post, but my opinion is that these schools would be better served to preserve the Big 12 as it is than to chance a dramatic realignment of college football.

7. Does the Big 10 have ulterior motives here?

Several reasons for Big 10 expansion have been discussed, all involving money. The addition of a conference championship game, in a huge venue like Chicago's Soldier Field, Indianapolis' Lucas Oil Stadium, or even Green Bay's Lambeau Field, would mean a payday for the Big 10. That game would be broadcast to all those huge Big 10 markets and the rest of the country, whether by the Big 10 Network or ABC/ESPN. Finally, a new team would most likely open a new TV market for Big 10 Network expansion, whether that's east -- New York City -- or west -- Kansas City/St. Louis. All of that means more money for the Big 10, which is a necessity if the conference is going to bring in a twelfth school with whom to divide money.

I'm not claiming that money is anything other than the primary goal of this merger, but it seems the Big 10 could accomplish other results by expanding. For the past two years, at least, the SEC and Big 12 have been considered the best football conferences in the country, while Ohio State's repeated title game drubbings, Michigan's demise, and USC's utter domination of the Rose Bowl have combined to relegate the Big 10 to almost second-class status among the major conferences. It has to be galling for the Big 10 to endure such criticism, given that the Big 10 used to be the gold standard for college football conferences.

The point is, there's yet another reason why the Big 10 may take a long look at Missouri. Part I demonstrated how much Missouri's loss would affect the Big 12. Even if Missouri's new TV markets and a Big 10 conference championship game were only a wash given that a twelfth piece of the pie had to be divided, the fact that the Big 12 would be weakened by the loss of Mizzou may be enough to make it worthwhile to the Big 10.

8. We don't care about the money. Would Missouri really leave behind its legacy in the Big 12?

The University of Missouri has deep ties to the Big 12 and its precursor conferences. Mizzou was a founding member of the Missouri Valley Intercollegiate Athletic Conference in 1907, and has been a part of the Big 6/Big 7/Big 8/Big 12 ever since. Most of the old Big 8 schools -- the current Big 12 North plus the Oklahoma schools -- have been affiliated with Mizzou for decades, if not a century.

The biggest consideration is whether Missouri could leave its historically significant -- that feels like the mother of understatements -- rivalry with KU. It's a rivalry that started in the pre-Civil War days, and back then it had nothing to do with sports, but rather unimportant things like life and death. A complicated swirl of events involving slavery, state's rights, and even the mere ability of those in western Missouri and eastern Kansas to live their lives without the fear of murder, rape and plunder combined to unleash a bitter feud that is a lingering memory 150 years later in this part of the country. In fact, the State of Kansas is probably one of the few places in the country where one school's primary rival is not its in-state school of the same conference, but rather a school from another state. To say the Border War is a big part of Missouri's identity would be like saying Lebron James is pretty good at basketball.

In recent years, as Missouri's football program ascended to previously unknown success under Gary Pinkel, the Tigers dared to be so impudent as to steal Nebraska's birthright, also known as the Big 12 North crown. Such an affront would not be tolerated by the Big Red horde, and thus the upstarts in Columbia have been deemed a public enemy by the school that "has no rivals."

Missouri also plays Iowa State for some stupid trophy that nobody cares about.

Are these rivalries enough to override the potential $10 million per year payday Missouri would realize by moving to the Big 10? As with any determination involving amorphous concepts, it's hard to say. The only rivalry that Missouri would really hate to lose is the Border War, and as we've seen with the Busch Braggin' Rights games, it's possible for Missouri to play a rival in the non-conference. Kansas City is a natural battleground for these schools, and yearly games at Arrowhead and Sprint Center could keep this rivalry going. Of course, there's no guarantee those relationships will be maintained in the absence of conference mandates. I suppose it's even possible -- though unlikely -- that the Big 12 would forbid KU to play Missouri in an attempt to punish the Tigers. Regardless, Missouri would have to give a lot of consideration to whether the Big 10's money was worth the possible loss of the Border War.

9. Hey, TB, over here. Yeah, this is still a K-State blog. We want to know what it means for the Purple and White.

If Missouri leaves, the best-case scenario for K-State is that the Big 12 picks up one of the schools mentioned in Part I and continues as a weakened going concern. While the loss of St. Louis and part of Kansas City would not be recoverable by the addition of any realistic candidate, the Big 12 could probably survive with the addition of a Memphis, New Mexico, Arkansas, or Utah/BYU. However, any prospects for a significantly improved contract from ABC or ESPN would probably follow Missouri out the door.

The possible disaster scenarios are too numerous to mention. If Texas can overcome its own state's legislature, it could make a go of it as an independent. Colorado has considered a move to the Pac-10 before, and one of their local reporters believes the jump would be made if offered again. In short, the Big 12 could disintegrate. If that happened, the best-case scenario would be that Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Nebraska were left without anywhere to go. In that situation, their best option would be to keep around the other conference schools and pick up enough schools of the Utah, BYU, TCU, Arkansas, Houston, Memphis, Boise State and New Mexico group as were necessary to form a viable 12-team conference. Again, this would come nowhere near matching the current Big 12, but it would be better than the potential disaster scenario.

The disaster scenario is, of course, that all the schools in the conference with big TV markets find homes elsewhere, and K-State is left in the dark with some combination of Nebraska, Iowa State, KU, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and Baylor. If this happened, we would probably have to forge some sort of conference with the best of Conference USA (Houston, Tulsa), the Mountain West (TCU, Utah, BYU), and the WAC (Boise State). The result would be a geographically distributed conference with limited appeal even in its biggest TV markets, such as Houston, D/FW, Kansas City, Tulsa, Oklahoma City, and Salt Lake City. It makes me shudder even to think about it.

Conclusions

As you've probably gathered, I think it's imperative that we keep Missouri. The problem is, we won't keep Missouri based on money alone. We will have to do what we can financially -- equal revenue sharing and new revenue streams -- to make the money comparable enough that Mizzou's ties to the conference and rivalry games prevail. It will have to be enough to at least close the gap enough that Missouri decides keeping its rivalries and ties to these schools outweighs the fear of the unknown.

Some have mentioned recruiting Texas as a reason Missouri should stay in the Big 12. Nobody knows how that would play out, but I think it's an open question. Using the example provided in the link, maybe Iowa doesn't have Texas players because it has never tried to recruit Texas. Is one or two games in Texas per year really the reason Texas kids are going to Missouri? Or is it because Missouri's coaching staff has taken the time to cultivate relationships there and show the players that they can have success at a major-conference school?

What it all comes down to is whether the other 11 schools think Missouri is worth fighting over. This will come down to who the replacement would be -- and I don't think any of the reasonable alternative are sufficient replacements -- and whether the other schools think the Big 12 is worth saving if someone like Missouri leaves. Is saving the Big 12 worth giving up some money in revenue sharing each year to Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M and Nebraska? The answer to this question depends significantly on what those schools' other options are. If any of those schools could join a more lucrative conference or, in Texas' case, go independent, then saving the Big 12 is probably not worth it to them. But if the options are give up a little money in revenue sharing with the possibility of new revenue streams and a better TV contract down the road in order to keep Missouri, or lose Mizzou and, with it, bargaining power in the next TV contract negotiation, then the former is probably the better option.

Part I: Why the Big 12 Needs to Do Everything It Can to Keep Missouri

TB — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:00:15 -0000

This post will be the first in a two-part series discussing the ramifications of the recent talk that Missouri could move to the Big 10 in the not-too-distant future.

