(05-18-2013 08:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Then why is Purdue in the B1G? They're not in the top 2 in their state...

Their President had the foresight to take the leading role in founding of the conference, in 1895.

It'd be like kicking out Vandy or Mississippi State from the SEC or Washington State from the PAC-12 ... getting divorced is a lot harder than refraining from getting married.

(05-18-2013 08:40 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 08:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 08:09 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 07:54 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i think more and more they should take the chance and invest in Buffalo. As long as Buffalo and New York state are willing/able to commit to going big time

The problem with Buffalo is it doesn't control its own state athletically.

That is the B1G expansion model; Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are the only game in town in their respective states for FB. UConn also has that quality going for it.

Buffalo is 3rd behind Syracuse and Army in New York State. It doesn't sound like the B1G way if they did take Buffalo.

Then why is Purdue in the B1G? They're not in the top 2 in their state...

Purdue is the land grant university for the State of Indiana, equivalent to Michigan St., Texas A&M, Clemson, Virginia Tech, or Kansas State in their respective states.
Land grants are effectively second flagships, with statewide missions and followings.

The NY state flagship situation is quite muddled. There is no single identifiable flagship. Buffalo, Stony Brook, Binghamton and Albany are truly coequal. Buffalo and Albany are obviously the oldest campuses, but were not flagships until the 1950's. Before that, UB was private (no different than Syracuse)and Albany was the state teachers college (equivalent to San Jose St. in California). Meanwhile, Cornell is the land grant in NYS. Because the flagship situation is so muddled, there is currently no school that corresponds to the flagship universities that comprise most of the Big Ten membership. This is a situation that Syracuse has relied upon in building its athletic program to an elite level.

NCSU is the land grant in North Carolina

The Big Ten wasn't going to expand and was trying to use the PAC-12 agreement to expand markets without expansion. That died and at the same time, the ACC grabbed most the Big East big northeast schools and took a lot of games with Notre Dame (cutting the Big Ten out of those games). That left them in a situation where they felt they had to expand both because the ACC was looking more and more like the dominant northeast conference and because long term Penn State was going to have to at least consider that direction if more east coast schools weren't added.

Those issues were resolved with Rutgers and Maryland joining. Now, the biggest issue is playing enough to feel like a conference. To get that, they had to go to a divisional set-up with only 1 locked crossover and go to 9 conference games. I do not see them expanding further without first looking at how 14 works out.

If there is expansion though, for the love God I hope they go with 4 pods and not 2 permanent divisions. In 2014, Ohio State will not play a single Big Ten team that was a member of the conference in the 80s until November! That's with a 14 team conference. If we added 2 east coast schools and moved Indiana west, we'd only have 2 locked games a year against Midwestern Big Ten teams and would have 4 games a year vs. east coast schools.

I wish Ohio State wasn't so paranoid about controlling the state of Ohio. Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, all have multiple schools in the B1G but for whatever reason OSU wants to be the singular power of Ohio. With a B1G schedule, Cincinnati could easily fill Paul Brown Stadium regularly (maybe not sell out every game, but a consistent 45k crowd is fairly realistic) and be competitive in football and basketball.

I guess it is one of those things where because it didn't happen 40-50 years ago, it will never happen. Oh well, guess I can dream

IMHO, the B1G has most of the NE corridor with UM, PSU and RU. I think UVA and UNC would have been the next invitees/targets for #'s 15 & 16. But since the ACC signed their GOR, The SE expansion path looks blocked for the next decade. If the B1G wants to consolidate the NE, a UConn and UMass combo could do the trick.

(05-18-2013 08:40 PM)orangefan Wrote:  The NY state flagship situation is quite muddled. There is no single identifiable flagship. Buffalo, Stony Brook, Binghamton and Albany are truly coequal. Buffalo and Albany are obviously the oldest campuses, but were not flagships until the 1950's. Before that, UB was private (no different than Syracuse)and Albany was the state teachers college (equivalent to San Jose St. in California). Meanwhile, Cornell is the land grant in NYS. Because the flagship situation is so muddled, there is currently no school that corresponds to the flagship universities that comprise most of the Big Ten membership. This is a situation that Syracuse has relied upon in building its athletic program to an elite level.

Mostly true, though the flagship issue isn't as big a factor as the SUNY BOT banning athletic scholarships between 1977 and 1987. UB was D-1 in many sports starting in 1962 until that point, playing among Buffalo's Big 4, and SU in many basketball season openers. Then SUNY decides we should drop down and join SUNYAC. We fought through the 80's until the Board saw turnover and the ban was lifted, but the damage was done among alumni. We rushed back to FBS but still have a ways to go, despite how we fit among the Big 10 schools as an institution. SBU's goal is FBS but they're a good 5-10 years away.

