(12-18-2018 09:15 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(12-15-2018 10:10 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I think the Big Ten's primary targets should be Texas and Oklahoma. They are the cream of the crop and will move the needle the most while simultaneously sacrificing the least.

If they are unattainable in the sense that they will NEVER come to the Big Ten, that's when I'd pursue the PAC 12. My only fear with that is the PAC 12's problems would then become the Big Ten's problems. Would their fans start tuning into games just because their team is in a new conference? Would the BTN be on a basic channel in their region when less regional teams show up? Would the PAC schools drag down the Big Ten fanbases by having games start so late for a game on the west coast?

I do think the big play would be that the conference would control the whole northern and western United States so any media partner couldn't ignore us and had to pay the Big Ten top rates (along with the SEC who I imagine has OU, UT, and maybe ACC schools by this time to counter the B10 move).

I would probably add 10 from the PAC 12, only ignoring Oregon State and Washington State, thus allowing the conference to dissolve without paying exit fees and such. Then I'd break the divisions up into three 8-team divisions:

Western: Washington, Oregon, USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona State
Central: Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern
Eastern: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers

I feel like Utah is a must to bridge the gap. It was hard to eliminate an Arizona school as both have positives and negatives but I decided on both. I wanted to drop a California school but I know how important those California games are to the western schools. In all, I think this would be a net benefit to the B10 but would be extremely risky.

I agree with you about TX & OU. They would be the Holy Grail of expansion.

While I think the B1G/PAC "merger" would be interesting and potentially amazing, I worry about a couple of things.

One would be how many of those schools WANT to be part of that vs. how many HAVE to be part of that. Those who have to be there probably wouldn't make for a great foundation going forward. I don't want to see a situation where 10 years from now when the new rights deal expires that those schools start looking for greener pastures. Those who want to be there would be more likely to be in it for the long haul.

The other thing I worry about is how are USC & Stanford going to take this? They were pretty much the ones who killed the B1G/PAC scheduling alliance 6 years ago so I'm not sure they'd be too keen on joining the B1G.

I could see it shaking out like this:

Atlantic: Maryland, Rutgers, PSU, MI ST, tOSU
East: MI, IU, Purdue, IL, NW
Midwest: Iowa, WI, MN, Nebraska, CO
Pacific: UCLA, WA, OR, CAL, Utah?

Both Arizona schools, OR ST, WA ST, go to the XII.

USC & Stanford Independent? Maybe one (or both) would join the B1G which would move Utah to the XII.

I kind of have a different take on splitting up the PAC. I think the B1G should take USC, Stanford, Wash., Oregon & Arizona all AAU schools, and let Nebraska go back to the Big 12 along with UCLA, Cal, Colorado, ASU, Utah to the Big 12.

Then the B1G could make their final offer to ND giving them a league that would allow ND to schedule USC, Stanford, Mich., MSU & Purdue every year if they went to a single set of conference standings as Delaney has discussed recently.