(05-29-2019 04:59 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:35 PM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 11:26 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Maryland is the biggest outlier of all the conference moves made by the P5 IMO.

ahem... west virginia

This^

Wv is an outlier in their conference, but the move itself wasn’t an outlier. It was survival. Md’s move wasn’t about surviving and staying in a power conference.

(05-29-2019 01:28 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:47 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:25 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 11:21 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Once again, these decisions are about generations from now not just the immediate results. Yes, the old school fans and alum rather see Maryland play UNC and Duke. As time goes by they will be just as thrilled playing MSU, Indiana and Wisconsin in basketball and even though they wont win their division in FB almost every year they will be playing the best of the best every year. Think Miss St cares that they play in a division with LSU, Bama and Auburn and have no chance at winning a division title 98% of the time? Nope.

Being in that division will down the road help bring in better recruits who now get to go to the big house and the horseshoe and happy valley.

I said they were happy with the football division, why are you battling ghosts?

Did you really just throw Wisconsin in there for basketball? Yikes. I don’t think they will be just as thrilled playing Indiana and MSU. But, let’s revisit this in 100 years.

So Wisconsin isn't a high level BBall program? Really?

No, Wisconsin is not on the same level as UNC, Duke, Indiana, and MSU. As a fan of wine and cheese, I appreciate their domestic contribution to that particular field of pleasure.

Did I compare them to UNC and Duke? After those two they are just as good as anyone else in the ACC.

Yes. You literally wrote “just as thrilled”. You are wrong. Wisconsin is a Bo Ryan away from nothing. Plus, you aren’t considering Virginia, the defending national champions and rival of Maryland.

Take your loss and go home.

(05-29-2019 11:26 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Maryland is the biggest outlier of all the conference moves made by the P5 IMO.

I actually don’t consider B1G or ACC Maryland’s best fit. Should’ve been Big East imo.

BIG EAST (10/14)
Boston College
Syracuse
Rutgers
Temple
Army (FB)
Navy (FB)
Maryland
Penn State
Pitt
West Virginia
————————
UConn
Providence
St John’s
Seton Hall
Villanova
Georgetown

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  There is zero proof that no ACC team would ever leave because they would have no chance of something with OSU and UM.

Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  There is zero proof that no ACC team would ever leave because they would have no chance of something with OSU and UM.

Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

(05-29-2019 05:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 01:28 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:47 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:25 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:12 PM)esayem Wrote:  I said they were happy with the football division, why are you battling ghosts?

Did you really just throw Wisconsin in there for basketball? Yikes. I don’t think they will be just as thrilled playing Indiana and MSU. But, let’s revisit this in 100 years.

So Wisconsin isn't a high level BBall program? Really?

No, Wisconsin is not on the same level as UNC, Duke, Indiana, and MSU. As a fan of wine and cheese, I appreciate their domestic contribution to that particular field of pleasure.

Did I compare them to UNC and Duke? After those two they are just as good as anyone else in the ACC.

Yes. You literally wrote “just as thrilled”. You are wrong. Wisconsin is a Bo Ryan away from nothing. Plus, you aren’t considering Virginia, the defending national champions and rival of Maryland.

Take your loss and go home.

Oh please, if Wisconsin is a Bo Ryan away from nothing than what is Duke and Cuse?

I wrote just as thrilled and listed MSU and Indiana as well. You cherry picked 1 out of 3 schools to try and make some point. Too many butt hurt ACC fans on here trying to act like they are better than the B1G.

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  There is zero proof that no ACC team would ever leave because they would have no chance of something with OSU and UM.

Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

Oh for crying out loud, wanna talk about dense? Texas? Notre Dame? We're talking about ACC schools here pal! And no, Notre Dame wasn't on that list since the conference has given up on trying to woo them for almost 100 years. The two schools they brought in while under lots of debt also brought lots and lots of money with them.

I never said they didn;t consider other schools, I said there was no public list so stop acting like they picked the last teams on it.

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  There is zero proof that no ACC team would ever leave because they would have no chance of something with OSU and UM.

Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

The B10's wish list after Nebraska was probably close to this after adding Nebraska and splitting from ESPN:

1. ND - hands down (not close to AAU, but not that type of U)
2. Texas - 28 million people in the market
3. TAMU - Texas light
4. UNC-Ch (Delany knows better but swing for the moon) UNC's tv market footprint contains about 13 million people in NC, and the spillover into Va, and SC
5. UVa (rinse and repeat) UVa's tv market footprint contains about 11 million people with spillover in NOVA, DELMARVA, West Va, and TRI Cities of TN

After this it gets tougher to choose.

6. VT boarderline AAU school - higher research than Nebraska same market as UVa
7. MD good tv market although a financial basket case
8. GT - in the deep south
9. Syracuse - good tv market but like Nebraska, recently tossed out of AAU and way down the research list
10. Duke - does not carry all the NC market during football season
11. Vandy - The only possible inroad into the SEC.
12. Kansas - Market bleeds over into Missouri, but is on the AAU choping block (Remember Mary Sue at Michigan runs the AAU at the time and knows who is getting the boot and who is going under review)
13. Syracuse - Mary Sue just finished forcing out Cuse, but there are lots of folks in NY
14. NC State - mirror image of VT, UNC's same market footprint, as with VT much higher research than Nebraska
15. Mizzou - brings less than meets the eye
16. Colorado - very far away
17. Rutgers - brings only eyeballs and is a financial basket case
18. Oklahoma - poor academic reputation
19. Pitt - market duplication
20. Iowa State - market duplication

I feel like I am missing someone.

