It's not Rice on their own. It's Rice over Texas Tech if another Texas school is required to get UT into the Pac 12. And the direct quote includes "don't sleep on interest" and "in the minds of many in the Pac 12 league office". So don't blow that idea out of proportion. I'm trying not to quote the whole post because it's in the premium forum.

Academic stature is key part of this whole thing. As is media market/cable deals. Sports fans forget that athletic program budgets are dwarfed by the overall university budgets. And academic stature is the main thing in the President's offices.

It will be 4 pods. None of the teams want to lose recruiting visibiltiy that comes with an annual or bi-annual visit to California and/or Texas.

I was gonna say, everyone is going to want a trip to Southern Cal and Texas each year...

They need to split up the rivals, USC/UCLA, ASU/ZONA, etc...

I think it would be funny as hell if the Arizona schools, Colorado, and Utah are forced to form a division with the new Big 12 schools. Losing that California access would be terrible for those programs.

i just figured they wouldn't want to shake up the entire conference. I think last year when they were talking about adding teams they talked about not wanting to break up certain teams.

Yep, 4 pods is what makes the most sense with the politics of everyone wanting to go to SoCal. Each pod plays everyone from another pod, rotated in 3 year cycles, and each pod plays one team in the other two pods. That would be 8 games, leaving room for 3 non-con games.

The championship game would be between the winners of the 2 2-pod groups that played each other that year. The schedules would be unbalanced, but that is the price you pay for letting everyone have major access to SoCal.

For basketball, you'd just double-round-robin your own pod home and away, and play everybody else once. That is 18 games, which is close to a standard conference schedule.

Rice? I agree that it's a fine academic institution.

They averaged about 12k per game. Yea...no.

Rice is no Eastern Kentucky.

You've seen that Nebraska joined the Big 10, right?

Academics? LMAO. And this is why the Pac-10 admitted the premium academic institution of...wait for it...Utah, which is a long-standing public ivy.

Nebraska was an AAU(?) school when they applied. So yes they fit into the academics when they were accepted.

It was pretty well known that they were not long for that world even then.

The ACC idea is actually picking up some steam. Apparently there is a huge falling out between UT and OU. UT wants some sort of midwest pod to go to the ACC. Them, Tech, KU and MU is one proposal, a Texas quartet of UT, Baylor, Tech and Rice might be another. If they really want to put a dent in PAC expansion, they might consider MU, KU and KSU, the later used as leverage. That means the PAC would essentially be left with picking up the state of Oklahoma. Not at all what they were hoping. They want either the Texas markets or the Missouri markets to add to OU and OSU.

This means the KU-MU duo is actually pretty powerful. More so for MU because they can also play the SEC. This might even raise the interest of the B1G, who knows?

One thing is clear, if A&M, OU and Texas all go to separate conferences, it opens up all kinds of opportunities for KU and MU, also possibly KSU.

Thats one thing that is encouraging to me, if the south scatters to the winds, then suddenly KU might be caught in a bit of a bidding war and have some leverage. They don't have to worry about MU, but if they have a choice between 2 or 3 good choices, maybe they can ask them to accept KSU and see who says "ok, fine" first. Not because they are tied to KSU, but because they want to, and can.

I've heard that things between OU and UT are close to irrepairable. Evidently, Texas wanted solidarity with OU, and then they turned around and tried to broker a deal with the B!G and Notre Dame. OU got pissed off and is going their own way.

Wow TAMU better come to the SEC. Baylor can go screw themselves.

That is not in doubt, so don't worry about it. TA&M has made it utterly clear that if they have to, they will go independent for the 2012-13 academic year and then join the SEC in the Fall of 2013.

Baylor is ****ed and they know it. Their mooching days are over.

Very awesome. I really do believe Texas will have to go independent. No conference will want to deal with that sports channel foolishness.

