Big 10 expansion -- will Pac 10 be forced to expand?

[77buff]

That data is no longer relevant, and includes ALL teams gross ticket sales, licensing royalties, local media rights deals, etc (most of which is not shared between conference members). The Big 12 distributed $113.5 million amongt the 12 members last season ($9.5 million to Nebraska), that is the apples to apples number to compare with the Big Ten revenue sharing.

Since that time frame, the Big Ten has formed their own network, and signed two big contracts with ABC/ESPN and CBS

The Big Ten network deal is expected to gross $2.8 billion over 25 years, which is $112 million per year.

The ABC/ESPN deal runs through 2016 and is $100 million per season.

The CBS deal runs through the 2018-19 season and nets $2 million per season.

That is a total of $214 million per season just in conference TV contracts. Add in the bowl revenues, which the Big Ten should receive $37 million this season. There are other revenues as well. The total for the above figures $251 million amongst 11 teams for an average of $22.8 million.

The SEC also just signed that monster TV package with ESPN & CBS that will net $205 million per season.

The Big 12 is locked into its primary TV contract with ABC/ESPN until 2015-16, which generates $60 million per season. The secondary contract with Fox Sports Net grosses $19.5 million per season and expires in 2011-12.

The Pac-10s TV contracts all expire at the end of the 2011-12 season, which is also the season that ends the 4-year review period for "BCS Automatic Qualification" for conferences. The Pac-10 could prevent the MWC from gaining autobid status by picking off one their top teams, while also delivering bigger TV markets that would help them to negotiatie a more lucrative TV contract. Although it would not be in the ballpark of Big Ten / SEC type money, it could very well be much more lucrative than the Big 12 contract, despite dividing up the revenues with 12 teams as that could lead to an additional $8 to 12 million as well.

The Pac-10 also just contracted with the Alamo Bowl to host their #2 team in future years, dropping the Holiday to #3 in their lineup. That is a good step for them as their secondary bowl picture was also pretty spotty.

These figures are from 2008
Source U.S. Department of Education
Iowa ranks fifth among Big Ten schools in football revenue for the 2008 fiscal year (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008), according to figures supplied to the U.S. Department of Education.
These numbers differ slightly from those submitted to the NCAA, but most of the intangibles are the same. This list also includes football expenses for 2008 as well as recruiting expenses for men’s sports. The Education Department doesn’t supply specific recruiting expenses, but a good rule of thumb is that football recruiting expenses take up between 40 and 55 percent of all men’s recruiting expenses (except Notre Dame, which is much higher).
I also supplied a list of 10 other colleges to compare expenses from Big Ten schools with those of similar conferences and Notre Dame.
Ohio State
FB Revenue — $65,162,179
FB Expenses — $33,063,248
Men’s recruiting expenses — $794,284

Michigan
FB Revenue — $57,463,603
FB Expenses — $16,785,667
Men’s recruiting expenses — $929,383

Penn State
FB Revenue — $53,766,038
FB Expenses — $16,537,705
Men’s recruiting expenses — $534,741


Michigan State
FB Revenue — $43,826,312
FB Expenses — $17,910,444
Men’s recruiting expenses — $744,715

Iowa
FB Revenue — $37,998,729
FB Expenses — $26,166,182
Men’s recruiting expenses — $637,685


Wisconsin
FB Revenue — $37,733,698
FB Expenses — $22,979,031
Men’s recruiting expenses – $452,958

Illinois
FB Revenue — $25,370,427
FB Expenses — $12,210,666
Men’s recruiting expenses — $862,681

Minnesota
FB Revenue — $24,275,876
FB Expenses — $9,306,397
Men’s recruiting expenses — $866,117


Indiana
FB Revenue — $21,774,074
FB Expenses — $12,493,144
Men’s recruiting expenses — $633,002


Purdue
FB Revenue — $21,641,794
FB Expenses — $14,501,436
Men’s recruiting expenses — $810,016

Northwestern
FB Revenue — $21,080,405
FB Expenses — $12,113,946
Men’s recruiting expenses — $482,588

OTHERS



Georgia
FB Revenue — $67,053,051
FB Expenses — $19,073,103
Men’s recruiting expenses — $858,183

Notre Dame
FB Revenue — $59,774,851
FB Expenses — $16,589,924
Men’s recruiting expenses — $1,793,517

Alabama
FB Revenue — $57,370,617
FB Expenses — $16,154,793
Men’s recruiting expenses — $654,253

