How will the two new Big Ten teams fare? Let's assume the worst...that Rutgers and Maryland will descend to the bottom of the Big Ten and share space with the already numerous bottom feeders. This is the potential "scheduling monster" Delany has created for the league.

Such a "dilution" of the this oft maligned league is the last thing it needed, as shown in this fine article by Ty Duffy: http://thebiglead.com/2013/12/18/there-i...re-awful/.

Ticket sales and TV viewership are at stake. Should Delany throw all his chips in now and get, say, a Texas, to add some badly needed scheduling "pop!" to the bland Big Ten team schedules? Could a 15 team conference work?

What Delany wants and what the Big Ten Presidents/Chancellors want are not likely the same here.

Let's see what happens in the next year. With the next TV deal, Delany will be able to make a strong case to the Presidents/Chancellors if someone out there wants to dance.

(12-18-2013 02:44 PM)Badger Wrote:  How will the two new Big Ten teams fare? Let's assume the worst...that Rutgers and Maryland will descend to the bottom of the Big Ten and share space with the already numerous bottom feeders. This is the potential "scheduling monster" Delany has created for the league.

Such a "dilution" of the this oft maligned league is the last thing it needed, as shown in this fine article by Ty Duffy: http://thebiglead.com/2013/12/18/there-i...re-awful/.

Ticket sales and TV viewership are at stake. Should Delany throw all his chips in now and get, say, a Texas, to add some badly needed scheduling "pop!" to the bland Big Ten team schedules? Could a 15 team conference work?

I generally like a lot of Ty Duffy's stuff, but that might have been the worst piece that I've ever seen from him. The intentional exclusion of Penn State as being defined as a marquee name skewed his entire premise completely.

At the same time, if the Big Ten could have added Texas, then they would have done so already. It's not exactly as simple as just demanding that the conference expand. If anything, the Big Ten's main targets that are talked about the most (UVA, UNC and Kansas) wouldn't help much at all on the football front. To be sure, I think how schedules look would change dramatically if another marquee name could be added in the Big Ten West division (cough... Oklahoma... cough), but that's not going to happen any time soon.

(12-18-2013 02:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 02:44 PM)Badger Wrote:  How will the two new Big Ten teams fare? Let's assume the worst...that Rutgers and Maryland will descend to the bottom of the Big Ten and share space with the already numerous bottom feeders. This is the potential "scheduling monster" Delany has created for the league.

Such a "dilution" of the this oft maligned league is the last thing it needed, as shown in this fine article by Ty Duffy: http://thebiglead.com/2013/12/18/there-i...re-awful/.

Ticket sales and TV viewership are at stake. Should Delany throw all his chips in now and get, say, a Texas, to add some badly needed scheduling "pop!" to the bland Big Ten team schedules? Could a 15 team conference work?

I generally like a lot of Ty Duffy's stuff, but that might have been the worst piece that I've ever seen from him. The intentional exclusion of Penn State as being defined as a marquee name skewed his entire premise completely.

At the same time, if the Big Ten could have added Texas, then they would have done so already. It's not exactly as simple as just demanding that the conference expand. If anything, the Big Ten's main targets that are talked about the most (UVA, UNC and Kansas) wouldn't help much at all on the football front. To be sure, I think how schedules look would change dramatically if another marquee name could be added in the Big Ten West division (cough... Oklahoma... cough), but that's not going to happen any time soon.

This article put into focus for me the scheduling issues that have come about with a rather weak expansion move of the two new schools. I will no longer even think about adding a Buffalo or other potential weakling, as it is clear to me the next school Delany acquires has to be a solid one. I would drop all self imposed "expansion rules" as well. I agree with you, Frank the Tank, that the omission of PSU was inexcusable. My guess is he weighed in their sanctioned status when drafting the article. But I sure hope that Delany is pounding the streets of Norman, Blacksburg, Columbia, Austin, and even a make up stroll through South Bend to change the dynamic of what now appears to be a too risky expansion decision. If it were me, I would empty the Big Ten wallet to bring aboard a quality football school ASAP.

No. 14 teams is plenty.

Shoot me for thinking out of the box, and then in a way that will seem impractical, but.... I don't think Texas and Oklahoma will go to the Big 10 and they may not need to do so. I think we've been approaching the whole realignment issue backwards. If Delany wants populous coastal television markets why is he looking East where there are no football powers to add cache to the Big 10. Why not look West where the Big 10 can add AAU programs that have football credentials. Washington, U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Stanford, and California are all AAU have large markets, share an academic culture with the Big 10 at least as well as ACC schools do, and if you throw Colorado into the mix the Big 10 can go to 20, add major football chops, stay all AAU, and help Texas and Oklahoma to rebuild the Big 12 with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, B.Y.U., and Nevada.