I don't see what they are so worried about. Just how much money do they stand to lose?

id be fine with any of the 3 conferences as long as texas doesn't follow

At the time they were approved into the Big 10, Nebraska was a member of the prestigious AAU. I didn't know anything about the AAU until I entered a PhD program myself, but it is a huge deal in academic circles.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ig-ten-members

Nebraska has it all to attract Big Ten, most importantly AAU membership
Every school in the conference is a member of the elite group of research universities
June 13, 2010|By Chris Hine, Tribune reporter
LINCOLN, Neb. — The passionate fan base, storied football program and geographic proximity to the rest of the conference — all these factors helped make Nebraska an attractive candidate for the Big Ten's expansion plans.

But Nebraska had one other criterion vital to Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and the conference's presidents and chancellors: membership in the AAU.



No, not the Amateur Athletic Union, which is commonly associated with youth basketball, but rather the Association of American Universities.

"All the Big Ten schools are AAU members," Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman said. "I doubt that our application would've been accepted had we not been a member of the organization."

So what is the AAU, and why is it so important to the Big Ten members?

It's a group of 63 elite research universities in the U.S. and Canada. Membership is through invitation only, and the group's primary focus is evaluating and developing the top graduate programs, not necessarily undergrad programs, spokesman Barry Toiv said.

"(Membership) is generally considered a sign that a research university has arrived as a top research university," Toiv said.

The AAU is basically a facilitator for collaboration among these universities, a venue where the top officials from member schools gather to exchange ideas and discuss the prevalent issues in education, something that's critical to college presidents, Toiv said.

Now that Nebraska will be joining the Big Ten, Perlman said that will make avenues of collaboration with the other Big Ten schools a little easier to travel.

"The Big Ten for a long time has been known for being the only conference that has really had a strong academic component through the Committee on Institutional Cooperation," Perlman said. "Right now, in research, in trying to solve the problems and challenges that face our country, it requires big research projects with our interdisciplinary teams with a lot of folks focusing from various perspectives on the issues.

"The more institutions you can get together in a real collaborative way, the greater likelihood it is that you'll put the right teams together."

Perlman added that Penn State's seamless integration into the conference from a research perspective helped make his decision to switch conferences easy.

Plus, AAU membership is crucial for recruiting elite faculty. It's a marker of which schools are and aren't important.

The Big Ten is the only Division-I conference that can say all of its members belong to the AAU. It's a valuable feather in the Big Ten's cap.

Most schools that have been mentioned as possible expansion candidates already belong to the AAU, including Missouri, Pittsburgh, Maryland, Syracuse and Rutgers. Missouri seems to be out of luck at the moment. Texas is an AAU member but according to multiple reports is deciding whether to join the Pac-10.


Notre Dame and Connecticut are not AAU members but would like to be. So in the hubbub over who else might be invited to join the Big Ten, know that if a school has the black mark of "not being an AAU member," it likely isn't by choice.

"It is perhaps the most elite organization in higher education," Connecticut spokesman Michael Kirk said. "You'd probably be hard-pressed to find a major research university that didn't want to be a member of the AAU."

In the case of Notre Dame, the school has a sterling reputation for its undergraduate education. But only in recent years under President John Jenkins has there been a significant push to become a leading research and graduate university. Notre Dame would love to be an AAU member to solidify its status.

"As you know, membership in the AAU is by invitation only, and to date, we have not been invited," Notre Dame spokesman Dennis Brown said. "We do hope, however, that the progress we are making as a research institution will lead to an invitation in the future."

Notre Dame's lack of AAU membership didn't stop the Big Ten from trying to grab it in 1999, and it probably won't be a hurdle this time either, given all the other strengths Notre Dame brings to the table.

As for the conference's newest member, it's excited to receive the revenue generated by the Big Ten Network and the chance to play in the Big Ten. But its chancellor can't wait to sit down with other conference members and talk about research.

"I'm sure they'll have strengths that'll fill gaps we have, and we may fill gaps that other institutions have," Perlman said. "It'll certainly elevate what we're able to do, and that's not just important to the institutions, it's important to the country trying to solve problems."

They lost it shortly after the vote and the Big 10 was pissed.

