Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
OU & KU in B1G
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
BePcr07 Online
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #121
RE: OU & KU in B1G
Get everyone to sign a severely strict NDA and invite Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas
04-21-2018 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Big Ron Buckeye Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 659
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 25
I Root For: THE Ohio State
Location:
Post: #122
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(04-21-2018 08:32 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Get everyone to sign a severely strict NDA and invite Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas

I concur with one exception. Lose Purdue and Northwestern. That way we stay at 16. We dont really lose anything athletically or geographically with those two gone.
04-21-2018 08:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerpsNPhoenix Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,262
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 78
I Root For: Maryland & Elon
Location: North Cackalacky
Post: #123
RE: OU & KU in B1G
I've skimmed back over the thread and I'm still really curious about how this will work out. The obvious and easiest way is to go to 16 and send Purdue east. Then we have two 8 team divisions. At that point you almost can't have locked games with the other division if you want to play everyone in a reasonable amount of time. The B1G (or any conference for that matter) would have to go to 10 conference games and likely advocate for 13 games per season.

Another option would be pods of 4 (probably geographically). It's difficult to come up with pods that are going to please everyone (and impossible to please everyone). Schools I'd try to keep together (and then you have to decide who to break up)

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa
Illinois, Northwestern
Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State
Indiana, Purdue
Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers

So for me

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Michigan St, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St
Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers

I broke up Illinois and Northwestern and that Michigan (St)/Ohio St/PSU pod is crazy. I though about keeping Illinois and Northwestern together by putting Nebraska with the Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin pod but then they lose the traditional battle with Oklahoma and Kansas to a lesser extent.

The more I look at this the more I come to believe that we need to have 3 or perhaps 4 locked games and just rotate through everyone else. Many of the locked games would probably be very similar to the pods but I think it would provide more flexibility.

The problem with pods and the locked games is getting approval of the NCAA. Do you go to 16 first (most likely) or try to push NCAA legislation and telegraph your move(s) to everyone else? These next few upcoming years should be interesting.
04-22-2018 08:13 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,724
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #124
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(04-21-2018 08:31 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  
(04-21-2018 08:32 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Get everyone to sign a severely strict NDA and invite Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas

I concur with one exception. Lose Purdue and Northwestern. That way we stay at 16. We dont really lose anything athletically or geographically with those two gone.

Northwestern and possibly Purdue as well wouldn't be homeless for long - the ACC

(04-22-2018 08:13 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  I've skimmed back over the thread and I'm still really curious about how this will work out. The obvious and easiest way is to go to 16 and send Purdue east. Then we have two 8 team divisions. At that point you almost can't have locked games with the other division if you want to play everyone in a reasonable amount of time. The B1G (or any conference for that matter) would have to go to 10 conference games and likely advocate for 13 games per season.

Another option would be pods of 4 (probably geographically). It's difficult to come up with pods that are going to please everyone (and impossible to please everyone). Schools I'd try to keep together (and then you have to decide who to break up)

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa
Illinois, Northwestern
Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State
Indiana, Purdue
Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers

So for me

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Michigan St, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St
Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers

I broke up Illinois and Northwestern and that Michigan (St)/Ohio St/PSU pod is crazy. I though about keeping Illinois and Northwestern together by putting Nebraska with the Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin pod but then they lose the traditional battle with Oklahoma and Kansas to a lesser extent.

The more I look at this the more I come to believe that we need to have 3 or perhaps 4 locked games and just rotate through everyone else. Many of the locked games would probably be very similar to the pods but I think it would provide more flexibility.

The problem with pods and the locked games is getting approval of the NCAA. Do you go to 16 first (most likely) or try to push NCAA legislation and telegraph your move(s) to everyone else? These next few upcoming years should be interesting.

Propose a change to NCAA rules allowing a conference of 14 teams or more to hold a championship game between division winners without playing every team in their own division - so long as they play at least 8 conference games, with at least 5 of those being in your division. You'll get the ACC and SEC to agree immediately, and it will pass.
04-22-2018 01:33 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerpsNPhoenix Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,262
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 78
I Root For: Maryland & Elon
Location: North Cackalacky
Post: #125
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(04-22-2018 01:33 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(04-22-2018 08:13 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  I've skimmed back over the thread and I'm still really curious about how this will work out. The obvious and easiest way is to go to 16 and send Purdue east. Then we have two 8 team divisions. At that point you almost can't have locked games with the other division if you want to play everyone in a reasonable amount of time. The B1G (or any conference for that matter) would have to go to 10 conference games and likely advocate for 13 games per season.

