(11-26-2013 12:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:21 AM)Badger Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Please stop with the Buffalo suggestions. Just stop it. If the Big Ten wanted to add just any random AAU school for academic purposes, they would take Rice instead. The Big Ten is in the business of making money, and there's simply no chance of Buffalo making them money. The only schools that the Big Ten want at this point are all in Grant of Rights power leagues, which is why expansion at the standstill.

Frank the Tank, I do understand the failings of a Buffalo pick, though it looks strong as a "map choice"...you have to admit. So, bottom line, what does your gut say the Big Ten will do in the next expansion move? Go to 16, or more? And, what schools do they eventually add?

Who the Big Ten would really want: UVA and UNC

If the above isn't possible, who the Big Ten would be willing to expand for: Kansas and Oklahoma

Everyone else outside of the obvious game changers (i.e. Texas, Notre Dame) likely aren't enticing enough to get the Big Ten to expand. Sometimes, you're simply better off doing nothing and not dilute your product.

Read, understand, learn and don't bother to think anything else is the situation.

God knows I have told these people this exact same thing Frank. Perhaps they will take it better from you.

The Big Ten is more likely to put in effort on getting other conferences on board with something much bigger so that they can get one of the above pairs during the mass movement. It is pretty obvious which of the two pairs above is the more likely.


For what it is worth though, I actually think Virginia Tech is more Big Ten esque in nature than Virginia is.

Virginia Tech has a lot going for it in the event of realignment, regardless of who is looking at them.

(11-26-2013 04:17 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 03:56 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 12:51 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  If the big 10 expansion to 16 involves contiguous states then it could be any of the two from this list:

Connecticut
buffalo
Missouri
Kansas
Oklahoma
Kentucky
West Virginia
Virginia

Does Connecticut or Oklahoma actually touch any existing big ten states?

and why isn't Colorado on this list?

Or VT?

Oklahoma exists as a target IF Kansas comes with. Colorado is exactly where they want to be. The State of Colorado has very little in common with it's neighbors to the East. It is much more akin to that of California and the West. That is why Colorado is not on any Big Ten list.

As for Virginia Tech. I like them as a Big Ten entity and it seems Virginia Tech likes the Big Ten due to future scheduling.

So VPI with or without UVA?

Do they have a strong fan base? I've never visited one of their boards.

UConn says .....

(11-26-2013 08:20 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  So VPI with or without UVA?

Do they have a strong fan base? I've never visited one of their boards.

Much stronger than UVa, and yes, much more like a B10 school - sort of a miniature version of a B10 school at 28K students.

In my opinion VT, NC State, and GT are the most "B10 like" due to their focus on STEM and focus on graduate research. UVa, UNC, and Duke have a more "Ivy" feel due in part to their exclusivity. UNC/UVa/Duke are akin to a small version of Michigan or Northwestern. VT, NC State, and GT are somewhat like smaller versions of Purdue.

(11-26-2013 08:20 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  So VPI with or without UVA?

Do they have a strong fan base? I've never visited one of their boards.

It's actually stronger than Virginia's. They have a larger enrollment too. Virginia is pretty much just a State sponsored Private University. Virginia Tech is more like the Big Ten Universities in scope and in mission.

I would take them without UVA. UVA and UNC could go to the SEC. Duke is much less southern in culture, they would fit in with the Big Ten just fine. Take Georgia Tech and Florida State to go all the way South. That gets us 18. Want two more? Pick two more then.

Of course I don't actually think any of this is going to happen but that is how I surmise it might go if it was to happen like that with VT instead of UVA.

(11-26-2013 08:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  UConn says .....

Question for Mr. UConn...

Tell me about UConn offering reduced tuition to other New England states. How do they do that (and make money)? I hear Western Illinois does something similar.

(11-26-2013 08:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's actually stronger than Virginia's.

Virginia's board was monitored like PSU's BWI for a while... Talk conference realignment, and you be gone. Not that they really had any interest in the subject.

(11-26-2013 10:04 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's actually stronger than Virginia's.

Virginia's board was monitored like PSU's BWI for a while... Talk conference realignment, and you be gone. Not that they really had any interest in the subject.

