If Big Ten Expands, Wisconsin's Alvarez Won't Head Welcome Committee

Since the Big Ten Conference disclosed they were exploring future expansion, a hearty debate of expansion's pros and cons has been ongoing. 

Wisconsin Athletic Director Barry Alvarez, who also served as the school's head football coach from 1990-2005, has made it clear that he doesn't want to part with any of $22 million his school gets from the Big Ten each year.

According to CBS Sports, Alvarez put it this way:  "You just don't jump into a league and get a full share of what everyone else in this league has established over time."

He reminds one of former Dodgers manager Tommy Lasorda, who told reporters he wasn't in favor of revenue sharing because it took years for the Dodgers to get to where they were.

But Alvarez isn't the only Big Ten exec who feels this way.  Michigan's Athletic Director Bill Martin said, "I cannot see our 11 institutions simply saying we're going to divide our pie up into more pieces."

In an effort to satisfy Joe Paterno, who suggested Big Ten teams have trouble competing in bowl games because their season ends two or three weeks sooner than other conferences, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany okay-ed the exploration of a possible expansion. 

An expansion to 12 teams would meet NCAA requirements, and the Big Ten could stage their own conference championship game—enabling the conference to play well into December.

But since the Big Ten decided to do a fact-finding search of teams considered as possible candidates, it's become obvious that any move in the direction of expansion would be predicated by finances, and not by a conference championship game.

DOES ALVAREZ NEED TO BE MORE RECEPTIVE OF EXPANSION?

When Alvarez talks about the potential loss of revenue that expansion could create, he makes a good point.  Most likely, he reflects the feelings of all the Big Ten athletic directors, who have to deal with budgetary issues in a flattening economy.

But Alvarez seems to be forgetting how good the Big Ten has been to Wisconsin and who is really putting the bread on the Big Ten's table—it certainly isn't the Badgers.

Wisconsin plays good football, 80,000 fans squeeze into Camp Randall Stadium for every home game, and the Badgers have won three Rose Bowls and three Big Ten Championships during Alvarez's coaching regime. 

But Wisconsin, with a population of slightly over 5 million, is one of smaller states in the family of states that make up the Big Ten Conference.  Iowa, with under 3 million residents is the smallest, Minnesota has approximately 5 million people, and Indiana has slightly over 6 million.

The heavily populated states of Illinois (12 mil), Pennsylvania (12 mil), Ohio (11 mil), and Michigan (10 mil) are the ones that make the conference as financially successful as it is—and it is successful.

More viewers means more television money.  More fans means more folks are ordering the Big Ten Network as part of their television package.

Wisconsin is getting the same $22 million that all the Big Ten teams received last year, but they're not earning it.  The Big boys—Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State—are earning it.

Alvarez needs to remember what a privilege it is to be a member of the Big Ten, and when he talks about not awarding new member full shares, he needs to remember what a sweet deal Wisconsin is getting.

DOES ALVAREZ NEED TO CLARIFY HIS POSITION?

No one can have it both ways.  When the Wisconsin AD talks about not wanting to share revenue with new members, it seems to conflict with a comment he made in the same CBS Sports wire story.  Alvarez was reported as saying, "You take a look at championship week in December, and we're non-players.  We're irrelevant."

Is he proposing the Big Ten somehow extends their season by scheduling bye weeks for its teams, or is he advocating an expansion of at least one new team?

You can't have it both ways!

WILL NEW MEMBERS HAVE TO SIGN PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENTS?

What happens if the Big Ten decides to increase its membership and invites a school like Pittsburgh, Missouri, Rutgers, or Syracuse? 

The Big Ten pays their schools twice as much money as the SEC, the second wealthiest conference.  Are they just going to cut one of these schools an equal share?

Are they going to ask the new member, or members, to sign a prenuptial agreement?

After all, a merger is similar to a marriage.  Are they going to make the new member agree to accept  a smaller yearly payout until they show high ratings in their region, or until they win a Big Ten championship?

It seems that prenuptial agreements are becoming more accepted each year.  When building a relationship between a school and a conference, it might not be in the best interest of both parties.

WILL FINANCIAL CONCERNS  OVERRIDE THE DESIRE TO EXPAND?

As more and more is learned about the wealth of the Big Ten, through their television contract and the Big Ten Network, one can immediately see the this conference is doing something right.

Since the Big Ten pays its members $22 million a year, which is twice as much as the SEC, and three or four times more than the Big East, it appears that adding a team from a conference like the Big East would cause tremendous financial concerns.

Taking a gamble that Rutgers would bring enough viewers with them—and could potentially excel in the New York metropolitan market—would simply be a gamble.

As Big Ten athletic directors are presented with the realities of losing any of their yearly revenues, the thought of hosting a Big Ten championship game is likely to become an after thought—a luxury that doesn't make sense at this time.

Unless Notre Dame or Texas are going to be one of the teams to be added, Big Ten expansion seems destined to remain in the exploratory stages for a good while longer.