Another option would be pods of 4 (probably geographically). It's difficult to come up with pods that are going to please everyone (and impossible to please everyone). Schools I'd try to keep together (and then you have to decide who to break up)

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa
Illinois, Northwestern
Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State
Indiana, Purdue
Maryland, Penn State, Rutgers

So for me

Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois
Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern
Michigan St, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St
Indiana, Purdue, Maryland, Rutgers

I broke up Illinois and Northwestern and that Michigan (St)/Ohio St/PSU pod is crazy. I though about keeping Illinois and Northwestern together by putting Nebraska with the Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin pod but then they lose the traditional battle with Oklahoma and Kansas to a lesser extent.

The more I look at this the more I come to believe that we need to have 3 or perhaps 4 locked games and just rotate through everyone else. Many of the locked games would probably be very similar to the pods but I think it would provide more flexibility.

The problem with pods and the locked games is getting approval of the NCAA. Do you go to 16 first (most likely) or try to push NCAA legislation and telegraph your move(s) to everyone else? These next few upcoming years should be interesting.

Propose a change to NCAA rules allowing a conference of 14 teams or more to hold a championship game between division winners without playing every team in their own division - so long as they play at least 8 conference games, with at least 5 of those being in your division. You'll get the ACC and SEC to agree immediately, and it will pass.

Thanks Mark, I really like this idea. I think of this solution as a baby step toward pods or divisionless/locked games. It gets you some flexibility to play both tradition/regional rivals but also allows you play everyone in your conference.

I wonder what "people" would say about the affect(s) of this rule. Would it quicken the drive to go to pods or divisionless? "Why have a division when you don't even play everyone?". Also, I'm sure this will alleviate the constant complaining about schedule strength /s. My team has to play X, Y, Z while my rival only has A, B, C. But I guess that is NEVER going to end.
04-22-2018 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #126
RE: OU & KU in B1G
I think every league would benefit by one set of standings and locking in 3 to 4 annual rivalries and rotating other games. I saw one other poster talked about if there was a PAC/Big 12 merger of some kind. The idea is if you have 9 conference games, 3 are annual rivalries, 3 games are maybe 2 out of 4 years, and 3 games are one every 3 or 4 years, whatever it takes to make it work. Every team doesn't have to be in an equal rotation to play each team in large conferences 16 or more.
04-23-2018 12:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #127
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(04-21-2018 08:32 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Get everyone to sign a severely strict NDA and invite Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas

Texas is NEVER coming to the B1G without at least 1 other Texas team, and maybe would require 2 schools from Texas. I also think the B1G is crazy if they could get Texas & OU to come with 2 other Texas schools and the B1G doesn't do it. It the only way to even out the West with the East to add the state of Texas.

Even if the B1G let Texas bring TT and either TCU or Houston(Houston is probably the better addition if you want to compete in Houston with the SEC. A homerun is to get A&M and Texas but I don't believe A&M will leave the SEC but its definitely worth the try.

But even with UT, OU, TT & UH, you add one of the best states for recruiting, 2 bluebloods in the sport and you give Nebraska a chance to rebuild their program and maybe establish one of the all time great rivalries with OU again in a league where both schools can compete with the regional partners.
04-23-2018 12:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,025
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #128
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(04-23-2018 12:47 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(04-21-2018 08:32 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Get everyone to sign a severely strict NDA and invite Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas

Texas is NEVER coming to the B1G without at least 1 other Texas team, and maybe would require 2 schools from Texas. I also think the B1G is crazy if they could get Texas & OU to come with 2 other Texas schools and the B1G doesn't do it. It the only way to even out the West with the East to add the state of Texas.

Even if the B1G let Texas bring TT and either TCU or Houston(Houston is probably the better addition if you want to compete in Houston with the SEC. A homerun is to get A&M and Texas but I don't believe A&M will leave the SEC but its definitely worth the try.