SU would have likely become what it is even with strong flagships. NY is so large in size (Buffalo is closer to Toledo than it is to Long Island) and population, much like CA, TX, and FL. So big we have more AAU members than any other state except CA. The system avoided CNY and Rochester for flagships to protect the strengths of SU/Cornell/Colgate/UofR/RIT. Buffalo-Niagara has no strong privates, and the Capital District is big enough for UAlbany and RPI to excell. SBU can easily grow from an academic power to an athletic one with LI to themselves.

(05-18-2013 07:57 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 07:49 PM)Green Bull Wrote:  I think we have seen the end of FBS (except for possibly the Sun Belt) expansion for at least the decade. But, I can see UConn as a candidate for the Big 10, being in New England and near New York City.

UConn itself is in Stores which is closer to Boston than NY. That being said they may be a candidate in the long run. The problem is who do you pair with them? You need a western school of some kind in my opinion.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Storrs not Stores

(05-18-2013 10:11 PM)kobe Wrote:  I wish Ohio State wasn't so paranoid about controlling the state of Ohio. Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, all have multiple schools in the B1G but for whatever reason OSU wants to be the singular power of Ohio. With a B1G schedule, Cincinnati could easily fill Paul Brown Stadium regularly (maybe not sell out every game, but a consistent 45k crowd is fairly realistic) and be competitive in football and basketball.

I guess it is one of those things where because it didn't happen 40-50 years ago, it will never happen. Oh well, guess I can dream

(05-18-2013 10:16 PM)RutgersMike Wrote:  IMHO, the B1G has most of the NE corridor with UM, PSU and RU. I think UVA and UNC would have been the next invitees/targets for #'s 15 & 16. But since the ACC signed their GOR, The SE expansion path looks blocked for the next decade. If the B1G wants to consolidate the NE, a UConn and UMass combo could do the trick.

Trust me when I say this: until all suitable AAU teams have been tried, the Big Ten will not take a non-AAU team. Now, you might be like "But Nebraska isn't in the AAU." That's correct, but, they were when they were added and someone from the Big Ten said that they would not have added them had they known that they were losing their AAU status.

Some teams that I think the Big Ten would look at:

Duke
Virginia
Pittsburgh
North Carolina
Missouri
Kansas
Iowa State
Georgia Tech
Buffalo (based on it's location and being AAU)
Texas
Toronto

(05-18-2013 08:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Then why is Purdue in the B1G? They're not in the top 2 in their state...

What? Are you counting Notre Dame? Silliness.

Purdue is a legacy B1G Ten school. It receives all the rights and privileges of being a legacy member . . . and in some ways is the #1 school in Indiana (i.e. engineering).

(05-18-2013 07:54 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i think more and more they should take the chance and invest in Buffalo. As long as Buffalo and New York state are willing/able to commit to going big time

Are you high?

(05-18-2013 11:12 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 07:54 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i think more and more they should take the chance and invest in Buffalo. As long as Buffalo and New York state are willing/able to commit to going big time

Are you high?

What a huge, huge majority of people would have said regarding Rutgers and the B1G circa 2001.

This fall and spring, Buffalo has worked to formulate near-term goals within our UB2020 strategic plan. One part of it included:

I. Create a new and distinctive academic direction that integrates excellent research, teaching and engagement and positions UB as a thought and education leader around the world.
II. Prepare UB students to become effective leaders in tomorrow’s world.
III. Strengthen UB’s engagement in the region through focused and mutually beneficial community partnerships and efforts to create significant economic development.
IV. Become a top tier AAU public research university.

One of the 8 Core Objectives of the Student Success Strategy analysis:

7. Should UB upgrade the Athletics Program to a peer public AAU competitive level? (Goals II, III, and IV)

POTENTIAL INITIATIVES/ACTIONS
*Implement a funding and capital master plan for Athletics that would involve at least the following elements:
*Upgrades to existing stadium and other facilities.
*Increases in grant-in-aid funding.
*Increases in operations support-equipment, travel, coach contract costs, etc…

QUESTIONS
*Will the achievement of this objective generate sustainable student, alumni, and community support?
*Can sustained success in UB athletics elevate the UB academic profile?
*What are the opportunity costs of these investments?

(05-18-2013 11:47 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:12 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 07:54 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i think more and more they should take the chance and invest in Buffalo. As long as Buffalo and New York state are willing/able to commit to going big time

Are you high?

What a huge, huge majority of people would have said regarding Rutgers and the B1G circa 2001.

Same situation with Maryland. In the ACC they are part of the weak perception and dismal attendance. Now they are proof that the B1G has a higher understanding of college sports.

Georgetown and Hopkins as associate members for lax, if that was a route the B1G was open to.

(05-18-2013 11:47 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:12 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 07:54 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i think more and more they should take the chance and invest in Buffalo. As long as Buffalo and New York state are willing/able to commit to going big time

Are you high?

What a huge, huge majority of people would have said regarding Rutgers and the B1G circa 2001.

How can you compare Rutgers competing in the former Big East to Buffalo losing in the MAC? Buffalo does have the market and potential, but it needs to win some MAC football championships.....

(05-19-2013 01:26 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:47 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:12 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Are you high?

