Kingdome....your looking at this like a FAN....and not a school president. In every category that matters to school presidents the Big 10 is a better fit.
That is not the case. I break it down above. The Big Ten region is too small geographically, not growing, & cold. From a geographic standpoint, the Pac-10 is a way better fit if you are adding A&M and CU too.
You claim that they can make the $$ the Big Ten is with the right new recruits....hate to break it to ya, but the Big 10 is doing this NOW with their current system.
The Pac-10 is finishing up with a leadership transition. Comparing our old deal to your current deal isn't a fair comparison. Just wait for our new contract to compare #s. Without Texas & Colorado, the Pac-10 region is about a third smaller than the Big Ten region (for now), so of course our package is smaller. If we add the two Texas schools & CU, we will be on par with the Big Ten region population wise, cover a more expansive region, that is growing, not dying.
You accuse me of being a homer but I think you are being one. Look beyond sports. Big Ten country isn't healthy. The states of Ohio, Illinois, Pennsylvania, & Michigan are a mess. Places like Texas, Utah, Washington, Colorado, Idaho etc. is where the growth is. In the long term, that's where the $ will be. If your argument is $, then the Pac-10 is the obvious answer if you are thinking more than the short term.
All those other sports you mention are simply eye candy and irrelevent.
Go to Austin, check out those facilities, and then tell me again that they are irrelevant.
Track & soccer complex:
Baseball Stadium:
(they love their baseball at Texas. I bet their program makes $. Would the fans rather watch top 10 Pac-10 teams or unranked snowball teams from the Big Ten?)
Softball Stadium:
(want to be the best? Play the best! Pac-10 is the softball conference.)
Volleyball Gym:
Face the facts, Big Ten is not a good fit for Texas. Being the only warm weather school in a cold weather conference will hurt them both on & off the field. Meanwhile playing Arizona State, Oregon State, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Arizona etc. in baseball each year will better prepare Texas for the College World Series. It will also help them with recruiting as California is the #1 recruiting spot for most sports. How many Longhorn Heisman Trophy winners have come from Big Ten country?
The bottom team in the Big 10 bring in more football revenues than most of the (if not all) elite Basketball teams in the country, not to mention all the other sports you mention.
Big Ten has a flashy new deal with a TV network. Pac-10 hasn't even started that process yet since we just had our first major leadership transition in over a quarter century! So again, you can't compare the #s yet.
Presidents care about the money which is better and will be better with the Big Ten and the academics which is better with the Big Ten and being a member of the Committee for Institutional Cooperation (CIC) is a HUGE deal with the presidents and something that the Pac 10 can not not match.
Big Ten country is dying. The future is in the south & west. How can those dying local govt.'s continue to lavishly fund education? At least when California goes bust there is plenty of private funds available for Cal & UCLA. You need to think about the future, not just the present.
You say Big 10 country is dying.....yet the money continues to trump anything outside of the SEC. Again, this is all that this is about.
We add Texas, Texas A&M, CU, & Utah and our deal will dwarf your deal. Look at the demographics, media markets etc. Also, the Pac-10 channel will have better content throughout the year as they are the best baseball, softball, & volleyball conference, which will help land more $.
Just because the Big Ten got an early leap in the new economics of college sports doesn't mean they will maintain their position. Just look at Detroit & the auto industry there as an example.