But even with UT, OU, TT & UH, you add one of the best states for recruiting, 2 bluebloods in the sport and you give Nebraska a chance to rebuild their program and maybe establish one of the all time great rivalries with OU again in a league where both schools can compete with the regional partners.

If there's a chance TX is sniffing around the B1G the precursor would be their ability to play nice. IF (and that's a B1G IF...) they can agree to be part of the whole and not the entire whole, then I'd do what it takes to get them. If that means swallowing their pride and taking TT, so be it.

I think in the end the next round will go one of two ways.....

1) OU & KU come to the B1G

2) Some deal is brokered by the network(s) to have a defacto merger between the B1G and PAC.
04-23-2018 08:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #129
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(04-23-2018 08:14 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(04-23-2018 12:47 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(04-21-2018 08:32 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Get everyone to sign a severely strict NDA and invite Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas

Texas is NEVER coming to the B1G without at least 1 other Texas team, and maybe would require 2 schools from Texas. I also think the B1G is crazy if they could get Texas & OU to come with 2 other Texas schools and the B1G doesn't do it. It the only way to even out the West with the East to add the state of Texas.

Even if the B1G let Texas bring TT and either TCU or Houston(Houston is probably the better addition if you want to compete in Houston with the SEC. A homerun is to get A&M and Texas but I don't believe A&M will leave the SEC but its definitely worth the try.

But even with UT, OU, TT & UH, you add one of the best states for recruiting, 2 bluebloods in the sport and you give Nebraska a chance to rebuild their program and maybe establish one of the all time great rivalries with OU again in a league where both schools can compete with the regional partners.

If there's a chance TX is sniffing around the B1G the precursor would be their ability to play nice. IF (and that's a B1G IF...) they can agree to be part of the whole and not the entire whole, then I'd do what it takes to get them. If that means swallowing their pride and taking TT, so be it.

I think in the end the next round will go one of two ways.....

1) OU & KU come to the B1G

2) Some deal is brokered by the network(s) to have a defacto merger between the B1G and PAC.

The PAC is clearly the weakest league, ratings and revenue wise. PAC schools complain of 7 PST starts, but I don't think that is their only issue. USC & ND played a huge game this year(at the time of the game) in respect to the CFB playoff and in primetime only gained a 3.0 rating. The PAC schools need/want eyeballs in other areas of the country for exposure and the best way to do that would be to split them among two conference fanbases that get good ratings and you can do that between the B1G and Big 12.

The Big 12 appeared unstable back in 2010 but they have been solid financially and will remain so until 2025. I think if Nebraska had assurances the league would remain that solid they would have even stayed in the Big 12 unless the academic side of the college trumped the athletic interests.

If a network wanted to make the best use of the B1G, Big 12 & PAC IMO they would slide 5 AAU schools to the B1G. Then send Nebraska back to the Big 12, WVU out east to either the ACC or SEC and then
send the minimum number of PAC schools to the Big 12 needed to dissolve the PAC, or even the whole league if it required finding everyone a home. Then let all the major rivalries that were split be played OOC like the SEC & ACC do a lot. It would look something like this:

B1G - subtract Neb. add USC, Stanford, Washington, Oregon &Az.
Big 12- add Neb., UCLA, CAL, ASU, Col., Utah,(if they could stop here with PAC schools and as first choice try for Arkansas. If Arkansas refused maybe Missouri(horrible fit in the SEC) then Houston or BYU would be next in line I would think).

The B1G could then make one last run at ND and having a conference that includes USC, Stanford, Mich., MSU, Purdue is going to have more of their tradition rivals than anyone else does and I would think would be attractive if they have to settle on a home.

I think the PAC schools would get more media coverage by playing schools regularly in the CST zone.
(This post was last modified: 04-23-2018 01:26 PM by Win5002.)
04-23-2018 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #130
RE: OU & KU in B1G
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2018/may/03...batys-sta/

Quote:Somebody has to do the asking for Kansas and that somebody is Matt Baty, head of the Williams Fund, fundraising arm of Kansas Athletics.

Baty fell back on tired, broken crutches during a podcast interview in December, defending the athletic department’s decision to stay with the football coach. You know, firing coaches hasn’t worked in the past, so they’re going to give this one time, the “local papers” are making it tough for Beaty to recruit, etc.

