jhawkmvp
2nd String
Posts: 443
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 35
I Root For: Kansas
Location: Over the Rainbow
|
RE: B12 Realignment Fit Report Card
(06-03-2014 10:13 AM)john01992 Wrote: 1. I do not understand the b10 love for KU. Remember that despite having solid BB, academics and being a state flagship they were passed over by the pac12, SEC, & B10 already. On top of that you have Mizz which is essentially a better overall school for the b10 and even they couldn't get an invite to the b10.
Solid basketball ? The reason is that they check all the boxes that matter to the B1G president's which are AAU and being in a contiguous state with enough value to add to the bottom line of the B1G. KU also has added value to conferences with a network due to all the content filler basketball provides and the eyeballs they would bring to those match-ups by being a blue blood BB program.
KU was caught sleeping in 2010. I doubt that happens again. KU was always pretty content with the Big 8/Big 12 prior to 2010. It also has a little brother problem in that if it leaves the B12 to die, KSU might be outside the power conference structure. Before the PAC was vetoed by Texas in 2010, KU was starting talks with the PAC, and Gee (former OSU president) admitted that the B1G made a mistake NOT taking KU and MU in 2010, since they thought they could get them later (huge mistake now that KU is under GoR and MU is in the SEC and unlikely to return any B1G overtures). The SEC/KU thing would only happen if the SEC went to 20 or they really struck out to the east and on OU/UT at 16 so it was not a thought by either party in 2010/2011. There is interest. Just there are targets ahead of KU for most conferences, many of which are unrealistic to land and coveted by 2 or more conferences. Once the biggest fish make their decisions, if the B12 is done, KU will settle in to one of the four, most likely.
The best example of why the B1G is interested in Kansas is this estimated revenue added chart from Frank the Tank's blog, from the spring of 2010, that has been highly accurate about which schools the B1G has added (though a few schools that may be targets now are not included like UVA, OU, and UNC):
CANDIDATES TOTAL ADDED REVENUE ESTIMATE
Texas $101,369,004
Rutgers WITH NYC $67,798,609
Nebraska $54,487,990
Maryland $50,818,889
Boston College $48,382,692
Notre Dame $47,629,255
Kansas $46,320,092
Missouri $45,901,459
Syracuse $43,504,813
Connecticut $38,080,271
Pittsburgh $34,365,175
Iowa State $31,831,077
Syracuse WITH NYC $65,874,573
Notice 3 of the top 4 are now in the B1G. Later they say that this is probably a conservative estimate and the article came out in 2010 so is probably under valuing adds currently.
2. I think the texahoma & pac12 have a deeper interest in each other than is originally believed. TTU used to be in the same conference as arizona/arizona st. for a few decades. OSU may not have the history for it, but because of a single turbobooster they have the wealth/resources of your traditional tier 2 level program on par with michigan state, wisconsin, stanford, auburn etc.
texas being in that liberal city gives them a cultural aspect that fits in nicely with the pac12 and the OU administration seems to have a hard on for being in a top academic conference.
The PAC would like to drop one of OSU or TTU for KU I am 99% sure; however, they can't at this point and land both Texas and OU (I doubt this occurs anyway, Texas will go east most likely if the B12 fails, and OU might not be too thrilled with the PAC after the 2011 fiasco). TTU and OSU would be the price paid to get UT and OU to come to the PAC. If the PAC could choose freely, TTU and OSU would be fighting it out for the fourth spot. OSU is a redundant add if you have OU. TTU is to a point too, but Texas is a massive state, plus like you said it has some previous history with some current PAC schools. To be honest if you have Texas and OU, you might not need anyone else in Texas. OU is pretty big in Texas by itself. If there was much interest in OSU from the PAC, they would have added OU and OSU when they could have in 2011 and killed the B12. If it was OU/TTU or OU/KU, that probably happens. OSU is only worth it to the PAC if it is required to land Texas.
Note: Colorado was smart to take the PAC when they could with the instability involved with the B12. But they also had nobody to look after. All the schools like that left. The three with those responsibilities are still there. That is not a coincidence. Just look at OU who would probably have MU's place in the SEC right now if they had no OSU to care for for an example of this.
(This post was last modified: 06-04-2014 11:18 PM by jhawkmvp.)
|
|