Oh no, I have no trouble believing that at all. I would imagine the folks at Tech would be much more open to the idea. For all the talk of Virginia liking the Big Ten, they would have been in similar situation as North Carolina in terms of blowback because Virginia culture is very much ACC from what I have seen and been told. It is a State sponsored University but it is very much culturally like a Private Institution rather than a Public.

(11-26-2013 10:01 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  UConn says .....

Question for Mr. UConn...

Tell me about UConn offering reduced tuition to other New England states. How do they do that (and make money)? I hear Western Illinois does something similar.

I can tell you for a fact Western Illinois offers to folks on the other side of the Mississippi River. They have an Extension building on the Illinois side of the Quad Cities which as a Metropolitan area, it straddles the River. So for that school it benefits them to offer in state tuition to the more populous Iowa side of the River in order to compete with the colleges there.

(11-26-2013 10:01 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 08:25 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  UConn says .....

Question for Mr. UConn...

Tell me about UConn offering reduced tuition to other New England states. How do they do that (and make money)? I hear Western Illinois does something similar.

The consortium of the 6 New England state flagships have an agreement that if a student cannot obtain a program at his home state university but that program exists at one of the other 5 universities, he can attend that out of state university at in state tuition cost. It is a very limited program.

...I thought the BIG was looking to the east... I figured they would get Pitt and Cuse when they had the chance...i know there's some backstories to all of that, but I don't remember the details... Cincy and UConn really should be able to join up in the BIG.

...as for SEC expansion, with ACC teams off the table, how about the SEC 'blowing up' the Big XII and taking Kansas, K-State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech and TCU? Or, swap WVU for one of the Texas teams.... as for the Horns, I figure they may just go 'independent', a la ND... they could probably pull it off, and have a 'working agreement' with whatever conference...

...just 'riffing' here, y'all...

(11-26-2013 11:49 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Please stop with the Buffalo suggestions. Just stop it. If the Big Ten wanted to add just any random AAU school for academic purposes, they would take Rice instead. The Big Ten is in the business of making money, and there's simply no chance of Buffalo making them money. The only schools that the Big Ten want at this point are all in Grant of Rights power leagues, which is why expansion at the standstill.

I guess Rutgers will be a B1G money maker.... Moreover, I have to assume that the conference coudn't see the "B1G Picture" when Missou and KU were available....

Delany made it pretty clear why the B1G took the teams they did. Nebraska is a national name and any conference would love to have them. Rutgers and Maryland were all about demographics. Part of demographics are TV markets, but getting to population growth centers and new, expanding recruiting areas are just as important. That's why the B1G looked east rather than west. I still think KU, MO , OK and TX are on the B1G radar screen for future expansion, but so are a bunch of ACC teams.

(11-27-2013 01:25 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 11:49 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Please stop with the Buffalo suggestions. Just stop it. If the Big Ten wanted to add just any random AAU school for academic purposes, they would take Rice instead. The Big Ten is in the business of making money, and there's simply no chance of Buffalo making them money. The only schools that the Big Ten want at this point are all in Grant of Rights power leagues, which is why expansion at the standstill.

I guess Rutgers will be a B1G money maker.... Moreover, I have to assume that the conference coudn't see the "B1G Picture" when Missou and KU were available....

Delany made it pretty clear why the B1G took the teams they did. Nebraska is a national name and any conference would love to have them. Rutgers and Maryland were all about demographics. Part of demographics are TV markets, but getting to population growth centers and new, expanding recruiting areas are just as important. That's why the B1G looked east rather than west. I still think KU, MO , OK and TX are on the B1G radar screen for future expansion, but so are a bunch of ACC teams.

The B10 made some terrible realignment decisions: Not taking Missou and KU is the second worst realignment mistake ever made by a conference. Moreover, Missou is never leaving SECond to none football conference while KU is on B12 lockdown with a GOR. Furthermore, when you consider the B10’s eastern expansion objectives, it should have taken Cuse and Pitt while they waited on a sinking Big East ship to join the ACC (before the GOR) along with Rutgers. The B10 could have still gone after Maryland because the ACC would have thought the B10’s raids were over and probably wouldn’t have implemented a GOR. Nevertheless, because of very poor planning and foresight, the B10 went after Maryland first, which caused the ACC to implement a GOR; thus the B10 screwed itself in regards to plucking additional schools from the ACC—which won’t happen again for a very long time…..