Nebraska
FB Revenue — $49,076,861
FB Expenses — $18,797,860
Men’s recruiting expenses — $755,993

Washington
FB Revenue — $37,092,611
FB Expenses — $17,202,549
Men’s recruiting expenses — $529,929




Virginia
FB Revenue — $30,297,214
FB Expenses — $18,010,178
Men’s recruiting expenses — $569,738

Georgia Tech
FB Revenue — $29,353,239
FB Expenses — $14,199,958
Men’s recruiting expenses — $1,040,710

West Virginia
FB Revenue — $27,552,053
FB Expenses — $17,778,686
Men’s recruiting expenses — $1,066,916

Oregon
FB Revenue — $24,493,155
FB Expenses — $16,293,303
Men’s recruiting expenses — $903,462

Iowa State
FB Revenue — $17,404,826
FB Expenses — $9,833,299
Men’s recruiting expenses — $882,283

 

[ScottyBuff]

These figures are from 2008
Source U.S. Department of Education
Iowa ranks fifth among Big Ten schools in football revenue for the 2008 fiscal year (July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008), according to figures supplied to the U.S. Department of Education.
These numbers differ slightly from those submitted to the NCAA, but most of the intangibles are the same. This list also includes football expenses for 2008 as well as recruiting expenses for men’s sports. The Education Department doesn’t supply specific recruiting expenses, but a good rule of thumb is that football recruiting expenses take up between 40 and 55 percent of all men’s recruiting expenses (except Notre Dame, which is much higher).
I also supplied a list of 10 other colleges to compare expenses from Big Ten schools with those of similar conferences and Notre Dame.

Good comparisons for those schools, not sure how they break down the Big Ten network revenues, as that includes all sports. It also ignores the basketball contract revenues, which are significant part of the ABC/ESPN deal that began in 2006.

The SEC deal began this year, so it was not represented in those figures (obviously with the fiscal year still underway).

 

[Daaah]

So there's been a lot of talk on here about how conference realignments would affect recruiting, but is it really that important?

CU already recruits better out of states like California, Arizona, Ohio, and Hawaii than we do from Iowa, Kansas, or Oklahoma and we play there every year.

How does our SoCal recruiting improve by being in the Pac 10? I guess I can see the draw of telling kids their family will get to see them play, which is probably a big deal, but is that it?

I dunno. Why don't you ask Diante Jackson's grandmother.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

ND keeps 100% of any bowl revenue whereas the money would be divided amongst all the members of the conference. CU gets 1/12th of Texas' trip to the mNC game. If the Big 12 had send a 2nd team we'd have even more revenue like the Big 10 and SEC are getting.

If the Big 10 and Pac 10 move to a mega conference format I wonder how long before the conference drive up the pressure to kick ND out of the BCS money club. :devil:

I don't understand why the conferences don't do that now and tell ND to go **** themselves.

 

[sackman]

Have the folks at the Pac 10 looked at the standings in the Big 12 lately?


Maybe they want to increase their conference strength in cross country. :thumbsup:

 

[SINKRATZ]

I dunno. Why don't you ask Diante Jackson's grandmother.

Unless CU moved its campus to Eugene, Diante was gone. Joining the Pac 10 and playing one game there every 2 years or so wouldn't have convinced gramma IMO.

 

[Duff Man]

Unless CU moved its campus to Eugene, Diante was gone. Joining the Pac 10 and playing one game there every 2 years or so wouldn't have convinced gramma IMO.

Putting Diante Jackson aside, I think you are underestimating the impact that a conference switch would have on So Cal recruiting. In addition to kids being able to tell their families they can watch them play, the prospects themselves can watch your games on TV and become familiar with your team before they even meet a coach on the recruiting trail. Any familiarity you can get is always a good thing.

 

[Timbuff10]

Just throwing this out there, but if they made it the Pac12, why not play the other 11 teams every season and then just have 1 out of conference game each year? I know it seems like not enough OOC on the schedule, but if you think about it, most teams only schedule one good OOC game anyway each year. Just eliminate all the crappy blowouts then and have one really good OOC game and then get right into the season.

 

[sackman]

Putting Diante Jackson aside, I think you are underestimating the impact that a conference switch would have on So Cal recruiting. In addition to kids being able to tell their families they can watch them play, the prospects themselves can watch your games on TV and become familiar with your team before they even meet a coach on the recruiting trail. Any familiarity you can get is always a good thing.

Are we sure we want that happening?

