Kansas as a solo addition will not happen. Kansas and Notre Dame would work but ND is not leaving the ACC until that conference gets raided. Even then ND could rejoin the Big East and be a true independent again.

ND always has the Big East as a fall back if things get dicey in the ACC. It’s a perfect fit. No need to get hoodwinked by the B1G. The B1G sort of hinted their hand when they added Rutgers/Maryland. They want an Eastern flank that only the ACC can provide.

Kansas and Mizzou would make a modicum of sense, but is so far fetched to even consider. Kansas should just try to get Mizzou as a permanent OOC rival. There isn’t another school in that footprint that fits that bill to a “T” more. It’s also a 70-80% chance for Mizzou to pick up another Bowl eligible win every year in the SEC.

(04-08-2022 03:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  “We already have to play Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois; now you want us to add this football program?”

-Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State

Well assuming they stay with divisions Kansas would be in the West so they wouldn't play them as often.

(04-08-2022 03:16 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(04-07-2022 09:20 PM)Crayton Wrote:  15 does NOT work with 9 conference games, unless you can figure a way to get 3 teams on the field at once. You'd have to have one team opt for 8 or 10 games, perhaps the same team, alternating years, to simulate your 4-5-5.

Interesting. Thank you for pointing this out..
I always knew that an 11-team conference can't play a 9 game conference schedule. But the math is still the basically the same for 13 or 15 teams too. A conference with an odd number of teams can not play a conference schedule with an odd number of games.

So in this case 15 teams would need to play 9 conference games. 15 × 9 = 135 games. But since conference schools can only play each other, the total games needed is 135/2 = 67.5 games. You can't play half a game. So at least 1 team would need to play 8 or 10 games instead of 9 games.

But that's just confusing. So odds are the entire 15-team conference would switch to play either 8 or 10 conference games. Which is actually probably better in a divisionless format so that everybody gets an equal number of home and away games. I guess this why a 15-team ACC played 10 conference games in 2020.

Easier still might be getting 1 team to count a non-conference game as their 9th game. Would Iowa be okay playing 8 Big Ten games and an Iowa State team that counted in the standings? Or, finally do some "alliance" stuff and give every team 10 Alliance games, 8-10 of which are Big Ten.

Jim Gee, president of Ohio State during the last round of expansion said this in 2013 when asked by donors if he would have added Rutgers & Maryland if they had known the SEC would take Missouri:

"Very candidly, I think we made a mistake. Because we thought about adding Missouri and Kansas at the time. There was not a great deal of enthusiasm about that. I think we should have done that at the time. So we would have had Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas and then moved into that other area. "

https://www.espn.com/blog/ncfnation/post...ontroversy

(04-08-2022 01:42 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If the money is close and if they can manage it, the B1G should try for Kansas and Missouri. I think there’s about a 5-10% Missouri would ever leave the SEC. I think it’s a decent chance that Kansas joins the SEC. Just a thought.

KU and Missouri are by far the best two adds. It will never happen though because although Mizzou admin, faculty, and alumni would prefer the B1G, the t shirt fans who attend football games all sport brand new SEC tattoos.

The second best add is KU and Iowa State. It shores up the western side and more importantly, would help to reinvigorate Nebraska who clearly hasn't met expectations. As for those that say Iowa would never allow Iowa State to join your wrong and don't follow Iowa politics. The state is and has been under a massive push to eliminate sports subsidies. Iowa is self sustaining but Iowa State hasn't been able to get there yet. Don't discount the state heavily advocating for Iowa State to the B1G if the opportunity arises.

(04-08-2022 11:16 AM)Shox Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 01:42 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If the money is close and if they can manage it, the B1G should try for Kansas and Missouri. I think there’s about a 5-10% Missouri would ever leave the SEC. I think it’s a decent chance that Kansas joins the SEC. Just a thought.

KU and Missouri are by far the best two adds. It will never happen though because although Mizzou admin, faculty, and alumni would prefer the B1G, the t shirt fans who attend football games all sport brand new SEC tattoos.

The second best add is KU and Iowa State. It shores up the western side and more importantly, would help to reinvigorate Nebraska who clearly hasn't met expectations. As for those that say Iowa would never allow Iowa State to join your wrong and don't follow Iowa politics. The state is and has been under a massive push to eliminate sports subsidies. Iowa is self sustaining but Iowa State hasn't been able to get there yet. Don't discount the state heavily advocating for Iowa State to the B1G if the opportunity arises.

Iowa State has been self-sustaining since 2011.