Outside of ND, a B10 school will be an R-1 with a dollar level of research that is in the 90-100 in the nation.

The Big 10 adds nothing to Texas, ND, UNC, or UVa. In addition to Duke, these folks can print their own money when they need it.

Getting VT and/or NC State requires the tacit approval of UVa or UNC. You just kicked Syracuse out of the AAU and they are not a top 100 Research University.
Pitt and Iowa State represent market duplication. Kansas and Rutgers football is terrible. Oklahoma presents some real academic issues for UM, NW, and several others. Basically only MD, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Kansas are in positions where they make money for the Big 10 model, and have vocalized a desire to leave or feel they need to leave.

That's how you end up with MD and Rutgers and the SEC takes Mizzou since at the time eyeballs where more important to the B10 than on the football field ability.

(05-29-2019 08:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  There is zero proof that no ACC team would ever leave because they would have no chance of something with OSU and UM.

Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

The B10's wish list after Nebraska was probably close to this after adding Nebraska and splitting from ESPN:

1. ND - hands down (not close to AAU, but not that type of U)
2. Texas - 28 million people in the market
3. TAMU - Texas light
4. UNC-Ch (Delany knows better but swing for the moon) UNC's tv market footprint contains about 13 million people in NC, and the spillover into Va, and SC
5. UVa (rinse and repeat) UVa's tv market footprint contains about 11 million people with spillover in NOVA, DELMARVA, West Va, and TRI Cities of TN

After this it gets tougher to choose.

6. VT boarderline AAU school - higher research than Nebraska same market as UVa
7. MD good tv market although a financial basket case
8. GT - in the deep south
9. Syracuse - good tv market but like Nebraska, recently tossed out of AAU and way down the research list
10. Duke - does not carry all the NC market during football season
11. Vandy - The only possible inroad into the SEC.
12. Kansas - Market bleeds over into Missouri, but is on the AAU choping block (Remember Mary Sue at Michigan runs the AAU at the time and knows who is getting the boot and who is going under review)
13. Syracuse - Mary Sue just finished forcing out Cuse, but there are lots of folks in NY
14. NC State - mirror image of VT, UNC's same market footprint, as with VT much higher research than Nebraska
15. Mizzou - brings less than meets the eye
16. Colorado - very far away
17. Rutgers - brings only eyeballs and is a financial basket case
18. Oklahoma - poor academic reputation
19. Pitt - market duplication
20. Iowa State - market duplication

I feel like I am missing someone.

Outside of ND, a B10 school will be an R-1 with a dollar level of research that is in the 90-100 in the nation.

The Big 10 adds nothing to Texas, ND, UNC, or UVa. In addition to Duke, these folks can print their own money when they need it.

Getting VT and/or NC State requires the tacit approval of UVa or UNC. You just kicked Syracuse out of the AAU and they are not a top 100 Research University.
Pitt and Iowa State represent market duplication. Kansas and Rutgers football is terrible. Oklahoma presents some real academic issues for UM, NW, and several others. Basically only MD, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Kansas are in positions where they make money for the Big 10 model, and have vocalized a desire to leave or feel they need to leave.

That's how you end up with MD and Rutgers and the SEC takes Mizzou since at the time eyeballs where more important to the B10 than on the football field ability.

Rutgers had to be higher than the Syracuses or the Big Ten would have had the latter instead.

(05-29-2019 07:15 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Oh for crying out loud, wanna talk about dense? Texas? Notre Dame? We're talking about ACC schools here pal! And no, Notre Dame wasn't on that list since the conference has given up on trying to woo them for almost 100 years. The two schools they brought in while under lots of debt also brought lots and lots of money with them.

I never said they didn;t consider other schools, I said there was no public list so stop acting like they picked the last teams on it.

No one said there was a public list. You are a lousy debate - and it shows when you resort to arguing points no one even made, trying to demand a response to a point no one is defending or making, then trying to claim victory. It is an admission of defeat. By insisting there wasn’t a list they followed, you are indeed implying they didn’t consider other school, and that Maryland was the first choice.

And seriously you think they never considered Notre Dame? OR Texas? Or UNC? or Duke? etc. They wrote them off because... they decided they Could.Not.Get.Them! You know the very point that started this damn argument. It is precisely the point.

So yes, you are being dense, when you can’t begin to figure out the point being argued, which was what (he) said, that the big ten figured duke and UNC weren’t stupid enough to take their offer for $20 million more per year, but to be behind their conference breathren $50 million per year, so they (Big Ten) moved past them on he list and kept going until they found someone willing to take their offer.

(05-29-2019 08:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  There is zero proof that no ACC team would ever leave because they would have no chance of something with OSU and UM.

Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

The B10's wish list after Nebraska was probably close to this after adding Nebraska and splitting from ESPN:

1. ND - hands down (not close to AAU, but not that type of U)
2. Texas - 28 million people in the market
3. TAMU - Texas light
4. UNC-Ch (Delany knows better but swing for the moon) UNC's tv market footprint contains about 13 million people in NC, and the spillover into Va, and SC
5. UVa (rinse and repeat) UVa's tv market footprint contains about 11 million people with spillover in NOVA, DELMARVA, West Va, and TRI Cities of TN

After this it gets tougher to choose.

