SB Nation - Notre Dame Fighting Irish

Golden Tate NFL Draft scouting report

Mocking Dan — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 20:49:06 -0000

More photos » by Michael Conroy - AP

Golden Tate
5'11, 195 pounds | WR | Notre Dame

Acceleration: Gets up to top speed very quickly. Accelerates well into and out of his breaks which builds separation. Maintains that speed throughout his runs.

Agility: Tate generates fluid lateral movement to redirect and has the shiftiness to elude defenders. Has quick stop-and-go ability that helps quarterbacks get him short throws where he can make the initial tackler miss and turn it into a big gain.

Blocking: Surprisingly, Tate displays good technical blocking ability. He'll struggle to sustain his blocks, though. He's a good mirror blocker on the outside but shouldn't be relied upon to come in motion and block near the tackle box.

Body Control: Adjusts to the ball really well. Knows how to properly use his body to shield off defenders. Times his leaps well. Tracks off-target throws really well.

Hands: While Tate is will sometimes drop some easy passes, he has very good hands. They're incredibly strong, which helps him make difficult catches. Has a tendency to catch the ball in his frame, which he'll have to correct.

Release: Tate doesn't have great upper body strength, which hurts him against the tight jam. Needs to better use his quickness and athleticism off the snap. Will sometimes release slow, but he quickly gets up to speed to close a cornerback's cushion.

Route Running: Runs good quick routes. Has the agility to make sharp cuts to create space. Will run a little upright when he goes over the middle. Ran an entire route tree at Notre Dame in the Irish's pro-style scheme. Doesn't get lazy or hesitant in his routes when going over the middle.

Size: Tate's size is the biggest negative people will point to heading into the draft. Fair or not, taller receivers will be more highly regarded. Tate doesn't have bad size, but at under six feet his size doesn't offer mismatches. His arms don't appear especially long and his hands aren't known to be large. However, he knows how to use that size to his advantage.

Speed: Although there is nothing wrong with Tate's speed, his 40 time probably won't be amazing. If a cornerback has the same or even slightly better speed than Tate, though, he can usually get separation. Doesn't have the deep speed to separate from cornerbacks with elite speed and quickness.

Vision: After the catch, Tate is dangerous. He's a former running back with strong legs and great drive. Easily finds seams and has the quickness to burst through it. Does a really nice job setting up his blockers. Uses his return abilities in the open field on receiving plays.

Final word: Leaving Notre Dame was a wise decision by Tate. His skill set is ready for the NFL and very similar to that of Steve Smith of the Carolina Panthers. Tate is a slightly small receiver with a lot of strength, particularly in his legs.

Tate is dangerous after the catch and runs crisp routes to get open. His character or work ethic at Notre Dame was never in question.

Where Tate loses some value is in the red zone. Inside 20 yards, he's best running quick slants, but his size can limit him from going over the top on fades.

He looks like a player who will be drafted in the first 40 picks.

The Domino Effect of Big 10 Expansion, Will it Affect the Mountain West?

Jeremy Mauss — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:51:21 -0000

The recent big college football news is that the Big 10 is finally considering expanding to grab a few extra million bucks in a championship game and to extend their season to the first week of December instead of pre-Thanksgiving. The search is to take between 12-18 months before any decision is made and the search is going to be extensive and 'nation wide,' but expect the usual suspects to be involved.

Teams of interest are and in no order: Pitt, West Virginia, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Rutgers, Nebraska, Kentucky, Louisville, Cincinnati, Iowa State, and Maryland. The Domers are the obvious and most coveted choice, but most likely will not join because their NBC contract goes for another six years. Even if Notre Dame says yes and the search takes 18 months which is the summer of 2011 when the invite will come Notre Dame will not begin play until the 2012 season. At that time if the current deal with NBC is not extended there would still be three more years left on that deal, and unless the Big 10 wants to let them finish out the deal and let the Irish keep the money no way the Irish will join.