More on those later.

For now, let’s look at what he did this week. I had heard he met in Scottsdale, Ariz., with some of the university's biggest donors, which he prefers to refer to as “shareholders.” I was told there were multiple billionaires (with a capital B) in the room.

Baty didn’t care to share what names were there, how many zeroes are behind those names or what precisely was discussed, but he said he thought it “went well.”

His message?

“Investment-first strategy, that’s the message,” Baty said by phone Thursday.

Meaning, Kansas can’t wait until it becomes competitive on the field to begin stadium improvements. He tried to convince a room full of outrageously successful businessmen that the school is more committed to football than at any time in its history — a tough sell when the product on the field is so diluted that injuries to the offensive line prohibited a spring game from taking place.

Baty also makes part of his message that in order to protect KU’s conference affiliation, Kansas needs to get up to speed in football in all ways. He's right about that, of course.

“A business doesn’t make money until there is a commitment, and there has never been a commitment to football in the past,” Baty said. “There is a commitment to football now and it starts from the chancellor down. He understands the importance of football.”


Baty did a better job Thursday of articulating his mission than during a dreadful “Sport Management” podcast appearance with a KU student in December, during which he said of Athletic Director Sheahon Zenger's decision not to fire the football coach: “We’re putting a stake in the ground and we’re not doing what we’ve done and constantly done, year after year after year. That’s what we’ve done. We’ve fired coaches. Average tenure’s four years. We’ve done that. We’ve been there.”
05-04-2018 12:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #131
RE: OU & KU in B1G
Two interesting articles about the money crunch both Kansas and Oklahoma are facing as institutions.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/art...45489.html

https://newsok.com/article/5598666/unive...ating-cash


From the second article:

Quote:“I firmly believe that we can do all of these things at the same time — stem our losses, increase our efficiency, build cash while paying down debt, and launching our effort to make the University of Oklahoma one of the finest research institutions in our nation and a growth engine for the state of Oklahoma.

"We will get our house in order. This will be hard but important work," Gallogly said.
06-22-2018 04:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #132
RE: OU & KU in B1G
I'm going to bring a post from the main board here because it gave me an idea on how to actually rate the chances of OU and KU (plus ISU and UT) of joining the Big Ten:

https://csnbbs.com/thread-853306-post-15...id15390553
(Credit to Stugray2 for the post)

Quote:How does a school "qualify" for the Big Ten?

The following criteria:

1) Be a flagship school for your State (California alone has two in UCLA and Cal)
- 1b) Or the equivalent by extremely high academic standards (e.g., Georgia Tech, Texas A&M, Michigan State)

[UT, KU and OU apply here]

- 1c) Or be the equivalent for private schools (e.g., Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, Northwestern, Vandy, USC, maybe a few others)

[Doesn't apply here]

* must be willing to join the CIC and collaborate with the program (UMd officials say they estimate it costs them ~$2m a year)

[KU and ISU would be most eager. OU under Boren would have liked to but I don't know about the new president. UT cares more about the AAU so that's an issue]

2) Have a major athletics program, or the commitment to be at the power level (why Rutgers is running a big deficit)

[All four qualify, although KU and ISU both struggle in football and UT has been down lately]

3) Bring value beyond yourself that makes the B1G more valuable to it's members (can be geographic)
- Note: this is different than the B12 adding WV or the ACC L'ville in what can be described as quick fixes or 5 year plan

[Both UT and OU can each carry a tag along but Big Ten may not accept a second state school for each. So KU and ISU have a shot. ISU and probably KU don't have enough value individually, so need either UT or OU to carry them forward]

4) Your leadership get along with B1G leaders

[If Boren had stayed healthy we'd have a more than even chance at getting Oklahoma. Kansas would be anywhere as long as it's a major power conference, so no need to speculate there. Same with Iowa State, although both would prefer sticking with the XII with OU and UT in place. UT is the big question. Can the Big Ten and UT agree on terms that benefit both?]

