Pretty self explanatory...

Link

Things won't change until the denial dies. Of all of the conferences that could maximize their chances with a switch to the spread, the Big 10 is it. Yet only 1 Big 10 school has made the move, Indiana, and while not a perennial winner they have made strides in keeping games interesting and have knocked off a couple of Big 10 schools that prior to their change in scheme would have been considered too strong for them to beat.

(09-11-2014 08:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Things won't change until the denial dies. Of all of the conferences that could maximize their chances with a switch to the spread, the Big 10 is it. Yet only 1 Big 10 school has made the move, Indiana, and while not a perennial winner they have made strides in keeping games interesting and have knocked off a couple of Big 10 schools that prior to their change in scheme would have been considered too strong for them to beat.

I don't think they believe the speed exists within traditions B1G territory to run the spread. And Urban Meyer seems to be the only one capable pulling a decent number of recruits from the south to mitigate that deficit.

(09-11-2014 08:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Things won't change until the denial dies. Of all of the conferences that could maximize their chances with a switch to the spread, the Big 10 is it. Yet only 1 Big 10 school has made the move, Indiana, and while not a perennial winner they have made strides in keeping games interesting and have knocked off a couple of Big 10 schools that prior to their change in scheme would have been considered too strong for them to beat.

I don't think they believe the speed exists within traditions B1G territory to run the spread. And Urban Meyer seems to be the only one capable pulling a decent number of recruits from the south to mitigate that deficit.

Hoops anyone? Seriously Vandiver I think that Delany has already reconciled himself to this. My proof: Rutgers and Maryland. That's why Connecticut is not as far fetched as some think. He may well have conceded football and using football talk to lock down Eastern hoops and who better to do that with than the Huskies for men and women. If the GOR's are an impediment to the hoops programs of the ACC and the GOR and KState issue a problem for Kansas who else would they go for?

I pm'd XLance but the more I look at the more sense a 4 x 15 makes at the end of the Big 12's GOR. Add Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State to the PAC with Colorado as a bridge, add Oklahoma to the SEC, add Notre Dame fully to the ACC and UConn to the Big 10 and you have a 4 x 15 with only the most profitable and academically inclined schools. The PAC adds 3 AAU and places Utah and Colorado in the East. Oklahoma meets the mean of the SEC academics. Notre Dame commits. And the Big 10 goes for hoops with UConn. Then each conference can balance divisions with an at large spot. The networks and conferences earn more per team and nobody takes a weak sister.

(09-11-2014 08:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Things won't change until the denial dies. Of all of the conferences that could maximize their chances with a switch to the spread, the Big 10 is it. Yet only 1 Big 10 school has made the move, Indiana, and while not a perennial winner they have made strides in keeping games interesting and have knocked off a couple of Big 10 schools that prior to their change in scheme would have been considered too strong for them to beat.

I don't think they believe the speed exists within traditions B1G territory to run the spread. And Urban Meyer seems to be the only one capable pulling a decent number of recruits from the south to mitigate that deficit.

Hoops anyone? Seriously Vandiver I think that Delany has already reconciled himself to this. My proof: Rutgers and Maryland. That's why Connecticut is not as far fetched as some think. He may well have conceded football and using football talk to lock down Eastern hoops and who better to do that with than the Huskies for men and women. If the GOR's are an impediment to the hoops programs of the ACC and the GOR and KState issue a problem for Kansas who else would they go for?

I pm'd XLance but the more I look at the more sense a 4 x 15 makes at the end of the Big 12's GOR. Add Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State to the PAC with Colorado as a bridge, add Oklahoma to the SEC, add Notre Dame fully to the ACC and UConn to the Big 10 and you have a 4 x 15 with only the most profitable and academically inclined schools. The PAC adds 3 AAU and places Utah and Colorado in the East. Oklahoma meets the mean of the SEC academics. Notre Dame commits. And the Big 10 goes for hoops with UConn. Then each conference can balance divisions with an at large spot. The networks and conferences earn more per team and nobody takes a weak sister.

First of all I love that there is another convert to the cult of 15. And on an impact balance, one top flight hoops recruit can change the fortunes of a CBB program. Thus I think what you see in CFB for the B1G is further polarization akin to FSU and the ACC in the 90's. I can't speculate on what teams will be included, but I know who won't have an impact: Nebraska and Michigan.