Team Speed Kills brings out a very good point if the Big 10 goes after someone else just to get to twelve:

2. Saying yes to someone else means saying no to Notre Dame forever

Conferences larger than 12 members don't work well with football. The WAC tried having 16 and couldn't make it work. The MAC has serious scheduling problems with its 13 team format. A 12 member league works. More than that really doesn't.

If the Big Ten adds another member, it will have 12 schools. Since more than 12 is untenable, if that twelfth school is not Notre Dame, then the Big Ten will never have Notre Dame. Adding Missouri or Pitt functionally closes that door forever.

That is a real good point, because if the Big 10 wants to hurry this along and take someone else just to get a championship game; they can then seal the Irish's fate forever as an Independent.

Back to how this could affect the Mountain West. The MWC is desperately trying to gain BCS status and Boise State has been the rumored team for years, and most recently there was a rumor that would bring in Nevada, Fresno State, as well as Boise State this summer to gain BCS status. That was just a rumor, but realistically at least Boise will get the invite this summer.

The Big 10 expansion could mean every thing or it could mean nothing to the Mountain West, however the Pac-10 made the same statement as the Big 10 but back in July about a 12-18 month time line and wanting a title game. Utah from the Mountain West and Colorado from the Big XII were at the top of new commissioner Larry Scott's wish list to form the Pac-12.

The scenario that will have the minimal impact is that the Big 10 invites Notre Dame and then there is no domino effect what so ever, but we all know that has a slim chance of happening.

The two most likely candidates to join the Big 10 are Pitt and Missouri. Starting with Pitt they are one of the 'old money' teams on the east coast and are comparable in all aspects that the Big 10 wants. They are a state school with a large enrollment, a good educational institution, and are good at both money sports.

The Big 10 Network would not get a huge bump in viewers since it all ready covers the Pennsylvania with Penn State all ready in the league, so Pitt does not add much on that front. Now, if Pitt were to join then the Big East would be in for a real hurt because that would leave them with only seven teams and not eligible to be an FBS league, or more importantly a BCS league and all the bling that goes with being a cartel member.

The Big East would either need to crawl back to Temple and beg them to come back to the league they were kicked out of or go rampage the MAC or C-USA for an eighth member. Or somehow promote a basketball playing school that has an FCS program like UMass, Villinova, or Georgetown; but with that they may lose their BCS status since their league would be even more watered down. So, Pitt moving to the Big 10 would not really have any impact on Mountain West.

The biggie is Missouri because they are currently in the Big XII and fit nicely with all the Big 10 wants in its member institutions. Here is how it will or could affect the Mountain West: Missouri leaving opens up a spot in the Big XII and more importantly the Big XII North. TCU and Arkansas would love to get back in the old South West Conference rivalries, but they are not a geographical fit to be in the north division. Plus, moving Oklahoma or Oklahoma State to the north would disrupt their rivalries as well as the Red River Shootout if Oklahoma were to move. Those two are out of the question because of locale, now saying that the ACC has no real geographical lines they have Florida State and Miami, FL in separate divisions.

The next choice falls back to a former potential member when the Big XII was being formed and that is BYU. If it were not for government influence by the former Texas Governor Ann Richards who oh just happens to be a Baylor alum pushed and won the fight to get Baylor in the Big XII. BYU would be on the list and make the thousands of Cougar fans very, very happy to be in a BCS league, and be in a very winnable North division from day one.

However, if you go by the time line of expansion the Big 10 has which is the 12-18 month time frame the Big XII may be left scrambling for a different team. Now, why would BYU turn down a chance to be in the Big XII? The reason that could happen is if as I have expected for a while that Boise State will be invited this summer and begin play in 2011. That would give the Mountain West a very strong case to be a BCS league for the 2012 season because the league all ready has had three teams in the BCS top 25 final standings, and adding Boise would bring that number to four over the past two years. The Mountain West does not show any signs of slowing down, and with the Boise rankings counting while in the WAC the MWC looks almost a shoe in to begin play as a BCS league in 2012.