That was the typical UA fan's reaction to the post too. Like I said, if a 2nd Texas school is needed to land Texas, Rice is being discussed by some in the Pac-10 office. And it's not initially about attendance, it's about regional cable networks first. And it's a long-shot.

Correct. And Saul addressed this. By the way, how would quoting the Lincoln Tribune validate anything relative to UNL?

Better qualify the bold. Certain factions in the Big 10 (read: the academics, who were never very important in the entire process) were pissed.

It's all about money. Nothing more, nothing less. People bring up the other bullshit to try to fool themselves and make the whole thing appear more legitimate.

Texas to the ACC isn't happening. That is just them bluffing to Oklahoma on their bluff to go Pac.

That's not exactly true. They have a huge technicality that hurts them. A big chunck of their Ag research and all of their MedSchool research is excluded from their AAU numbers. And despite that, Nebraska is right on the fringe of AAU qualification even today. It's absurd to argue Nebraska as an example that academics don't matter. It's just an opinion rooted in sport talk radio and a general ignorance (which I also had until recently) about the critical role that research plays in universities.

I mean, even at UNL the research budget is 2x the athletic department budget. And the athletic department is but 10% of the total budget.

It's just absurd to suggest that academics aren't a factor.

It's not the #1 factor, it's a #1a or #2 factor.

It's the Chicago Tribune.

And I fully understand why a sports fan outside of the day-to-day operations would overstate the value of the athletic department. It's the lense that sports fans see the University though.

But trust me, you are wrong. Completely wrong.

It's a basic function of math.

The top universities don't just want to be seen as academically elite for the sake of reputation. Research and tuition are now the lifeblood of a University. The contribution from the athletic department, even among the very biggest programs, pales in comparison.

Take UNL for example. Their athletic programs generates a profit. Approximately $10M/year of their $80M/year program goes back to the UNL general fund from the Athletic Department.

Compare that to UNL's $132M research budget. Of that, typically 33% is "overhead", the university's cut to cover general fund expenses... that's $43M.

Even at UNL, research generates 4x more revenue back to the University.

If you look at a school like Arizona, the numbers are even more dramatic. They have a $600M/year research budget and only a $42M/year athletics budget. The same 33% holds and the athletics department generates even less (if anything) back to the university.

It's more likely a $200M vs $0-$5M ratio.

The view that sports fans have of the role of sports money is so skewed its remarkable.

$200M vs (at best) $5M.

Whew that was close....I wondered why this thread was even created, till I peaked inside the old one. If I had stayed any longer than I did I would have caught teh AIDS.

Florida State to the SEC? Hmmm.

http://www.mrsec.com/2011/09/fsu-for...ion-committee/

I've heard some insiders say the SEC will be the first major conference to 16 teams. Could they add A&M, Mizzou, FSU, and Virginia Tech/West Virginia in one fell swoop?

It has never made sense to me that the SEC would not want FSU just because it doesn't add to their footprint. FSU is a powerhouse program and Florida is a huge state for talent, it makes sense to add another big-time program there and lock up the state.

jAZ,
I'm still not sure why you are arguing what you are arguing. WTF would an athletic conference care what money is in a candidate's research budget? How does that help the athletic conference. As we all know, money drives the world. And I doubt those research dollars that school gets is being given to the athletic conference.

You have it backwards. At it's core, the question isn't about what helps the athletic conference. That assumed the Universities exists for their football teams. It's the opposite.

It's a question of what benefits the University as a whole. I read an SI article a few years ago talking about the rebranding of the Pac-10 just after Larry Scott arrived. It was interesting and helped me realize how important the associated images are to the brand of a University.

At the top levels (President, Chancellor, Board of Regents), just like at Coke and Apple, brand is the most valuable asset the organization owns. It's about recruiting the top talent (students and faculty) which drive the quality of the acadmics, the rankings, which in turn drive the research budgets which in turn drive the overhead generated from research which in turn has a massive budgetary impact.

