(05-31-2013 04:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 04:18 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  From SI.com - you can listen to the whole 27 minutes, as there's a lot of other interesting tidbits in there.

http://college-football.si.com/2013/05/3...&eref=sihp

"We've for some time talked about the need for us to expand the footprint of the Big 10 without getting too far outside of our geography. Texas, Georgia Tech, those are the kind of places we have talked about, but they are geographically a little challenging. We also have talked for some time about Maryland and Rutgers, but we wanted to pair those two together."

“[The addition of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten] gives us 40 to 50 million more viewers, makes the BTN worth more money than God. I did say that. It’s a very powerful instrument for us.”

“This is a high possibility. If the ACC continues to struggle, and Florida State goes off to the SEC or something like that, and Clemson moves in a different direction, all of a sudden Virginia and Duke, which are very similar institutions to — and North Carolina — which are very similar institutions to the Big Ten, there is a real possibility that we may end up having that kind of T which goes south. And I could see them joining us. And I could see them having a real interest in joining us.”

“I think that when we added Nebraska, it caused a whole domino effect that I don't think that we quite predicted. I think if we had predicted that, we would have added Missouri and Kansas at the same time, right Gene?"
Gene (OSU's AD) - "That was on the table."
Gee - "And Pitt was on the table. You know Penn State just abhors Pitt. It would be the same way. Even though we love Cincinnati as a city, we want it to be an Ohio State city. They’d have to take Gene out and shoot him to let Cincinnati into the Big Ten. There are some things that we just would not to. And that’s the way that Penn State also feels about Pitt. One of the problems we have is that Iowa has tremendous pressure about Iowa State. But we're not interested about Iowa State. We are interested in Missouri and Kansas eventually I think... This all has to be speculation that remains right here, and I could see eventually that t that goes South, all according to what happens with the ACC, so we need to be ready to move.”


He also had some comments on the NCAA in general:

“My view, very candidly — and I’ve said this to you before and I’m not certain if [athletic director] Gene [Smith] shares this, we haven’t really talked about this — but I think we’re moving precipitously toward about three or four superconferences of about 16 to 20 teams. And the possibility of them bolting from the NCAA is not unlikely.”

“The smaller schools in the Divisions II and III, which have substantial power but no power in terms of television draw or anything else, they have increasingly become rigid about the way that we change some of the rules in support of the revenue-generating institutions. And eventually that’s gonna drive us all into a new kind of a configuration. And that’s where I think we’re going.”



IMO, these are more interesting than his jokes on Catholics or the SEC. Also, please don't discuss those parts of his comments as that thread is already shut down.

I've seen this play run before.

They ran it to get Division I split into I-A and I-AA in football.
Ran it again to push more of I-A into I-AA.
Used that play to create the federated governance structure.

I suspect there are two possible plays being considering.

Play #1. Strengthening the power of the "equity" conferences. Tweaking the system so you don't see another situation like the stipend where the power leagues approve it and the have nots get it knocked out.

Play #2 Back out of the deal cut when the federated governance structure was adopted that preserved for eternity the revenue formula for the NCAA.