As you've no doubt heard, the Big 10 has announced that it will explore the possibility of adding a twelfth school in the next 12 to 18 months. For a conference that clings to the past like dress pants to your leg on a dry winter day, this was big news. For the rest of the college sports world, this is also big news, because Big 10 expansion would likely lead to a chain reaction with far-reaching effects.

If Notre Dame is interested this time after turning down the Big 10 in 1999, and if the Big 10 is over that little rejection, then it stands to reason that the Fighting Irish would be the most likely addition. The Big 10 wanted ND before, and I doubt enough has changed that they wouldn't want them now. We'll discuss the situation surrounding Notre Dame in Part II.

It's big news to the Big 12, too, because it has long been known that Missouri has more than a passing interest in the Big 10. After it became known this week that the Big 10 was looking to expand, Mizzou officials released a statement saying they hadn't been contacted, but would consider the situation if they were. It wasn't just Missouri officials who were discussing the possibility. Several of SB Nation's Big 10 blogs hypothesized on who would be added, with most concluding that Missouri was most likely a candidate, and some others concluding that the Tigers make the most sense.

Given that Big 10 expansion could be the first domino to fall in a long chain, this raises a lot of questions for Missouri and the rest of the Big 12. This post will be dedicated to discussing and trying to answer those questions. For the sake of keeping these posts to manageable length, we're going to assume that the Big 10 is only going to add one school. Also, we're going to limit the discussion as much as possible to the more measurable factors, like money and academic prestige, rather than amorphous concepts like "ties" and "nostalgia" and "fan sentiment."

And for those of you who are a little more uninformed about that conference that hugs the Great Lakes, the title "Big 10" is a misnomer, as the conference actually contains 11 teams; thus, adding one would get them to the magical 12 that would make divisional play and a cash-grab conference championship game possible.

1. Why would Missouri jump to the Big 10?

When I've discussed this issue with others this week -- and it has been a frequent topic of conversation for me -- this is always the first question I am asked. The truth is that Missouri would have a lot of good reasons to move to the Big 10.

First, Big 10 athletics are much more lucrative than Big 12 athletics for the conference's member institutions. It's hard to know exactly how much money the Big 10 distributes to its member institutions each year because it doesn't release official figures, but we can at least get an estimate. This article from the Sports Business Journal shows that in 2006-07, the Big 10 distributed $154 million to its schools, or $14 million per school, because the Big 10 shares all athletic revenue equally. Obviously, that was two years ago, and did not include revenue from the Big 10 Network, which this article indicates was $6.1 million this year. As such, it doesn't seem like a stretch to believe Stewart Mandel when he estimates that the conference will distribute more than $22 million per school next season. Adjusting those numbers for the addition of a twelfth school, the conference would have distributed almost $12 million per school in 2006-07, and would distribute a little more than $20 million this year.

Now, compare that to Missouri and the Big 12. Last year, the Big 12 distributed $103 million to its schools, which would be $8.6 million per school if all revenue was shared equally. However, half of the Big 12's TV money is split based on number of TV appearances -- the more often you're on TV, the more money you get -- so Texas received $10.2 million, while Missouri took home $8.4 million. It's projected that the Big 12 will distribute $130 million to its schools for 2008-09, which would be $10.8 million per school if it was all distributed evenly. Specific school breakdowns were not available for this year's projected income, but if we keep the percentages the same, we can roughly estimate that Texas would receive $12.9 million, while Missouri would receive $10.6 million.

As you can see, Missouri would have at least 10 million reasons per year to leave the Big 12, and that's just if we're talking about revenue. However, there's more. The Big 10 is as much an academic conference as it is an athletic one. The academic arm of the Big 10, also known as the Committee on Institutional Cooperation ("CIC"), includes all of the athletic Big 10 schools, plus the University of Chicago, one of the most highly respected academic institutions in the country. From what I can tell, the CIC basically coordinates the activities of its member institutions. As I read the Big 10 blogs this week, it seemed to me that the CIC helps with coordinating research and providing unique academic opportunities to students at its member institutions, among other things. Make no mistake, for a school that is serious about "prestigious" academics, the CIC is a big deal. Missouri is just such an institution.

With that, I think we have provided enough information on why a school like Missouri, if offered membership in the Big 10, would give it more than passing consideration.

2. Does the Big 10 really want Missouri?

Obviously, I can't really answer this. Other than the Big 10 presidents, athletic directors, and conference commissioner Jim Delany, nobody has any idea at this point whether the Big 10 wants Missouri. As mentioned above, if the past is any indication, Notre Dame is probably the first target. It's not like there aren't other options, as schools such as Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers, Maryland, and even other Big 12 schools such as Iowa State and Nebraska, have been mentioned. I'm not focusing on NU and ISU because a) I don't think they're particularly likely to be invited, and b) I don't think their loss would hurt the Big 12 as much as Missouri's would. More on that later.

SB Nation's blogs are managed by regular fans of each school who follow that school closely. Usually, they have a pretty good knowledge of what is going on in their school and conference. As such, I think it's illustrative that every Big 10 blog on SB Nation that I have seen discussing this issue considers Missouri a potential target. Some even consider them the obvious target. While the Big 10 has never expressed formal interest in MU, nor extended them an official invitation, there has been a long-standing belief among some Tigers that the Big 10 was the way to go, if an invitation ever materialized.

Taking everything into account, and being mindful that I have zero inside information, it would seem like Missouri would be near the top of any list of schools targeted for expansion.

3. What would happen to the Big 12 if Missouri did leave?

Among some fanbases in the conference, the answer seems to be "Who cares? We'll get someone else." Because Missouri has never been a dominant school in any sport, it's understandable that some take that approach. However, there's a lot more to this equation than prowess on the gridiron or hardcourt.

I bet every Big 12 fan can instantly name the largest state in this conference by population. Obviously, it's Texas and its 24 million residents. But I bet a lot of people would have to take a moment to answer the question "What is the second most-populous state in the Big 12?" The answer is Missouri and its six million inhabitants. The Show-Me State also contains the conference's best TV markets after Houston, Dallas and Denver, with St. Louis (No. 21 nationally) and Kansas City (No. 31).

In other words, if we lost Missouri, we would be out a state of six million people and a top-25 media market. St. Louis would cease to have any Big 12 identity, and Kansas City's identity as a Big 8/Big 12 town would be weakened, though KU commands a larger presence in KC than Mizzou.

Now, all that discussion of population and TV ignores the fact that, if the Big 12 desired to continue on, it would need to fill Mizzou's void with another school. Again, for the sake of brevity (yeah, right), we're going to assume that Mizzou's departure would not cause Texas to go independent, Colorado to jump to the Pac-10, and any of a million other scenarios that could happen.

The list of replacements for Missouri is not particularly enticing. In this area, I think we need to look primarily at schools that currently reside in conferences that do not receive an automatic BCS berth, as schools in other automatic-qualifier conferences are unlikely to jump to the Big 12 due to money and/or geography. Here's the list of possible replacements, along with a few pros and cons to each:

TCU: On the plus side, they've had a very good football program the last few years. But that's about all they have going for them. Texas Christian is a school of only 8,000 students in Fort Worth that couldn't even sell out its 40,000 seat stadium this year as its team made a run to the Fiesta Bowl. The basketball programs would be afterthoughts in the Big 12. Most importantly, it delivers nothing new in the way of a TV market. The Dallas/Fort Worth market is already owned by the Big 12, between Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, and assorted alumni of other Big 12 schools.