5) Make sense both ways a permanent member for the next 100 years.
- things like not being an outlier, or not a great culture fit (meaning you need to be like at least a few other current schools)
the California schools would be outliers, so you can ignore that concept

[While Texas is a solid red state you could argue that Austin would feel at home culturally, with migration from the North and the West. Oklahoma, with former Big 8 ties, may be more amenable to playing northern programs. They just finished a series with Ohio State and are reviving the Nebraska series in a few years. Kansas basketball would love playing more games in Chicago, not so much in the East Coast unless it's at Madison Square Garden]

- as a rule the school school not be at or near the bottom academically, although it's a sliding scale with athletics weight
so FSU or VT could get on the list (not Oklahoma State, Clemson, Texas Tech, K State, West Virginia)

[OU has value that helps overcome its academic deficit, while the other three are already in the AAU]

6) No choice that would trigger and SEC vs B1G war (so Missouri is never joining the B1G, Maryland is never joining the SEC)

[Huge question mark with the SEC already in Texas. Assuming they can keep the RRR series, would playing Big Ten programs help the UT program as a whole or would the academic association overcome the sports issue? The SEC might look into Kansas to enhance their basketball profile but would be an awkward fit for Kansas. Very little chance Iowa State goes to a power conference other than the XII or B1G. So it may come down to what OU decides what the best path will be. That's their 100-year decision]


That's how I see it for the time being. We'll have an answer, sooner or later, as the Big XII Grant of Rights nears its end.
07-19-2018 03:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #133
RE: OU & KU in B1G
I don't think Texas will want to be the only school from the state of Texas in the conference. How far down the list would the Big Ten go to land Texas? In no particular order: Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Baylor, Houston.

Texas Tech is in the wrong part of the state, isn't a strong brand, and may not meet the academic threshold.

TCU has a solid athletic brand, is in a great location, but isn't a research school and is private.

Rice has the academics in spades but is the opposite in athletics. Their enrollment is one of the smallest in Division I and are private. Great location.

I can't imagine Baylor tagging along. Houston is likewise a long shot.

To land Texas, Oklahoma is a must but I think a combination of TCU and either Texas Tech or Rice would land the Longhorns. If the Big Ten could get some sort of performance guarantee from Rice to go fully invested into athletics unlike their bare minimum right now, they may allow the conference to accept two schools they otherwise wouldn't academically.
07-19-2018 06:50 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,025
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #134
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(07-19-2018 06:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't think Texas will want to be the only school from the state of Texas in the conference. How far down the list would the Big Ten go to land Texas? In no particular order: Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Baylor, Houston.

Texas Tech is in the wrong part of the state, isn't a strong brand, and may not meet the academic threshold.

TCU has a solid athletic brand, is in a great location, but isn't a research school and is private.

Rice has the academics in spades but is the opposite in athletics. Their enrollment is one of the smallest in Division I and are private. Great location.

I can't imagine Baylor tagging along. Houston is likewise a long shot.

To land Texas, Oklahoma is a must but I think a combination of TCU and either Texas Tech or Rice would land the Longhorns. If the Big Ten could get some sort of performance guarantee from Rice to go fully invested into athletics unlike their bare minimum right now, they may allow the conference to accept two schools they otherwise wouldn't academically.

Honestly, I think that if the B1G were in the mood to expand and both TX & OU were interested, they'd do whatever it takes to land TX.

The idea of landing the proverbial whale that would give them an huge market, a huge audience, a huge following, great sports, and great academics would be to great to pass up.

Not to mention if it looks like the XII is going the way of the T-Rex, they'd do it to keep TX out of the hands of the SEC.

If TX insisted on bring TT, the B1G would grin, bear it, and swallow hard because the benefits of having TX would outweigh the little brother tagging along.

It's kind of like this. If the Prom Queen agreed to go on a date with you but insisted her homely friend came along, you'd be ordering dinner for three.....

Then the question would become do you go full 18 with TX, TT, OU, and KS? Stick at 17 by saying thanks, but no thanks to KS?

Should be fun AND interesting the next few years.
07-20-2018 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ICThawk Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 195
Joined: Jun 2018
Reputation: 54
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #135
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(07-20-2018 07:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 06:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't think Texas will want to be the only school from the state of Texas in the conference. How far down the list would the Big Ten go to land Texas? In no particular order: Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Baylor, Houston.

Texas Tech is in the wrong part of the state, isn't a strong brand, and may not meet the academic threshold.

TCU has a solid athletic brand, is in a great location, but isn't a research school and is private.