(09-11-2014 09:29 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Things won't change until the denial dies. Of all of the conferences that could maximize their chances with a switch to the spread, the Big 10 is it. Yet only 1 Big 10 school has made the move, Indiana, and while not a perennial winner they have made strides in keeping games interesting and have knocked off a couple of Big 10 schools that prior to their change in scheme would have been considered too strong for them to beat.

I don't think they believe the speed exists within traditions B1G territory to run the spread. And Urban Meyer seems to be the only one capable pulling a decent number of recruits from the south to mitigate that deficit.

Hoops anyone? Seriously Vandiver I think that Delany has already reconciled himself to this. My proof: Rutgers and Maryland. That's why Connecticut is not as far fetched as some think. He may well have conceded football and using football talk to lock down Eastern hoops and who better to do that with than the Huskies for men and women. If the GOR's are an impediment to the hoops programs of the ACC and the GOR and KState issue a problem for Kansas who else would they go for?

I pm'd XLance but the more I look at the more sense a 4 x 15 makes at the end of the Big 12's GOR. Add Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State to the PAC with Colorado as a bridge, add Oklahoma to the SEC, add Notre Dame fully to the ACC and UConn to the Big 10 and you have a 4 x 15 with only the most profitable and academically inclined schools. The PAC adds 3 AAU and places Utah and Colorado in the East. Oklahoma meets the mean of the SEC academics. Notre Dame commits. And the Big 10 goes for hoops with UConn. Then each conference can balance divisions with an at large spot. The networks and conferences earn more per team and nobody takes a weak sister.

First of all I love that there is another convert to the cult of 15. And on an impact balance, one top flight hoops recruit can change the fortunes of a CBB program. Thus I think what you see in CFB for the B1G is further polarization akin to FSU and the ACC in the 90's. I can't speculate on what teams will be included, but I know who won't have an impact: Nebraska and Michigan.

I won't say I'm a convert if there is a #16 that makes sense, fits, and earns us all more. But I do see a number of reasonable reasons to consider 15. I'm still playing with it. It may take, as Xlance and I have kicked around, the inclusion of the AAC with access to the playoffs to get something like that done. If Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and West Virginia could have access that might help the other 4 breakaway. It would sure simplify the expediting of realignment.

Moving to a P4, getting Conference Tournaments and having divisions within conference more like what we see in the NFL, that is going to cause a much needed Nationalization of College Football.

By going through all of that, certain teams will be playing up to 16 games a season versus other teams playing 12 games a year with a potential exhibition game at the end of the year that is going to matter even less now than it has in the past.

When that happens, all of a sudden recruits around the country will be seeing Schools in conferences outside of their region as more appealing than in the past. Those opportunities for more games and more opportunities to show themselves above and beyond competitors for the NFL, that will become a very big deal.

That is what the Big Ten really needs, plus it will make College Football even more popular which can help build football programs for youth in the North.

Let's be honest, that is why the South is producing more top notch recruits right now. These kids learn early and more importantly they develop earlier in the South. The North has been slower in accepting Football as America's game. The economic divide increasing in America will actually drive that as well. More and more parents will push their kids athletically as college educations become more expensive and it becomes more evident that graduating from College does not guarantee anything anymore.

More kids in the North are taking part in youth football. It will take some time for that to catch up but it will happen eventually.

(09-11-2014 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I won't say I'm a convert if there is a #16 that makes sense, fits, and earns us all more. But I do see a number of reasonable reasons to consider 15. I'm still playing with it. It may take, as Xlance and I have kicked around, the inclusion of the AAC with access to the playoffs to get something like that done. If Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and West Virginia could have access that might help the other 4 breakaway. It would sure simplify the expediting of realignment.

Wouldn't that make it necessary going to a no-divisions format? For example, the California schools want to play each other every year regardless. That would make it difficult to do three divisions of five. You could put all 4 Cali schools in one division but that would invite complaints from the PNW and Mountain schools. In addition, I don't think Texas would enthused to not play as many games regionally and more games on the Pacific timezone. This is why I think 3 divisions of 6 is more feasible. The PAC keeps the current divisions as they are today then add a package of six Central Time Zone teams to gain Eastern exposure, teams that Texas already plays regularly in the B12. This I have already mentioned in another thread. Maybe I should switch out K-State for Kansas to appease the academic elites and make it more palatable.