Houston: Similar to TCU, the Coogs are on an upswing in football currently. While the men's basketball team is no powerhouse, they would be competent in the Big 12, and by "competent" I mean "they wouldn't lose by 25 in every game." Also, UH is a public university that's looking to reach Tier 1 status and might actually give us a little more penetration in the Houston TV market, a market that is divided between the Big 12 and the SEC, although I'm guessing we already have a pretty good hold on this market between UT and TAMU. However, Robertson Stadium at UH holds only 30,000, which would be by far the smallest stadium in the Big 12. Fan support at UH hasn't been great the last few years, even as the team improved. Also, I've heard that, as long as Tom Penders is the basketball coach at UH, Texas will adamantly oppose adding Houston to the Big 12.

Colorado State: With due respect to my good friend JSchwarz, absolutely not. The Rams are a middling MWC team in football and generally finish toward the bottom in basketball. As long as Colorado is in the conference, we have a solid footing in the Denver TV market, so CSU brings little TV attraction. Fort Collins is a nice town, but even that's not enough to make me interested in Colorado State.

Arkansas: I'll break my own rule that we won't discuss other automatic-qualifier-conference schools to acknowledge that there is a rampant Internet rumor that Arkansas is fed up with the SEC and might be interested in moving to the Big 12. Monetarily, it wouldn't make much sense, as the SEC distributed $135 million last year to its schools, meaning the average payout was $11.25 million. I have a hard time believing the Razorbacks would rank any higher than Missouri in the Big 12's distribution chain, meaning they'd be taking a $3 million paycut per year just based on last year's numbers. With the SEC's new TV deal, the league distribution is sure to increase going forward at a higher rate than the Big 12. The money difference isn't as big as it would be for Missouri, though, so maybe the pull of old rivalries with Texas and Texas A&M could pull the Hogs to the Big 12.

Now, would Arkansas adequately replace Missouri? Not really. The best TV market Arkansas delivers is Little Rock-Pine Bluff, which is only 56th nationally. In terms of overall population, Arkansas ranks just ahead of Kansas with 2.9 million residents. I like Fayetteville, and would enjoy road trips there, but Arkansas would be a downgrade for this conference compared to Missouri.

Utah: Now, we're getting to the schools that bring something to the table with respect to TV markets. Salt Lake City would be a comparable market to Kansas City. In overall population, Utah would again rank right there with Kansas, with about 2.8 million citizens. The Utes won a BCS bowl game last year and field a basketball team that would be competent in the Big 12. Now, that all ignores the giant elephant in the corner: geography. We already kind of consider Colorado "out there" in the Big 12, so I'm not sure what we'd think of Utah. It would be a real drain on travel costs to send the volleyball, women's basketball, baseball, and other non-revenue-generating sports out there. Again, the overriding point is that we would be better served to just keep Missouri rather than consider whether we could make Utah work.

BYU: See Utah.

Memphis: Like Utah/BYU, this would be a new TV market to the Big 12, although not quite as attractive as Salt Lake City, because Memphis is the No. 48 market in the country. Memphis isn't very good at football, and we don't know how they'll fare in basketball without John Calipari, but the basketball team already boasts somewhat of a national following. Again, the geography isn't great, bringing up the same concerns discussed with respect to Utah, but if we were to lose Missouri, it would be worth taking a look at these Tigers.

New Mexico: I'm sure some are laughing, but this would actually make as much sense as anyone else on this list. Geographically, it's a better fit than Utah/BYU. It brings in a top-50 TV market in Albuquerque-Santa Fe (No. 44). Athletically, the Lobos are nothing special, but they wouldn't be any worse than Baylor.

4. Could the Big 10 be interested in other Big 12 schools?

Sure. Nebraska and Iowa State probably technically fit the Big 10's academic profile, as both are members of the AAU and are fairly large state schools. It's not too far out in left field to think that the Big 10 may be interested in Texas, as just about any conference would welcome the TV sets the Longhorns control. However, I'm not going to discuss these at any length, because there are glaring reasons why the Big 10 may not be interested in these schools. First, Nebraska and Iowa State bring nothing to the table in terms of TV markets. Des Moines (No. 71) is the best TV market in Iowa, and I'm sure the Hawkeyes already deliver that one pretty well. Omaha ranks slightly lower at No. 76, and Nebraska is the smallest state in the Big 12 by population with about 1.8 million residents. I know the Huskers have somewhat of a national following, but those fans aren't sufficiently concentrated anywhere to deliver another TV market.

With respect to Texas, geography concerns and regional pride really get in the way. Austin is pretty far south in Texas, and in case you had forgotten, Texas is really big. It's a long way from Austin to all those other "Not Texas" states, especially Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. Even with a mammoth budget, that's still a drain on travel costs for the non-revenue sports. Again, I wouldn't rule out Texas, but this would be such a leap for such a conservative conference that I'll wait to discuss this at greater length until I hear more concrete talk that the Big 10 is interested in the Longhorns.

Thus concludes Part I. Stay tuned for Part II, where we'll discuss Notre Dame, what the Big 12 can and should do to try and keep Missouri, whether this is a conspiracy by the Big 10, the amorphous concepts like "ties" and "nostalgia" and "fan sentiment," and what this could mean for K-State.

Big Ten Expansion: 11+1 Can't Equal 12

Bama Hawkeye — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:45:34 -0000

Here's the thing about this Big Ten expansion: it's going to be a big deal. Otherwise, it's not going to happen. If adding a twelfth team only add to the Big Ten coffers by 9.09% (or 1/11th of the current total), the deal is a wash. The Big Ten isn't going to add a school and expand for a wash. They will only expand if the expansion creates an increase in funding above and beyond what they would have received otherwise. If 11+1=12, expansion won't happen. 11+1 must equal more than 12.

Now before you and tell me that the Big Ten will make big money from a title game, recognize that your point is ceded. It will be a moneymaker for the league. However, if the expansion does not increase regular season fees by at least 9.09%, each school will receive less money from the league during the regular season. I will posit that if any part of this deal is a financial loss, it is not happening.

TRE is your one stop shop for all things Big Ten Expansion related...

Graham discusses pros and cons of adding a 12th team...and who it might be.

Lake Erie M argues for mega-expansion and a 14 team league

BHGP lists the 4 most important issues surrounding expansion.

Chadnudj details the benefits of the North/South split

That's why, you need to think big, or get out of the discussion. Big Ten expansion is not about "finding a rival for Penn State." Big Ten expansion is not about finding any local twelfth school so that the league can have a championship game. Big Ten expansion is about increasing the percentage of college sports dollars that go directly into the coffers of each institution. I am not saying this in a derogatory or cynical way. It's exactly what expansion should be about. If you're going to upset this apple cart by adding a new member, there better be some huge HUGE benefits. That was what the league got when Penn State joined. That's what the league should get now.

So stop thinking small. Join me after the jump and start thinking Big. After all, it's in our league's name for a good reason.

Let's add that 12th Team:

Remember, think BIG. Here are the teams that I think by themselves can satisfy this requirement:

Notre Dame

Yes, it's the league's white whale (and I appreciate it that the Irish again hired a coach who can personally live up to that moniker.). At the same time, it is still the most recognized name and brand in college athletics. It would be a coup for the league. It would be a perfect fit (and they'd find a way to get the Irish into the AAU; don't sweat that). If Notre Dame would say yes (and they won't), this search would be done.

