<p>rjkofnovi wrote:</p>
<p>“I’d say from top to bottom the ACC is more like the Big Ten than the Pac 10.”</p>
<p>No, the ACC is superior to the lil’ 11…</p>
<p>7 top 50 > 5 Top 50</p>
<p>^ Let’s not be so selective w/ our facts (or be so smug).</p>
<p>Once could very well say that a conf. is only as strong as its weakest link and NCST is ranked 88th and FSU is 102nd (the lowest ranking for the B10 is 71).</p>
<p>Plus, the ACC “pads it stats” by having more private schools.</p>
<p>Another way to look at it - every B10 school is a member of the AAU; otoh, only 4 ACC schools are members.</p>
<p>BaghDAD, are you including Chicago in your list? Chicago broke away from the Big 10 athletic conference but is still a very active member of the CIC. I would say academically, the CIC and the ACC are roughly equal. Here’s how I would break it down:</p>
<p>Chicago, Michigan and Northwestern = Duke, UNC and UVA. </p>
<p>Wisconsin, UIUC = Boston College, Wake Forest and GT</p>
<p>The rest of the Big 10 is as strong as the rest of the ACC.</p>
<p>Texas will approach the PAC-10 at some point in the future, but the main sticking point for Texas restarting negotiations for PAC-10 admission is if a rival school (particularly Texas A&M) is brought into the deal. Otherwise, it won’t happen. Any talk of Texas to the Big Ten has to be considered first of all with how any potential media contracts would benefit Texas, first and foremost. Big Ten schools get more cash out of the Big Ten Network deal compared to anybody (even the Notre Dame TV deal is only $9 million a year, which is less than what Minnesota gets from its Big Ten Network contract). Texas might be using the Big Ten talk to get itself a better media deal than what it already has in the Big XII. If Texas does decide to jump ship, it will definitely be open to PAC-12 proposals. </p>
<p>On the topic of Big Ten expansion per se, it will probably be looking at Nebraska or Missouri moreso than Texas. Texas will not move out of the Big XII unless it can bring a rival school into another conference, otherwise the OOC schedule would be too tight. Unless the Big Ten decides to drop a school, or make a huge leap to 14 teams, this looks really unlikely. </p>
<p>When it is all said and done, Berkeley/Palo Alto, Los Angeles and Seattle will probably tip the scale compared to Columbus, State College, and Ann Arbor. Texas into the PAC-10 grabs the Austin media market, plus Los Angeles, the Bay Area, and Seattle. That TV deal would be second only to the SEC.</p>
<p>…Also schools like NCSU and FSU would never be allowed to join a league like the Big Ten.</p>
<p>“Another way to look at it - every B10 school is a member of the AAU; otoh, only 4 ACC schools are members.”</p>
<p>I never realized so few schools there weren’t members of the AAU. I am less impressed with the ACC after reading that.</p>
<p>“On the topic of Big Ten expansion per se, it will probably be looking at Nebraska or Missouri moreso than Texas.”</p>
<p>Nebraska would never get an invite. Just not up to Big Ten standards. Of course the Pac10 might consider them.</p>
<p>Strykur, the Big 10 could grow to 14 schools, adding Texas, Texas A&M and Pittsburgh. Academically, Texas is very much on par with Michigan, UIUC and wisconsin. Texas-A&M is very similar to Purdue. Texas and Texas A&M would come with huge endowments, add a new market and provide a new rivalry to the conference. Pitt would provide PSU with an in-state rivalry. Here’s the way I would break down the Conference:</p>
<p>Michigan
Ohio State
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Wisconsin
Minnesota</p>
<p>Penn State
Texas
Pitt
Texas A&M
Iowa
Northwestern
UIUC</p>
<p>That would provide each team 6 games within its own half of the conference and two games with the other half of the conference.</p>
<p>rjkofnovi, I don’t know what you are thinking by stating that Nebraska would not be considered a potential candidate for the Big Ten, because Missouri ranks LOWER than Nebraska in USN&WR rankings. Why is Missouri (ranked 102) being given consideration for Big Ten expansion then, if they are roughly on-par with, or lower, than Nebraska (97)?! </p>
<p>Alexandre, you’re scenario is certainly plausible. I highly doubt that Pitt would receive serious consideration to move into the Big Ten however (Pitt has certain reservations about moving their basketball program out of the Big East cauldron and into a rather noncompetitve Big Ten league, plus the Penn State establishment would howl if the Pitt rivalry was brought back). Team leagues beyond 12 members have traditionally been futile experiments (such as the 16-team WAC), so a 14 team Big Ten would be a huge change in the college conference dynamic.</p>