(04-08-2022 06:08 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 03:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  “We already have to play Rutgers, Maryland, Indiana, Purdue, and Illinois; now you want us to add this football program?”

-Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State

Well assuming they stay with divisions Kansas would be in the West so they wouldn't play them as often.

Kansas, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin. Now that will show the SEC the B10 is better at FB.

(04-08-2022 11:16 AM)Shox Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 01:42 AM)BePcr07 Wrote:  If the money is close and if they can manage it, the B1G should try for Kansas and Missouri. I think there’s about a 5-10% Missouri would ever leave the SEC. I think it’s a decent chance that Kansas joins the SEC. Just a thought.

KU and Missouri are by far the best two adds. It will never happen though because although Mizzou admin, faculty, and alumni would prefer the B1G, the t shirt fans who attend football games all sport brand new SEC tattoos.

The second best add is KU and Iowa State. It shores up the western side and more importantly, would help to reinvigorate Nebraska who clearly hasn't met expectations. As for those that say Iowa would never allow Iowa State to join your wrong and don't follow Iowa politics. The state is and has been under a massive push to eliminate sports subsidies. Iowa is self sustaining but Iowa State hasn't been able to get there yet. Don't discount the state heavily advocating for Iowa State to the B1G if the opportunity arises.

In college athletics t-shirt fans decide nothing. Alumni decide precious little, unless the alums happen to be donors. Donors tend to drive Athletic Department recommendations. And since the largest athletics donors also tend to be donors of buildings and real estate to schools administrations tend to lean toward their opinions.

Donors, who were concerned that Mizzou may be left without a chair when realignment's music quit playing worked to land a bid from the SEC. I generally believe they would have rather been invited by the Big 10 since they drew a lot of students from Illinois, but no offer seemed to be coming.

ESPN picked up on this and when SEC talks with Boren dead ended over his insistence upon the SEC also taking Oklahoma State, it was allegedly ESPN which encouraged SEC overtures. It should be noted that late in 2010 some Missouri donors had a push Mizzou2SEC which had a web page.

The issues which prevents Missouri's consideration of a B1G offer now are threefold.

1. Their movement to the SEC West where familiar foes Oklahoma, Texas, and Texas A&M await reopen pipelines for recruits from Texas, which Pinkel had utilized effectively. Ending an idiotic stint in the SEC East looks to be at hand.

2. The SEC's academic associations have strengthened. And SEC media money is now projected by several firms which follow these things to surpass that of the Big Ten within 5-7 years.

3. The B1G's protracted buy in would simply cost them too much compared with SEC payouts.

And, other than the young of today, most college graduates from flagship schools never had, at least visibly, tattoos since they were a turn off to prospective employers, at least until just a few years hence.

Someone walk me through why 4-5-5 scheduling doesn’t work.

You’ve got 3 pods of 5 playing round robin.

Each school in Pod A plays 2 schools from 1 other pod and 3 schools from one of the others on a rotating basis:

Ex. Pod A is Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, & Wisconsin

Kansas would play those 4 division mates and then:

Yr 1: @Ill Purdue @Mich Penn St @Rutgers
Yr 2: NW @Ind Ohio St @Mich St Maryland
Yr 3: Ill @Purdue Mich @Penn St Rutgers
Yr 4: @NW Ind @Ohio St Mich St @ Maryland

(04-08-2022 01:28 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Someone walk me through why 4-5-5 scheduling doesn’t work.

You’ve got 3 pods of 5 playing round robin.

Each school in Pod A plays 2 schools from 1 other pod and 3 schools from one of the others on a rotating basis:

Ex. Pod A is Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, & Wisconsin

Kansas would play those 4 division mates and then:

Yr 1: @Ill Purdue @Mich Penn St @Rutgers
Yr 2: NW @Ind Ohio St @Mich St Maryland
Yr 3: Ill @Purdue Mich @Penn St Rutgers
Yr 4: @NW Ind @Ohio St Mich St @ Maryland

Below is why 15 doesn't work....