The Big Ten would have similar issues. Ohio State has to play Michigan every year and Michigan and Michigan State want to play each other every year. Either they stay at 14 or go to 16 and stop. 15 may also cause them to consider doing away with divisions.

Only in the ACC might 15 make some sense. Each "division" would be anchored by a football power.

ND, UL, Pitt, SU, BC
VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
FSU, CU, UM, Wake, NCSU

With a PAC 18 and an ACC 15, the B1G and SEC stay at their current numbers. The AAC would be brought up to power conference status, with the best of G5 and B12 remnants:


E: UConn, Cinci, Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, West Virginia
W: TCU, BU, KSU, Memphis, BYU, Houston, Navy

(09-12-2014 12:20 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 03:13 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I won't say I'm a convert if there is a #16 that makes sense, fits, and earns us all more. But I do see a number of reasonable reasons to consider 15. I'm still playing with it. It may take, as Xlance and I have kicked around, the inclusion of the AAC with access to the playoffs to get something like that done. If Texas Tech, T.C.U., Kansas State, Oklahoma State, Baylor, and West Virginia could have access that might help the other 4 breakaway. It would sure simplify the expediting of realignment.

Wouldn't that make it necessary going to a no-divisions format? For example, the California schools want to play each other every year regardless. That would make it difficult to do three divisions of five. You could put all 4 Cali schools in one division but that would invite complaints from the PNW and Mountain schools. In addition, I don't think Texas would enthused to not play as many games regionally and more games on the Pacific timezone. This is why I think 3 divisions of 6 is more feasible. The PAC keeps the current divisions as they are today then add a package of six Central Time Zone teams to gain Eastern exposure, teams that Texas already plays regularly in the B12. This I have already mentioned in another thread. Maybe I should switch out K-State for Kansas to appease the academic elites and make it more palatable.

The Big Ten would have similar issues. Ohio State has to play Michigan every year and Michigan and Michigan State want to play each other every year. Either they stay at 14 or go to 16 and stop. 15 may also cause them to consider doing away with divisions.

Only in the ACC might 15 make some sense. Each "division" would be anchored by a football power.

ND, UL, Pitt, SU, BC
VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, GT
FSU, CU, UM, Wake, NCSU

With a PAC 18 and an ACC 15, the B1G and SEC stay at their current numbers. The AAC would be brought up to power conference status, with the best of G5 and B12 remnants:


E: UConn, Cinci, Temple, ECU, UCF, USF, West Virginia
W: TCU, BU, KSU, Memphis, BYU, Houston, Navy

Not really. Let's say you decide that you want to have 9 conference games. You would play all 4 in your division, 2 each from the other two divisions, and 1 permanent rival.

(09-11-2014 08:31 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:30 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Things won't change until the denial dies. Of all of the conferences that could maximize their chances with a switch to the spread, the Big 10 is it. Yet only 1 Big 10 school has made the move, Indiana, and while not a perennial winner they have made strides in keeping games interesting and have knocked off a couple of Big 10 schools that prior to their change in scheme would have been considered too strong for them to beat.

I don't think they believe the speed exists within traditions B1G territory to run the spread. And Urban Meyer seems to be the only one capable pulling a decent number of recruits from the south to mitigate that deficit.

Hoops anyone? Seriously Vandiver I think that Delany has already reconciled himself to this. My proof: Rutgers and Maryland. That's why Connecticut is not as far fetched as some think. He may well have conceded football and using football talk to lock down Eastern hoops and who better to do that with than the Huskies for men and women. If the GOR's are an impediment to the hoops programs of the ACC and the GOR and KState issue a problem for Kansas who else would they go for?