Research, today, is MUCH more important to the university than sports. My advisor teaches a class for incoming PhD students. He founded my Department at the UA 40 years ago. Last week he asked us why research is so important to the University. Then went into the explanation of the 33% overhead calculation.

But it didn't really click until he explained the history.

At the UA, back when he came 40 years ago, state tax dollars paid for 95% of the University budget. Today it's down to about 15%. The rest of the money is generated from 2 places... higher tuition and research funding.

Higher tuition generally makes it harder to attract students. Attracting talented students is key to attracting talented faculty (it goes both ways) which combined are how you attract more research funding.

That's why research is so important.

And back to the brand of the Pac-10...

SME's report concluded that to its target audiences to the east and west, the Pac-10 needed to exude West Coast-cool. It needs to remind people that the Pac-10 footprint is home to innovators such as Google, Nike, Microsoft and Apple. It needs to remind people that the Pac-10 is home to some of the nation's elite universities. It also needs to remind people that the Pac-10 wins -- a lot. The league has claimed 388 NCAA titles, more than 150 more than the second-place Big Ten.

That's not only the needs of the conference's sports teams. It's the same need of the individual Universities. It's brand is a big part of the thought process of why students attend a University.

You still did not answer his question.

Yes, we all can understand the difference between research budgets and athletic budgets, but I have yet to be convinced that an athletic conference affiliation has any direct impact on current or future university research funding.

Vandy and Florida are excellent universities with major research funding, despite the fact their athletic teams are in the SEC. Arizona State and Washington State are pedestrian schools with minimal research funding, even though their athletic teams are members of the PAC-12.

To be a super conference you need three basic things:

1. You need at least 3, preferably 4 major football powers: FSU, Miami, Virginia Tech and Texas qualify

2. You need major markets: Raleigh Durham, Miami, other parts of Florida, Boston, the Beltway, Texas and Missouri qualify

3. You need good supplemental football programs: Missouri, Boston College, Maryland, NC St, Clemson and Georgia Tech qualify

That's all you really need, but here's the kicker:

4. There's a whole second half to the academic year and it does actually create quite a bit of buzz and money. UNC-Duke is the crown jewel for ESPN basketball and they awarded the ACC a big basketball contract just for it. Now you're going to add Kansas with Texas, MU and another probably decent basketball school on top of it? That's why they're talking about this as the richest conference deal yet and why nobody is going to leave it. It fortifies the ACC. If you make more money and have the security, why do you want to run your program through the gauntlet of SEC football? Plus, you get to keep your high academic standing by getting at least 3 more AAU schools into your conference.

That's the trifecta right there: Great football, great basketball, superior academic reputation.

I thought the Texas to ACC idea was just a ploy at first, but this idea could actually work.

You never cease to disappoint.

LHN is the elephant in the room though. It caused the destruction of the Big 12, and if left unchanged it will pull the ACC apart too. I don't think UT is willing to change it.

Are you not entertained! :D

That's why ESPN, which has the sole contract with the ACC, will make it worth the ACC's while if they accommodate it.

Sure, but from a Mizzou fan's perspective, I absolutely do not want to go to a conference where the rules are bent from the beginning to allow UT to do whatever benefits them. That is exactly what caused the demise of the Big 12.

that's the reason for all the fires in Texas, even GOD thinks that UT sucks and is trying to burn it to the ground.

I have my hopes about this

I agree with you on this. And I hope the same for KU.

Here's a decent explanation for why people covet the Big 10: http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/10/...nd-the-cic-are

Research in most departments generates zero dollars for the university as a whole. It does increase the overall prestige and marketability, thus ostensibly increasing enrollment, which is the major driver of budgets.

I don't believe anyone is arguing that athletics (primarily) fund an institution.

I really don't care anymore. Until something happens, I just. Don't. Care.

OK, but you do realize they already have that same setup in the SEC, right. University of Florida has their own network. If you believe the rumors, the B!G might bend their rules if it means they could get Texas and Notre Dame. That basically leaves the PAC where everything is shared, but I've heard lots of MU fans say they don't like the time zone spread.