6. VT boarderline AAU school - higher research than Nebraska same market as UVa
7. MD good tv market although a financial basket case
8. GT - in the deep south
9. Syracuse - good tv market but like Nebraska, recently tossed out of AAU and way down the research list
10. Duke - does not carry all the NC market during football season
11. Vandy - The only possible inroad into the SEC.
12. Kansas - Market bleeds over into Missouri, but is on the AAU choping block (Remember Mary Sue at Michigan runs the AAU at the time and knows who is getting the boot and who is going under review)
13. Syracuse - Mary Sue just finished forcing out Cuse, but there are lots of folks in NY
14. NC State - mirror image of VT, UNC's same market footprint, as with VT much higher research than Nebraska
15. Mizzou - brings less than meets the eye
16. Colorado - very far away
17. Rutgers - brings only eyeballs and is a financial basket case
18. Oklahoma - poor academic reputation
19. Pitt - market duplication
20. Iowa State - market duplication

I feel like I am missing someone.

Outside of ND, a B10 school will be an R-1 with a dollar level of research that is in the 90-100 in the nation.

The Big 10 adds nothing to Texas, ND, UNC, or UVa. In addition to Duke, these folks can print their own money when they need it.

Getting VT and/or NC State requires the tacit approval of UVa or UNC. You just kicked Syracuse out of the AAU and they are not a top 100 Research University.
Pitt and Iowa State represent market duplication. Kansas and Rutgers football is terrible. Oklahoma presents some real academic issues for UM, NW, and several others. Basically only MD, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Kansas are in positions where they make money for the Big 10 model, and have vocalized a desire to leave or feel they need to leave.

That's how you end up with MD and Rutgers and the SEC takes Mizzou since at the time eyeballs where more important to the B10 than on the football field ability.

Other than listing Syracuse twice ( #9 and #13) a very good analysis.

(05-29-2019 01:35 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:53 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The only P-5 in worse shape than MD is Rutgers https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/2...748374002/


Most of Rutgers University’s athletic teams have been at the bottom of the pack in the Big Ten Conference in terms of wins — and a report released Friday states that the Rutgers athletic program also ranks last or near the bottom of the 12-team conference in financial performance.

To make matters worse, the report, commissioned by the university, shows that Rutgers won’t begin to receive a full distribution of shared revenue from the Big Ten until 2027. Until then, the amounts will be a small fraction of what the other conference athletic programs receive in revenue sharing.

Among the most striking aspects of the report is that a far larger percent of the athletic program’s revenue comes from the university and student fees, while the programs of other Big Ten and peer schools across the country are more self-sustaining, with far more revenue from such sources as ticket sales, fundraising and naming rights — a point that drew sharp criticism from the Rutgers faculty and graduate student union.


Rutgers President Robert Barchi’s “focus on athletics is costing Rutgers students 10 to 15 times more in fees than their peers across the country,” the union said in a statement.

The union called the report “damning,” since it “reveals how much money the university is losing on athletics.”

“Their plan robs from our educational mission, gouges our students and saddles them with greater debt to subsidize a mismanaged Athletics program,” said Deepa Kumar, president of the union that represents 7,700 Rutgers faculty and graduate students who teach. "We need to restore the balance, and re-prioritize the academic mission."


Rutgers said it commissioned the report to help the university develop a “comprehensive, multi-dimensional plan to reach competitiveness in a fiscally responsible manner.”


The report “provides independent confirmation of the challenges and opportunities before us as we continue the work of transforming Rutgers Athletics into a competitive program,” Director of Athletics Pat Hobbs said in a statement. “We will digest their findings, and develop and execute an action plan to exploit every identified opportunity.”


Rutgers hired Atlanta-based College Sports Solutions to conduct the study. According to its website, the company provides collegiate athletic consulting, strategies and solutions to universities and intercollegiate conferences.

“With the student-athlete experience as a primary focus, tremendous progress has already been made under Pat Hobbs,” Rutgers University Board of Governors member Greg Brown said in a statement. “Consulting with industry leaders … in a transparent manner to quantify opportunity furthers this progress.”


The study links Rutgers’ poor athletic performance in the conference to its low athletic budget and comparatively poor athletic facilities. Its four-year winning percentage in all sports is 26 percent, putting it last in the conference.

College Sports Solutions conducted interviews with Rutgers officials, student-athletes, coaches, campus student leaders, Big ten officials and others.

Among the comments it collected:

“The biggest challenge is getting the university on board with athletics."
“We thought we were better than we are going into the Big Ten. We were naïve, but there is resistance to admitting that now.”
“The early lack of success of Rutgers teams in the Big Ten has been a surprise to donors and alumni, a substantial disappointment.”
“Rutgers football and basketball teams must have a measure of success to kindle an emotional connection between athletics and all university constituencies.”
There was also a consistent theme that Rutgers had too many sports — to compete, it can’t sustain 24 sports.

To boost the Rutgers athletic program’s success, the report makes several suggestions:

Restructure the university’s internal and external debt and its current financial arrangement with the Big Ten Conference
Make additional improvements to facilities for student-athletes
Improve ticket sales efforts
Focus more on the annual fund to boost revenue
Pursue naming rights opportunities, especially in major competitive venues
Improve equipment and apparel contracts
Consider selling alcohol at games
“The report provides an insular narrative from high-level management calling for spending more money on a failed program offering the weak premise that they could start winning, gain popular support and maybe break even in nearly another decade,” said Mark Killingsworth, a Rutgers professor of labor economics.


The report “recommends even more spending, and even more raids on student fees and the academic budget,” said Killingsworth.