What a huge, huge majority of people would have said regarding Rutgers and the B1G circa 2001.

How can you compare Rutgers competing in the former Big East to Buffalo losing in the MAC? Buffalo does have the market and potential, but it needs to win some MAC football championships.....

Just a point about a relative comparison. The many years prior with the market and NJ talent around them, Rutgers still could not compete. Regarded as one of the worst FBS programs and with a strong push back from many within the school against athletics. But those attributes also had many saying Rutgers was still a 'sleeping giant' if they invested and found the right coach. Not so different from what those within the MAC say about us, and how our sudden success under Turner Gill showed how our huge alumni base were energized to draw increased AD giving and record ratings for our games, both locally and nationally for the MAC. But, yes, we're a long way from B1G candidacy.

(05-19-2013 02:55 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 01:26 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:47 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:12 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Are you high?

What a huge, huge majority of people would have said regarding Rutgers and the B1G circa 2001.

How can you compare Rutgers competing in the former Big East to Buffalo losing in the MAC? Buffalo does have the market and potential, but it needs to win some MAC football championships.....

Just a point about a relative comparison. The many years prior with the market and NJ talent around them, Rutgers still could not compete. Regarded as one of the worst FBS programs and with a strong push back from many within the school against athletics. But those attributes also had many saying Rutgers was still a 'sleeping giant' if they invested and found the right coach. Not so different from what those within the MAC say about us, and how our sudden success under Turner Gill showed how our huge alumni base were energized to draw increased AD giving and record ratings for our games, both locally and nationally for the MAC. But, yes, we're a long way from B1G candidacy.

I would say Buffalo is more like Rutgers in 1991 before they built their new stadium and joined the Big East football conference. Back then Rutgers was completely lost in the football world.

If UB could dominate the MAC and earn a AAC invite which would allow it to build a Top 20 program then they might have a chance at the B1G.

(05-19-2013 05:40 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 02:55 AM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-19-2013 01:26 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:47 PM)RecoveringHillbilly Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 11:12 PM)LSUtah Wrote:  Are you high?

What a huge, huge majority of people would have said regarding Rutgers and the B1G circa 2001.

How can you compare Rutgers competing in the former Big East to Buffalo losing in the MAC? Buffalo does have the market and potential, but it needs to win some MAC football championships.....

Just a point about a relative comparison. The many years prior with the market and NJ talent around them, Rutgers still could not compete. Regarded as one of the worst FBS programs and with a strong push back from many within the school against athletics. But those attributes also had many saying Rutgers was still a 'sleeping giant' if they invested and found the right coach. Not so different from what those within the MAC say about us, and how our sudden success under Turner Gill showed how our huge alumni base were energized to draw increased AD giving and record ratings for our games, both locally and nationally for the MAC. But, yes, we're a long way from B1G candidacy.

I would say Buffalo is more like Rutgers in 1991 before they built their new stadium and joined the Big East football conference. Back then Rutgers was completely lost in the football world.

If UB could dominate the MAC and earn a AAC invite which would allow it to build a Top 20 program then they might have a chance at the B1G.

I agree with the comparison, but I don't know if Buffalo can fully enhance itself for B1G inclusion.

UB2020 was supposed to propel them toward that flagship designation, including a big stadium renovation. But it was scaled back, and I believe the stadium fix is tabled? And I think, while UB has the enrollment, AAU designation, and "spiffiest" endowment, Buffalo won't be the SUNY flagship. And in that regard, while UB is a great school, campuses like Albany, Binghamton, and Stony Brook equal or better UB in certain places, too.

Tapping into SUNY is worth it, I think, but I don't know if any campus is up to the task.

I think UMass resembles 80's Rutgers.

I don't see the Big expanding again for a few years. After reading that article I think he all but said the same thing. The only conf I see moving in the next 3 years would be the B12. I think the odds of that are even less than 50%. Sucks for those who want to move up, but is great for the AAC.

(05-18-2013 08:09 PM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  

(05-18-2013 07:54 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  i think more and more they should take the chance and invest in Buffalo. As long as Buffalo and New York state are willing/able to commit to going big time

The problem with Buffalo is it doesn't control its own state athletically.

That is the B1G expansion model; Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are the only game in town in their respective states for FB. UConn also has that quality going for it.

Buffalo is 3rd behind Syracuse and Army in New York State. It doesn't sound like the B1G way if they did take Buffalo.

Could the culture change? If New York decided they wanted to make Buffalo an athletic powerhouse could they do it? They should have done this 40 years ago.

(05-19-2013 08:47 AM)goodknightfl Wrote:  I don't see the Big expanding again for a few years. After reading that article I think he all but said the same thing. The only conf I see moving in the next 3 years would be the B12. I think the odds of that are even less than 50%. Sucks for those who want to move up, but is great for the AAC.

Since everyone in the AAC wants to move up and out, it sucks for the AAC too. Unless you view the "AAC" as some kind of alien entity independent of its membership.