 

[96 Buff]

Just throwing this out there, but if they made it the Pac12, why not play the other 11 teams every season and then just have 1 out of conference game each year? I know it seems like not enough OOC on the schedule, but if you think about it, most teams only schedule one good OOC game anyway each year. Just eliminate all the crappy blowouts then and have one really good OOC game and then get right into the season.

The OOC games is what adds some nice variety to each season. Playing the same 11 teams every year with only 1 new one would remove a lot from the season.

 

[Sportsfan101]

Just throwing this out there, but if they made it the Pac12, why not play the other 11 teams every season and then just have 1 out of conference game each year? I know it seems like not enough OOC on the schedule, but if you think about it, most teams only schedule one good OOC game anyway each year. Just eliminate all the crappy blowouts then and have one really good OOC game and then get right into the season.

Can't do that because it would cause good teams to have 2-3 losses, and take the conference out of the running for at-large BCS spots. No way will the Pac 10 (or should the Pac 10) agree to play all 11 teams in the conference every year. It's not in their financial interest to do so.

 

[somebody]

I don't understand why the conferences don't do that now and tell ND to go **** themselves.

Theoretically, ND was bringing a huge fan base to the table for periodic BCS games. If they become relevant again, that could still happen. If they don't, I bet this gets reworked, as it is even more patently unfair than the issue of BCS conferences vs the rest of the conferences.

 

[MtnBuff]

Just throwing this out there, but if they made it the Pac12, why not play the other 11 teams every season and then just have 1 out of conference game each year? I know it seems like not enough OOC on the schedule, but if you think about it, most teams only schedule one good OOC game anyway each year. Just eliminate all the crappy blowouts then and have one really good OOC game and then get right into the season.

In addition to the other good reasons mentioned it would also cost a bunch of teams a lot of money. Conference games require that revenues be shared according to a formula determined by the conference. OOC game revenues are distributed only according to the contract between the two schools playing. By having OOC games teams can either schedule a school that will play for significantly less than the payout to the opponent would be in conference or schedule a high revenue game (U$C-ND) and distribute a higher amount of revenue than normally would be gained in a conference game.

The OOC games also allow in normal years for a majority of the teams in the conference to end with above .500 records since they can get 1 or 2 games that are home missmatches outside of conference. This allows the boosters to feel good and ticket buyers to believe that they are getting value increasing revenues for the schools as well.

 

[ScottyBuff]

In addition to the other good reasons mentioned it would also cost a bunch of teams a lot of money. Conference games require that revenues be shared according to a formula determined by the conference. OOC game revenues are distributed only according to the contract between the two schools playing. By having OOC games teams can either schedule a school that will play for significantly less than the payout to the opponent would be in conference or schedule a high revenue game (U$C-ND) and distribute a higher amount of revenue than normally would be gained in a conference game.

The OOC games also allow in normal years for a majority of the teams in the conference to end with above .500 records since they can get 1 or 2 games that are home missmatches outside of conference. This allows the boosters to feel good and ticket buyers to believe that they are getting value increasing revenues for the schools as well.

The Pac-10 requires a payment of $200,000 to an in-conference opponent when they travel to your stadium, except for the "rivalry" game. In the rivalry games they are required to share the proceeds, so USC-UCLA whether it is in the Rose Bowl or Colisseum each team gets 50%. Not a problem for any school except for Washington who only gets $400-450k for games in Pullman against Wazzou, while Wazzou collects over $1 million for games in Seattle.

Not sure what the Big 12 policy is.

 

[MtnBuff]

The Pac-10 requires a payment of $200,000 to an in-conference opponent when they travel to your stadium, except for the "rivalry" game. In the rivalry games they are required to share the proceeds, so USC-UCLA whether it is in the Rose Bowl or Colisseum each team gets 50%. Not a problem for any school except for Washington who only gets $400-450k for games in Pullman against Wazzou, while Wazzou collects over $1 million for games in Seattle.

Not sure what the Big 12 policy is.

I don't know what the Big 12 policy is either. The problem is that for conference games you generally end up playing an equal amount of home and road games. If you add two conference games to the schedule in place of two OOC games this means that you get your normal home revenue for one and only the $200k for the road game. As a major conference school you may lose a little bit on your home game against a mid-major school but the majority of the time the other OOC you gave up would have also been a home game. Even if you have to pay $300k-400k to get the opponent to come in you make up the difference plus a lot more having an extra home game most years.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I don't know what the Big 12 policy is either. The problem is that for conference games you generally end up playing an equal amount of home and road games. If you add two conference games to the schedule in place of two OOC games this means that you get your normal home revenue for one and only the $200k for the road game. As a major conference school you may lose a little bit on your home game against a mid-major school but the majority of the time the other OOC you gave up would have also been a home game. Even if you have to pay $300k-400k to get the opponent to come in you make up the difference plus a lot more having an extra home game most years.

