(03-04-2013 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:38 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  The B1G doesn't need anything. It's not all about winning, it's about getting rich and prestige. The football programs will go through cycles and there will be up years and down years, but the conference is totally loaded, entertains its base, has a growing media network, huge fan support and looks to make loads more money for years to come.

The B1G Ten is entertainment and the most solid, stable revenue source in college sports.

SEC is pretty much semi-pro football. B1G is college football. I don't see the B1G overtaking the SEC in that venue, but I'm so sure it's the end game for the conference either.

Then why do they want to move into the Southeast along the Atlantic Seaboard? If they are so happy and content why expand at all? No there is some envy behind the moves which belie another motive besides markets I think.

Sorry, I was responding to your post of what the league "needs". As long as it fits their entertainment growth plans and the schools meet the academic hurdles the conference wants then the B1G will expand.

It doesn't "need" FSU, OU, KSU for football wins.

Sorry for the confusion.

(03-04-2013 10:30 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:46 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:38 PM)Fireman451 Wrote:  The B1G doesn't need anything. It's not all about winning, it's about getting rich and prestige. The football programs will go through cycles and there will be up years and down years, but the conference is totally loaded, entertains its base, has a growing media network, huge fan support and looks to make loads more money for years to come.

The B1G Ten is entertainment and the most solid, stable revenue source in college sports.

SEC is pretty much semi-pro football. B1G is college football. I don't see the B1G overtaking the SEC in that venue, but I'm so sure it's the end game for the conference either.

Then why do they want to move into the Southeast along the Atlantic Seaboard? If they are so happy and content why expand at all? No there is some envy behind the moves which belie another motive besides markets I think.

Sorry, I was responding to your post of what the league "needs". As long as it fits their entertainment growth plans and the schools meet the academic hurdles the conference wants then the B1G will expand.

It doesn't "need" FSU, OU, KSU for football wins.

Sorry for the confusion.

No problem. I see understand your point.

(03-04-2013 02:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  TTU is not and never will be TAMU.

We have no desire to be anything like A&M. Cult following who worship dudes in white outfits and a dog that ranks as the highest ranking member in their corp of cadets.

Good luck to the PAC as other the other 2 power conferences expand and add new markets. Meanwhile the PAC will continue playing marquee games when everyone is in bed.

Damn Tech and their 60K fans with a very respectable following in the 2nd largest state in the country. Maybe when Delany forces the PAC to expand, you guys can get TV rating wonders in New Mexico, UNLV and Idaho.

(03-05-2013 01:34 AM)jml2010 Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 02:10 PM)Wedge Wrote:  TTU is not and never will be TAMU.

We have no desire to be anything like A&M. Cult following who worship dudes in white outfits and a dog that ranks as the highest ranking member in their corp of cadets.

Good luck to the PAC as other the other 2 power conferences expand and add new markets. Meanwhile the PAC will continue playing marquee games when everyone is in bed.

Damn Tech and their 60K fans with a very respectable following in the 2nd largest state in the country. Maybe when Delany forces the PAC to expand, you guys can get TV rating wonders in New Mexico, UNLV and Idaho.

When the time comes, the PAC would agree to a merger to get to that final number. Perhaps some PAC fans wouldn't like it but that won't matter when the time comes.

(03-04-2013 06:53 PM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nah, I think the Big Ten is no longer looking West. In order to get anymore Eastern expansion they will have to do A LOT of Eastern expansion. Besides, taking Missouri would allow the SEC to offer the trio of UNC, UVA and Duke right now. Unless Delany already had some form of binding agreement with UVA, taking Missouri right now would be stupid of him.

I hadn't thought of that. Wow.

Thats a big change in your previous theories regarding Missouri, Hen1ous.

well, the latest rumor from the wvu board from a alabama/sec guy makes no sense. It would be nc state and va tech to the sec, uva and either bc or g tech to the big 10 with the acc adding uconn and cincy. I can't see anyway it would go down like that, unc wouldn't stick around, nor would they let nc state go to the sec if they didn't' move. Also, have no idea why the big 10 would add bc. I'm sure virg tech would bolt if uva left though. If you pull one thread, the whole acc goes down, so you can't just take a few school's out and think there isn't a chain reaction. I think the school's the acc can't lose are uva, unc and fsu. IF those school's stick, than va tech, nc state, duke, wake, and miami are locks to stay in the acc. Clemson, pitt, Lville aren't bolting or have no where else to go with the others staying. That leaves ND, who is leaving either...bc, cuse, and ga tech are the ? I'll go with the big 10 being able to pick off bc and cuse, not sure about ga tech. I'll probably add big 10 being able to pick off miami solo too but acc losing any combo of bc, cuse, ga tech or miami doesn't really ko the acc. At most the big 10 would take 2 of those 4 but they probably wouldn't even expand. In any case, the acc would add uconn and cincy if two left. Back to the basic theme, for the acc to go away, they will need to lose one from uva, unc and fsu. Until that happens the acc is solid.

