(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.