Yeah the economics favor the extra OOC, especially if you can get that 7th "home" game that a lot of teams do.

The biggest factor, as you stated would be the dilution of records, as most BCS conferences have bowl contracts for 70-80% of their total teams due to winning records in OOC play. You would lose 1 or 2 bowl eligible teams if all teams played each other in a 12 team conference.

 

[ScottyBuff]

In short, if CU announced tomorrow they were leaving for another conference, they would have to stay in the Big 12 for the 2010-11 and 2011-12 sports years as a lame duck, and would lose all bowl/conference money as a penalty for two years. This was put into the conference bylaws at the beginning because of the geography of the Big Eight and Texas schools (Pac-10 could take CU or UT; Big Ten could take North teams; SEC could take UT/A&M/OU/OSU). So that's why it's dang hard to leave this conference. I'm positive CU couldn't take the financial hit and two years as a lame duck would suck, though if the Pac really wanted us they could help cover the penalty. But waiting would still have to happen, so it would be a miserable stretch IMO.

The penalty for leaving the Big 12 (with 2 years notice) is 50% of conference revenue distributions. CU received $8.5 million in 2008, so that would effectively be a penalty of roughly the same.

The issue that I can see now is that the conference agreement rolls on 5-year "additional terms", the 2 year notice to leave the conference has to coincide with the end of a term.

The original term ended 7/1/06 (the 10 year anniversary). The first additional term ends 7/1/11. That means noticed would have to have been served on or before 7/1/09 (5 months ago). Otherwise it would have to wait until 7/1/14 to do so, unless there were some legal wrangling on the issue, but I doubt anything that would be feasible.

A "breaching" member (fall below the requirements for # of sports for example) faces much stiffer penalties, but can leave on a shorter time frame.

 

[Sportsfan101]

ScottyBuff-
Thanks for all of the info. You know an awful lot about this stuff....if I didn't know better, I'd think you worked for the athletic department or the Big 12.....

 

[ScottyBuff]

ScottyBuff-
Thanks for all of the info. You know an awful lot about this stuff....if I didn't know better, I'd think you worked for the athletic department or the Big 12.....

HAHA, I wish that I could work for the athletic department, or any athletic department, in fact I wouldn't call that work at all!

Really, I just try to look at things from all sides and then research the answers as they get posed, and usually one thing leads to another. Some information is really hard to find, some is written "in-between the lines", and some of it is actually easier to figure out than most think.

I have some experience working on corporate and non-profit audits and fraud examinations, so I guess I have a different perspective about connecting pieces of information together and breaking things down to small details.

Following the evolution of college football is a "hobby" of mine and I love practical discussions of conference realignments, playoff structures, and other things.

There is still so much about NCAA athletics that I don't understand, but love to learn as much as possible.

 

[Liver]

great info, but i would also point out that everything is negotiable. CU won't be the domino that starts the chain reaction.

if mizzery goes to the b10 (and the gov. of that state said today they should strongly consider it), it will set off a chain of events. they may decide, together with the b10, to write checks to the b12 for the "loss."

now then, presume mizzery goes ahead. the p10 is absolutely, positively going to want to go to 12 teams at that point to match the b10. and the b12 will be scrambling to bring in another school too. the b12 may be more than willing to let CU leave (especially the texass schools) if they can pull in a pair of schools that make them happy... say maybe tcu and another texas school like houston or something or maybe arkansas. the p10, i think, will be gunning for CU, utah, and possibly byu. texas to the p10 is not going to happen because state politics down there would prevent it, even if they wanted to make the jump (which they won't at this point).

all contracts are negotiable and everything comes down to $. with the tv contracts coming up, assembling a package that the networks will want is going to be more important than the existing state of affairs.