<p>Paterno would be ok with Pitt in the Big Ten: [Paterno</a> wants Pitt in Big Ten - Bob Smizik’s Blog - post-gazette.com](<a href=“http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/bobsmizik/archive/2009/05/01/paterno-wants-pitt-in-big-ten.aspx]Paterno”>http://community.post-gazette.com/blogs/bobsmizik/archive/2009/05/01/paterno-wants-pitt-in-big-ten.aspx)</p>
<p>If offered, Pitt might have no choice, particularly if the alternative is remaining in a depleted Big East.</p>
<p>The Big East is depleted if you are talking football. In basketball, the Big East is enormously better than the next best league (Big Ten/Big XII/whatever). Pitt may not have much to lose by staying in the Big East, because as far as football goes, it is easier to win in an easy league and go to a BCS bowl. Why go into a Big-14 meatgrinder, when you can stay in an 8-school league and have an easy path to BCS games, while staying in college basketball’s best conference? It’s a matter of priorities at this point for Pittsburgh. They will bite if given a Big Ten offer probably, but Pitt should be far down the list for Big Ten invitations at this point.</p>
<p>The 12 Big Ten schools that comprise the CIC gets 6.5 BILLION dollars annually in federal research funding. That’s 12% of the federal research funding split amongst 12 schools. The other 4200 degree seeking institutions in the US split the other 88%.</p>
<p>To put that into perspective, Texas received $505 million in research funding last year. Ohio State and Penn State received nearly $700 million. Michigan broke $1 Billion last year. Let’s say that Texas which already has an enormous warchest receives an additional $350 million dollars as a member of the CIC. That would be an $3.5 BILLION over the next 10 years!!!</p>
<p>From a Texas Forum (Poll)</p>
<p><a href=“http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL875/3165781/7981400/382732875.jpg[/url]”>http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL875/3165781/7981400/382732875.jpg</a></p>
![http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL875/3165781/7981400/382732875.jpg[/url]](http://pic100.picturetrail.com/VOL875/3165781/7981400/382732875.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
<p>Sparkeye7, that poll has no option to vote on any PAC-10 scenario. A lot of Texas fans would like to have another chance to join the PAC-10, and go to away games on the West Coast.</p>
<p>^^ Besides the Time Zone issue, “Show Me The $$$” - say the Longhorn fans!!</p>
<p>Here is the annual TV revenue for each conference as reported by ESPN’s Outside the Lines last month along with the average for each school:</p>
<p>Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school) </p>
<p>VS</p>
<p>Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school) </p>
<p>'Nuff said.</p>
<p>The Big East is not depleted now (though much weaker in football than the Big Ten - and football is where the bigger money is). In referring to a depleted Big East, I was assuming that the Big Ten would choose a Big East school (or schools) among Pitt, Syracuse and Rutgers. If any of those schools left, the Big East would be depleted in football and to some extent basketball. If Pitt turned down an offer and Syracuse and/or Rutgers accepted, Pitt would be remaining in a depleted Big East. The football schools available to replace departed Big East schools would likely be schools like Central Florida or East Carolina which have weaker athletic and academic programs (unless Villanova could move up its football program or Notre Dame could be presuaded to join for football - both unlikely). The split between the football and non-football schools would be exacerbated and Big East could end up folding or splitting up.</p>
<p>Strykur, I feel bad to burst your bubble like that… =.="</p>
<p>Here is a new interesting article for y’all to read:</p>
<p>[The</a> Texas Longhorns Two-Step: Big Ten or Pac-10? | Bleacher Report](<a href=“The Texas Longhorns Two-Step: Big Ten or Pac-10? | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report”>The Texas Longhorns Two-Step: Big Ten or Pac-10? | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report)</p>
<p>Anyways, personally, I hope not Mizzou nor Nebraska being added to the Big Ten. Though both are fine fine institutions, academically speaking, they are not comparable to #71 Michigan State, Indiana & Iowa imho.</p>
<p>^^^^^Agreed!</p>
<p>Cornhusker humility would be a nice counterbalance to Wolverine pride. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^^Unlike Bear pride? The CIC and it’s supporters just want their schools to be among the best. Is that so wrong?</p>