15 team nightmare

Pod A schedule
- Kansas vs: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn St, Ohio St, Purdue, Pod A(4)
- Nebraska vs: Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Pod A(4)
- Minnesota vs: Nothwestern, Illinois, Michigan, Michigan St, Penn St, Pod A(4)
- Wisconsin vs: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn St, Ohio St, Purdue, Pod A(4)
- Iowa vs: Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Rutgers, Maryland, Pod A(4)

Pod B schedule
- Northwestern vs: Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Maryland, Rutgers, Pod B(4)
- Illionois vs: Nebraska, Minnesota, Iowa, Penn St, Michigan St, Pod B(4)
- Indiana vs: Nebraska, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan St, Penn St, Pod B(4)
- Purdue vs: Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan St, Rutgers, Pod B(4)
- Ohio State vs: Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, Maryland, --------, Pod B(4)

Pod C schedule
- Michigan vs: Nebraska, Minnesota, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio St, Pod C(4)
- Michigan State vs: Nebraska, Minnesota, Illionois, Indiana, Purdue, Pod C(4)
- Penn State vs: Kansas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illionois, Indiana, Pod C(4)
- Rutgers vs: Kansas, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Purdue, Pod C(4)
- Maryland vs: Kansas, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, Ohio St, Pod C(4)

As you can see Ohio St ends up missing a game. 15 teams does not work no matter how you cut it.

The Big Ten isn’t ******* taking Kansas…..

(04-08-2022 02:11 PM)utpotts Wrote:  The Big Ten isn’t ******* taking Kansas…..

Virginia Tech, NC State, GT, and Miami are all top 75 research heavy, graduate intuitions with a better academic and research profile than Nebraska. Unlike UNC and Duke, none of these 4 would attempt to immediately run the Big 10.

This would allow ESPN to pay the remaining ACC schools as they see fit plugged into a much larger SEC or as a smaller ACC. The SEC could swell to 24 with Clemson, FSU, UNC, UVa, Pitt, Duke, Kansas, and one of OSU, Louisville, or WF.

B10 East - Penn State, MD, VT, NC State, GT, Miami
B10 Central - Rutgers, Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue, Illinois, Indiana
B10 West - MSU, Minn, Wisky, Nebraska, Iowa, NW

The B10 adds the Southeast without having to take a school that is likely to have problems competing in football based on future demographics.

The SEC can settle into 24

SEC Atlantic - Pitt, UVa, UNC, Duke, Clemson, SC
SEC East - Georgia, FSU, UF, Auburn, TN, KY
SEC Gulf - LSU, Bama, Vandy, KY, Ole Miss, MSU
SEC West - Texas, TAMU, OU, Arkansas, Mizzou - Kansas or Ok State

Then in a couple of years the Big 10 could add a Pacific Division with Washington, Oregon, Cal, Stanford, Colorado, and Utah.

The SEC then makes room for USC, UCLA, Arizona, and ASU in West and one team is added to each division.

Big 10 - 24 in 4 divisions
SEC - 28 in 4 divisions

The top division for football has 52 schools.

(04-08-2022 10:52 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  "Very candidly, I think we made a mistake. Because we thought about adding Missouri and Kansas at the time. There was not a great deal of enthusiasm about that. I think we should have done that at the time. So we would have had Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas and then moved into that other area. "

Not too late to fix.

KU and Mizzou as Nos. 15 and 16 to the B1G makes a lot of sense for both the schools themselves and Kevin Warren's conference.

Hope it happens

A few points:

(1) I'm usually not a fan of the retort, "If League X wanted Team A, then League X would have added them already." There are plenty of reasons why short-term issues delay long-term timing in conference realignment. However, in response to the OP's question, I think that retort applies in this particular situation: if the Big Ten wanted to add *only* Kansas, then they would have added them already with the combination of the turmoil in the Big 12 last year and the fact that the Big Ten is now negotiating new TV deals. I say that as someone that is a bit more open to KU being in the Big Ten in some form (as they're one of the few basketball programs that's so overwhelmingly powerful that it can arguably compensate for the lack of football prowess), but there's absolutely no way that KU would be added alone. They'd need to come with someone else if they want to ever have a chance - ND would obviously be optimal, but barring them, a more demographics-focused expansion partner like UVA could work.

(2) Note that any new member of the Big Ten or SEC is going to have to bring $80 million per year or more going forward just for those leagues to break *even*. There are very few schools that are able to do that and, even then, they're either Notre Dame or all already in the Big Ten, SEC, ACC or Pac-12.

(3) Speaking of which, unless a school is named Notre Dame, any expansion candidate has ZERO chance if it's in the current Big Ten footprint. That means it's irrelevant what Iowa politicians might want or not want for Iowa State - there is absolutely ZERO chance of them getting into the Big Ten. It's a non-starter. There's not really even a debate about this at all. (See point #2 about needing to bring in $80 million per year or more just to be a break-even school for the Big Ten.)

(04-08-2022 11:16 AM)Shox Wrote:  KU and Missouri are by far the best two adds. It will never happen though because although Mizzou admin, faculty, and alumni would prefer the B1G, the t shirt fans who attend football games all sport brand new SEC tattoos.