Texas

Do you remember that Texas reached out to join the Big Ten in 1993/94? Shortly before the Horns and Aggies (along with the state's two successful piggybackers) joined the Big 8, Texas talked with the Big Ten about becoming the league's 12th member. The Big Ten was under a self-imposed expansion moratorium, though.

Today, I don't see Texas joining. They are the New York Yankees of the Big 12. They have every conceivable advantage and limited revenue sharing. Why would they leave that situation for long road trips (the shortest Big Ten trip would be longer than the longest Big 12 trip) and equitable payouts? Do you think the Yankees would leave baseball's system for football's - where they would share (most of) their dollars evenly with Green Bay? Texas is in a perfect situation.

Nebraska

Yes, the Big Ten wants to dominate the Omaha media market. No, this would be about adding a football giant. Tom Osborne, for one, would listen long and hard. He's preached against the Southern-dominance of the Big 12 since its inception. I don't know if the Huskers take the offer, but it's a much closer call than you might think at first blush. And don't give me the "Big 8/12 founding member tradition garbage." It doesn't pay the bills.

Maryland

This is all about DC. The ACC has the market surrounded. The Big East has roots in the market (during hoops). The Big Ten can move on the area by adding the Terps. It's a contiguous state, which could use the move to recruit in more fertile areas (Ohio and Pennsylvania). Yes, Maryland is thought of as a basketball school first. I don't think that stops the inquiry. I don't know that Maryland jumps, but I bet they look long and hard at it.

Missouri

Missouri has already said that they would entertain the offers. Good for you, Mizzou. Missouri feel like it has received a raw deal from the Big 12 in football each of the last three years. The Big Ten would control, instead of split, the St. Louis market, while making an entry into Kansas City. Of the adding one combinations, this has the greatest likelihood of actually happening.

Here's who is not on the list:

Pitt

Like I said at the outset, this isn't about finding a partner for Penn State. In 17 seasons, the Lions have developed a nice rivalry with Ohio State and a hatred for Iowa. They don't need to bring their little brother school into the family just to have someone to kick around. Also, Pitt adds nothing but a 12th team. If you believe me when I write that this expansion has to be about more than that, then you know why Pitt won't happen.

Rutgers

I'm late coming around on this, but Rutgers adds nothing but a 12th team. Rutgers doesn't "give the Big Ten the New York market" any more than adding Middle Tennessee State would give the league the Nashville market.

West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville, Syracuse

They don't add anything but a 12th team.

Iowa State

Now you're just being silly.

Let's Think Bigger

An interesting article in the Tribune yesterday tipped the Big Ten's hand. They're not limiting their thoughts to 12 teams. They are also looking at 14 teams league. What? Seriously? Yes. Who would this be?

How about Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska. Add those three to the league and you control the media markets of the upper Midwest and great plains states. That doesn't add much. But, you add one of the Top 10 football programs, one of the Top 10 basketball programs, and a legitimate contender in both. That I find interesting. How do these divisions strike you:

Big Ten North	Big Ten South	or....	Big Ten East	Big Ten West
Michigan	Ohio State		Penn State	Nebraska
Michigan State	Indiana		Ohio State	Kansas
Wisconsin	Purdue		Michigan	Missouri
Minnesota	Kansas		Michigan State	Iowa
Iowa	Missouri		Indiana	Wisconsin
Northwestern	Illinois		Purdue	Minnesota
Nebraska	Penn State		Northwestern	Illinois

I like them, too. I'm partial to the North/South alignment (playing each team in their division, their permanent rival across from them on the list, and one rotating school each year), but I wouldn't argue with the East/West breakdown either. It just doesn't lend itself as well to the split.

Would the three Big Twelve schools come together? Yes, Kansas leaves K-State behind, but i don't think that they'd worry too much about that. Coming together might make the move more palatable for the joiners. I don't know enough about the numbers to know if it would make the league more profitable for the members, but my suspicion is that it would.

If you believe that the league will go for a more balanced geographic approach, maybe it's Missouri, Pittsburgh and Maryland. Look what that could do:

Big Ten North	Big Ten South	or...	Big Ten East	Big Ten West
Michigan	Ohio State		Maryland	Missouri
Michigan State	Maryland		Penn State	Iowa
Pitt	Penn State		Pitt	Minnesota
Wisconsin	Purdue		Ohio State	Wisconsin
Minnesota	Indiana		Michigan	Illinois
Iowa	Missouri		Michigan State	Northwestern
Northwestern	Illinois		Indiana	Purdue

When you add three teams, you're adding a championship game, but you're also adding 12 extra regular season games. That's increasing regular season product by more than 25%, and likely adding a premium to the value. It's a good deal for all involved.

Let's Think Biggest

Reread the money quote from the Tribune. The league is also considering 16 team options. What? Sixteen? What would that look like? My friends, it would look like the start of a playoff system.

Big Ten East	Big Ten North	Big Ten West	Big Ten South
Penn State	Michigan	Iowa	Ohio State
Indiana	Northwestern	Minnesota	Illinois
Maryland	Michigan State	Wisconsin	Missouri
Pitt	Purdue	Nebraska	Kansas

How would you schedule this for football? Let's dream a bit. Each team plays the three teams in their division, and four teams from another division. The eighth game will be decided by standings and played on Thanksgiving weekend, with the first place teams facing off in the league championship semi-finals. You could rotate what divisions face each other for full slates and what divisions meet head to head on Thanksgiving weekend. Do you think that Big Ten semi-final weekend would get ratings? TV Money? Attention?

I know that this is a radical change from anything that college football has done. And, I realize that these divisions will move away from the traditional rival system (thus, likely making it a non-starter). But, this is the time to think in these terms. The stodgy Big Ten is allowing itself to dream right now. It should be encouraged to think as big as it can.

Remember: Think Big

Over the next 12-18 months, you'll read periodic articles focused on one small addition to the Big Ten roster. Remember that won't happen. If expansion occurs, it will be because the Big Ten was able to get Bigger.

h/t on the title to Frank the Tank.

Addendum:

We never said what we were going to name this Bigger Big Ten. Sure, we could stick with the easy moniker and keep the Big Ten. Or we could go to the Big 14 or Big 16. But we can do better than that. We need something that demonstrates our dominance in college football. Something that shows that we will not only compete with those Southern units, but that we will dominate them. Got it...

THE UNION

Gen. Sherman approves.

Barry Alvarez's Big Ten Expansion Talk Has A Logistical Problem

Oops Pow Surprise — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:00:20 -0000

For years, the Big Ten has been struggling with just what the hell to do about the whole "11 team in the conference" thing. It's made the BXI a bit of an anomaly, being that it's the only I-A conference without either a conference championship game (SEC, Big XII, MAC, C-USA, ACC) or a round-robin schedule (Big East, Pac-10, MWC, WAC, Sun Belt). After all, when it comes to automatic bowl bids, you'd want the conference to, y'know, pick the right team, right?

Well... maybe not. As Jim Delaney will be more than happy to remind you, the Big Ten has this funny habit of sending two teams to the BCS nearly every single season--and grabbing more of that filthy BCS lucre. So until a championship game nets as much money as a second BCS bid (a little under $5 million for the conference for the second team) or the conference slips enough to stop consistently sending the second team, the impetus isn't exactly strong to expand.

Barry Alvarez didn't get that memo, though; according to ESPN, he's priming Wisconsin for the prospect of having another baby in the family:

Speaking to Wisconsin's athletic board on Friday, Alvarez, the former longtime Badgers football coach, said the conference already has investigated possibilities for expansion "from all over the country." And though he places no timetable on the search, Alvarez thinks conference commissioner Jim Delany will respond to a group of athletic directors and coaches who want expansion.

