airspace

Meant to say Miami the second time not Clemson.

Thomasllister1291, speculation is Oregon, Washington, California & Stanford from the west. From the SE, Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Florida State with others of interest being Duke, Miami and believe it or not Clemson. With Clemson, there are some youtube videos and other articles talking about going to the Big 10 vs SEC. Clemson (Admin) understands what the Big 10 can do academically for them. They have said that their values better align (being in the ACC) with the Big 10 than the SEC. They also believe South Carolina will block them. There only hope with the SEC is if the SEC wants to keep the Big 10 out of the south. Florida State has made a lot of noise of wanting to go to the Big 10. Their president is from Harvard and they have poured lots of money into expanding research. Both Clemson and FSU fans would prefer the SEC BUT their Administration prefers the Big 10. If you look at all of the schools, except for Clemson, Florida State and Clemson, they are all AAU. And those three are making efforts to gain AAU. People believe FSU will get AAU within 10 years (don't know) but tells you what they are doing. As far as your analogy of the Southern Conference. I would agree, but the big difference is the Big 10 appears to be searching for like minded universities. I believe eventually, as Jack Swarbrick (ND AD) said of the SEC and Big 10 are 2 competing solar systems. And I believe the Big 10 will eventually split off and have their own association of like minded schools. 24 to 32 schools.

Thomalister1291, being here in Big 10 country. Specualtion/rumor is that the Big 10 will eventually expand to about 24 plus schools. People believe 6 total from the west coast with an additional 4 plus from the ACC.

Ask yourself this one question. How come the Big 10 has not finalized the schedule for 2024? We are hearing, 9 conference games with 2 protected rivals and no divisions. This would allow you to play everyone in a 2 year cycle. How difficult can it be? Yet they keep kicking the can down the road. We are also hearing that there might be another media window BUT the media party does not want to move until Warren is gone and there is a new commissioner. I don't believe they are done with expansion. I believe there is still a window of opportunity BUT they also don't want to be responsible for the death of a conference. We saw that with the ACC and the Big East. Just my thoughts.

Forgot to check on the Big Ten Academic Alliance (governed by the provosts of the member institutions) . He was the Chair of the Big Ten Academic Alliance. Not only was he in contact with the various Presidents of the Big Ten as interim president. But being on the governing board of the Big Ten Academic Alliance, he was in regular contact with the various provosts at the various Big Ten Institutions as well as the University of Chicago. Provosts | Big Ten Academic Alliance BTAA.ORG

PA Duck, if you notice in the article, he was Interim Chancellor at the time USC/UCLA were added. Meaning that he had to vote on the addition of USC/UCLA as all Big Ten presidents. You have him here (former Big Ten member) and your former President is at Northwestern (I believe). Connections can not hurt.

I agree with CalBear95. The ACC kind of killed Big East Football and the Big Ten may feel they don't want to be responsible for the end of the Pac. Thought I would give you some going on's in the Big Ten that may not be reported. Saw an article off Virginia Tech Sidelines. It was an article out of the Indy Star with Mitch Daniels (President of Purdue). Purdue athletics under Mitch Daniels: Big Ten expansion pause? Will athletes become employees? WWW.INDYSTAR.COM Does outgoing Purdue President Mitch Daniels favor more expansion in the Big Ten Conference? A few takes from the article. When you talk about expansion, it's served important purposes. Certainly, the eastward expansion was a little awkward, but I think that hasn't worked out badly. Now, the grab for the LA market and my own personal view – a good time for a timeout. Let's see how we can digest this situation, let's at least see how we intend to because I don't think anybody has yet and I haven't seen a plan for what that world would look like. I mean, I don't think we're going to send our softball team to LA on a frequent basis to just be a little flip about things but, I think it would be wise to, at least, have an agreed-upon design for the 16 before we plunge ahead to some bigger number. Carmin: Well, your commissioner has mentioned 20.Daniels: I know, and that might be the right answer. I can't say it's not. I think the westward move is a much longer move, not just in mileage, but in concept than the expansions we've seen over the previous 10 years. I just think caution would be in order here. There's not that much more money in it, I don't think. People have somewhat overrated and overstated in going beyond 16. I think people have a little bit overestimated the incremental money of the LA schools. It's real. It's not as big as some people have thought beyond what we would have had anyway. I'm not saying 18 is wrong. I'm not saying 20 is wrong. Others will make those calls. I just think that we can … let’s get the rules of engagement set. Let's get comfortable with the latest move first. I just think that it would be prudent. Insight on the USC/UCLA addition. Carmin: When were the presidents brought into the recent expansion discussion? How far in the process did you guys know what was happening or going to happen? Daniels: Fair question but I don't think I’d better talk about inside baseball. Carmin: That's why I asked the question – I want inside baseball. Daniels: Well, OK, I haven't ducked any yet. Carmin: Was it a week or a month in advance? Two months in advance? Daniels: It was in advance. I don't think I should talk about that. Carmin: But in your mind was it an easy yes because of the financial impact? Daniels: I don’t want to talk about that. What happens in those meetings should stay there. BTW - Mitch Daniels leaves at the end of year as President of Purdue. Your guy went to NW. Michigan has a new President as well. Not sure if any where else. But Presidents coming and going does not make it easy on stability. Need to bring the new people up to speed on their University as well as the Big Ten and its inner workings. I still believe at the end of the day, that Oregon, UW, Cal and Stanford end up in the Big Ten. Just a matter of time. Good luk.

