(04-12-2015 01:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 01:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And once again you introduce a new, previously unmentioned reason, as to why you made an unsubstantiated claim. But I do agree that the Big 10 doesn't need either of them to remain sound. But the claim of best basketball and football conference remains hanging out there and unsubstantiated. But thank you for a better tone to your remarks today.

I'm not going to make any attempt to substantiate the claim of being the best in football or basketball.

I was being a blowhard fan. :)

You got the blowhard part right.

I told him to edit his post with regards to calling you out H1. Other than that let him learn board etiquette. He could be alright. He at least has some good reasons for what he believes and knowledge in some particular areas. Most posters that come here from other boards have to get familiar with a somewhat less combative atmosphere.

(04-12-2015 01:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 01:27 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 01:27 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-12-2015 01:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And once again you introduce a new, previously unmentioned reason, as to why you made an unsubstantiated claim. But I do agree that the Big 10 doesn't need either of them to remain sound. But the claim of best basketball and football conference remains hanging out there and unsubstantiated. But thank you for a better tone to your remarks today.

I'm not going to make any attempt to substantiate the claim of being the best in football or basketball.

I was being a blowhard fan. :)

You got the blowhard part right.

I told him to edit his post with regards to calling you out H1. Other than that let him learn board etiquette. He could be alright. He at least has some good reasons for what he believes and knowledge in some particular areas. Most posters that come here from other boards have to get familiar with a somewhat less combative atmosphere.

He can say whatever he likes about me, he isn't my equal and if he wants to come at me then game on. I will tear him apart. He isn't a Big Ten guy and he clearly doesn't know much about it. He is a North Dakota guy that happens to like a Big Ten school. His argument that Kansas doesn't fit culturally with The Big Ten is hilarious. His attempt to claim I am saying KU and OU are about "saving" The Big Ten just shows that he is guilty of what he is trying to claim I do.

His argument is ridiculous and he knows it.

(04-12-2015 01:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

Whatever kid, whatever. No one even knows who you are. All they know about you is that you think Kansas doesn't fit the Big Ten mold and that Missouri is a great addition for markets despite the fact that Nebraska, with no markets, beat it out.

You know nothing. I don't even have to bother to ask folks to save their brain cells by not engaging with you. They are already realizing that on their own.

I never said anything about "saving The Big Ten". You are a joke and you are trying to create a strawman as well as a false reality about me. You fail North Dakota guy.

Laughter is the best medicine.

If you're still interested in actual discussion, then I'll be wanting to understand how it is that having the BTN on an expanded tier of one cable system in one city in a state means that the BTN has fully exhausted the market potential of that state.

It's because they are there, already. Oklahoma brings an actual blue blood football program, Kansas brings an actual blue blood basketball program. Missouri has just taken advantage of a horrendous SEC East division in football. Basketball is what has mattered to Missouri historically and yet they are terrible at it now while in a conference that should be allowing them to thrive in basketball.

You want to try and win the market argument for Missouri? When it comes to markets that the Big Ten cared about getting into, you are talking East Coast. Now they will get brands, again. Penn State and Nebraska were brand grabs.

Even if you win this argument you lose because you are saying Missouri is the best grab for The Big Ten when The Big Ten chose Nebraska (no markets) over Missouri. You lose this argument before you even started it due to history.

Getting the Blue Blood programs is more important than getting a slightly better insertion in St. Louis. They are there, and people will get that tier of programming because St. Louis is a sports town. If you think St. Louis is a southern town culturally then you havn't been there. Missouri being in the SEC isn't a threat. Kansas will get The Big Ten full insertion in Kansas City, there is no question in that, considering they would be with both Nebraska and Oklahoma again for football and they would finally be in a basketball conference.

(04-16-2015 08:45 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's because they are there, already. Oklahoma brings an actual blue blood football program, Kansas brings an actual blue blood basketball program. Missouri has just taken advantage of a horrendous SEC East division in football. Basketball is what has mattered to Missouri historically and yet they are terrible at it now while in a conference that should be allowing them to thrive in basketball.