Are you saying it just Texas, then? Would you not go to the B1G if Texas was one of the other schools? Why would you join an academically inferior, athletically tougher, and potentially less payout SEC? Tell me more about this "Mizzou perspective".

**** ND to the big 10!
Big 10 wont bend rules for Texas either. Thats just not going to happen.
Now if OU & TU wanna join & play by the same rules as the rest of the Big 10 schools.
Im all for it. Cant be just 1.they both need to join the Big 10 or forget it. Ive tried two weekends in a row to cheer for Big 10 schools playing out of conference games. IT SUCKS!

False.

Notre Dame will be in the Big 10 in a few years.

FSU will never join the SEC. Florida won't allow it, ever.

I'd like to see Mizzou go to the same conference that the Longhorns end up in. Double good if the Longhorns agree to a more egalitarian funding model.

Yep. I'm assuming the only reason they aren't now is due to their contract with NBC.

Schools selling their third tier rights is nothing new and has been around forever. That is completely different than ESPN backing and funding LHN, a channel for UT's rights, when they also own the Big 12's first tier rights. This creates massive issues, especially when the Big 12 divides first and second tier revenue based on tv appearances (sec splits this equally). ESPN has a direct incentive to now push UT over other conference schools and can push typical UT first tier games to LHN, impacting the revenue of other schools. The whole thing is a very slippery slope that no secure conference will accept in its current form.

You realize that the LHN is for 3rd tier right?

Actually Florida pushed for FSU to join the SEC when they expanded last time.

Where is anyone in this thread saying that schools want to join the Big 10 because it will generate them more research dollars.

Again, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Universities in the Big 10 and the Pac 12 hold their collective brands high. And that the academic reputations of UCLA, USC, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, Cal and most of the Big 10 is a factor in deciding which teams they let in.

This discussion has nothing to do with CIC claiming they can get Nebraska or Notre Dame more research funding. The article suggests that bogus. I believe it. But it has nothing to do with this discussion.

And to the second point that the English Department (as well as possibly the the majority of departments on any given campus) generates zero dollars in research funding... has nothing to do with anything. It certainly doesn't make the UA's $600M in research funding any smaller or the UA's Athletic depatment's $50M any bigger.

Not going to happen. They are happy with the tons of money they make on their own and like the connection to the Big East in football. No way the Big Ten gives on their own network, the other schools would be in an uproar.

At this point, I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Let's get to this specific question: how are the funds for research generated?

It seems like you're conflating quite a few points.

Did you even read my post? Of course it is for third rights, but since ESPN also owns the leagues's first rights, the strong possibility exists for the lines to get blurred. I.e. The rumor that ESPN threatened Texas Tech with less first tier tv appearances in the future if they didn't agree to have their game against UT on LHN. I have to say it is hilarious watching some ku and KSU fans white knight LHN.

Bobby Burton is reporting OU/Texas been running distraction with Pac/ACC talk. Officials with Louisville, Cinci & Pitt have been meeting with the Big XII

Can the Big 12 pull off the year's biggest comeback?

Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton is hopeful the Big 12 can stay together after Texas A&M leaves.

By Orlin Wagner, AP

Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton is hopeful the Big 12 can stay together after Texas A&M leaves.

Enlarge

By Orlin Wagner, AP

Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton is hopeful the Big 12 can stay together after Texas A&M leaves.

Even as Oklahoma weighs an exit that could push the distressed conference toward extinction, the chairman of its board of directors says he has gained confidence in the past week that it can survive.

Brady Deaton is heartened, he said, that OU and others are looking before they leap. "I think this period of just a bit more calmness and reasoning . . . makes us all feel as if the various issues can be dealt with in a rational way and in a way that's in the best interests of each of our institutions and the Big 12 - and of other leagues around the country," the Missouri chancellor told USA TODAY on Wednesday.