I pm'd XLance but the more I look at the more sense a 4 x 15 makes at the end of the Big 12's GOR. Add Texas, Kansas, and Iowa State to the PAC with Colorado as a bridge, add Oklahoma to the SEC, add Notre Dame fully to the ACC and UConn to the Big 10 and you have a 4 x 15 with only the most profitable and academically inclined schools. The PAC adds 3 AAU and places Utah and Colorado in the East. Oklahoma meets the mean of the SEC academics. Notre Dame commits. And the Big 10 goes for hoops with UConn. Then each conference can balance divisions with an at large spot. The networks and conferences earn more per team and nobody takes a weak sister.

The more I have looked at the 15 team concept the more I am convinced that Notre Dame will remain as a partial member of the ACC for some time to come. If nothing else it will be to strengthen the ACC brand.
By allowing Notre Dame to stay semi-independent and keep their NBC television contract, it is putting 2-3 ACC games per year on an over-the-air network and getting exposure for ACC football. Those games are being broadcast in regions that the ACC broadcast structure can't reach and attracting an audience that otherwise wouldn't care to watch Clemson, Georgia Tech or Virginia Tech, much less Dook or Carolina.
I still believe that West Virginia will be moved into the ACC to help neutralize the B1G in the northeast (especially if UConn is added to the B1G).
ESPN can thwart the B1G's influence in the east and build a national reputation for ACC football with an independent Notre Dame's help.
Is it ideal for ESPN and the ACC? Not really, BUT it does have positive consequences for the ACC and for Notre Dame.
The idea of a 15 team ACC is still a reality (with the caveat of the addition of a partial Notre Dame).

for maximum northeastern penetration:
Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, West Virginia, Miami/Virginia Tech
UVa, Carolina, Dook, Georgia Tech, Miami/Virginia Tech
Florida State, Clemson, Wake Forest, NC State, Louisville

If Notre Dame increased the number of games to six per year they could play two teams in a division every year and complete the cycle of all ACC teams every three years,

And maybe most importantly to the Irish..........with the ACC sitting at 15, it gives them a safe landing spot IF the rest of the P5 think that it's time for them to join up or leave.

(09-11-2014 08:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Things won't change until the denial dies. Of all of the conferences that could maximize their chances with a switch to the spread, the Big 10 is it. Yet only 1 Big 10 school has made the move, Indiana, and while not a perennial winner they have made strides in keeping games interesting and have knocked off a couple of Big 10 schools that prior to their change in scheme would have been considered too strong for them to beat.

The spread can be a equalizer for sure. BC, Syracuse, & Duke have shown you can compete with variations of the spread. Most people think of spread offenses as being mostly pass oriented but many are run heavy & some are balanced. If nothing else it puts are more entertaining product on the field.

Does anyone else think it might be a little more than coincidence that the Longhorns have signed an agreement to play Michigan in 2024? And when does the Big XII GoR expire?

(09-18-2014 01:25 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Does anyone else think it might be a little more than coincidence that the Longhorns have signed an agreement to play Michigan in 2024? And when does the Big XII GoR expire?

That may be when the Big 12's GOR expires but Texas is under contract to ESPN for the LHN until the end of June, 2031.

My issue has always been how does picking up schools in more populous regions help others with CFB recruiting? Adding UMD and Rutgers is great for the BTN, but isn't going to help NU, Minny or Iowa improve in football. Pitt and 'Cuse in the ACC won't help them pull Florida or southern recruits any better than when both schools were in the BEast with U of Miami. What we really might be witnessing is the foundation of youth football slowly eroding.

(09-18-2014 03:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 01:25 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Does anyone else think it might be a little more than coincidence that the Longhorns have signed an agreement to play Michigan in 2024? And when does the Big XII GoR expire?

That may be when the Big 12's GOR expires but Texas is under contract to ESPN for the LHN until the end of June, 2031.

True, but ESPN may own the rights to the BTN before 2025.

(09-18-2014 07:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My issue has always been how does picking up schools in more populous regions help others with CFB recruiting? Adding UMD and Rutgers is great for the BTN, but isn't going to help NU, Minny or Iowa improve in football. Pitt and 'Cuse in the ACC won't help them pull Florida or southern recruits any better than when both schools were in the BEast with U of Miami. What we really might be witnessing is the foundation of youth football slowly eroding.