"I have a sense he is going to take this year to really be more aggressive about it," Alvarez told the board. "I just think everybody feels [expansion] is the direction to go, coaches and administrators."

All of this makes lots of sense; when teams miss two fellow conference members a year on a weird rotating schedule. A 12-team, two-division setup would simplify matters dramatically and eliminate any prospect of a 2002 scenario (and yes, we know OSU won the title; Iowa would have smoked that Buckeye team).

But if it were that cut-and-dried, it would have happened already. And there's one screaming bulletproof bitchgoblin of a problem in front of the prospect of expansion: logistics.

Here's a map of the Big Ten members:

There's a pretty obvious geographic division inherent in this setup; we've used the modern power of "Computer Internet" to make it more conspicuous:

Yeah. That's five to the west, six to the east. Moreover, there's really no moving that line east without disrupting the Michigan or Indiana rivalries. That's straight out of the question; Jim Delany may be ambitious, but he's far from an idiot.

Thus a problem: the most natural candidates for expansion are teams like Pittsburgh, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Rutgers. Cincinnati or Kentucky if we're drunk enough to tell ourselves they'll work on academics. And they're all on the east side of that divide. That line might as well be a Berlin Wall. Go ahead, try to add any of those teams and show us where the new line is.

On the west, though, there aren't nearly as many possible candidates; moreover, they're basically all in the Big 12. So unless we want to bump Marquette or Wisconsin-Green Bay to I-A (err, FBS or whatever)--and what fun that'd be--it's time to start thinking about a little old-fashioned thievin'.

Iowa State is probably right out; they're a decent academic school, but they don't do much in terms of adding media attention. Further, their only real potential rival would be Iowa, and that gets its own special treatment already.

There's probably no way Nebraska leaves, and the two Kansas schools are likely too far away.

But what about Missouri? They've already got some bad blood with Illinois, and I kind of think the Iowa-Missouri thing could get real entertaining, real quick. Something about states that border Iowa that make them hate us. Feels fun. It brings the St. Louis media market into play, and a little less so Kansas City. St. Louis is probably more than enough. They're ranked as the #102 university in the country; not great, and it'd be the worst in the Big 10 Which Is Actually 12. But it's hardly an embarrassment, and merely aligning with the BXI could prop that ranking up to the standards of the rest of the conference.

Of course, that all depends on whether Missouri actually, y'know, wants to leave the Big XII. The Big 10 would have to make the case that it's in the school's best interest to join our conference instead and make it convincing enough that Delany doesn't have to go through the embarrassment of Missouri triumphantly announcing that they're staying in "the best conference in the land" or whatever they'd declare the Big XII to be in that scenario. Frankly, none of us have the stomach for that.

Philosophically, the case has already been made for expansion, and emphatically so. I don't think anyone's going to argue against a 12th team because 11 would be better than 12 for a conference. That's all settled. I just can't figure out who, aside from Missouri, would make any sense from a purely practical standpoint.

Or we could just say "screw it" and add Cornell.

[UPDATE: I'm fanposting it above this, but just to have it in the article: there's some good, interesting reaction from the Missouri POV over at Rock M Nation. Varied responses, as you might expect. Go check it out.--OPS]

If You're Looking for a Sympathetic Victim, You Could Do Better Than Nebraska

TB — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 05:17:53 -0000

More photos » by Amy Gutierrez - AP

Can't you just imagine him saying "You know what that was about, don't you? That's right. BCS. Dollar signs."? (AP Photo/Amy Gutierrez)

Browse more photos »

Unless you've been living in a cave for the last 48 hours -- and in some areas of the northern Great Plains, a cave would be preferable to the weather outside -- you know that Texas didn't lose to Nebraska, 13-12, in the Big 12 Championship game, played at God's Stadium in Arlington, Texas, on Saturday night. Chances are also good that you know there was a fair amount of controversy involved in the end of that game. Despite declaring that he knew full well how much time was on the clock, Colt McCoy's last pass bounced off God's Turf with somewhere between 0.3 and 0.5 seconds left on the clock. Had he put another three feet of air under the ball, no Big 12 referee could have put time back onto the clock, no matter how badly Dan Beebe and Walt Thompson wanted Texas in the national title game.

But, as you know, a second was put back on the clock, Hunter Lawrence bought himself a lifetime pass of free tail in Austin -- no small accomplishment, that -- and Texas will advance to Pasadena to play the Alabama Crimson Tide for the MNC. Such events unleashed unending wailing and gnashing of teeth to our immediate north, and not because the state is going to be buried under a foot of snow by daybreak Tuesday, but because the clock had read 0:00, their team had been ahead, and somehow they still lost.

The first of the wailing came shortly after the game, as Carl Pelini loudly instructed Texas' players and coaches that they should not be proud to accept the trophy. It continued in the locker room as Bo Pelini did his best Mark Mangino impersonation. Onward it went, as Bo, sounding a little like the kid on the playground who knows he's about to get into a fight he can't win, summoned ~~the principal~~ Tom Osborne. Dizzying heights of obvious frustration and disrespect were reached when Osborne failed to shake Beebe's hand. Today, even neutral arbiters took up the cudgel for the Huskers, while the locals tried -- and failed -- to make a single coherent point in their own defense.

Nebraska wants you to believe it's the victim in all of this. They want you to believe they got jobbed by the monied elite in Austin, who have pretty much gotten their way with everything since 1995. They want you to believe that, but they leave out the most important fact: they themselves are also the monied elite. While they will complain to no end about Texas' humongous budget and ridiculous facilities and air of entitlement, they'll hope everyone overlooks the fact that they have a budget nearly as obscene, facilities nearly as sparkling, and a fanbase that feels at least as entitled to success as Texas does. This isn't the Yankees and the Royals. This is the Yankees and the Red Sox.

Nebraska, including Osborne and Harvey Perlman, will play the role of the downtrodden for the unexamining eye of the national punditry, but we know better. We know that if Nebraska ever really wanted to do something about "the system," it would add its vote to the other eight schools who want equal revenue sharing in the conference to take money away from those greedy bastards in Austin. But Nebraska won't do so, and in fact has publicly declared that it won't do so, because it benefits from the same system it now deplores.

Look between my thumb and forefinger, Pelini, Osborne and Perlman. I think you know what it is and what it's playing for you.

Jersey Contest: Week 14 - Blogger Picks

ntrebon — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 23:28:29 -0000

Well, this is it -- the final week of picks. If you haven't made your picks, you can do so here. The deadline is tonight at 11.59 PM PT.

Here are your weekly game picks from the ATQ bloggers. Only Jared and Dominic submitted comments this week.