(11-27-2013 08:59 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 01:25 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 11:49 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Please stop with the Buffalo suggestions. Just stop it. If the Big Ten wanted to add just any random AAU school for academic purposes, they would take Rice instead. The Big Ten is in the business of making money, and there's simply no chance of Buffalo making them money. The only schools that the Big Ten want at this point are all in Grant of Rights power leagues, which is why expansion at the standstill.

I guess Rutgers will be a B1G money maker.... Moreover, I have to assume that the conference coudn't see the "B1G Picture" when Missou and KU were available....

Delany made it pretty clear why the B1G took the teams they did. Nebraska is a national name and any conference would love to have them. Rutgers and Maryland were all about demographics. Part of demographics are TV markets, but getting to population growth centers and new, expanding recruiting areas are just as important. That's why the B1G looked east rather than west. I still think KU, MO , OK and TX are on the B1G radar screen for future expansion, but so are a bunch of ACC teams.

The B10 made some terrible realignment decisions: Not taking Missou and KU is the second worst realignment mistake ever made by a conference. Moreover, Missou is never leaving SECond to none football conference while KU is on B12 lockdown with a GOR. Furthermore, when you consider the B10’s eastern expansion objectives, it should have taken Cuse and Pitt while they waited on a sinking Big East ship to join the ACC (before the GOR) along with Rutgers. The B10 could have still gone after Maryland because the ACC would have thought the B10’s raids were over and probably wouldn’t have implemented a GOR. Nevertheless, because of very poor planning and foresight, the B10 went after Maryland first, which caused the ACC to implement a GOR; thus the B10 screwed itself in regards to plucking additional schools from the ACC—which won’t happen again for a very long time…..

I agree, Mizzou and Kansas are as near to natural B10 schools as you can get, even if their demographics aren't great, at least they would have positioned the B10 nearer to OU and Texas and demographic growth.

The only way the B10 attracts other ACC schools is the dissolution of the conference. VT/UVa/UNC/NCSU/Duke these five have to have a mutually agreed home B10 or SEC. They will fight for a home for WF. Would the SEC or B10 leave out FSU/Clemson/GT/Miami? Probably not. Would they leave out Pitt, Syracuse and BC? Probably not.

Essentially the SEC and the B10 would have to swallow about 12 schools - 6 each. If that happens the same thing will happen in the B12 and the SEC and B10 will have to absorb another 8 or so schools creating two super conferences of 24. Then what you will have is the old Southern Conference (23 members in 1933), and the Big 8, Big 10, and old Eastern Independents.

You could call this the SEC and the B24 but they would not be that, they would be something else and within the super conferences the old conferences would be seen in divisions. How long can you govern and keep 24 schools happy? The Southern Conference split twice in 20 year over this in 1933 and 1953. You may think things are different today, and many things are, but what never changes is herding cats. At 24 you need 18 to agree on important matters. Think about that.

(11-27-2013 09:05 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 08:59 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 01:25 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 11:49 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Please stop with the Buffalo suggestions. Just stop it. If the Big Ten wanted to add just any random AAU school for academic purposes, they would take Rice instead. The Big Ten is in the business of making money, and there's simply no chance of Buffalo making them money. The only schools that the Big Ten want at this point are all in Grant of Rights power leagues, which is why expansion at the standstill.

I guess Rutgers will be a B1G money maker.... Moreover, I have to assume that the conference coudn't see the "B1G Picture" when Missou and KU were available....

Delany made it pretty clear why the B1G took the teams they did. Nebraska is a national name and any conference would love to have them. Rutgers and Maryland were all about demographics. Part of demographics are TV markets, but getting to population growth centers and new, expanding recruiting areas are just as important. That's why the B1G looked east rather than west. I still think KU, MO , OK and TX are on the B1G radar screen for future expansion, but so are a bunch of ACC teams.