"I'm not Pollyannaish about it. I'm not naïve. But I'm looking at the factors that are important to the future of the athletics and the academics of institutions in the Big 12. And as we all assess them, my hopes are that more and more will conclude, as I have, that a continuation of a strong Big 12 is in all of our best interests right now.

"I am hopeful, let me say."

He didn't speculate beyond that on the league's chances of survival. It's teetering, with Texas A&M pointed toward the Southeastern Conference and multiple Big 12 officials telling USA TODAY this week that Oklahoma is conditionally pursuing a move to the Pacific 12.

Those officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said the Sooners are exploring the financial parameters of Pac-12 membership and where they'd fit in its divisional alignment, as well as how open the league is to accepting them - almost certainly with Oklahoma State in tow. Texas, in turn, is weighing its own options, though the Longhorns have made it clear they prefer Big 12 preservation.

Nebraska and Colorado opted out of the conference a year ago. The Big 12 seemingly weathered that, but was destabilized anew by Texas A&M's pending departure.

"It's not what I think any of us want as a characteristic of our conference," said Deaton, a former agriculture economics and sociology professor who became Missouri's chancellor in 2004. "We've worked hard for a stable, strong, aggressive, fast-moving Big 12, and spent the past year looking at new ways in which we can be a more exciting league, one that's stronger in all dimensions, going beyond athletic competition and beginning to think about the ways in which we could strengthen ourselves in academic cooperation.

"To have that dialogue interrupted or altered by the range of considerations going on today certainly is a concern to all of us."

Chances of preserving the Big 12, slim or otherwise, hinge on somehow re-stabilizing the conference and convincing member schools that it's for good.

"That's the challenge that the Big 12 board has in front of it," Deaton said. "I think we have a pretty good understanding of the various tools and structures that would lead to that, but we don't have them all resolved."

He told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that he expected a decision from Oklahoma on its future within the next two weeks.

"I just have had an understanding that within 10 days to two weeks we were likely to have some indication of where things stood, but with no firm deadlines there," Deaton told the newspaper. "We're being patient and working together, and certainly right now we're in a little bit of a position where we need for Oklahoma to give us a sense of what they're thinking about and take it from there."

The current upheaval is in the hands of those dentists and eye doctors and -- oh, here's a good one -- a Broadway and London theater producer.

Just a guess, but I'm betting Oklahoma's A. Max Weitzenhoffer cares a lot more about the West End than the end the Big 12.


It would be shocking if the first communication between Oklahoma and Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott was a call from one of these state appointees.


"Kind of alarming when you think about it," said a Big 12 source close to the situation. "The future of college athletics is going to be altered by these volunteer board members who are dentists, convenience store operators and the like. That's amazing."

It's no longer about geographic or (puh-leaze) academic fits. You're either a market or a brand. Nebraska is a brand. Georgia Tech, rumored to be a hot property, brings along the Atlanta market to some enterprising raider.


Southern California, Texas and Michigan are both. Woe to Baylor, Kansas State and Iowa State, which are neither. Good to know some university's future is being decided by a media consultant analyzing its Q rating.



The biggest frustration here is that no one seems to want to actually go through with it. Regents take note: Bevo isn't the only creature being led around by a ring in its nose. I talked to a Pac-12 source this week who told me there are at least eight conference presidents who are against expansion. The SEC presidents would have preferred to stand pat, but when Angelina Jolie, er, A&M knocks on your door you don't turn her/it away.

By 2012, the state of Texas could be home to schools in the Pac-12, SEC, Big East and Conference USA. That's not a football culture, that's an appetizer plate. Friday Night Lights being replaced by Saturday Afternoon Cable Listings.



There would be no center, anywhere. Silicon Valley would be as close to big-time football as Death Valley. The SEC's footprint would stomp the yard. The Pac-12 could be in ... Kansas. Nothing says Tobacco Road like Texas vs. Wake Forest.

This is what the dentist and eye doc are about to give us. Wonder if they know, or care.

Wow, now that would be something.

so we would go to 11 teams with Cincy And Pitt?

why?

Unless adding Cincy and Pitt would help bring in BYU for the 12th ...