	Cincinnati at Pittsburgh	West Virginia at Rutgers	Florida vs Alabama	Arizona at USC (-8)	New Mexico State Boise State (-44)
Jared	Cincinnati	West Virginia	Florida	Arizona	Boise State
Nick	Cincinnati	West Virginia	Florida	USC	New Mexico State
Dave	Cincinnati	West Virginia	Alabama	Arizona	New Mexico State
Dominic	Cincinnati	West Virginia	Alabama	Arizona	Boise State
Jeremy	Cincinnati	West Virginia	Florida	Arizona	Boise State
Paul	Pittsburgh	West Virginia	Florida	Arizona	New Mexico State

Cincinnati at Pittsburgh:

Jared: Can the Wanstache win the big game? I say no, even if Brian Kelly has one foot out the door. Pick: Cincinnati

Dominic: I like the Bearcats in this matchup, even in Pittsburgh. Cinci has been getting better and better throughout the year and even though this might be their one chance to slip up, I just don't see it. Oh, and Tony Pike is the man. Pick: Cincinnati

Jeremy: I just can't get the image of Pittsburgh's Sun Bowl against OSU out of my head. And more undefeated AQ teams just makes the BCS that much more flawed. Pick: Cincinnati

West Virginia at Rutgers:

Jared: West Virginia is not favored, but the S&P stats give them a 10 point advantage. When the disparity is that large, I gotta go with the Mountaineers. Pick: West Virginia

Dominic: I like West Virginia's gutsy win against Pitt last week and even though Rutgers has recovered from a horrible loss to Cinci early in the season, I think the Mountaineers pull off this one big. Pick: West Virginia

Jeremy: I'm trying to recall if I've seen Rutgers play even one game this year. West Virginia just feels like the safer pick. Pick: West Virginia

Florida vs Alabama:

Jared: For as much crap as he takes on this site, Tim Tebow is one of the best college players of the decade, and he can do it all. Both teams have great defenses, but Tebow will be the difference in the game. Pick: Florida

Dominic: The Tebow-era is finally coming to a close and no one is happier about this than me. Don't get me wrong, he's a great player but I'm just tired of the circus. Because I'm so tired of it, I don't want to hear about how great he will be when he wins "another national title". I want to see TCU vs. Florida in the Sugar Bowl so I'm rooting for the home team. Go Bama! Roll Tide! Pick: Alabama

Jeremy: Come on. This game is all about...Timmmmaaaay! He's gonna roll the Tide because Saban's a jerk and he's going to continue to get beat on the biggest stages. That, and because Lane Kiffin says "Alabama has better coaching". Lots of bad karma for 'Bama. Jeez, Kiffin drop the cry baby act with Florida already. Pick: Florida

Arizona at USC (-8):

Jared: I think Arizona has a great chance to win this game. They have an offense that can move the ball very well, and a stout defense. They are balance enough to take on USC (who they always play very tough). Pick: Arizona

Dominic: 8 points is a lot of points and the way Arizona has been playing as of late, I think they cover. They may not win but I can't resist taking the Wildcats in this pick. Pick: Arizona

Jeremy: USC's defense just isn't all that this year. Foles can put a nice Holiday Bowl wrap on his breakout year in the Pac-10. I also like the speed on UA's defense. The group of loser Wildcat fans who threw crap at Oregon don't deserve this, but their team has played well this year. Pick: Arizona

New Mexico State at Boise State (-44):

Jared: I literally flipped an internet coin on this one. Tails it is! Pick: Boise State

Dominic: 44 points is a lot but New Mexico State is not a good football team. I'm taking the Broncos. Pick: Boise State

Jeremy: One more chance for Boise State to make a statement. Of course it mostly falls on deaf ears, because, well, they're playing New Mexico State (aka Washington State according to one blogger who made me laugh earlier today). Pick: Boise State

KICKING THE TIRES: Season Review

BracketCat — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:00:15 -0000

K-State's season might be done, but there's still another week left in the Big 12 regular season — starting with that amazing shootout last night between the Aggies and the Longhorns. Plus, I thought this would be a good chance to look at our season-ending numbers, so click the jump for my usual statistical/opinionated analysis.

KEY STATS

Rushing Offense
K-State (37 | -6)

Passing Offense
K-State (104 | +1)

Total Offense
K-State (80 | -5)

Scoring Offense
K-State (88 | -13)

Rushing Defense
K-State (19 | +4)

Pass Efficiency Defense
K-State (81 | -6)

Total Defense
K-State (41 | +6)

Scoring Defense
K-State (48 | +11)

Net Punting
K-State (64 | +9)

Punt Returns
K-State (45 | +2)

Kickoff Returns
K-State (8 | -2)

Turnover Margin
K-State (26 | -7)

Pass Defense
K-State (79 | +11)

Passing Efficiency
K-State (88 | -10)

Analysis

Granted, these aren't 100-percent final statistics because there still are games to be played, but they're close enough for our purposes: Evaluating the improvement (or perhaps lack thereof) from last year's team.

Rushing offense went from 80th in the country in 2008 to 37th in 2009. Clearly, Bill Snyder understood more than Ron Prince that running the ball is important. Having Daniel Thomas didn't hurt, either.

Passing offense tumbled from 19th to 104th. Some dropoff was to be expected with Josh Freeman leaving for the NFL, but not that much. That is a stat we desperately need to, and I believe will, improve dramatically if we are to compete for the North title in 2010.

Total offense fell from 38th to 80th. Again, in sore need of overall improvement, but especially in the passing game.

Scoring offense dropped from 21st to 88th. Same story, different statistic. And it was made even worse by our goal-line flubs in the last two weeks, but not punching it in once we penetrated the red zone was a bugaboo all season.

Rushing defense jumped from 114th to 19th. Our defensive coaching staff deserves a huge shout-out, because that simply is stellar and is more than I thought was possible with just one year. If you ever doubt the power of coaching, just reflect on that stat.

Pass efficiency defense climbed from 93rd to 81st. Some improvement, but we can do better. Clearly, the Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Missouri games didn't help us much here.

Total defense went from 114th to 41st. Way to go, Chris Cosh and Vic Koenning.

Scoring defense improved from a tie for 110th to 48th. Again, that's just remarkable improvement in just one year.

Net punting went from 108th to 64th. Ryan Doerr made a lot of difference this season.

Punt returns dropped from 33rd to 45th. This is one area I'd like to see improve next year, and I think putting either John Hubert or Tramaine Thompson back there will help a lot.

Kickoff returns actually improved from 25th to eighth. Hard to expect any improvement from a Top 25 ranking, but we did it. God, we're going to miss Brandon Banks.

Turnover margin flipped from 109th to 26th. If you're looking for a single stat that explains the turnaround from Big 12 cellar to North contention, this is it. Granted, there only was a one-game improvement in the win-loss record, but this is one case where that record does not tell the whole story. Turnover margin is not really something you can control, because luck plays a huge role in it, but a team that does all the little things right usually will find the ball bouncing its way more often than not. The 2009 Cats certainly did.

Pass defense went from 97th to 79th. Again, marginal improvement, but more should be expected in 2010.

Passing efficiency fell from 41st to 88th. Gotta work on that.

And now for a few bonus stats. First, sacks stayed about the same, from a tie for 85th in 2008 to 80th in 2009. Still, that speaks to some improvement given that we basically were without Brandon Harold for the whole year and had to field a defensive line assembled from equal parts Jeffrey Fitzgerald, converted offensive players, spit, glue and prayer.

Tackles for loss, meanwhile, dropped from a tie for 53rd to 82nd. That's a bit depressing, and it speaks to the inability to generate a consistent push all year. It's only going to get fixed with better recruiting and time, unfortunately.

Even worse, sacks allowed decreased from 30th to 72nd. Although the offensive line generally seemed to play better this year, this stat was not a good thing. Part of it is because Freeman was so damn hard to bring down and he did a good job of getting rid of the ball most of the time, and thus part of the blame lies at the feet of Carson Coffman and Grant Gregory. But the line still has room for dramatic improvement, and I trust that Charlie Dickey eventually will get them there.

Where does this leave us heading into 2010? Well, many things have to shake out in recruiting and player development before I start projecting too far forward, but I do want to say something about the coaching staff, since there's a chance we could see a few changes in spots. (Indeed, Mike Kent already has departed as strength coach, so it's clear Snyder is willing to let some people leave if he doesn't perceive that they performed up to his standards.)