The second best add is KU and Iowa State.

T-shirt alums — even the tattooed diehards at Mizzou — rarely make the call on conference realignment.

ISU in the B1G? Afraid we'll see an NFL team in Des Moines before that happens.

(04-08-2022 02:52 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 11:16 AM)Shox Wrote:  KU and Missouri are by far the best two adds. It will never happen though because although Mizzou admin, faculty, and alumni would prefer the B1G, the t shirt fans who attend football games all sport brand new SEC tattoos.

The second best add is KU and Iowa State.

T-shirt alums — even the tattooed diehards at Mizzou — rarely make the call on conference realignment.

ISU in the B1G? Afraid we'll see an NFL team in Des Moines before that happens.

In a vacuum, I believe Mizzou would prefer the Big Ten.

However, Mizzou isn't leaving the SEC for the Big Ten just as no one from the Big Ten is going to leave the Big Ten for the SEC. This isn't a matter of seeking refuge from the Big 12 - Mizzou already has its safe harbor with a home in the SEC... and one that's going to get even stronger with Texas and Oklahoma coming in (and I say that as a Big Ten guy). I agree that the T-shirt fans are irrelevant, but no university president is going to leave the SEC or Big Ten at this point, even if it's to one another.

(04-08-2022 02:45 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  (2) Note that any new member of the Big Ten or SEC is going to have to bring $80 million per year or more going forward

LOL

Mizzou doesn't even bring 80 million.

What it amounts to is most of the schools in the P5 are interchangeable.

Many of the underperformers are skating by on their grandfather's relationships.

The one school that may be a potential fault line is USC.

Outside of that, the athletic competition between the teams in the P5 will build the next hot names for years to come.

For a single school to go to the B10 from the ACC, SEC, or P12, they have to be pissed off or unhappy in their current situation. Notice I say single school. What 3-4 would do together is different than what a single school might do.

There are only a handful of schools that can play football and basketball in the Big 10 and not be an embarrassment on the court or in the field of research, bring something new to the B10 and would have ANY reason to move.

I come up with only Virginia Tech, NC State, Georgia Tech, Mizzou, Tennessee, Vandy, and Colorado. The research and academic pecking order of these are as follows:

GT, Vandy, Colorado, NC State, VT, Mizzou, and TN - all are equal to or superior to Nebraska and most superior or equal to Iowa.

Of these 7 who is culturally most like the Mid West or North?

Mizzou, Colorado, VT, GT, NC State, Vandy, TN.

Of these who has sustained football success in the last 7-8 years?

Mizzou, NC State, VT, GT, TN, Colorado, Vandy

Of these, who adds a completely new market/state with the most new people?

NC State, TN, GT, Colorado, Vandy, VT, Mizzou

If you pull out a number of qualities and rank them you get the best new fit for the Big 10 of GT and NC State, followed directly by Colorado and Mizzou. Then VT. TN and Vandy just don't fit.

The KC and SL markets are already impacted by Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois. VT market penetration will overlap in part with MD's. Only GT and NC State bring something totally new. Both are male dominated universities that are so stem heavy that a humanity is just a robot they cover in something that looks like skin.

(04-08-2022 03:01 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 02:52 PM)PeteTheChop Wrote:  

(04-08-2022 11:16 AM)Shox Wrote:  KU and Missouri are by far the best two adds. It will never happen though because although Mizzou admin, faculty, and alumni would prefer the B1G, the t shirt fans who attend football games all sport brand new SEC tattoos.

The second best add is KU and Iowa State.

T-shirt alums — even the tattooed diehards at Mizzou — rarely make the call on conference realignment.

ISU in the B1G? Afraid we'll see an NFL team in Des Moines before that happens.

In a vacuum, I believe Mizzou would prefer the Big Ten.

However, Mizzou isn't leaving the SEC for the Big Ten just as no one from the Big Ten is going to leave the Big Ten for the SEC. This isn't a matter of seeking refuge from the Big 12 - Mizzou already has its safe harbor with a home in the SEC... and one that's going to get even stronger with Texas and Oklahoma coming in (and I say that as a Big Ten guy). I agree that the T-shirt fans are irrelevant, but no university president is going to leave the SEC or Big Ten at this point, even if it's to one another.

The way for Mizzou to leave the SEC is for there to be some "global" settlement in the mid range future where the schools can meet cut out a territory like criminal gangs. I think 4-6 P-5 schools would rather be elsewhere, most for push reasons, not pull reasons.