The Rutgers athletic budget ranks dead last among the 12 Big Ten schools. In fact, its fiscal 2019 budget is $93 million, less than half that of Ohio State, which has the top Big Ten athletic budget at $221 million, or Michigan, which ranks second at $185 million.

The Rutgers athletic program’s revenue from all sources is also near the bottom — 10th of 12 schools. Rutgers’ fiscal 2017 athletics program revenue was $97 million, compared with top-ranking Ohio State and Michigan at $185 million each.


Rutgers also ranked last in 2017 annual gift contributions, at $7 million, compared to Michigan and Ohio State, which generated $38 million each.

And Rutgers ticket sales ranked 11th of 12 schools, bringing in $13 million, compared with Ohio State’s $62 million.

As a result, Rutgers must subsidize the athletic program with university funds at a higher rate than its Big Ten competitors.


Compared with other Big Ten schools and similar peer institutions, a far larger share of Rutgers revenue for athletics is generated not by the athletics program itself but through the university’s own revenue sources, including student fees. Such non-athletic revenue sources contributed $33 million to the Rutgers athletic budget, including $12 million in student fees, which the report says “significantly exceeded that of both Big Ten and peer institutions.”

When Rutgers entered the conference in 2014, it agreed on receiving a revenue-sharing payment equal to what it would have received if it had remained in the American Athletic Conference — between $9 million and $10 million annually.

[b]In addition, the Big Ten advanced Rutgers an additional $48 million against future distributions. As a result, it won’t enjoy a full revenue-sharing disbursement from the conference until 2027, totaling $65.2 million.[/b]

In 2019, Rutgers is supposed to get $23.8 million from the Big Ten, compared with the full distribution of $50 million the other schools receive.

Staff Writer Hannan Adely contributed to this article.

Wow! Glad you're paying attention! It's almost like everyone knew this for years now!

Of course we are in the worst financial shape of the B1G, we aren't getting a full cut yet. That was part of the arrangement since we had the least leverage of any of the new members. I think Nebraska is finally getting a full share this year or it might have been last year.

You really seem to think that financials/on the field results right here and now are the end all be all evidence on how good a move has been. You also seem to think you're smarter than everyone involved in these decisions in the B1G and the two schools you harp on.

BTW if Maryland would have been better off in FB in the ACC than the B1G then whats that say about the ACC as a football conference? Yeah, take less money and play in a weaker conference! Thats how you do it! Oh and Len Bias? Really? I'm almost 40 and don't remember him dying so I doubt thats a big effect on todays boosters and donors.

(05-29-2019 07:15 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  There is zero proof that no ACC team would ever leave because they would have no chance of something with OSU and UM.

Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

Oh for crying out loud, wanna talk about dense? Texas? Notre Dame? We're talking about ACC schools here pal! And no, Notre Dame wasn't on that list since the conference has given up on trying to woo them for almost 100 years. The two schools they brought in while under lots of debt also brought lots and lots of money with them.

I never said they didn;t consider other schools, I said there was no public list so stop acting like they picked the last teams on it.

Thank God for that, finally. How many times did the Big Ten have to hear "no" before it understood that "no" means "no"?

(Although, it wasn't 100 years of "wooing". ND was blackballed by Michigan and the Big Ten for decades).

(05-29-2019 07:09 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 05:31 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 01:28 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:47 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 12:25 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  So Wisconsin isn't a high level BBall program? Really?

No, Wisconsin is not on the same level as UNC, Duke, Indiana, and MSU. As a fan of wine and cheese, I appreciate their domestic contribution to that particular field of pleasure.

Did I compare them to UNC and Duke? After those two they are just as good as anyone else in the ACC.

Yes. You literally wrote “just as thrilled”. You are wrong. Wisconsin is a Bo Ryan away from nothing. Plus, you aren’t considering Virginia, the defending national champions and rival of Maryland.

Take your loss and go home.

Oh please, if Wisconsin is a Bo Ryan away from nothing than what is Duke and Cuse?

I wrote just as thrilled and listed MSU and Indiana as well. You cherry picked 1 out of 3 schools to try and make some point. Too many butt hurt ACC fans on here trying to act like they are better than the B1G.

I merely pointed out that including Wisconsin in the Big Ten’s most wanted (for Maryland) was absurd. I’ll even let you throw Michigan or Ohio State in there, but not Wisky. At least with those two, maybe just maybe, some Maryland fans would make the road trip.

But, like it said, let’s connect in 100 years and see how it turns out for the Terps.

Nerd, Rutgers does not need to be higher on the list. The B10 doesn't have the universal appeal that some think. Now if the B10 invited Syracuse before the ACC, I'm sure Syracuse would have accepted to leave the Big East. What Syracuse did not need was to leave the ACC for the B10.

The money appeal of the B10 is predicated on what it's worth to you to get an extra $15-$20 million a year in exchange for becoming non-competitive in football. As we have seen both Nebraska and MD are non-competitive in the B10 and Rutgers has never been competitive in anything.

Beating a football program that seats 40-50K more than you do is possible but year in and year out can you do it against 4 such programs? You have to beat 4 such programs if you are in the SEC West or B10 East. You have to beat 3 if you are in the Big 10 West or SEC East.


Real competition does not mean pulling off the upset. NC State has done that many times, but has not had the depth of talent to do it the next week, or to do it with a key injury. That's what the top programs have - their second team is as good as your first.

If your boosters don't care about winning, you can take the money.