An invite coming from the Big XII to BYU -- if the Big 10 does expand with Missouri-- will most likely come in the summer of 2011 which is the last year of the four year BCS cycle. The reason a summer invite is mentioned is that any league that moves conferences must give a one year's notice. Now, that 2011 season would be the first with Boise State and give college football a chance to see if the Mountain West is a BCS league.

Here is the caveat with that the Mountain West may not know until after the 2011 football season, or possibly later if they are to be a BCS league. That would occur after an invitation would have been handed out to BYU, so I could see BYU jumping ship to the Big XII because of the uncertainty of the Mountain West becoming a BCS league. Quite frankly BYU would be stupid not to jump to a better league with a guaranteed BCS bid and realistically could win the Big XII North in year one.

The only way BYU would not join is if the BCS where to make some announcement about the Mountain West becoming a BCS league prior to an invite from the Big XII. That seems doubtful since the 2011 season will needed to be played. Now, a move by BYU to the Big XII would not affect the Mountain West and their BCS aspirations since all four of their playing years in the MWC would be in the four year cycle so BYU would not lose them.

The Pac-10 is also looking to expand about the same time as the Big 10 and they have mentioned Utah and Colorado as their top choices. Now, there is no need to run through the Utah scenario because it is exactly the same as BYU as far as the time line for invites go.

This Big 10 trickle down effect towards the Mountain West all boils down to if Missouri goes to the Big 10 to form hopefully either a) numerical correct league name, or b) a regional name makes sense, but since the Big 10 is obsessed with tradition do not be surprised if the name stays the same.

The best choice for Utah and BYU would be to stay in the Mountain West as a BCS league, because they are all ready on the top of the league and a move to a current BCS league would mean a few years of building up to the level -- that goes more toward Utah then BYU since the Big XII north is not as difficult as the Pac-10. Utah would be upper middle pack and be fitting Oregon, USC, and Cal to get a conference title.

Since the timing could make things go hay wire and if either league makes their expansion threat a reality the Mountain West could be in a world of hurt. An invite to a bigger league will come the summer prior to the last year of the BCS evaluation cycle so the Mountain West will not know for sure if they are included to the table or not. Why should Utah or BYU not go to a larger league if invited, I know I would.

Here is the real kicker that could be very odd and bizarre. The Mountain West could be a BCS league without BYU or Utah if they do happen to get plucked away. It is possible since both schools would have been in the Mountain West for the four year evaluation cycle, and if Boise gets in the last year of the cycle their WAC rankings are now shifted to the Mountain West.

Now, that would be weird.

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 feels 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 the possibility of 14 teams in the 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.

Big Ten Expansion, And How It Doesn't Affect Notre Dame This Time Around

CW — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:48:48 -0000

There has been a lot of talk this week about the Big Televen expanding, and the likely candidates. By doing this process now - with "now" being "the next twelve to eighteen months" - it almost certainly eliminates Notre Dame from any consideration, with the NBC contract running through the middle of the next decade. Your most likely candidates appear to be Pitt, Syracuse and Mizzou, which would all be interesting for a variety of reasons.

My question for you today, dear friends, is that if Notre Dame had to join a conference, which one would you want them to join? "WE'D NEVER JOIN A CONFERENCE" is not an answer here. Some big, bad man is holding a gun to Murphy the Golden Retriever's head and you have to sign someone's contract. You can take into account travel logistics, academics, fun road trips, who'd you want to play or whatever else. Show your work in the comments if you wish. My answer after the jump.

