What if the Big 10 goes to more than 12?

Your observation on why the MWC needs to expand yesterday are correct. Here is a conversation on MWC expansion from over a year ago where I discussed the loss of negotiating power the MWC would have if they wait for the PAC 10 to expand.

I will be getting around to the MWC’s expansion options in a few weeks at my new digs.

Preview: WE NEED BOISE STATE NOW!!

Some say that the pie will be less with more teams but if you think in the terms that there would be more games to be shown on the MWC tv deal that would bring more money back to the schools. I am almost certain this summer Boise will get and accept the invite to the MWC.

As for the other teams there was that rumor that Fresno, Boise, and Nevada would join the MWC and then gain BCS entry. I just have no clue what Craig Thompson will do because he has always said whats the point of expanding if we do not know, but he did change his stance that if it helps they would look at other teams (Boise St).

I do think 10 teams could be a good fit the league could do a Pac-10 style schedule where everyone plays everyone mainly because the MWC has five bowl spots and even with an extra conference loss they would fill that. Plus, the BCS money split 10 ways is much bigger then 12 ways. And to be realistic even if league goes back to ESPN their money for a tv deal would be on par with the Big East.

What matters is what the Big Ten would do to the Big 12 (and it’s not the standard “Missouri leaves” scenario), so let me set this up. I’ve written a ton about the Big Ten expansion candidates and the impact that it may have on other confereces. Please feel free to take a look at my analysis using the “Big Ten Expansion Index”:

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/27/the-big-ten-expansion-index-a-different-shade-of-orange/

The conclusion is that Texas is the real target for Big Ten expansion. For most of you, there will be a knee-jerk reaction of “That will never happen!” Once again, please read through the blog post and the 3 follow-up posts (which are linked to at the bottom of the original blog post) to understand why there is mutual interest and the financial implications, which has been confirmed by the multitude of Longhorns fans comments along with links to their blogs and message boards. The Big Ten is ridiculously wealthy in terms of BOTH athletics and academics, so if anyone thinks that they’re expanding with a “meh” move, it’s because of naivette.

If you’re skeptical about whether the Big Ten would look to Texas, you only have to understand one thing: how the Big Ten Network makes its money. As I expained in my blog post, the way that it makes money is to get into the maximum number of basic cable households at the maximum rate – pure and simple. That’s why the Big Ten is going to be much more interested in Texas and other non-Midwestern candidates than it was the last time it looked at expansion 5 years ago. In a 12-school scenario, Texas and Notre Dame are probably the only two candidates out there that would add enough households (assuming that Notre Dame gets the Big Ten Network more national distribution) to justify expanding. (Note that the revenue from a Big Ten Championship Game pales in comparison to what’s potentially at stake with the Big Ten Network, so don’t mistakenly believe that the Big Ten is looking at expansion simply for a conference championship game.) In a 14-school scenario, there’s absolutely no way that the Big Ten schools would make more revenue on a per school basis without adding the number of homes equal to what the state of Texas would provide. Some of the East Coast schools might be located in key markets in theory (i.e. Rutgers), but none of them have a proven track record of actually delivering those markets in the manner that Texas can.

If you’re skeptical as to why Texas would look to the Big Ten, you only have to understand how bad the Big 12 TV contract is compared to the Big Ten and then look at how it would get even worse if a school like Missouri left. Texas, even with every single financial advantage under the Big 12 revenue distribution system, still made $10 million less in TV money than every single Big Ten school. To put that into persepctive, the value of the entire Notre Dame NBC contract (which the general public mistakenly believes is really lucrative) is $9 million. Effectively, Texas is giving up more than the size of Notre Dame’s NBC contract by staying in the Big 12 compared to the Big Ten… and that’s just using today’s numbers. Moving to the Big Ten would automatically kick that revenue up even further with the Big Ten Network gaining basic cable distribution in the state of Texas plus the creation of a Big Ten championship game – you’re probably looking at closer to a $15-20 million per year bump in conference revenue by moving to the Big Ten. The increased travel costs are a “penny wise pound foolish” concern – that type of increase in revenue would dwarf any travel costs. On the flip side, Texas was left scrambling when the SWC imploded, so it doesn’t want to be around the Big 12 if Mizzou were to leave. Mizzou might not be a football power, but it represents the largest population base in the Big 12 outside of the state of Texas. Losing Mizzou would make the currently bad Big 12 TV contract even worse which can’t be made up by adding smaller population Mountain West markets (Utah has less than half of the population of Missouri). So, Texas has an interest in the Big Ten if only because of the CYA factor. Regardless of whether Texas is the richest sports program in America today, it can only stay that way in the long-term in a strong and viable conference (and it’s not as if though a university president is simply going to ignore making more money in BOTH athletics and academics, which you’ll need to see my blog post if you don’t realize that there’s also even more money for academics in play with Big Ten membership).