(05-29-2019 08:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 03:18 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  There is zero proof that no ACC team would ever leave because they would have no chance of something with OSU and UM.

Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

The B10's wish list after Nebraska was probably close to this after adding Nebraska and splitting from ESPN:

1. ND - hands down (not close to AAU, but not that type of U)
2. Texas - 28 million people in the market
3. TAMU - Texas light
4. UNC-Ch (Delany knows better but swing for the moon) UNC's tv market footprint contains about 13 million people in NC, and the spillover into Va, and SC
5. UVa (rinse and repeat) UVa's tv market footprint contains about 11 million people with spillover in NOVA, DELMARVA, West Va, and TRI Cities of TN

After this it gets tougher to choose.

6. VT boarderline AAU school - higher research than Nebraska same market as UVa
7. MD good tv market although a financial basket case
8. GT - in the deep south
9. Syracuse - good tv market but like Nebraska, recently tossed out of AAU and way down the research list
10. Duke - does not carry all the NC market during football season
11. Vandy - The only possible inroad into the SEC.
12. Kansas - Market bleeds over into Missouri, but is on the AAU choping block (Remember Mary Sue at Michigan runs the AAU at the time and knows who is getting the boot and who is going under review)
13. Syracuse - Mary Sue just finished forcing out Cuse, but there are lots of folks in NY
14. NC State - mirror image of VT, UNC's same market footprint, as with VT much higher research than Nebraska
15. Mizzou - brings less than meets the eye
16. Colorado - very far away
17. Rutgers - brings only eyeballs and is a financial basket case
18. Oklahoma - poor academic reputation
19. Pitt - market duplication
20. Iowa State - market duplication

I feel like I am missing someone.

Outside of ND, a B10 school will be an R-1 with a dollar level of research that is in the 90-100 in the nation.

The Big 10 adds nothing to Texas, ND, UNC, or UVa. In addition to Duke, these folks can print their own money when they need it.

Getting VT and/or NC State requires the tacit approval of UVa or UNC. You just kicked Syracuse out of the AAU and they are not a top 100 Research University.
Pitt and Iowa State represent market duplication. Kansas and Rutgers football is terrible. Oklahoma presents some real academic issues for UM, NW, and several others. Basically only MD, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Kansas are in positions where they make money for the Big 10 model, and have vocalized a desire to leave or feel they need to leave.

That's how you end up with MD and Rutgers and the SEC takes Mizzou since at the time eyeballs where more important to the B10 than on the football field ability.

Frank the Tank had a nice blog piece assessing the Big 10's targets back in the 2011-2 era. The key back then was cable subscriptions and therefore market footprint expansion.

The PAC and SEC wanted into Texas, and those East of the Mississippi all coveted Virginia and North Carolina. Notre Dame has national draw. Oklahoma and Texas weren't so much on the radar of the Big 10 back then as they are now. But that is in part because of the ACC GOR that is now in place.

I doubt that the Big 10's wish list has changed much but the bullseye on Oklahoma and Texas is stronger now due to the ACC's GOR and a payout model driven more by content than footprint (although Texas has both). The Big 10 realizes that they need content additions more this time around. Virginia and North Carolina are not football content additions. Only Texas and Oklahoma offer content, national draw, a market of 32 million combined, and can pay their way in no question.

That's why the coming realignment war will be over that duo and not much more.

They are the only pair that can help the PAC get back on their feet. They are the only pair that hands down is worth the effort for the Big 10 and SEC, and Texas is a hope for the ACC to make up ground and get a large market for their ACCN.

This is why I believe that FOX and ESPN will be competing in driving up the offers to make these moves happen and why little brother tag-alongs may be not only a deal maker, but a necessity in acquiring either.

State legislatures will be involved. So get the salt and Orville Redenbacher's from about 2021 until 2023 there will be fireworks, dirty tricks, leverage, fear, and carnage in the realignment world again. And the early lack of interest of FOX in the rights of the little 7 of the Big 12 is just another indicator of which schools are high priority.

But back in 2012 the Big 10 clearly went for markets in uncontested states. Rutgers and Maryland, like Missouri for the SEC all delivered big population states without having little brothers to cut into their draw and the Big 10 made those plays simply for markets. Rutgers was low hanging fruit in that nobody else was calling at the time and Maryland was a well worked target of opportunity.

(05-30-2019 04:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 08:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 04:09 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Zero? I would say the B10 not even attempting to discuss a move with the top teams and/or the apparent top targets, is at least tangible evidence to suggest there otherwise.

What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

The B10's wish list after Nebraska was probably close to this after adding Nebraska and splitting from ESPN:

1. ND - hands down (not close to AAU, but not that type of U)
2. Texas - 28 million people in the market
3. TAMU - Texas light
4. UNC-Ch (Delany knows better but swing for the moon) UNC's tv market footprint contains about 13 million people in NC, and the spillover into Va, and SC
5. UVa (rinse and repeat) UVa's tv market footprint contains about 11 million people with spillover in NOVA, DELMARVA, West Va, and TRI Cities of TN

After this it gets tougher to choose.