I would love to join the PAC-10 simply because you have a ton of great schools in football, hoops and academics (and some not so great ones; love you, Arizona State), but logistically, I just don't think it would happen. I'd be happy staying in the Big East for basketball, but football could be embarrassing, especially if Pitt jumps ship. So my first choice would probably be the Big East, but a close second would be the ACC, for a variety of reasons, not limited to:

1) Keeping some current rivalries (Boston College) and renewing some old ones (Florida State, Miami).

2) Fun road trips. Georgia Tech was a blast in 2006, and there are some reasonable drives available for students, including Blacksburg (ten hours), Charlottesville (eleven), College Park (nine) and Durham-Chapel Hill (twelve). I'd love to see the Irish playing in Death Valley some Saturday night.

3) Great, respected basketball. The only conference you wouldn't lose any respect to jumping to from Big East hoops.

4) Some fantastic academics thrown in (Duke, UVA, UNC, Wake, Boston College, Miami and Maryland are all top fifty schools, and Clemson is 61.)

What Big 10 Expansion Could Mean For BYU

Layton — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 04:14:37 -0000

The Big 10 (really 11, but who's counting?) came out with word recently that they're seriously looking into expanding the league to 12 teams, even as soon as 2011. And while we think about the prospects, let me put a quick end to the excitement you're feeling on behalf of Bronco and Co.: BYU would not be invited to join that league, the Big 12 or the Pac-10 as a result of the Big 10 expanding. However, that doesn't mean the Cougars won't be seriously affected by what may happen after next season. Here's why 1) BYU won't be invited, and 2) why they may be feeling the brunt of such actions by the already big Big 10.

Before I examine the reasons of leaving BYU out, here's what the expected plan is: when the Big 10 (11) expands to 12, Missouri jumps ship and joins the Big 10, or Notre Dame flees its independent status and joins. The latter is less likely as Notre Dame enjoys being able to play anybody, at any time of the season, and not splitting any possible earnings. A "conference" schedule's not really their style.

As for BYU...

1. As an avid college football fan, and obvious BYU fan, I'd love nothing more than to see some of the Baylor's, Arkansas's, and Colorado's, be relegated to mid-major status, and have BYU (or other "worthy" teams) take their place much like what happens in England's Premier League (yes, that's a soccer reference). Without question there are few teams in the power conferences that should be demoted (Baylor, Colorado and Texas Tech, first and foremost).

Unfortunately, relegating these teams, or expanding conferences, doesn't open the door for BYU to join them; TCU and Utah? Perhaps, but not BYU. Though the Cougars have tradition, high-powered offenses and a national following, they're still the odd man out in these scenarios. Why? For starters, they can't compete on a national recruiting stage with Utah or TCU, not to mention Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio St., etc. I know they get the likes of Jake Heaps, Kyle Van Noy, Zac Stout and others, absolutely terrific talent, but they're more scheme players (maybe with the exception of Heaps) than superior athletes with speed and strength. As long as the program focuses their attention on players who will live by the Honor Code (which I whole-heartedly support and agree with), they will be left with mostly second-tier talent.

As for Utah and TCU...

TCU absolutely makes the most sense of joining a BCS conference when you consider recruiting demographic, geographic positioning and natural rivalries (Texas, Oklahoma, etc.). They've been one of the most consistent (and winning) teams over the last decade, and with this year's success, they're a very sexy pick to join. The only thing that may hold them back is a very fickle fan base and a terrible basketball program.

Next up, after TCU, would have to be Utah. With their success in 2004 and 2008, great recruiting channels, a known basketball program, and a very zealous fan base, they've got all the ingredients to make an impact and land the coveted spot. The only thing holding them back might be their lack of sustained success/history, and the fact they play in Utah (it's kinda out of the way...just sayin').

In any event, with either of those teams leaving the MWC, BYU suffers big time. All of the sudden the MWC becomes an average league at best. The best hope is to expand the MWC very, very soon by adding Boise St., Houston, Tulsa, Nevada, and Fresno St., and dump a couple cellar-dwellers, and then get an automatic BCS bid (by addition or elimination). If the MWC were to obtain such a bid, TCU, Utah nor BYU would have any inclination to leave the conference for greener pastures because they'd be feeding where the cows are fat and happy, and this whole argument becomes unimportant, much like the climate talks in Copenhagen.