The feedback that I’ve received from Longhorns fans is that the one roadblock is Texas state political pressure (NOT the alums, who actually don’t like the Big 12 and realize that the conference is screwed if Mizzou leaves just like the SWC was screwed when Arkansas left for the SEC). Texas may not be able to leave (even though it wants to) without having to take Texas A&M with it. That’s really the reason why the Big Ten has opened the door to a 14-school scenario where it would need to take Texas A&M in order to get Texas (and the conference would be more than fine with that – A&M is still a good academic research school and isn’t a political welfare case like Baylor was in the 1990s).

This is where the Mountain West comes in because it will likely be the most negatively impacted if the Big 12 loses one or more schools (especially if those two schools are Texas and Texas A&M). BYU would be at the top of the list because it brings the Utah TV market like the Utes but also has a national fan base of LDS members. Once again, the #1 reason why schools in the Big 12 are looking to move are a lack of TV markets outside of the state of Texas. As a result, the chances of TCU receiving an invite are extremely slim unless the Big 12 loses BOTH Texas and Texas A&M (in which event the conference may find a need to shore up its Texas state base). If the Big 12 needs to replace 2 schools, you’ll see both BYU and Utah added. If the Big 12 decides to go up to 14 schools in the manner that the Big Ten might do it, then the Mountain West simply won’t exist if the Big 12 poaches 4 schools (who would presumably be the most valuable ones).

It may make sense moneywise, but they are going to have about 10,000 miles of travel every conference season. That would wear down on the team, and they would lose more games, and not make it to a BCS Bowl, where they would not make the motherlod of money being in a BCS Bowl offers. Texas would also be leaving the rivalries in the Big 12 South that generate more money than almost any other rivalry in the FBS. The Oklahoma-Texas Rivalry and State of Texas rivalries with Texas Tech and Baylor (What Frank is saying is that Texas A&M would be going with them). There is alot more money at stake by leaving the Big 12 than you are saying.

… but the final point is that the Big Ten shares everything equally. It doesn’t matter if you make the Rose Bowl or go 0-12 during the season – every conference member receives the same amount of TV money and bowl money. When the Big Ten gets a 2nd BCS bowl bid, every single member of the conference gets an equal share of that money (not just the school that actually made that bowl). The thing is that even where Texas gets more money than every other Big 12 school where they receive incentives for TV and bowl appearances, it’s still about $10 million per year less than every single other Big Ten school (whether it’s Indiana or Ohio State) as of today. At the very least, Texas is going to take a long, hard look at that type of proposal. You don’t just say automatically, “No thanks! I’m not listening! I like taking road trips to Lubbock!!” to a minimum of a $10 million per year raise on the athletic side and many more millions of dollars on the academic side.

I’m not sure a preemptive strike accomplishes much because even if you add Boise or whoever else is at the top of the wish list, the PAC 10 and Big 10 would still be stronger than the MWC. If Utah, BYU, or TCU get asked to go to the PAC 10 or Big 12, they’re gone, regardless of whether or not Boise St. is about to come over to the MWC. There is a natural pecking order, and it seems that the Big 10 can choose (almost) anybody they want (except Texas and ND). It’s an interesting idea, rebelfan, I just don’t think a preemptive expansion will have any effect on BYU or Utah should a bigger paycheck come knocking.