You want to try and win the market argument for Missouri? When it comes to markets that the Big Ten cared about getting into, you are talking East Coast. Now they will get brands, again. Penn State and Nebraska were brand grabs.

Even if you win this argument you lose because you are saying Missouri is the best grab for The Big Ten when The Big Ten chose Nebraska (no markets) over Missouri. You lose this argument before you even started it due to history.

Getting the Blue Blood programs is more important than getting a slightly better insertion in St. Louis. They are there, and people will get that tier of programming because St. Louis is a sports town. If you think St. Louis is a southern town culturally then you havn't been there. Missouri being in the SEC isn't a threat. Kansas will get The Big Ten full insertion in Kansas City, there is no question in that, considering they would be with both Nebraska and Oklahoma again for football and they would finally be in a basketball conference.

You know, H1, your argument isn't bad and it isn't wrong. You may well have the winning argument.

We can dance around about STL and KC, which I don't consider to be incompatible culturally with the B1G. I can say that without MU the BTN will never come close to exhausting their market potential in those two markets. You can say that IL, IA, NE and KS give the full market potential from the outside.

But I think the better argument is brands vs. culture and state politics.


You going with brands is a tough argument to defeat. I will admit that. Nebraska was a brand over market decision. Can't disagree with that. As you say, Rutgers and Maryland were markets over brands and so now the next grab should be brands again. I am having a tough time disagreeing with that.


All I can do is take a stand on culture and note that Kansas and Oklahoma have an equally divided, dual flagship public university system. My opinion is that: 1) KS and OK are not compatible culturally with the B1G and 2) it will be impossible for a conference as prestigious as the B1G to scoop up only one of either state's flagships while leaving the other behind when clearly the XII would be destroyed at that point.

You've said that my second point is irreverent so long as the other flagship has a secured spot in one of the remaining three power conferences. Fine, but which conference is going to want Kansas St and/or Oklahoma State? I don't think the PAC or the ACC would. The SEC might, but it seems like they'd want to go for bigger fish, to me.

(04-16-2015 09:00 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 08:45 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It's because they are there, already. Oklahoma brings an actual blue blood football program, Kansas brings an actual blue blood basketball program. Missouri has just taken advantage of a horrendous SEC East division in football. Basketball is what has mattered to Missouri historically and yet they are terrible at it now while in a conference that should be allowing them to thrive in basketball.

You want to try and win the market argument for Missouri? When it comes to markets that the Big Ten cared about getting into, you are talking East Coast. Now they will get brands, again. Penn State and Nebraska were brand grabs.

Even if you win this argument you lose because you are saying Missouri is the best grab for The Big Ten when The Big Ten chose Nebraska (no markets) over Missouri. You lose this argument before you even started it due to history.

Getting the Blue Blood programs is more important than getting a slightly better insertion in St. Louis. They are there, and people will get that tier of programming because St. Louis is a sports town. If you think St. Louis is a southern town culturally then you havn't been there. Missouri being in the SEC isn't a threat. Kansas will get The Big Ten full insertion in Kansas City, there is no question in that, considering they would be with both Nebraska and Oklahoma again for football and they would finally be in a basketball conference.

You know, H1, your argument isn't bad and it isn't wrong. You may well have the winning argument.

We can dance around about STL and KC, which I don't consider to be incompatible culturally with the B1G. I can say that without MU the BTN will never come close to exhausting their market potential in those two markets. You can say that IL, IA, NE and KS give the full market potential from the outside.

But I think the better argument is brands vs. culture and state politics.


You going with brands is a tough argument to defeat. I will admit that. Nebraska was a brand over market decision. Can't disagree with that. As you say, Rutgers and Maryland were markets over brands and so now the next grab should be brands again. I am having a tough time disagreeing with that.


All I can do is take a stand on culture and note that Kansas and Oklahoma have an equally divided, dual flagship public university system. My opinion is that: 1) KS and OK are not compatible culturally with the B1G and 2) it will be impossible for a conference as prestigious as the B1G to scoop up only one of either state's flagships while leaving the other behind when clearly the XII would be destroyed at that point.