I think that there are a number of ways that can have an impact. First and foremost, if the BTN can generate even more money by moving into well populated areas, the additional revenue can be pumped into facilities and coaching hires. The SEC may be the premier conference and it may have more abundant places a coach can succeed than other conferences, but there's still a finite number of positions available there, and places like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska still have a lot of traditional appeal and more importantly, lots of resources and fans. If you add a high salary (both for the head coach as well as assistants) that can make them very attractive destinations, and that money can also help build fancy new athletic dorms, even bigger and more state-of-the-art weight facilities, and better indoor training/practice facilities (handy and attractive to recruits for schools in northern climes).

Secondly, it does expand the recruiting footprint, and even if those areas aren't as talent rich as Texas, Florida, or Georgia, it still broadens the pool, and since there are many well-heeled B1G alumni living in those areas it means that there are probably a lot of "ambassadors" in those regions who would be willing to promote (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) B1G schools.

Third, adding two programs that aren't traditional powers makes it less likely that they'll be competing with the likes of OSU/MU/PSU/NU for the top spot in the conference, and they pose less of a threat to the likes of Michigan State and Wisconsin as well.

Given that the B1G does still need an influx of football cache (which was probably the biggest reason Nebraska was picked over Missouri), any future expansion would probably need to include a traditional football power if at all possible. That's one reason that many still posit the notion of a KU/OU pairing, as it would boost the B1G in each of the two major sports with a "name brand".

(09-18-2014 12:22 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 07:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My issue has always been how does picking up schools in more populous regions help others with CFB recruiting? Adding UMD and Rutgers is great for the BTN, but isn't going to help NU, Minny or Iowa improve in football. Pitt and 'Cuse in the ACC won't help them pull Florida or southern recruits any better than when both schools were in the BEast with U of Miami. What we really might be witnessing is the foundation of youth football slowly eroding.

I think that there are a number of ways that can have an impact. First and foremost, if the BTN can generate even more money by moving into well populated areas, the additional revenue can be pumped into facilities and coaching hires. The SEC may be the premier conference and it may have more abundant places a coach can succeed than other conferences, but there's still a finite number of positions available there, and places like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska still have a lot of traditional appeal and more importantly, lots of resources and fans. If you add a high salary (both for the head coach as well as assistants) that can make them very attractive destinations, and that money can also help build fancy new athletic dorms, even bigger and more state-of-the-art weight facilities, and better indoor training/practice facilities (handy and attractive to recruits for schools in northern climes).

Secondly, it does expand the recruiting footprint, and even if those areas aren't as talent rich as Texas, Florida, or Georgia, it still broadens the pool, and since there are many well-heeled B1G alumni living in those areas it means that there are probably a lot of "ambassadors" in those regions who would be willing to promote (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) B1G schools.

Third, adding two programs that aren't traditional powers makes it less likely that they'll be competing with the likes of OSU/MU/PSU/NU for the top spot in the conference, and they pose less of a threat to the likes of Michigan State and Wisconsin as well.

Given that the B1G does still need an influx of football cache (which was probably the biggest reason Nebraska was picked over Missouri), any future expansion would probably need to include a traditional football power if at all possible. That's one reason that many still posit the notion of a KU/OU pairing, as it would boost the B1G in each of the two major sports with a "name brand".

Phog, recruiting base is like a good supply of oxygen. The fewer the recruits the thinner the air. The thinner the air the harder it is to win. My point being if there are only a handful of 4 and 5 star recruits in Maryland and New Jersey and all of them go to Big 10 schools (as long as it is not the same school) it won't make a bit of difference to the overall disparity.

And the point where OU is concerned is that they have already witnessed what has happened when a football brand moves to a recruiting thin conference. Nebraska's brand has taken a hit. They have been effectively cut off from any Texas recruiting base and OU knows that. What has the PAC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base. What has the SEC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and a history of NFL draftees. What has the ACC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and the 2nd highest number of NFL draftees. In the end this is going to have a large sway over where the Sooners go. And in reality the Big 10 is the worst possible destination for their athletics.

Now for Kansas it is a whole different matter. Basketball will never suffer in the Big 10.

Jr, are you sowing the seeds of reverse realignment?
For the right price could the Big 12 entice Nebraska and Missouri to rejoin the league. Would ESPN/FOX again pony up to grow the Big 12 instead of tearing it apart.
Merge the 12 team Big 12 and the 12 team PAC? That's one heck of a 24 team conference. The PAC would have to give up control of their network, but there is real money to be made here.