From my perspective (Big Ten). Just keep winning. As Bobby Bowden once said, these things have a way of sorting themselves out. Teams are going to lose, IF YOU Keep winning, you will get there. Your margin of error is much smaller BUT winning solves it all. Back in 2014, after we lost to Virginia Tech. Everyone wrote us off. We just kept winning and advancing. Teams lost and we moved up. As I said, keep winning and you WILL Get there. Good luck.

My take. Sorry but a little long. First Gene Smith is not ruling out expansion. Just stating that USC & UCLA actually increased value. The four - Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Cal add value but not at an incremental rate to raise every other school in the Big Ten. Second and more important. President Johnson at Ohio State has stated on the day USC & UCLA were added, the Big Ten was not done. During Notre Dame week, again she said the Big Ten that she believed that expansion was going to happen. A little history. Bo Schembechler was AD at Michigan when Penn State was added to the Big Ten. He blew a gasket because he and the other AD's in the Big Ten were not consulted on the addition. How were they going to integrate Penn State, how were they going to get there (Happy Valley at that time was not easily accessible) and other concerns. The AD's were told by the Presidents - do it. Bo was so pissed that he retired/resign as AD. He learned who calls the shots, it is not the AD's BUT the presidents. The travel issue is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe the Big Ten is going to go to 10 games. More content and greater opportunity to play more games within the conference. Barry Alvarez in the past has argued for more games because they want to play each other more. If all six schools are added. I believe they will play 10 games. Meaning for west coast schools, 5 games against teams from the east. 3 games home 2 games away year 1 and 2 games home and 3 away year 2. The west schools would be hosting 15 games a year. On average, 1 away game for the 14 teams from the east. Even with 3 away games to the east, that would be 1 game a month for west coast schools. Basketball. Even with 20 conference games. I believe the west would play each home-away, 10 games there. The other 10 games would be split, 5 home, 5 away against the east. 2 trips east would (Thursday & Saturday) would cover the requirement. Football. The Big Ten was told if they expanded, that re-negotiations would happen. According to the media agreement, there is a potential 2 to 3 billion available based on worth. I believe that Oregon-Washington-Stanford-California will bring enough value to be added. Even with a 200 million a year addition (1.4 Billion addition to the contract) each school would get 50 million a year. If more than 200 million, say 240 million, then 60 million a school. There are 3 addition windows available to the Big Ten. Thursday night, Friday night and late Saturday night. One of the problems with late night PAC has been the lack of interest. To booster this, I believe IF the Big Ten tied a west school against a midwestern school on late night Saturday, there would be greater interest from the mid west. More people here in the mid west would watch. Good luck.