Frank is absolutely correct that adding North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, or Connecticut won't do anything to improve the Big 10's football image. With the California schools refusing to take academic weaklings which limits their expansion it seems like a practical solution.

Now I know jobs, politics, control issues, and everything else might get in the way but really is this so bad:

California, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Washington
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

I only jest in part.

I thought the Big 10 was already a "murderer's row" of opponents? They apparently don't need anyone else.

(12-18-2013 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Shoot me for thinking out of the box, and then in a way that will seem impractical, but.... I don't think Texas and Oklahoma will go to the Big 10 and they may not need to do so. I think we've been approaching the whole realignment issue backwards. If Delany wants populous coastal television markets why is he looking East where there are no football powers to add cache to the Big 10. Why not look West where the Big 10 can add AAU programs that have football credentials. Washington, U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Stanford, and California are all AAU have large markets, share an academic culture with the Big 10 at least as well as ACC schools do, and if you throw Colorado into the mix the Big 10 can go to 20, add major football chops, stay all AAU, and help Texas and Oklahoma to rebuild the Big 12 with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, B.Y.U., and Nevada.

Frank is absolutely correct that adding North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, or Connecticut won't do anything to improve the Big 10's football image. With the California schools refusing to take academic weaklings which limits their expansion it seems like a practical solution.

Now I know jobs, politics, control issues, and everything else might get in the way but really is this so bad:

California, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Washington
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

I only jest in part.

That was actually the theory behind the Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership that ended up never getting finalized: both conferences would be able to take advantage of a large increase in quality football and basketball inventory with an almost coast-to-coast footprint without having to expand further. It was only after that Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership fell apart that Jim Delany went on the prowl for expansion again (resulting in Maryland and Rutgers). He has said directly that if that Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership hadn't fallen through, the Big Ten would have stopped at 12 and halted expansion.

How Rutgers and Maryland will do in the Big Ten is just a guess at this point. I think Rutgers will turn out the stronger football school and may become quite good in their new league, given their history and strong recruiting area. But if both are football duds, then the 50/50 split I see developing in the Big Ten will only deepen. The top half being good to excellent, the bottom half an ugly competition to stay out of the bottom.

(12-18-2013 04:29 PM)Badger Wrote:  How Rutgers and Maryland will do in the Big Ten is just a guess at this point. I think Rutgers will turn out the stronger football school and may become quite good in their new league, given their history and strong recruiting area. But if both are football duds, then the 50/50 split I see developing in the Big Ten will only deepen. The top half being good to excellent, the bottom half an ugly competition to stay out of the bottom.

WARNING!!

Sarcasm Ahead!

Here ya go! Western B1G breaks off to join forces with the original B12 members after realignment to form the Great Plains Athletic Conference:

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Iowa State
Nebraska
Illinois
Northwestern

Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor

TCU and WVU told "its not you, it's me, and its just not working out."

Problem solved!

(12-18-2013 04:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  That was actually the theory behind the Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership that ended up never getting finalized: both conferences would be able to take advantage of a large increase in quality football and basketball inventory with an almost coast-to-coast footprint without having to expand further.

Their plan was too ambitious for football. It was always destined to run into problems once people started thinking about the implications of locking in 9 conference games plus one Pac-12/Big Ten game every single year, in a system where for teams with playoff ambitions, one loss is often fatal and two losses almost always is.

(12-18-2013 02:51 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  What Delany wants and what the Big Ten Presidents/Chancellors want are not likely the same here.

Let's see what happens in the next year. With the next TV deal, Delany will be able to make a strong case to the Presidents/Chancellors if someone out there wants to dance.

Good points.

(12-18-2013 04:19 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Shoot me for thinking out of the box, and then in a way that will seem impractical, but.... I don't think Texas and Oklahoma will go to the Big 10 and they may not need to do so. I think we've been approaching the whole realignment issue backwards. If Delany wants populous coastal television markets why is he looking East where there are no football powers to add cache to the Big 10. Why not look West where the Big 10 can add AAU programs that have football credentials. Washington, U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Stanford, and California are all AAU have large markets, share an academic culture with the Big 10 at least as well as ACC schools do, and if you throw Colorado into the mix the Big 10 can go to 20, add major football chops, stay all AAU, and help Texas and Oklahoma to rebuild the Big 12 with Arizona, Arizona State, Utah, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington State, B.Y.U., and Nevada.

Frank is absolutely correct that adding North Carolina, Virginia, Kansas, or Connecticut won't do anything to improve the Big 10's football image. With the California schools refusing to take academic weaklings which limits their expansion it seems like a practical solution.