 

[Liver]

i should also add that there are great risks for CU if this game of musical chairs begins.

we could be left without a chair (at least a good one) when the music stops.

let's recall that CU was in a far stronger position in 94 when this all happened the last time and texas was in far weaker position. when the p10 called, both schools were in a place where moving was more feasible than now.

say mizzery leaves and CU can't make a move to the p10 (if they don't offer or something). if the b12 brings in tcu, the texas schools will try to force the elimination of the north and south divisions and go with "best record" for the ccg. that would be horrible for CU. or, worse, they could go with tcu and arky and kick CU to the curb, leaving us scrambling to form a new bcs conf., probably with boise state and probably with mwc schools.

if the b12 gets more texas-centric (and it is already over the top), it will be very bad for CU if the Buffs can't escape.

 

[ScottyBuff]

great info, but i would also point out that everything is negotiable. CU won't be the domino that starts the chain reaction.

if mizzery goes to the b10 (and the gov. of that state said today they should strongly consider it), it will set off a chain of events. they may decide, together with the b10, to write checks to the b12 for the "loss."

now then, presume mizzery goes ahead. the p10 is absolutely, positively going to want to go to 12 teams at that point to match the b10. and the b12 will be scrambling to bring in another school too. the b12 may be more than willing to let CU leave (especially the texass schools) if they can pull in a pair of schools that make them happy... say maybe tcu and another texas school like houston or something or maybe arkansas. the p10, i think, will be gunning for CU, utah, and possibly byu. texas to the p10 is not going to happen because state politics down there would prevent it, even if they wanted to make the jump (which they won't at this point).

all contracts are negotiable and everything comes down to $. with the tv contracts coming up, assembling a package that the networks will want is going to be more important than the existing state of affairs.

Most definitely, money makes everything possible!

The 2011-12 period in college football is EXTREMELY interesting as three major conferences all have TV deals to renegotiate, the BCS review period will end for Automatic Qualifications, and possibly some movement by then in regards to Congressional involvement with the BCS and the title game.

I absolutely think that the Pac-10 will never invite BYU. It makes no sense from a financial and competitive standpoint, but I just can't see the elite (mostly liberal) academic institutions bringing in BYU. I posted some more detail on that issue in the comments of my article.

For the Pac-10, for the next 5-10 years it seems that CU and Utah are the ONLY schools that could fit their footprint and profile. Maybe in another half-generation or so Hawaii or UNLV could improve enough to be considered, or UC-Davis or UC-Irvine step up their athletics to the next level.

But, as you say, the Big Ten's move is the critical first domino that could set a lot in motion.

 

[ScottyBuff]

i should also add that there are great risks for CU if this game of musical chairs begins.

we could be left without a chair (at least a good one) when the music stops.

let's recall that CU was in a far stronger position in 94 when this all happened the last time and texas was in far weaker position. when the p10 called, both schools were in a place where moving was more feasible than now.

say mizzery leaves and CU can't make a move to the p10 (if they don't offer or something). if the b12 brings in tcu, the texas schools will try to force the elimination of the north and south divisions and go with "best record" for the ccg. that would be horrible for CU. or, worse, they could go with tcu and arky and kick CU to the curb, leaving us scrambling to form a new bcs conf., probably with boise state and probably with mwc schools.

if the b12 gets more texas-centric (and it is already over the top), it will be very bad for CU if the Buffs can't escape.

What about a counter-strategy.

If Mizzou leaves, and the Big 12 invites TCU, what about CU joining the Texas schools?

OU and Okie lite to the north. Rebalances the strength of the North in football, resumes the OU-NB rivalry.

CU-Neb and OU-TX could be "locked" inter-divisional games.

North would be: Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State, Iowa State

South would be: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, TCU, Colorado, and Baylor

While that would look extremely intimidating, think about the boost that would give to our Texas recruiting!

Selling TX recruits on coming to Boulder, but being able to play 2-3 games in their home state every year would be a huge advantage (one that Ok-State currently is benefiting greatly from).

Having Texas in the division would be daunting, but why back away form the challenge?

If you can't beat 'em, JOIN 'EM!

 

[MtnBuff]

The Texas schools might want a Texas centered conference from an ego standpoint but as has been stated before money makes the difference. Texas is a big TV marker (or set of TV markets) but losing the Denver market, the KC market, even the market in Lincoln and the midwest would greatly reduce the bargaining power the Big XII has for network contracts. Adding TCU, SMU, even Arkansas would not add an appreicable number of TV households to compensate for those lost with the North schools. This was one of the reasons that the SWC was forced to come to an end when it did.