Rice has the academics in spades but is the opposite in athletics. Their enrollment is one of the smallest in Division I and are private. Great location.

I can't imagine Baylor tagging along. Houston is likewise a long shot.

To land Texas, Oklahoma is a must but I think a combination of TCU and either Texas Tech or Rice would land the Longhorns. If the Big Ten could get some sort of performance guarantee from Rice to go fully invested into athletics unlike their bare minimum right now, they may allow the conference to accept two schools they otherwise wouldn't academically.

Honestly, I think that if the B1G were in the mood to expand and both TX & OU were interested, they'd do whatever it takes to land TX.

The idea of landing the proverbial whale that would give them an huge market, a huge audience, a huge following, great sports, and great academics would be to great to pass up.

Not to mention if it looks like the XII is going the way of the T-Rex, they'd do it to keep TX out of the hands of the SEC.

If TX insisted on bring TT, the B1G would grin, bear it, and swallow hard because the benefits of having TX would outweigh the little brother tagging along.

It's kind of like this. If the Prom Queen agreed to go on a date with you but insisted her homely friend came along, you'd be ordering dinneter for three.....

Then the question would become do you go full 18 with TX, TT, OU, and KS? Stick at 17 by saying thanks, but no thanks to KS?

Should be fun AND interesting the next few years.

All I can say is "Be Careful What You Wish For". Texas is used to be "King" of whatever conference (SWC, B12) it is a part of (and was/is a possible destroyer of them as well) and doesn't seem to play well with others. I can't help but believe regardless of the fact that it is a very RICH athletic department (though it really hasn't seemed to perform all that well on the gridiron or the basketball court for sometime) that it wouldn't be more trouble than it's worth. And, the more "concessions" made to UT, the more they want. After all, UT is "entitled" because she is the Prom Queen and everyone wants to date her.....but do you want to marry her?
07-20-2018 12:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BadgerMJ Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,025
Joined: Mar 2017
Reputation: 267
I Root For: Wisconsin / ND
Location: Wisconsin
Post: #136
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(07-20-2018 12:52 PM)ICThawk Wrote:  
(07-20-2018 07:53 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 06:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't think Texas will want to be the only school from the state of Texas in the conference. How far down the list would the Big Ten go to land Texas? In no particular order: Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Baylor, Houston.

Texas Tech is in the wrong part of the state, isn't a strong brand, and may not meet the academic threshold.

TCU has a solid athletic brand, is in a great location, but isn't a research school and is private.

Rice has the academics in spades but is the opposite in athletics. Their enrollment is one of the smallest in Division I and are private. Great location.

I can't imagine Baylor tagging along. Houston is likewise a long shot.

To land Texas, Oklahoma is a must but I think a combination of TCU and either Texas Tech or Rice would land the Longhorns. If the Big Ten could get some sort of performance guarantee from Rice to go fully invested into athletics unlike their bare minimum right now, they may allow the conference to accept two schools they otherwise wouldn't academically.

Honestly, I think that if the B1G were in the mood to expand and both TX & OU were interested, they'd do whatever it takes to land TX.

The idea of landing the proverbial whale that would give them an huge market, a huge audience, a huge following, great sports, and great academics would be to great to pass up.

Not to mention if it looks like the XII is going the way of the T-Rex, they'd do it to keep TX out of the hands of the SEC.

If TX insisted on bring TT, the B1G would grin, bear it, and swallow hard because the benefits of having TX would outweigh the little brother tagging along.

It's kind of like this. If the Prom Queen agreed to go on a date with you but insisted her homely friend came along, you'd be ordering dinneter for three.....

Then the question would become do you go full 18 with TX, TT, OU, and KS? Stick at 17 by saying thanks, but no thanks to KS?

Should be fun AND interesting the next few years.

All I can say is "Be Careful What You Wish For". Texas is used to be "King" of whatever conference (SWC, B12) it is a part of (and was/is a possible destroyer of them as well) and doesn't seem to play well with others. I can't help but believe regardless of the fact that it is a very RICH athletic department (though it really hasn't seemed to perform all that well on the gridiron or the basketball court for sometime) that it wouldn't be more trouble than it's worth. And, the more "concessions" made to UT, the more they want. After all, UT is "entitled" because she is the Prom Queen and everyone wants to date her.....but do you want to marry her?