6. VT boarderline AAU school - higher research than Nebraska same market as UVa
7. MD good tv market although a financial basket case
8. GT - in the deep south
9. Syracuse - good tv market but like Nebraska, recently tossed out of AAU and way down the research list
10. Duke - does not carry all the NC market during football season
11. Vandy - The only possible inroad into the SEC.
12. Kansas - Market bleeds over into Missouri, but is on the AAU choping block (Remember Mary Sue at Michigan runs the AAU at the time and knows who is getting the boot and who is going under review)
13. Syracuse - Mary Sue just finished forcing out Cuse, but there are lots of folks in NY
14. NC State - mirror image of VT, UNC's same market footprint, as with VT much higher research than Nebraska
15. Mizzou - brings less than meets the eye
16. Colorado - very far away
17. Rutgers - brings only eyeballs and is a financial basket case
18. Oklahoma - poor academic reputation
19. Pitt - market duplication
20. Iowa State - market duplication

I feel like I am missing someone.

Outside of ND, a B10 school will be an R-1 with a dollar level of research that is in the 90-100 in the nation.

The Big 10 adds nothing to Texas, ND, UNC, or UVa. In addition to Duke, these folks can print their own money when they need it.

Getting VT and/or NC State requires the tacit approval of UVa or UNC. You just kicked Syracuse out of the AAU and they are not a top 100 Research University.
Pitt and Iowa State represent market duplication. Kansas and Rutgers football is terrible. Oklahoma presents some real academic issues for UM, NW, and several others. Basically only MD, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Kansas are in positions where they make money for the Big 10 model, and have vocalized a desire to leave or feel they need to leave.

That's how you end up with MD and Rutgers and the SEC takes Mizzou since at the time eyeballs where more important to the B10 than on the football field ability.

Frank the Tank had a nice blog piece assessing the Big 10's targets back in the 2011-2 era. The key back then was cable subscriptions and therefore market footprint expansion.

The PAC and SEC wanted into Texas, and those East of the Mississippi all coveted Virginia and North Carolina. Notre Dame has national draw. Oklahoma and Texas weren't so much on the radar of the Big 10 back then as they are now. But that is in part because of the ACC GOR that is now in place.

I doubt that the Big 10's wish list has changed much but the bullseye on Oklahoma and Texas is stronger now due to the ACC's GOR and a payout model driven more by content than footprint (although Texas has both). The Big 10 realizes that they need content additions more this time around. Virginia and North Carolina are not football content additions. Only Texas and Oklahoma offer content, national draw, a market of 32 million combined, and can pay their way in no question.

That's why the coming realignment war will be over that duo and not much more.

They are the only pair that can help the PAC get back on their feet. They are the only pair that hands down is worth the effort for the Big 10 and SEC, and Texas is a hope for the ACC to make up ground and get a large market for their ACCN.

This is why I believe that FOX and ESPN will be competing in driving up the offers to make these moves happen and why little brother tag-alongs may be not only a deal maker, but a necessity in acquiring either.

State legislatures will be involved. So get the salt and Orville Redenbacher's from about 2021 until 2023 there will be fireworks, dirty tricks, leverage, fear, and carnage in the realignment world again. And the early lack of interest of FOX in the rights of the little 7 of the Big 12 is just another indicator of which schools are high priority.

But back in 2012 the Big 10 clearly went for markets in uncontested states. Rutgers and Maryland, like Missouri for the SEC all delivered big population states without having little brothers to cut into their draw and the Big 10 made those plays simply for markets. Rutgers was low hanging fruit in that nobody else was calling at the time and Maryland was a well worked target of opportunity.

JR, this wouldn't play well over on Soil Stealers, but I think the B1G would be happier with Missouri than Oklahoma.
The metro areas of St. Louis and Kansas City play into the B1G persona and Oklahoma does not.
Texas of course is everybody's dream (not as a partner, but as a revenue source.
I'm still looking for Missouri, for a number of factors, but mostly for enrollment issues, to leave the SEC and join the B1G with Kansas.
The SEC will lose out to the good guys on Texas (and TCU), but will pick up the threesome of Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

(05-30-2019 04:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 04:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 08:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 06:44 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  What list of top targets? You have one handy to prove they actually had a list and passed on those schools?

Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

The B10's wish list after Nebraska was probably close to this after adding Nebraska and splitting from ESPN:

1. ND - hands down (not close to AAU, but not that type of U)
2. Texas - 28 million people in the market
3. TAMU - Texas light
4. UNC-Ch (Delany knows better but swing for the moon) UNC's tv market footprint contains about 13 million people in NC, and the spillover into Va, and SC
5. UVa (rinse and repeat) UVa's tv market footprint contains about 11 million people with spillover in NOVA, DELMARVA, West Va, and TRI Cities of TN

After this it gets tougher to choose.

6. VT boarderline AAU school - higher research than Nebraska same market as UVa
7. MD good tv market although a financial basket case
8. GT - in the deep south
9. Syracuse - good tv market but like Nebraska, recently tossed out of AAU and way down the research list
10. Duke - does not carry all the NC market during football season
11. Vandy - The only possible inroad into the SEC.
12. Kansas - Market bleeds over into Missouri, but is on the AAU choping block (Remember Mary Sue at Michigan runs the AAU at the time and knows who is getting the boot and who is going under review)
13. Syracuse - Mary Sue just finished forcing out Cuse, but there are lots of folks in NY
14. NC State - mirror image of VT, UNC's same market footprint, as with VT much higher research than Nebraska
15. Mizzou - brings less than meets the eye
16. Colorado - very far away
17. Rutgers - brings only eyeballs and is a financial basket case
18. Oklahoma - poor academic reputation
19. Pitt - market duplication
20. Iowa State - market duplication

I feel like I am missing someone.

Outside of ND, a B10 school will be an R-1 with a dollar level of research that is in the 90-100 in the nation.