Alabama fans -- whether they pull for the Tide or Auburn -- are notorious for stirring things up and starting rumors. Listening to sports talk radio while driving through Alabama can be entertaining in an "I like the Jack@ss movies" way. I'd be willing to bet that the Alabama/SEC guy you are referencing knows no more about any pending conference shifts than anyone on this board.

(03-04-2013 11:34 AM)lew240z Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:37 AM)AlaIllTex Wrote:  Missouri to the Big Ten doesn't make sense for the Big 10 at this point. They're looking for more money for their Big 10 Network and they already have market penetration in both St. Louis and Kansas City to a degree.

Missouri is the only SEC school that would think about leaving, and the Big 10 is the only place that would make sense for them, but I dont see it happening. The new SEC Network will make plenty of money as well.

I dont see them leaving the SEC.

What Big 10 market penetration in St. Louis? Do you mean Illinois? In the 19 years I've live in St. Louis, I have seen exactly one person wearing Illinois paraphernalia. One.

Media coverage of Illinois football is nonexistent, but basketball gets some coverage. SIU Carbondale get more coverage.

They do not have the Kansas City market either

(03-04-2013 06:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nah, I think the Big Ten is no longer looking West. In order to get anymore Eastern expansion they will have to do A LOT of Eastern expansion. Besides, taking Missouri would allow the SEC to offer the trio of UNC, UVA and Duke right now. Unless Delany already had some form of binding agreement with UVA, taking Missouri right now would be stupid of him.

I believe Delaney recently said they might look West

The KC market has 3 major components, plus a number of sub-components.

Football season: Majors - KSU, MU, KU. Minors - Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, others
Basketball season: Majors - KU, MU, KSU. Minors - Iowa State, others

None of the three primary players really dominates the market, although any of the 3 would give a conference a strong foothold. BTN is on my local cable, although it is in the digital tier while several other sports options are on the basic tier. There could possibly be pressure for that to change if a major player were to move to the B1G. But I don't think Missouri will leave the SEC, and I don't think KU or KSU are likely to leave the Big 12.

(03-06-2013 02:01 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  Alabama fans -- whether they pull for the Tide or Auburn -- are notorious for stirring things up and starting rumors. Listening to sports talk radio while driving through Alabama can be entertaining in an "I like the ******* movies" way. I'd be willing to bet that the Alabama/SEC guy you are referencing knows no more about any pending conference shifts than anyone on this board.

If he's listening to Paul Finebaum, I'd say you were correct.

(03-06-2013 02:55 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  The KC market has 3 major components, plus a number of sub-components.

Football season: Majors - KSU, MU, KU. Minors - Nebraska, Iowa, Iowa State, others
Basketball season: Majors - KU, MU, KSU. Minors - Iowa State, others

None of the three primary players really dominates the market, although any of the 3 would give a conference a strong foothold. BTN is on my local cable, although it is in the digital tier while several other sports options are on the basic tier. There could possibly be pressure for that to change if a major player were to move to the B1G. But I don't think Missouri will leave the SEC, and I don't think KU or KSU are likely to leave the Big 12.

So the Big10 has virtually no penetration in the Kansas City market.

(03-06-2013 02:33 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 06:47 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Nah, I think the Big Ten is no longer looking West. In order to get anymore Eastern expansion they will have to do A LOT of Eastern expansion. Besides, taking Missouri would allow the SEC to offer the trio of UNC, UVA and Duke right now. Unless Delany already had some form of binding agreement with UVA, taking Missouri right now would be stupid of him.

I believe Delaney recently said they might look West

They might...if nothing can pan out in the East. As you quote...might. That is a very big might.

(03-06-2013 02:33 PM)SMUmustangs Wrote:  I believe Delaney recently said they might look West

So you're saying Wyoming has a shot?

KC and St. Louis are two desirable markets that could be "gotten" with the addition of Missouri for the Big Ten. It'd be interesting to see a breakdown of alumni in each of the two cities...but I'd guess there are far more Big Ten alumni there (Iowa, Nebraska now, Wisconsin, Illinois, Minnesota) than SEC alumni (Arkansas, TAMU, LSU). Would you all agree?

Missouri and Kansas would be a nice pair...but Kansas is stuck unless Texas/OU decide to blow the thing up.

Oh, I forgot my main point...

...but KC and St. Louis have less population than Virginia area and NC area. UVA would trump Mizzou (even though Mizzou probably has slightly better "big" sports), and UNC would trump Kansas.

(03-07-2013 01:13 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Oh, I forgot my main point...

...but KC and St. Louis have less population than Virginia area and NC area. UVA would trump Mizzou (even though Mizzou probably has slightly better "big" sports), and UNC would trump Kansas.

Maybe a few less in the population data but a lot less competition...