I'd really hate to see any of the defensive coaches leave, as that unit's massive improvement speaks for itself. But I can't say the same for the offensive staff. There were times that I found the offensive play-calling this season downright mind-boggling, and if Del Miller chose to gracefully ride into retirement and give way to someone like Chuck Long or Jonathan Beasley, I don't think I would shed a tear.

Also, I saw very little, if any, improvement from the wide receivers this year. Michael Smith better continue to butter his bread with recruiting, because I really don't think he cuts the mustard as a position coach. I felt that way when he was rehired, and I really didn't see anything to change my mind all year.

Tight ends were an enigma because we never threw to them, and I don't think you can give much credit for Thomas' performance to any single coach because DT simply is a natural. Basically, Dickey is the only offensive coach who could make me cry by departing. Everyone else is fair game if Snyder wants them to be.

BracketCat's Way-Too-Early Projected Starters for Next Year

QB: Sammuel Lamur
FB: Braden Wilson*
RB: Daniel Thomas

WR: Lamark Brown, Brodrick Smith, Tramaine Thompson**
TE: Travis Tannahill
OL: Zach Hanson, Zach Kendall, Wade Weibert, Kenneth Mayfield, Clyde Aufner

DL: Prizell Brown, Adam Davis, Brandon Harold, Ray Kibble
LB: Antonio Felder, Kadero Terrell
DB: Troy Butler, Stephen Harrison, Tysyn Hartman (get well!), Emmanuel Lamur, Joshua Moore

*if we start with a fullback and two wide receivers
**if we start with three wide receivers and no fullback

Elsewhere in the Big 12...

Obviously, Colt McCoy put himself right in the thick of the Heisman race with last night's inspired performance, and Texas survived Texas A&M's upset bid, 49-39.

For those keeping score, Texas is in overdrive of late, having scored 100 points in its last two games.

More of the same might be on tap throughout the week. Although Nebraska's defense is stout, the Colorado-Nebraska has a history of being a pretty high-scoring affair. Not to mention the recent news of Hawk's reincarnation, which I suppose might reinvigorate his team somewhat.

Oklahoma's defense is in disarray, with Oklahoma State's balanced offense coming into town — but Oklahoma's offense has played extremely well at home this season.

And absolutely no one will be surprised if the Border War turns into a defenseless shootout and Texas Tech puts up 50 on Baylor in Jerryworld.

So, this week could end up looking like a throwback to last season's shenanigans before it's all said and done.

Nebraska at Colorado (ABC)
Cornhuskers 31, Buffaloes 20

#11 Oklahoma State at Oklahoma (FSN)
Sooners 19, Cowboys 18

Missouri vs. Kansas (in Kansas City) (ABC)
Tigers 29, Jayhawks 24

Texas Tech vs. Baylor (in Arlington) (FSN)
Red Raiders 33, Bears 21

2009 Bowl Projections - Post Week 12

Bama Hawkeye — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:26:00 -0000

Yes, the Big Ten season is over. Sure, Wisconsin and Illinois have a game left. Yes, Illinois has two more chances to let their inner Zook shine. But, the conference schedule is over and so are the regular seasons of nine teams. As you'll see, not much changed for the Big Ten's slotting.

The Pac-10 had the biggest weekend. Oregon's win all but assured that the Ducks will line up against Ohio State in Pasadena. It should be a good matchup - one that the Buckeyes should win.

In the Big 12, there are two upcoming games of note for Big Ten fans. Oklahoma can end their instate rival's dreams of a BCS at large berth win a win over the Cowboys next weekend. Texas can do the same for the newly crowned Big 12 North "Champion" (if you prefer, "skinniest fat kid") in two weeks.

We'll have the full projections back next week. Right now, let's just look at the BCS and Big Ten bowls.

Remember the rules.

These are projections. I am taking into account what will happen in future games, not assigning teams based upon current standings.
The best teams don't always go to the best games. In the end, butts in the seat and eyes to the television are the biggest factors.
The order of BCS selection is 1) Replacement for #1 Team; 2) Replacement for #2 Team; 3) Orange Bowl; 4) Fiesta Bowl; 5) Sugar Bowl.
The Champs Bowl picks its Big Ten team ahead of the Alamo Bowl this year.
For the full rules on BCS selections, look here.

			We're just marking time this week. Assuming that Alabama and Florida get past their instate rivals next week, the Floribama Showdown will be set.
			Be assured, Georgia Tech is not getting an at large bid. Considering the (lack of) a crowd that Cincinnati brought last year, I think that TCU gets picked here. It might be different if Pitt upsets the Bearcats.
			A 10-2 Big Ten team is going to a BCS Bowl. With Oklahoma State not finishing 10-2, that means Fiesta. I think that the Fiesta will take Boise over the Big East Champ. There aren't any other viable options this year.
			No change here. Floribama the Lesser versus Big East the Greatest.
			I know that they beat USC, but I still feel better about this matchup than I would about a third game in 16 months for Ohio State against the Trojans.
			Well, that settled third place in the SEC, and the Capital One Bowl and Cotton Bowl seem set with their SEC representatives.
			7-5 Tennessee seems like a good fit. This is another matchup that looks good for the Big Ten.
			I'm not changing this. Barring an upset in the ACC Title Game, I think that this is right.
			We've seen some great teams sent to the Alamo Bowl. We've seen some mediocre teams sent to the Alamo Bowl. Sometimes, the best performances have come from those mediocre teams.
			The win on Saturday may have settled this on the Big 12 side.
			Unless Texas loses the Big 12 Championship Game and the Fiesta Bowl loses its mind, the Big Ten will not fill this.
			When these teams sit back On the Couch with the Queso Bowl (now sponsored by RoTel), they'll think of the near misses they had. I also recommend doing less daydreaming and cheese eating and lifting more weights. But not too much time lifting weights for the Maize and Blue.

Nebraska Ends Kansas State's Season And Wins the Big 12 North

Jon Johnston — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:50:05 -0000

More photos » by DAVE WEAVER - AP

Yehaaaa!!!!! One Goal Realized!!!!!!!!!

Browse more photos »

Nebraska won the Big 12 North with a 17-3 win over Kansas State last night. It won't be considered pretty or stylish, but if you've come to love defense (and if you're a Huskers fan, you'd better love defense) it was another masterful performance by the Blackshirts.

Kansas State took their opening drive, marched down the field like they were on fire and being aided by yet another personal foul penalty on Larry Asante (at least he got it out of the way early this game). The Wildcats stalled at the 31 and Josh Cherry kicked a 44-yard field goal. With the way the Wildcats looked on their first drive, it was hard to imagine those were the only points they'd score.

The Huskers responded with a field goal of their own, moving down the field with a mixture between Roy Helu's rushing and Zac Lee's passing. On the next possession the Wildcats gained a first down and after two consecutive Thomas rushes, but their drive stalled after Eric Hagg nailed quarterback Grant Gregory with a 14-yard sack. Doerr punted, giving the Huskers great field position at their own 43.

The Husker offense was aided by a Wildcat personal foul penalty, then Zac Lee found Mike McNeill all alone in the end zone. The score made it 10-3, where it would remain until the Huskers scored another touchdown on the opening possession of the third quarter. The offense was incredibly efficient, scoring on four plays that included a 47-yard to Niles Paul and a subsequent 14-yard touchdown run by Roy Helu.