The Big 10 adds nothing to Texas, ND, UNC, or UVa. In addition to Duke, these folks can print their own money when they need it.

Getting VT and/or NC State requires the tacit approval of UVa or UNC. You just kicked Syracuse out of the AAU and they are not a top 100 Research University.
Pitt and Iowa State represent market duplication. Kansas and Rutgers football is terrible. Oklahoma presents some real academic issues for UM, NW, and several others. Basically only MD, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Kansas are in positions where they make money for the Big 10 model, and have vocalized a desire to leave or feel they need to leave.

That's how you end up with MD and Rutgers and the SEC takes Mizzou since at the time eyeballs where more important to the B10 than on the football field ability.

Frank the Tank had a nice blog piece assessing the Big 10's targets back in the 2011-2 era. The key back then was cable subscriptions and therefore market footprint expansion.

The PAC and SEC wanted into Texas, and those East of the Mississippi all coveted Virginia and North Carolina. Notre Dame has national draw. Oklahoma and Texas weren't so much on the radar of the Big 10 back then as they are now. But that is in part because of the ACC GOR that is now in place.

I doubt that the Big 10's wish list has changed much but the bullseye on Oklahoma and Texas is stronger now due to the ACC's GOR and a payout model driven more by content than footprint (although Texas has both). The Big 10 realizes that they need content additions more this time around. Virginia and North Carolina are not football content additions. Only Texas and Oklahoma offer content, national draw, a market of 32 million combined, and can pay their way in no question.

That's why the coming realignment war will be over that duo and not much more.

They are the only pair that can help the PAC get back on their feet. They are the only pair that hands down is worth the effort for the Big 10 and SEC, and Texas is a hope for the ACC to make up ground and get a large market for their ACCN.

This is why I believe that FOX and ESPN will be competing in driving up the offers to make these moves happen and why little brother tag-alongs may be not only a deal maker, but a necessity in acquiring either.

State legislatures will be involved. So get the salt and Orville Redenbacher's from about 2021 until 2023 there will be fireworks, dirty tricks, leverage, fear, and carnage in the realignment world again. And the early lack of interest of FOX in the rights of the little 7 of the Big 12 is just another indicator of which schools are high priority.

But back in 2012 the Big 10 clearly went for markets in uncontested states. Rutgers and Maryland, like Missouri for the SEC all delivered big population states without having little brothers to cut into their draw and the Big 10 made those plays simply for markets. Rutgers was low hanging fruit in that nobody else was calling at the time and Maryland was a well worked target of opportunity.

JR, this wouldn't play well over on Soil Stealers, but I think the B1G would be happier with Missouri than Oklahoma.
The metro areas of St. Louis and Kansas City play into the B1G persona and Oklahoma does not.
Texas of course is everybody's dream (not as a partner, but as a revenue source.
I'm still looking for Missouri, for a number of factors, but mostly for enrollment issues, to leave the SEC and join the B1G with Kansas.
The SEC will lose out to the good guys on Texas (and TCU), but will pick up the threesome of Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

I don't think so. If the Big 10 had yearnings for Mizzou they would have taken them instead of Rutgers knowing that Rutgers would be there for the taking later. They didn't do that.

I don't see Texas in the Big 10, but neither do I see them in the ACC. It simply doesn't fit their business model. They'll try to hold their kingdom together and if forced to move they'll go wherever it is that bests suits their business model. Without Texas the SEC simply doesn't take Texas Tech. So the SEC will shoot for Texas and Oklahoma and if they land them they'll move Auburn and Alabama to the East and end permanent rivals. It'll be at least privately done when the SEC's T1 is renewed with CBS or sold to another bidder. We'll see.

But I'll say this, if the Big 10 lands Oklahoma I don't think Kansas will be the partner. If the SEC lands Oklahoma then Kansas has at least a shot although we might prefer another.

(05-30-2019 04:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  JR, this wouldn't play well over on Soil Stealers, but I think the B1G would be happier with Missouri than Oklahoma.
The metro areas of St. Louis and Kansas City play into the B1G persona and Oklahoma does not.
Texas of course is everybody's dream (not as a partner, but as a revenue source.
I'm still looking for Missouri, for a number of factors, but mostly for enrollment issues, to leave the SEC and join the B1G with Kansas.
The SEC will lose out to the good guys on Texas (and TCU), but will pick up the threesome of Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

So the SEC are the "bad guys", and the "good guys" are... the ACC?

(05-29-2019 08:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  The B10's wish list after Nebraska was probably close to this after adding Nebraska and splitting from ESPN:

1. ND - hands down (not close to AAU, but not that type of U)
2. Texas - 28 million people in the market
3. TAMU - Texas light
4. UNC-Ch (Delany knows better but swing for the moon) UNC's tv market footprint contains about 13 million people in NC, and the spillover into Va, and SC
5. UVa (rinse and repeat) UVa's tv market footprint contains about 11 million people with spillover in NOVA, DELMARVA, West Va, and TRI Cities of TN

The Top 3 in your list were all valued by the B10 more than even Nebraska. They just couldn't get any of them to bite. When they started talks of expanding again in 2011 the top two picks appeared to be #4 and #5. They eventually settled for Maryland and Rutgers.

The rest of the list doesn't matter.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-30-2019 05:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 04:52 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-30-2019 04:17 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 08:36 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(05-29-2019 07:00 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Are you being dense on purpose? That is literally what you were just arguing about, the existence of a list of preferred schools.