Poll

What's the best scenario for BYU?

Idle Musing About Big Ten Expansion

Oops Pow Surprise — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:26:49 -0000

More photos » by Keith Srakocic - AP

Is this really the best we can do? Really? (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic, File)

Browse more photos »

Okay, so even though expansion is probably a go--probably--none of this talk is going to be relevant for at least a year and probably much longer. Is that going to stop us? Has it ever?

Notre Dame's not going to happen. Why? Because there's likely far too large a disconnect between each side's perception of Notre Dame's value to the conference. Both the school and the conference probably think "they need us more than we need them," and only the conference would be right. Jim Delaney would likely want no part of such a radioactively bitchy athletic department and fanbase.

I get why Pitt's a natural fit for the conference and everything, but doesn't it seem like they're almost too good a fit? By that I mean their inclusion doesn't bring anything to the table except a "12th for the sake of 12." The footprint doesn't grow at all and there aren't any markets that come into play; would that even be a net positive in terms of BTN money per school? And that's not even taking into consideration the looming nightmare of crafting divisions. So yeah, might happen, but we'd prefer something a little more beneficial than the Wannstache and his minions.

Cincinnati is right out.

Missouri still intrigues me, although "Big Ten West" would scarcely be better at football than "Big Twelve North." Not a dig on Missouri, but just saying--all the post-1955 greatness (and about 90% of the pre-) is on the other side of Lake Michigan. It's likely in Missouri's best interests to at least entertain some overtures from the Big Ten, though; Missouri fans have been feeling far more disrespect from the Big 12 than any school should get from its conference (passed up for ISU? Seriously?), and if nothing else they should use the opportunity to strengthen their standing within the Big Roman Numerals. Otherwise, that BTN revenue sharing looks better and better.

Iowa State would immediately diminish the Big Ten's standing in every single aspect. They don't even belong in Division I, much less the Big Ten. No. No no no.

Any other Big 12 North schools would probably not have much reciprocal interest; they're too far away geographically and pretty well entrenched in that old Big 8 family.

As for Texas, yes, they were on the conference's radar, but there's no damn way they'd share their TV money. They're the king of the Big XII, and it'd be moronic for them to pass up any aspect of their relationship with the conference. Delaney would love to have them. And I'd love to be able to dunk on a 12-foot rim.

Syracuse and Rutgers are candidates for roughly the same reason: New York Money. Granted, they're both fine institutions with solid academic reputations, but let's be honest, the Big Ten wants to get on television screens in the Big Apple. It's quite reminiscent of when the NHL took a franchise from Winnipeg to Phoenix, since the Phoenix market is several times larger than Winnipeg. That, I assure you, has not worked out very well. You can't plop something foreign down in a major market and just expect people to pony up money. So if Syracuse or Rutgers joins and Delany tries to pressure cable companies in New York to buy into the BTN, guess what? It's probably not going to happen, and we're going to look remarkably stupid for thinking it would.

Of course, the best option--still and always--is Cornell.

Three Reasons Why the Big Ten Won't Expand

Year2 — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:00:34 -0000

by Joe Raymond - AP

Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick.

View full size photo »

It's been big news around the college sports world that the Big Ten is thinking of expanding. It won't happen this time around, and here's why.

1. Notre Dame will say no

There is no other school that is as good a fit or will ever be as good a fit for the Big Ten as Notre Dame is. Not Missouri, not Pitt, not anyone. Notre Dame has everything from an academics, athletics, image, and money making standpoint that the Big Ten could ever dream of.

Yet, right now there's no reason for Notre Dame to subsume its brand underneath the Big Ten banner. It has a special provisioning in the BCS contracts, and those don't expire until after the 2014 season. Its contract with NBC isn't up until after 2015.

