re: Interesting take on Big Ten expansion..prob. the best explanation.

quote:

---

What exactly do Illinois and Indiana contribute in the fall?

---

Its different between an existing member and adding an expansion member you ruhtard. The Big10 DOESN'T need to add a member - the only reason to do so will be to INCREASE its revenue PER TEAM, not to keep it the same or decrease it.

quote:

---

As for the second rule, that isn’t just fuzzy math for a conference with 11 members that still calls itself the Big Ten. The reason why the Big Ten has stood at 11 members for so long is that Penn State, which has been an unqualified success in bringing an enormous amount of resources to the conference, is now the baseline standard for any type of expansion candidate. That is, a new school must bring financial, academic and fan base value to the conference that is way above and beyond what an average school would bring to the table. The Big Ten DOESN’T need 11 + 1 = 12, where all that does is add another mouth to feed without materially changing the fortunes of the current conference members. At the same time, the Big Ten absolutely positively will not even consider 11 + 1 = 11.5, where the revenue split per school would actually go down by adding a 12th member. Instead, a viable expansion candidate has to show that by becoming the 12th school in the conference that it would be the equivalent of bringing value that is above and beyond simply adding a conference championship game – essentially, the Big Ten needs 1 marquee school that is worth 2 average schools. Hence, the proper math for the Big Ten is 11 + 1 = 13.

---

quote:

---

Boise brings nothing to the table.

---

Boise has a ZERO percent shot at joining the Big 10. Little tradition, doesn't fit at all geographically (Texas doesn't much, but it's still better than Boise), TERRIBLE academics... no chance.