 

[Liver]

The Texas schools might want a Texas centered conference from an ego standpoint but as has been stated before money makes the difference. Texas is a big TV marker (or set of TV markets) but losing the Denver market, the KC market, even the market in Lincoln and the midwest would greatly reduce the bargaining power the Big XII has for network contracts. Adding TCU, SMU, even Arkansas would not add an appreicable number of TV households to compensate for those lost with the North schools. This was one of the reasons that the SWC was forced to come to an end when it did.

yes, but the fact will be that the b12 will not be able to replace mizzery with a team that broadens its market. the b12 tv contract, as a result, is going to get worse if mizzery bolts. they'll end up going with what they know--- texas schools or arky.

as i am typing this, i guess it is theoretically possible that if CU stays and mizzery goes, the b12 could also make a run at utah. that would add a tv market (albeit smaller than what they lose if mizzery leaves) and also preserve the north division.

i just hope our Buffs land well once the dominoes start falling.

 

[Buffnik]

If Missouri leaves, the Big 12 should target Utah. Brings in the Salt Lake City market. For the Buffs, it renews an old rivalry and gives us another team in our time zone.

 

[Razorbuff]

i should also add that there are great risks for CU if this game of musical chairs begins.

we could be left without a chair (at least a good one) when the music stops.

let's recall that CU was in a far stronger position in 94 when this all happened the last time and texas was in far weaker position. when the p10 called, both schools were in a place where moving was more feasible than now.

say mizzery leaves and CU can't make a move to the p10 (if they don't offer or something). if the b12 brings in tcu, the texas schools will try to force the elimination of the north and south divisions and go with "best record" for the ccg. that would be horrible for CU. or, worse, they could go with tcu and arky and kick CU to the curb, leaving us scrambling to form a new bcs conf., probably with boise state and probably with mwc schools.

if the b12 gets more texas-centric (and it is already over the top), it will be very bad for CU if the Buffs can't escape.

Even if Mizzou goes to the Big 10, Arkansas will never go to the big 12, too much money would be lost, I could see the Big 12 adding another school to replace Mizzou and then shifting a team to the North. CU to the PAC10 could be interesting, but I have no clue whether or not that would happen. Either way, I doubt CU gets left out anywhere.

 

[ScottyBuff]

Even if Mizzou goes to the Big 10, Arkansas will never go to the big 12, too much money would be lost, I could see the Big 12 adding another school to replace Mizzou and then shifting a team to the North. CU to the PAC10 could be interesting, but I have no clue whether or not that would happen. Either way, I doubt CU gets left out anywhere.

If the Big 12 loses a team, and the Pac-10 wants to expand; rather than us losing a home, I think we become much more in demand.

No way Arkansas leaves the SEC for the Big 12.

If a team left the Big 12 they would hard pressed to find any decent options that provide both additional markets and a competitive program.

TCU solidifies a market and adds good football and baseball.

New Mexico could add a market but is only competitive in hoops. Probably a solid long-term option as the area will only grow and as a state flagship school could thrive in a bigger conference in the the future.

A lot of other options out there but none have a clear-cut advantage over the rest.

BYU would be interesting, especially if Utah went to the Pac-10 alone.

 

[CarolinaBuff]

I know Arkansas has some historical ties and tradition with the old SWC schools but I just don't see them leaving the SEC either. They'd be crazy to leave that conference.

UNM would bring a good basketball school that draws very well but their football program would be a big burden with their small stadium size and how little they draw. But I suppose they'd be worth considering depending on where the Albuquerque market rank is, but my guess is that the Salt Lake market is ranked quite a bit higher.

 

[ScottyBuff]

I know Arkansas has some historical ties and tradition with the old SWC schools but I just don't see them leaving the SEC either. They'd be crazy to leave that conference.

UNM would bring a good basketball school that draws very well but their football program would be a big burden with their small stadium size and how little they draw. But I suppose they'd be worth considering depending on where the Albuquerque market rank is, but my guess is that the Salt Lake market is ranked quite a bit higher.

Yeah, the SLC market (#31, 944,060) is much larger than Albuquerque (#44, 694,040).

Just that New Mexico is more of a "fit" geographically and politically. Competitively they have a long way to go on the football field , but Big 12 payout money could certainly bring in the recruits and coaching to improve their performance, and playing Texas teams would certainly improve their attendance figures.

Their stadium is under expansion to 42,000+, but their average attendance has dipped from 29,713 in 2008 to 26,944 this year (Baylor was lowest in Big 12 with 36,306 in '09).

Interesting to note that Albuquerque is a bigger TV market than OKC, Austin, Tulsa, Wichita, Des Moines, and Omaha.