I hear ya.

Texas would be the high maintenance girlfriend that's for sure but anytime you want to marry the prom queen it's a risk/reward situation.

I think there'd have to be assurances from TX (like playing nice) in exchange for little brother tagging along.
07-20-2018 08:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #137
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(07-19-2018 06:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't think Texas will want to be the only school from the state of Texas in the conference. How far down the list would the Big Ten go to land Texas? In no particular order: Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Baylor, Houston.

Texas Tech is in the wrong part of the state, isn't a strong brand, and may not meet the academic threshold.

TCU has a solid athletic brand, is in a great location, but isn't a research school and is private.

Rice has the academics in spades but is the opposite in athletics. Their enrollment is one of the smallest in Division I and are private. Great location.

I can't imagine Baylor tagging along. Houston is likewise a long shot.

To land Texas, Oklahoma is a must but I think a combination of TCU and either Texas Tech or Rice would land the Longhorns. If the Big Ten could get some sort of performance guarantee from Rice to go fully invested into athletics unlike their bare minimum right now, they may allow the conference to accept two schools they otherwise wouldn't academically.

Houston would be the better play than TCU. It has a lot higher enrollment and with Texas & OU the B1G would already control the Dallas/Fort Worth area so TCU is duplicating a team in the area they own. Add Houston and between Texas & Houston the B1G could compete with the SEC for Houston. Houston is a huge tv market and has a lot of football recruits and adding Rice won't do the same thing as adding Houston.
07-23-2018 09:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #138
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(07-23-2018 09:26 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(07-19-2018 06:50 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I don't think Texas will want to be the only school from the state of Texas in the conference. How far down the list would the Big Ten go to land Texas? In no particular order: Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Baylor, Houston.

Texas Tech is in the wrong part of the state, isn't a strong brand, and may not meet the academic threshold.

TCU has a solid athletic brand, is in a great location, but isn't a research school and is private.

Rice has the academics in spades but is the opposite in athletics. Their enrollment is one of the smallest in Division I and are private. Great location.

I can't imagine Baylor tagging along. Houston is likewise a long shot.

To land Texas, Oklahoma is a must but I think a combination of TCU and either Texas Tech or Rice would land the Longhorns. If the Big Ten could get some sort of performance guarantee from Rice to go fully invested into athletics unlike their bare minimum right now, they may allow the conference to accept two schools they otherwise wouldn't academically.

Houston would be the better play than TCU. It has a lot higher enrollment and with Texas & OU the B1G would already control the Dallas/Fort Worth area so TCU is duplicating a team in the area they own. Add Houston and between Texas & Houston the B1G could compete with the SEC for Houston. Houston is a huge tv market and has a lot of football recruits and adding Rice won't do the same thing as adding Houston.

The Big 12 picked TCU over Houston, as did the Big East. Markets are important but viewership is king. TCU will bring more viewers and shouldn't have a problem combining with Texas and Oklahoma for viewership in Houston. The only issues that the Big Ten would have with TCU is they are private, not a research school (neither is Houston, at least not to the Big Ten's level), the size of the school (effect of being private), and the C in TCU.
07-24-2018 08:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #139
RE: OU & KU in B1G
I'm sure some of you saw this, but I thought I'd share my thoughts. Instead of starting a whole new thread, I thought it was appropriate to talk expansion here.

https://frankthetank.me/2018/05/18/oh-th...alignment/

Our very own Frank the Tank writes another great article, this time showing the various major cities that Big Ten schools graduates now live based on a Wall Street Journal article/database. To cut to the chase, Maryland and Rutgers made Washington, D.C. and New York City into the footprint of the Big Ten and both cities currently have at least 1% of graduates from each Big Ten school living there. For example, the heart of the Big Ten would be Chicago but even they don't have 1% from everyone (to be fair, Maryland and Rutgers are missing and furthest away).

If we look at Frank's fancy chart to see where the strongest cluster of graduates are at, that may help predict where the Big Ten will aim future expansions towards.

