(03-20-2020 06:55 AM)schmolik Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 10:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 09:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.

I wish that the Big Ten, back when there were just 11 members, would have made a play for the Big 12’s best content.

They could have taken 5 of: Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and still had all AAUs.

Our let’s make it an even 18 and take Oklahoma too.

Big Ten East: Penn St, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten West: Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St
Big Ten South: Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TAMU

From an OSU perspective, aren't Rutgers and Maryland closer to Columbus than half the schools in this Big Ten though? Do you really want a Big Ten where half of the conference is west of the Mississippi River? Are Texas and Oklahoma worth it? Yes. Are Iowa State, Nebraska, and Missouri? Kansas is in men's basketball.

The Big Ten is primarily a Midwestern conference but don't think the East isn't important to the Big Ten. Imagine what the Big Ten would be without Penn State or if Penn State were in the ACC. Instead of all those PSU/OSU and PSU/Mich games, you'd have PSU/FSU, PSU/Mia, and PSU/Clem games and the only showcase Big Ten games would be OSU/Mich and OSU and Mich vs. whatever other school has a breakthrough year like Minnesota did last year. The Big Ten would still be ahead of the ACC but the gap wouldn't be as big and the ACC would still be relevant. The ACC would be more relevant in the Northeast. Rutgers is pretty worthless, if the Big Ten were smarter they could've beaten the ACC to Pittsburgh and/or Syracuse instead of settling for Rutgers or taken UConn (would have given the Big Ten a foothold into New England). But the East Coast is important to the Big Ten and better than Nebraska or Iowa State.

From my personal perspective, have always thought of Big Ten as Midwestern. Penn State has worked well and I get that Maryland and Rutgers were long term necessary because you couldn't leave Penn State on an island. That said, none of the east coast schools except kind of Penn State feel remotely close to Ohio even if the actual distance might be less. If any additional expansion would rather it come from the west so the east division gains a traditional member rather than lose one.

All that said above, I think Maryland and Rutgers were the right east coast calls unless you can get North Carolina/Duke/Virginia. Pitt and Syracuse were stronger schools than Rutgers historically and made more sense for the ACC, but the Big Ten was made up mostly of state flagships and the move allowed them to get a solid Mid-Atlantic new secondary core of the conference. They didn't need the two new schools to be immediately competitive, just to add new areas that might get more interested in the Big Ten and not places that would feel like islands (as Penn State had).