You’d also have to be pretty ignorant of the situation and think the big ten looked at the entire college landscape, and Maryland, a school so “attractive” they were in backbreaking debt, was their number one choice. That much is obvious. And I say that as a Maryland grad. And especially with Texas and Norte dame sitting there So obviously they had a list, and had to wade thru it. Literally there can be no dispute of this.

The B10's wish list after Nebraska was probably close to this after adding Nebraska and splitting from ESPN:

1. ND - hands down (not close to AAU, but not that type of U)
2. Texas - 28 million people in the market
3. TAMU - Texas light
4. UNC-Ch (Delany knows better but swing for the moon) UNC's tv market footprint contains about 13 million people in NC, and the spillover into Va, and SC
5. UVa (rinse and repeat) UVa's tv market footprint contains about 11 million people with spillover in NOVA, DELMARVA, West Va, and TRI Cities of TN

After this it gets tougher to choose.

6. VT boarderline AAU school - higher research than Nebraska same market as UVa
7. MD good tv market although a financial basket case
8. GT - in the deep south
9. Syracuse - good tv market but like Nebraska, recently tossed out of AAU and way down the research list
10. Duke - does not carry all the NC market during football season
11. Vandy - The only possible inroad into the SEC.
12. Kansas - Market bleeds over into Missouri, but is on the AAU choping block (Remember Mary Sue at Michigan runs the AAU at the time and knows who is getting the boot and who is going under review)
13. Syracuse - Mary Sue just finished forcing out Cuse, but there are lots of folks in NY
14. NC State - mirror image of VT, UNC's same market footprint, as with VT much higher research than Nebraska
15. Mizzou - brings less than meets the eye
16. Colorado - very far away
17. Rutgers - brings only eyeballs and is a financial basket case
18. Oklahoma - poor academic reputation
19. Pitt - market duplication
20. Iowa State - market duplication

I feel like I am missing someone.

Outside of ND, a B10 school will be an R-1 with a dollar level of research that is in the 90-100 in the nation.

The Big 10 adds nothing to Texas, ND, UNC, or UVa. In addition to Duke, these folks can print their own money when they need it.

Getting VT and/or NC State requires the tacit approval of UVa or UNC. You just kicked Syracuse out of the AAU and they are not a top 100 Research University.
Pitt and Iowa State represent market duplication. Kansas and Rutgers football is terrible. Oklahoma presents some real academic issues for UM, NW, and several others. Basically only MD, Mizzou, Rutgers, and Kansas are in positions where they make money for the Big 10 model, and have vocalized a desire to leave or feel they need to leave.

That's how you end up with MD and Rutgers and the SEC takes Mizzou since at the time eyeballs where more important to the B10 than on the football field ability.

Frank the Tank had a nice blog piece assessing the Big 10's targets back in the 2011-2 era. The key back then was cable subscriptions and therefore market footprint expansion.

The PAC and SEC wanted into Texas, and those East of the Mississippi all coveted Virginia and North Carolina. Notre Dame has national draw. Oklahoma and Texas weren't so much on the radar of the Big 10 back then as they are now. But that is in part because of the ACC GOR that is now in place.

I doubt that the Big 10's wish list has changed much but the bullseye on Oklahoma and Texas is stronger now due to the ACC's GOR and a payout model driven more by content than footprint (although Texas has both). The Big 10 realizes that they need content additions more this time around. Virginia and North Carolina are not football content additions. Only Texas and Oklahoma offer content, national draw, a market of 32 million combined, and can pay their way in no question.

That's why the coming realignment war will be over that duo and not much more.

They are the only pair that can help the PAC get back on their feet. They are the only pair that hands down is worth the effort for the Big 10 and SEC, and Texas is a hope for the ACC to make up ground and get a large market for their ACCN.

This is why I believe that FOX and ESPN will be competing in driving up the offers to make these moves happen and why little brother tag-alongs may be not only a deal maker, but a necessity in acquiring either.

State legislatures will be involved. So get the salt and Orville Redenbacher's from about 2021 until 2023 there will be fireworks, dirty tricks, leverage, fear, and carnage in the realignment world again. And the early lack of interest of FOX in the rights of the little 7 of the Big 12 is just another indicator of which schools are high priority.

But back in 2012 the Big 10 clearly went for markets in uncontested states. Rutgers and Maryland, like Missouri for the SEC all delivered big population states without having little brothers to cut into their draw and the Big 10 made those plays simply for markets. Rutgers was low hanging fruit in that nobody else was calling at the time and Maryland was a well worked target of opportunity.

JR, this wouldn't play well over on Soil Stealers, but I think the B1G would be happier with Missouri than Oklahoma.
The metro areas of St. Louis and Kansas City play into the B1G persona and Oklahoma does not.
Texas of course is everybody's dream (not as a partner, but as a revenue source.
I'm still looking for Missouri, for a number of factors, but mostly for enrollment issues, to leave the SEC and join the B1G with Kansas.
The SEC will lose out to the good guys on Texas (and TCU), but will pick up the threesome of Oklahoma, Texas Tech and Oklahoma State.

I don't think so. If the Big 10 had yearnings for Mizzou they would have taken them instead of Rutgers knowing that Rutgers would be there for the taking later. They didn't do that.

SEC had already added Missouri before the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland. SEC beat them to the punch. Don't think the Big Ten saw that move coming to be honest. I think they figured they could add Missouri and Kansas when they wanted on their own time frame.