The Wildcats fared well on their second half opening drive until running back Keithen Valentine fumbled near the goal line and Prince Amukamara recovered. The Huskers spent the rest of the game trying to run the ball, but gained only 35 yards in four possessions.

Ndamukong Suh did his best impersonation of the greatest college football player in the nation, taking over the game in the fourth quarter. He sacked Gregory twice (one being aided by Barry Turner when they turned Gregory into a quarterback sandwich), batted down a pass, and picked up four of his nine tackles.

Kansas State playmaker Brandon Banks was held in check all night. Adi Kunalic consistently kicked off into the end zone, and when Banks chose to bring it out, he was buried before he got to the 20-yard line. Only once did Banks seem to be a big-play threat, when he broke free for a 22-yard return in the third quarter, giving Kansas State the ball at the Nebraska 43-yard line.

Despite such great field position, the Wildcats gained only two yards on eight plays. They made it as far as the 32-yard line when linebacker Phillip Dillard sacked Gregory, forcing a fumble and driving the Wildcats back to the 41.

There was some ugly as the offense managed only 267 total yards. The Husker missed opportunities to score some more points when Lee missed a wide open McNeill in the end zone, and later threw an interception in the opposite end zone. There was some good, too, as the offense finished the game without a single penalty. The Huskers had three for the game, with Larry Asante picking up another personal foul penalty, Justin Blatchford was called for running in to the kicker, and Eric Hagg picked up a pass interference call. That's pretty darned good for a team that has been consistently hit with false starts and holding calls throughout the year.

Alex Henery once again showed his mastery of punting an opponent into a hole. In the second quarter, he booted a punt that went out of bounds at the KSU one-yard line. In the fourth, he had a booming 61-yard punt that went out of bounds at the Kansas State three. All told, Henery had six punts for a 45-yard average. That's a good day of work any way you look at it.

Let's not kid ourselves. The Huskers have plenty of football left. First, there's the derelicts from Boulder, and then there's that championship game against Texas, who clinched the Big 12 South with a 50-21 win over Kansas. There's still a chance to have an incredible season.

Five Questions With Corn Nation

TB — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:33:28 -0000

It's the Big 12 North Championship game today when K-State travels to Lincoln to take on Nebraska. To get a little more information on the Huskers from those who follow them most closely, I turned to the trio at Corn Nation for more info. Questions and answers are below.

BOTC: Roy Helu has looked a lot better in the last couple games. Is he finally healthy?

Mike: Healthier, perhaps. After the Oklahoma game, Helu talked about playing for the team instead of for himself, and while he didn't phrase it this way, he's decided to grit it out and play through the pain. If you watch him block in pass protection, it's obvious that his shoulder's no where near 100%. (Another good reason to leave a fullback and a tight end or two in on pass protection.) Helu left the field in Lawrence holding his arm again, and his arm was wrapped up in the post game press conference, so we're all hoping he didn't aggravate the issue last week.

JLew: Healthy yes? 100% no. Burkhead maybe back after a broken foot, he's been cleared to play so he may be able to take some of the load off Helu.

Corn Blight/Jon J: Something certainly changed. Bo Pelini and the rest of his staff talk about injuries the way people hide their crazy uncles, so the only real way to know someone's injured is if they're out for the season or carried off on a stretcher.

Helu is a big key to the Husker offense, although true freshman Rex Burkhead might be back for this game. He's missed several games due to a foot injury, and provided a huge lift to the offense earlier in the season.

BOTC: Last week, KU apparently unlocked some serious magic and kept the Husker d-line in check. What did they do?

Mike: Todd Reesing is the most experienced quarterback NU has faced this year, and it showed. He didn't wilt in the face of pressure. Carl Pelini dialed down the pressure as a result of some Reesing scrambles, and that limited the pressure after the first quarter. Considering that NU held KU to 0 first downs in the first quarter, I wonder if that might not have been a mistake.

JLew: NU changed the approach some, Pelini explains- "That's on me. I slowed them down. (Kansas) got out on a couple quarterback draws. I thought we could cover on the back end. I thought we needed to handle (KU quarterback Todd) Reesing with the front four, and when you're trying to handle six gaps with four guys, you got to be a little more controlled in your pass rush.

Even then KU didn't run the ball particularly well. The defense also seemed to come down after a lights out game against OU.

CB/Jon J: Kansas played a darned good game on offense. They switched between misdirection and running quarterback draws with Reesing, who did a good impersonation of his old playmaking self. The playcalling was just enough to confound the Husker defensive line.

BOTC: What has been Nebraska's biggest problem on offense this year?

Mike: I think there are two problems at the heart: (1) Injuries at I-back. Roy Helu has been banged up and Rex Burkhead has been out for over a month. Even Dontrayeveous Robinson got banged up late against Baylor. Nobody has that much depth to handle that rash of injuries and not be limited. (2) Lack of talent at wide receiver. We're learning just how good Nate Swift and Todd Peterson were last season now that they're gone. Their backups have failed miserably, and Nebraska has resorted to playing a juco transfer and a center fielder from the baseball team. Niles Paul is really the only playmaker at receiver, and while he's made some incredible plays, his two fumbles against Texas Tech and Iowa State changed those ballgames.

JLew: See Mike's answer, and I'll add finding an identity. NU started the year trying to run a West-coast spread offense, which they couldn't do against better teams with our talent at WR. Now NU seems to have settled into a heavy formation, I-Back, play-action, bootleg offense.

CB/Jon J: For me the biggest issue is the offensive line. They've played decently, but had way too many mistakes this season. Holding calls brought back a touchdown pass against Virginia Tech that would have won the game, personal foul penalties have cost the Huskers badly when deep in red zone territory, and numerous false starts. Dumb stuff, really. Most of the line is made up of Bill Callahan recruits so they're big and slow. The current coaching staff can only do so much to correct that problem.

BOTC: Pretend you're the coach for a minute (you have to wear an oversized sweatshirt and chew your gum really hard while you answer this question): Do you let Adi Kunalic kick it deep, banking on a touchback and risking that he misses and Brandon Banks gets a shot at a return, or do you squib it to keep it out of Banks' hands?

Mike: Start off trying to get it in the end zone. Then kick it out of bounds if you have to.

JLew: Hmmm predicted 10-15mph winds from the South. So half the time Adi should be able to clear the endzone. Other than that I think Pelini will challenge his special teams to stop Banks, and kick it deep.

CB/Jon J: Depends on the wind, really, what kind of weather hits Memorial Stadium Saturday night. If it's calm and the wind isn't swirling, I'm kicking it deep.

BOTC: Finally, most Husker fans are pretty confident that this game will be won if NU plays well, but what about that spread? Will the Huskers cover a 16.5-point spread?

Mike: I think they can; they've shown the ability to move the ball at times. The biggest concern to me is turnover margin; KSU is 2nd in the Big XII in this statistic, and Nebraska has had issues throughout Big XII play with ball security. If NU takes care of the ball, I think they can win this game handily. If KSU forces turnovers, all bets are off.

JLew: NU has had no turnovers in the OU and the KU games. Against Baylor Green the freshman QB had a pick 6. So the last couple of games NU has taken care of the ball pretty well. On the other hand, KSU's defense has been able to force some with some hard hits. I don't think I'd take the Huskers in this one. I wouldn't surprised if they covered, but I wouldn't bet on it.

CB/Jon J: The point spread is 16.5 points? Who the hell bets real money on this stuff, nutballs and addicts?

Thanks again to the guys from Corn Nation for answering our questions.