That marks the earliest point Notre Dame could realistically think about joining a conference: the 2016 regular season. However, that would require two things. First, the Irish would have to forcibly lose their favored spot in the BCS contracts. That's unlikely because it will take more than five years for Notre Dame to lose its historical luster entirely and the school just hired a competent and qualified winner with a great track record for once. Second, the Big Ten would have to offer something commensurate to what Notre Dame gets from NBC (i.e. every home game on national TV no matter what), and it can't do that.

2. Saying yes to someone else means saying no to Notre Dame forever

Conferences larger than 12 members don't work well with football. The WAC tried having 16 and couldn't make it work. The MAC has serious scheduling problems with its 13 team format. A 12 member league works. More than that really doesn't.

If the Big Ten adds another member, it will have 12 schools. Since more than 12 is untenable, if that twelfth school is not Notre Dame, then the Big Ten will never have Notre Dame. Adding Missouri or Pitt functionally closes that door forever.

Just because Notre Dame won't be ready to join up in five years' time doesn't mean it won't in 10 or 15. The Big Ten has already been waiting on the Irish for the 20 years since adding Penn State; it can wait longer if it wants to. Closing the door on Notre Dame forever would be a huge step, one that I think a lot of folks aren't taking that seriously.

3. Solving the problem at hand doesn't require expansion

Just what is the real problem here? Let Barry Alvarez tell you:

"We're irrelevant for the last three weeks of the football season because we're not playing," Alvarez said Friday.

Somehow, people have decided that the only remedy to this problem is expansion and adding a conference championship game. Really?

Take a look at the Week 13 scoreboard. Now the Week 14 scoreboard. The Pac-10, Big East, MWC, WAC, and Sun Belt all have games on those weekends. None of those conferences have championship games, and yet they all figured out how to hold games over those last two weeks. Heck, Wisconsin played in Week 14 and Illinois (those cads!) managed to schedule games in both Week 13 and Week 14.

If your regular season isn't long enough, the simple solution is to extend the regular season. I know there are traditions involved here, but expansion breaks more tradition than playing regular season in-conference games after Thanksgiving does.

My money is on nothing changing after this 12-18 month exploratory period. If anything does, it will be an extension of the Big Ten regular season. The conference has looked at expanding three times since Penn State joined, and each time the number has stayed at 11. There's little reason to think that won't happen a fourth time.

Could Big Ten Expansion Force the SEC to Bring In a New School?

T Kyle King — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:15:09 -0000

Big Ten expansion talk is all the rage, even here in SEC country, and, while the Notre Dame Fighting Irish remain atop the list despite being obviously unattainable and the Pittsburgh Panthers make the most sense, much attention is being paid to the apparently interested Missouri Tigers, with respect to whom Big Ten aficionados not only have an idea, they have a plan.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that happens. Short of the Golden Domers climbing down from their high horse (which isn’t going to happen now that the arrival of Brian Kelly has ensured Notre Dame’s inevitable return to ~~relevance~~ ~~competence~~ dominance), conference expansion is a zero-sum game; if the Big Ten increases from eleven teams to twelve by poaching Mizzou, the Big 12 decreases from twelve teams to eleven. The Big 12 is going to need a new team.

Maybe it’s just the traditionalist in me, but it seems to me that there can be only one choice for Big 12 expansion should Missouri bolt for browner pastures. The Arkansas Razorbacks have a longstanding rivalry with the Texas Longhorns, currently have a series going with the Texas A&M Aggies, and have deep Southwest Conference roots. Turnabout is fair play, so a Big Ten that includes Missouri could mean a Southeastern Conference sans Arkansas.