Now I know jobs, politics, control issues, and everything else might get in the way but really is this so bad:

California, Stanford, U.C.L.A., U.S.C., Washington
Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin
Illinois, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Ohio State
Indiana, Maryland, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers

I only jest in part.

That was actually the theory behind the Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership that ended up never getting finalized: both conferences would be able to take advantage of a large increase in quality football and basketball inventory with an almost coast-to-coast footprint without having to expand further. It was only after that Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership fell apart that Jim Delany went on the prowl for expansion again (resulting in Maryland and Rutgers). He has said directly that if that Big Ten/Pac-12 partnership hadn't fallen through, the Big Ten would have stopped at 12 and halted expansion.

Yes sir, partnerships would have probably accomplished more and faster, than what we are piecemeal putting together now. I remembered the partnership. I just cut the best of the AAU schools out for this little exercise because the remainder would fit so much better with the Big 12.

(12-18-2013 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  WARNING!!

Sarcasm Ahead!

Here ya go! Western B1G breaks off to join forces with the original B12 members after realignment to form the Great Plains Athletic Conference:

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Iowa State
Nebraska
Illinois
Northwestern

Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor

TCU and WVU told "its not you, it's me, and its just not working out."

Problem solved!

No BIG should pick up TX, Kansas , Okla & Mizzu from SEC.

(12-18-2013 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Shoot me for thinking out of the box, and then in a way that will seem impractical, but.... I don't think Texas and Oklahoma will go to the Big 10 and they may not need to do so.

If Oklahoma ever leaves the Big 12, it will be for the SEC.

Message board squawkers and University Officials generally do not agree, there is a reason for that.

Missouri wanted the Big Ten first, chose the SEC second....yet folks still for some reason think that the SEC is massively in the lead when it comes to the opinions of people who actually make these decisions. The SEC is most likely, at best, third choice for Oklahoma if they were ever to decide to leave the Big 12.

(12-18-2013 08:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Message board squawkers and University Officials generally do not agree, there is a reason for that.

Missouri wanted the Big Ten first, chose the SEC second....yet folks still for some reason think that the SEC is massively in the lead when it comes to the opinions of people who actually make these decisions. The SEC is most likely, at best, third choice for Oklahoma if they were ever to decide to leave the Big 12.

It's sports. Money and fan base will have a lot to say about it. Oh, and by the way Oklahoma is a lot closer to the SEC academically than the Big 10 or PAC. So H1 there are many variables that will go into their decision. But, the whole idea of sports is television revenue (strong in both the Big 10 and SEC, not so much the PAC) butts in the seats (strong in both the Big 10 and SEC, not so much the PAC) and for all sports besides football where travel matters the SEC is much, much closer. Attendance for basketball is fine in the SEC even if basketball isn't. Baseball in the SEC beats the hell out the Big 10 and the PAC is too far for minor sports.

So H1 I'll give the Big 10 a shot at the Sooners, but no better than that of the SEC. And it is the PAC that will be third, in spite of the Dust Bowl Okies in California. Then it comes down to who you want to play. Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin or Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and L.S.U. because those would most likely be the divisions.

The Big 10 may have the CIC and plenty of money, but right now there isn't a compelling sports reason for schools like Oklahoma and Texas to move there.

(12-18-2013 05:38 PM)Badger Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 02:51 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  What Delany wants and what the Big Ten Presidents/Chancellors want are not likely the same here.

Let's see what happens in the next year. With the next TV deal, Delany will be able to make a strong case to the Presidents/Chancellors if someone out there wants to dance.

Good points.

Well, after seeing what I wrote... Delany and his bosses know each other. He knows what they want. I was speaking of what his fantasy team might look like as opposed to that of his bosses.

So, just for fun, a good question might be: what schools would be on each list? Yeah, both of them have a GoR in place. I'm going with Texas, UNC.

(12-18-2013 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 03:59 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Shoot me for thinking out of the box, and then in a way that will seem impractical, but.... I don't think Texas and Oklahoma will go to the Big 10 and they may not need to do so.

If Oklahoma ever leaves the Big 12, it will be for the SEC.

From what I read when the Big 12 was having the mass exodus a few years back, Oklahoma was wanting to join BIG pretty badly. I don't know if the BIG wasn't ready to add another team that quick, academics or OK St. I had read that when Texas was still in SWC they showed interested in joining BIG as well. If either team leaves Big 12 it would be either BIG, SEC or PAC. If ACC was geographically closer they might be in mix. I just would have to think behind close doors that Kansas, Texas and OK have wondering eyes.