The Long Shots - Western Edition:
Believe it or not, this reinforces the importance of the PAC 12 relationship as both Los Angeles and San Francisco (Northwestern having at least 5% but less than 10% rather than the 1-5% of everyone else) join Washington, D.C. and New York City as the only cities with at least 1% of graduates from each Big Ten school. I don't think the PAC schools would be open to joining the Big Ten for a while but it isn't as far-fetched as it looks on the surface. Add in strong representation from Seattle (8 schools) and Phoenix (6 schools) and something could develop in the future. Hold this thought.

The Red Herrings:

Missouri was thought to be a front runner with Nebraska to be #12 but ultimately lost out. With all other things being equal, Big Ten schools don't send graduates out there. St. Louis and Kansas City have one and two schools with 1-5% of graduates there. There doesn't appear to be demand from Big Ten graduates there, although the higher number of non-graduates (t-shirt fans if you want to sound derogatory along with casuals) likely sufficiently covers the markets.

Boston has ten Big Ten representatives at 1-5% of graduates. This may be a red herring the other way; Boston is already saturated with Big Ten graduates and doesn't need additional exposure there. The spirit of my analysis would say that a school in the Boston market (no pun intended) would be more attractive than first look but it's hard to see the conference make a move on any of Boston College, UMass, or even UConn.

The Long Shot - Eastern Edition:

Miami is occupied by four schools, each sending 1-5% of graduates. I'm guessing these are graduates from long ago and retired, likely the same as the Phoenix market. As evidenced by the Big Ten's bowls, the conference wants a strong presence in Florida but the WSJ database doesn't reflect this. What could be attractive is a partner that captures the Atlanta market which holds nine representatives from Big Ten schools, each at 1-5%. Georgia Tech was rumored back when Maryland and Rutgers were admitted and felt out of left field to me but this helps explain the rational.

The Republic of Texas Candidates:

Dallas reports nine schools of 1-5% of graduates while Houston reports four such schools. UT and OU were already attractive in their own right but this reinforces it.

The Secret Front Runner:

After the California cities, Boston had the largest number of Big Ten graduates but seems limited in what it would mean for the Big Ten to add a school there. On the other hand, Denver may be the best option in this criteria due to their representation of 10 schools. A school in Colorado or at least near Denver (pretty much only means the University of Colorado or Colorado State) would be geographically friendly to Big Ten graduates and would be nearby geographically so as not to be on an island. The University of Colorado has history with Nebraska and would help them feel more welcomed to the conference like Maryland and Rutgers to Penn State, and could open the conference up to moving further west to California but doesn't limit them from moving south to Oklahoma and Texas. Colorado would likely hurt the Big Ten - PAC 12 relationship which would be a huge negative but the conference has to do what's best for themselves and so does Colorado (which may not accept Big Ten overtures). Personally, I think Colorado is a better pair with Oklahoma instead of Kansas if Texas isn't tagging along but I think the Big Ten should do almost whatever it takes to get Texas and Oklahoma should they be looking.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2018 09:47 PM by GE and MTS.)
07-24-2018 09:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #140
RE: OU & KU in B1G
One of our "friends" at the SEC board thinks that a possible scenario is that OU and UT would be split between the Big Ten and SEC, with the Horns going to the SEC, with Kansas and not Oklahoma. He argues that ties with ESPN - both UT and KU have 3rd-tier deals currently - would draw them into that conference, while Oklahoma has a 3rd-tier deal with Fox Sports.

Personally, I would be happy with KU and OU but what the SEC may decide to do would force radical changes elsewhere. If UT goes SEC with TT then the impact won't be as severe, although that still leaves the entire state of Texas totally in the SEC's hands. UT with KU changes a lot. First, in a content-based world, Kansas basketball would have a higher impact than currently. An SEC with a higher basketball pedigree would mean that competition for eyeballs would be even more intense in the winter months, and that conference had a pretty decent year last season. Couple that with the ACC and if the Big XII is demoted then a lot more basketball talent gets drawn into those two conferences. That is a serious threat to the Big Ten. And that's not factoring if a certain private school in South Bend decides that it should go in full to the ACC as a result of more conference changes.

At the very least the Big Ten should be in background diplomacy with OU for if/when the Big XII breaks apart. OU with CU would be a good counter to the Horns to the SEC. Then, depending on what happens afterwards, offer the California 4.
07-25-2018 08:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.