If the first domino falls, the line could topple all the way to the SEC’s doorstep, raising the question . . . where would the SEC turn if it had to replace the Hogs? The options, it would seem, are these, in no particular order:

Louisville Cardinals: U. of L. shares an in-state rivalry with the Kentucky Wildcats and just hired longtime SEC defensive coordinator Charlie Strong. The ‘Ville would bolster the league’s basketball reputation but the Cardinals have been only intermittently good at football. Still, as a current member of an automatic BCS-qualifying conference, Louisville would have to get a look, although it’s too bad the Cards would be brought in to replace Arkansas, because a series between Bobby "Pignocchio" Petrino’s current and former schools would be fun to watch.

South Florida Bulls: I’m not saying they deserve it, but any number of SEC coaches would love another annual opportunity to travel to the recruiting hotbed of the Sunshine State. Tampa is an attractive market and USF has been consistently respectable (albeit no more than that) since making the jump to the Big East. You’d have to think the Florida Gators would scream and howl at having to add an in-state conference rival to their existing slate, though. This brings us to . . .

Florida St. Seminoles: Let’s not mince words here. If you were an SEC football fan in 1991, you thought Bobby Bowden ducked the SEC in order to pad FSU’s schedule with ACC games. It’s time to atone for that gutless decision now that the Jimbo Fisher era is underway. This would make great sense for the Gators, whose season-ender against the ‘Noles would count as a conference game, although it likely would increase the pressure on the Saurians to schedule the Miami Hurricanes more frequently. Regular trips to Tallahassee by the Georgia Bulldogs would please the conspiracy theorists among the Red and Black fan base, who would wonder regularly whether Mark Richt would just stay put once he got back to his old stomping grounds. While we’re on the subject of in-state out-of-conference rivals, I suppose I should mention . . .

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets: I would be 100 per cent opposed to this idea, but you’d have to admit it makes sense. The Engineers played in the SEC for many years and were a part of some of the league’s great rivalries at one time. The Ramblin’ Wreck left the conference at the tail end of the Bobby Dodd era and had their efforts to rejoin the league rebuffed, so both sides might be lukewarm on a reconciliation. After both of this year’s ACC division champions fell to middling SEC East outfits that came into their battles for local bragging rights sporting 6-5 ledgers, it’s doubtful whether the Orange Bowl-bound Golden Tornado would want to trade a shot at a big-money bowl in the soft ACC for a lower spot in the league pecking order. In theory, Georgia Tech could enjoy home town advantage in an SEC championship game, but, honestly, that’s not much of a risk.

Clemson Tigers: Admittedly, I’m biased, but this option makes the most sense to me. The Country Gentlemen are comfortably within the SEC’s geographic footprint and share longstanding rivalries with the ‘Dawgs and the South Carolina Gamecocks. The Fort Hill Felines also share a common heritage with several other SEC schools which would make league games intriguing: Walter Riggs and John Heisman established strong ties between Clemson and the Auburn Tigers; the Alabama Crimson Tide have produced numerous coaches for the Orange and Purple, including Frank Howard, Danny Ford, and current skipper Dabo Swinney; Charley Pell landed both Clemson and Florida on probation; the LSU Tigers could host the Country Gentlemen in Death Valley before traveling to face them in Death Valley. Culturally, the Tiger faithful are a much more comfortable fit with the rabid fans of the Southeastern Conference than with the Big Ten wannabes of the Atlantic Coast Conference and an SEC association certainly wouldn’t hurt the proud Clemson baseball program. Should we be willing to trade the Razorbacks for the Tigers? Ken Hatfield certainly was, and he was an Arkansas alum.

If it were up to me, the Big Ten would add Missouri, the Big 12 would add Arkansas, the SEC would add Clemson, and the ACC would . . . actually, I don’t care what the ACC does. I say let’s ship the Hogs back to their old stomping grounds, move the Tennessee Volunteers over from the SEC East to the SEC West (where the Vols properly belong, given their natural rivalries with Alabama and Auburn), add Clemson to the SEC East, and have at it.

Go ‘Dawgs!