Cincy/Pitt are east and BYU is west, even further travel.

The article mentioned Louisville in addition to Cincy and Pitt. Which makes for better geography and basketball, I guess.

? We started at 12. We lost two last year. One this year. Adding three gets you back up to 12... not 11...

So it looks like if we want 12; Louisville, Pitt, and Cinci are the choices. I think thats also assuming WVU goes to the SEC with aTm. Otherwise we just add BYU to get back up to 10.

yea, i just didn't see a 3rd team

lost Neb,Colo and A&M

adding cincy and pitt

:shrug:

all i was saying

what do Louisville,Pitt and Cincy bring to the financial table?

Stability, so that we keep the current contract we have which is good money for all the schools. Not to mention the first tier contract that will be signed in a few years that potentially makes all 12(or ten) schools some of the highest paid in the nation.

Pittsburg and Syracuse are applying for the ACC...

http://brett-mcmurphy.blogs.cbssport...32522/32035225

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Pittsburgh and Syracuse submitted letters of application to the Atlantic Coast Conference and are "likely gone" from the Big East, high ranking ACC and Big East officials told CBSSports.com.

Pittsburgh and Syracuse independently submitted letters of application to the ACC, a league source told CBSSports.com.

"There is no scenario where a president applies to a league and isn't admitted," a Big East official told CBSSports.com.

Me:

The ACC also upped the buyout clause for schools in conference to $20 million, so it looks like they are up to 14 teams. Most likely suspects to finish it off at 16 teams include UConn, Rutgers, Villanova (if football upgraded) with Notre Dame and possibly Texas (with a partner?) as outside possibilities.

Good gets for the ACC...

I think that this increases the odds that the Big 10 will come calling MU and KU. If the ACC sticks together and takes some of the teams from the northeast, it likely means that the Big 10 has to look in the other direction.

Just my $.02...

LMAO

B1G would add ISU over KU and/or KState. None are their top options.

Honestly, if Pitt and Syracuse are gone, it changes things dramatically for the Big 10, unless they are dead-set against 16. It is not as easy to come up with a 16 team Big 10 without Kansas than it was yesterday.

UND, Mizzou, then what? Rutgers?

Iowa State.

Don't waste your breath ... Zach is the ultimate Mizzou troll and there is nothing you can say to ever get him to admit anyone would want KU for any reason.

If they are going to start poaching the Big East, I think the Big 10 might want Rutgers over both KU and MU. But who really knows.

I rest my case.

even so, if they really wanted Rutgers but (apparently) didn't care about Syracuse or Pitt for some strange reason, then if they want 16 and Notre Dame sees the light, Kansas and Mizzou are the natural last two.

Anyone? No that is completely false. I know it is your schtick around here to be a whining drama queen but at least read my posts so you are not so off the mark. I think there are conferences that want KU. I just don't think the Big 10 is one of them.

There is no way B1G would add ISU ahead of KU. KU is not on their radar, but ISU is even further off of their radar.

BE NICE! Rustshack is very very worried about ISU athletics right now.
If the Big12-2-1-maybe 4more dies. So he has come up with some great possibilities for ISU. I feel for the guy. ISU is screwed

The Big 10 doesn't want KU right now. Only way KU would get a Big 10 invite is if they determine the superconference alignment is inevitable, and that it will lead the abolishing the NCAA for both football and basketball. This would mean that KU and basketball will be more important because the superconferences can manipulate the post season money instead of the NCAA, even then KU is pretty far down on their list.

I mean a ton of things would have to happen, but I would say it is at least POSSIBLE for KU to get into the Big 10 someday, certainly Missouri has a better shot though.

Say Cuse and Pitt get into the ACC. OSU, OU, Tech, Texas to Pac 10. WV, ND, Missouri, Kansas, Rutgers, UCONN, Iowa State, Baylor, Cincinnati, Louisville are the remaining schoools out there. So to get to 16, they would pick 4 out of those 10, and you'd have to think Kansas get a nod in that scenario only.