Jester, back when they announced USC & UCLA to the Big Ten. President Johnson made the statement that the Big Ten was not done expanding. Many believed that was in reference to Notre Dame. I am of the opinion it was not in reference to ND. At that time, word was that Oregon and Washington had approached the Big Ten when they heard USC & UCLA to the Big Ten. In the last week, word has come out that Oregon, and then Washington has had representatives meet with the Big Ten. As I posted in an earlier thread & post, the Big Ten is slow when it comes to expansion. They talk and they talk, they discuss and analyze the data. This is what people in Academia do. They try to come to a consensus. Whenever you see a Big Ten vote, it is always unanimous when they announce it in public (even though in back rooms there may have been disagreement). When Penn State was added, Michigan, Wisconsin and Indiana were opposed. It passed because Northwestern vote for it BUT on the condition that there was a pause on expansion (Texas came to the Big Ten at that time BUT the Big Ten honored Northwestern's request and paused). It may seem like a long time. But negotiations take time. Look how long it took with USC and UCLA, months. What people need to understand is that anyone coming to the Big Ten is buying into the Big Ten network. Because of the LA market, USC & UCLA cover the buy in. The reason for the buy in is over the first few years, Big Ten teams did not take any money but built equity. When a new teams comes (Nebraska, Rutgers & Maryland) they bought in at a lessor amount to get an equal share of the network. I can tell you based on the past, no school received less (usually more) than what it had in their old conference. And usually the buy in is over about 5 years. Escalates over the time period, ending in a full share. This is part of what they are negotiating (has been in the past). Also, even though USC & UCLA have been added, they don't have voting rights until they officially join the Big Ten. And it also means that they do not have access to the Big Ten Academic Alliance (Academic arm of the Big Ten). And I will leave you with this from 2013. Sharing gate revenue unique, vital to B1G football WWW.THEGAZETTE.COM IOWA CITY – The Big Ten Conference boasts a financial model that no other college athletics association is willing to … The 117-year-old league, of which the University of Iowa is a member, shares television and postseason revenue like many conferences. But the Big Ten also splits its football gate receipts from league games, a step devoid of other conferences. Thirty-five percent of Big Ten home gate receipts - with a $1 million cap and a $300,000 floor - goes to the league office. From there it's distributed into 12 equal pieces. For Iowa Athletics Director Gary Barta, sharing gate receipts is just one component of a much-larger revenue share within the conference. “It's an all-in,” Barta said. “You can't fairly evaluate one without looking at the big picture. We choose to share revenue. There are areas where Iowa probably is a giver and there are areas where Iowa probably is a taker. In the long run, we all benefit. “It's tempting to take one piece and want to evaluate it. But the only way to do it is to evaluate the conference as a whole.” This is why the Big Ten will not have uneven revenue sharing where one school (Ohio State) will get more than another school (Indiana). Sorry to be long, just want to give you an idea of what you may be getting into. Good luck.

Pure garbage. Here is what the Ohio State University President said about expansion. She is the one who has the say. Not the AD. Just thought I would help clear the air. She is in favor of expansion.

Actually, this may be a good thing. When Penn State came to the Big Ten. The President of Penn State and Joe Paterno (AD at that time) approached the President of Illinois (who had been the President of Penn State previously) about how to get in the Big Ten. The President of Illinois recommended and nominated Penn State for entry into the Big Ten. The rest is kind of history. Maryland. The President of Maryland had come from Iowa. The chancellor of the Maryland University System (Brit Kirwin) had been the president at Ohio State previously. Both of them knew of the deep debt of the athletic program. They also knew the Big Ten had interest in Maryland. Both men knew what the Big Ten could do for them academically and athletically. They approached the Big Ten and were accepted. Typically, either there is someone at the specific university that has ties to the Big Ten universities (usually from a Big Ten university - President or Provost level). Or there is someone (President or Provost level) at a Big Ten university that came from the specific university interested in joining the Big Ten. It is always good to have someone on the inside to argue your case. Remember, it is the Presidents of the Big Ten who vote on a candidates application. If I recall correctly, the Presidents meet formally twice a year (besides other meetings like AAU). I am not sure they meet monthly via zoom calls or not. But they can call a meeting any time if it warrants it. Just an FYI. Good luck.

Ohio State alum/fan. Have been following Big Ten expansion since the mid to late 80's. I would tell you to have patience. The Big Ten is like the Ents from Lord of the Rings. Slow, talk a lot amongst themselves, analyze and eventually do something. This is how they operate. College Presidents like data and analyze before proceeding. Did this with Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers and now USC & UCLA. In each case it took months before proceeding (Nebraska was like 4 to 6 weeks given their situation). Look at USC & UCLA, they negotiated for 2 months before getting serious the last 2 weeks. Lots of details to work out. And in each case, NOBODY knew until the last moment after it was pretty much finalized. President Johnson (Ohio State President), said at the news conference pertaining to USC & UCLA that they were not done with expansion. Most people took that to mean Notre Dame. I don't. Once the deal with USC & UCLA was announced, how many schools contacted the Big Ten? You just don't analyze and vote on it over night (Big Ten does not operate that way). Given that it was said today that several schools have value to the Big Ten (Oregon & Washington included) as far as expansion. In the past, a school will contact the Big Ten (Big Ten does not initiate contact - Notre Dame is a special case between the two). They share data, work out details, determine it is a fit and then proceed. If acceptable to both parties. The school applies, the Big Ten accepts the application, Big Ten holds a vote (usually a formality at this point). The school is accepted and the integration begins. If a school is not acceptable, the Big Ten will not embarrass them publicly. Just thought I would give you a rough draft of how this is played out (seen it every time). I believe Oregon probably has reached out to the Big Ten. And they are in process of working out the details (acceptable to both parties). You will never know until it is announced. Just how they operate. Good luck.