(09-18-2014 07:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My issue has always been how does picking up schools in more populous regions help others with CFB recruiting? Adding UMD and Rutgers is great for the BTN, but isn't going to help NU, Minny or Iowa improve in football. Pitt and 'Cuse in the ACC won't help them pull Florida or southern recruits any better than when both schools were in the BEast with U of Miami. What we really might be witnessing is the foundation of youth football slowly eroding.

Actually Iowa has been attempting to push into the Beltway area in recruiting. Being able to be seen there and play there will only help in that recruiting effort.

(09-18-2014 03:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 12:22 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 07:21 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  My issue has always been how does picking up schools in more populous regions help others with CFB recruiting? Adding UMD and Rutgers is great for the BTN, but isn't going to help NU, Minny or Iowa improve in football. Pitt and 'Cuse in the ACC won't help them pull Florida or southern recruits any better than when both schools were in the BEast with U of Miami. What we really might be witnessing is the foundation of youth football slowly eroding.

I think that there are a number of ways that can have an impact. First and foremost, if the BTN can generate even more money by moving into well populated areas, the additional revenue can be pumped into facilities and coaching hires. The SEC may be the premier conference and it may have more abundant places a coach can succeed than other conferences, but there's still a finite number of positions available there, and places like Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, and Nebraska still have a lot of traditional appeal and more importantly, lots of resources and fans. If you add a high salary (both for the head coach as well as assistants) that can make them very attractive destinations, and that money can also help build fancy new athletic dorms, even bigger and more state-of-the-art weight facilities, and better indoor training/practice facilities (handy and attractive to recruits for schools in northern climes).

Secondly, it does expand the recruiting footprint, and even if those areas aren't as talent rich as Texas, Florida, or Georgia, it still broadens the pool, and since there are many well-heeled B1G alumni living in those areas it means that there are probably a lot of "ambassadors" in those regions who would be willing to promote (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) B1G schools.

Third, adding two programs that aren't traditional powers makes it less likely that they'll be competing with the likes of OSU/MU/PSU/NU for the top spot in the conference, and they pose less of a threat to the likes of Michigan State and Wisconsin as well.

Given that the B1G does still need an influx of football cache (which was probably the biggest reason Nebraska was picked over Missouri), any future expansion would probably need to include a traditional football power if at all possible. That's one reason that many still posit the notion of a KU/OU pairing, as it would boost the B1G in each of the two major sports with a "name brand".

Phog, recruiting base is like a good supply of oxygen. The fewer the recruits the thinner the air. The thinner the air the harder it is to win. My point being if there are only a handful of 4 and 5 star recruits in Maryland and New Jersey and all of them go to Big 10 schools (as long as it is not the same school) it won't make a bit of difference to the overall disparity.

And the point where OU is concerned is that they have already witnessed what has happened when a football brand moves to a recruiting thin conference. Nebraska's brand has taken a hit. They have been effectively cut off from any Texas recruiting base and OU knows that. What has the PAC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base. What has the SEC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and a history of NFL draftees. What has the ACC got that the Big 10 doesn't? A good recruiting base and the 2nd highest number of NFL draftees. In the end this is going to have a large sway over where the Sooners go. And in reality the Big 10 is the worst possible destination for their athletics.

Now for Kansas it is a whole different matter. Basketball will never suffer in the Big 10.

Can you please stop lying to people? Norman, Oklahoma is like two and a half hours DRIVE from DFW. Oklahoma will NEVER not be able to strongly recruit Texas. Look at an Oklahoma roster. There are a lot of Texas guys there but it is a National roster and it is not dominated by Texas guys. They recruit nationally because that is how damn good their program is. It wont matter what Major conference they decide to be part of in the future.

It is a logical fallacy to try to claim that OU in Norman, Oklahoma would be affected the same as NU was in Lincoln, Nebraska.

Nebraska's recruiting faltered BEFORE leaving The Big 12. You guys are just making all this up for what? There is nothing to win in these discussions so what is the point in recreating the truth into something not so truthful?