The B10 made some terrible realignment decisions: Not taking Missou and KU is the second worst realignment mistake ever made by a conference. Moreover, Missou is never leaving SECond to none football conference while KU is on B12 lockdown with a GOR. Furthermore, when you consider the B10’s eastern expansion objectives, it should have taken Cuse and Pitt while they waited on a sinking Big East ship to join the ACC (before the GOR) along with Rutgers. The B10 could have still gone after Maryland because the ACC would have thought the B10’s raids were over and probably wouldn’t have implemented a GOR. Nevertheless, because of very poor planning and foresight, the B10 went after Maryland first, which caused the ACC to implement a GOR; thus the B10 screwed itself in regards to plucking additional schools from the ACC—which won’t happen again for a very long time…..

I agree, Mizzou and Kansas are as near to natural B10 schools as you can get, even if their demographics aren't great, at least they would have positioned the B10 nearer to OU and Texas and demographic growth.

Excellent point.... KU and Missuo would have made southern expansion more feasible for the B10 and contiguous:

(11-26-2013 07:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 12:58 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:21 AM)Badger Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Please stop with the Buffalo suggestions. Just stop it. If the Big Ten wanted to add just any random AAU school for academic purposes, they would take Rice instead. The Big Ten is in the business of making money, and there's simply no chance of Buffalo making them money. The only schools that the Big Ten want at this point are all in Grant of Rights power leagues, which is why expansion at the standstill.

Frank the Tank, I do understand the failings of a Buffalo pick, though it looks strong as a "map choice"...you have to admit. So, bottom line, what does your gut say the Big Ten will do in the next expansion move? Go to 16, or more? And, what schools do they eventually add?

Who the Big Ten would really want: UVA and UNC

If the above isn't possible, who the Big Ten would be willing to expand for: Kansas and Oklahoma

Everyone else outside of the obvious game changers (i.e. Texas, Notre Dame) likely aren't enticing enough to get the Big Ten to expand. Sometimes, you're simply better off doing nothing and not dilute your product.

Read, understand, learn and don't bother to think anything else is the situation.

God knows I have told these people this exact same thing Frank. Perhaps they will take it better from you.

The Big Ten is more likely to put in effort on getting other conferences on board with something much bigger so that they can get one of the above pairs during the mass movement. It is pretty obvious which of the two pairs above is the more likely.


For what it is worth though, I actually think Virginia Tech is more Big Ten esque in nature than Virginia is.

A Virginia Tech add by the Big 10 along with Georgia Tech would be quite the statement, especially in engineering. Throw in Purdue... wow. If others in the Big 10 feel the same as you, H1, VT to the Big 10 and UVA to the SEC would be outstanding.

Is there any chance that the Big 10 would accept an improving NCSU and Clemson if it meant access to the southeast? JR may have a different opinion, but I think Slive would be on board with the Big 10 adding Virginia Tech, NCSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and FSU if it meant that UVA, UNC, and Oklahoma would be SEC. From my understanding, Georgia Tech would be a qualifying add right now, and FSU brings so much to the table for the Big 10 that their borderline academic status (which honestly is similar to Nebraska) would be worth it.

Virginia Tech, NCSU, Clemson, Georgia Tech, and FSU would get the Big 10 to 19 schools and accomplish a tremendous amount in terms of footprint and access to the east coast/ southeast. They could round out at 20 with either Kansas or Duke. I'm just spitballing, but a concession by the Big 10 to take Va. Tech and NC State rather than UVA and UNC could really allow the door to open to much more.

(11-27-2013 01:25 AM)CintiFan Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 11:49 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(11-26-2013 10:04 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Please stop with the Buffalo suggestions. Just stop it. If the Big Ten wanted to add just any random AAU school for academic purposes, they would take Rice instead. The Big Ten is in the business of making money, and there's simply no chance of Buffalo making them money. The only schools that the Big Ten want at this point are all in Grant of Rights power leagues, which is why expansion at the standstill.

I guess Rutgers will be a B1G money maker.... Moreover, I have to assume that the conference coudn't see the "B1G Picture" when Missou and KU were available....

Delany made it pretty clear why the B1G took the teams they did. Nebraska is a national name and any conference would love to have them. Rutgers and Maryland were all about demographics. Part of demographics are TV markets, but getting to population growth centers and new, expanding recruiting areas are just as important. That's why the B1G looked east rather than west. I still think KU, MO , OK and TX are on the B1G radar screen for future expansion, but so are a bunch of ACC teams.

I think that radar system needs some new electronics and a complete systems overhaul.