You've said that my second point is irreverent so long as the other flagship has a secured spot in one of the remaining three power conferences. Fine, but which conference is going to want Kansas St and/or Oklahoma State? I don't think the PAC or the ACC would. The SEC might, but it seems like they'd want to go for bigger fish, to me.

Kansas and Oklahoma will never join The Big Ten if it means leaving behind Kansas State and Oklahoma State. Their respective States wouldn't allow one Institution to be damaged so that the other can be lifted up. So yes, it will require another Major to take them. You say that can't happen? I say money can make it happen. I have made this point so many times that I am just going to leave it at "money can make it happen" and go from there. If you have questions about that then I can answer those but at this point I am just about ready to just let the cards fall where they will. People know what I am saying is going to happen, it's attributed to me.

Kansas and Oklahoma are more culturally attuned to The Big Ten than Maryland and Rutgers were upon their day of joining. I don't see how that is even remotely arguable. Academics and Culture are not necessarily the same thing. Academics affect culture but culture is bigger than just that.

(04-16-2015 07:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas and Oklahoma will never join The Big Ten if it means leaving behind Kansas State and Oklahoma State. Their respective States wouldn't allow one Institution to be damaged so that the other can be lifted up. So yes, it will require another Major to take them. You say that can't happen? I say money can make it happen. I have made this point so many times that I am just going to leave it at "money can make it happen" and go from there. If you have questions about that then I can answer those but at this point I am just about ready to just let the cards fall where they will. People know what I am saying is going to happen, it's attributed to me.

Kansas and Oklahoma are more culturally attuned to The Big Ten than Maryland and Rutgers were upon their day of joining. I don't see how that is even remotely arguable. Academics and Culture are not necessarily the same thing. Academics affect culture but culture is bigger than just that.

There's academic culture of the university and there's state culture. In my opinion, Kansas would fit with the institutional culture of the B1G but Oklahoma would not. State culture wise, I suppose Indiana as of late might be a reasonable match for what Kansas and Oklahoma would be. But I don't think they're nearly as bad. Same for Iowa, Michigan and Ohio.

I would assume New Jersey similar to eastern PA. Maryland I don't know. So it's a fair point. But again, I think we agree that the expansion for Rutgers and Maryland was for markets and not the other stuff. So if this expansion is going to be for the other stuff, then I don't think it's fair to use the other stuff basis to assess the Rutgers/Maryland expansion and then turn around to say that another expansion is warranted via the other stuff because of that.



I agree, enough money can make anything happen. So it seems that we have some level ground on the dual flagship point.

So let me ask you then, in the scenario where the XII is faltering and you agree that the B1G won't be able to just scoop up KU and/or OU without there being a secured place for KSU and OKSt: what about IA St? Why should it be any different in that state? They're going to need some place to go in the remaining power conferences just as much as KSU is.

And it seems like the B1G would be the only reasonable place for them to land, unless you think the SEC would try to pair them with MU. But will the SEC take ISU, KSU and OKSt just so the B1G can take KU and OU?

(04-17-2015 08:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 07:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas and Oklahoma will never join The Big Ten if it means leaving behind Kansas State and Oklahoma State. Their respective States wouldn't allow one Institution to be damaged so that the other can be lifted up. So yes, it will require another Major to take them. You say that can't happen? I say money can make it happen. I have made this point so many times that I am just going to leave it at "money can make it happen" and go from there. If you have questions about that then I can answer those but at this point I am just about ready to just let the cards fall where they will. People know what I am saying is going to happen, it's attributed to me.

Kansas and Oklahoma are more culturally attuned to The Big Ten than Maryland and Rutgers were upon their day of joining. I don't see how that is even remotely arguable. Academics and Culture are not necessarily the same thing. Academics affect culture but culture is bigger than just that.

There's academic culture of the university and there's state culture. In my opinion, Kansas would fit with the institutional culture of the B1G but Oklahoma would not. State culture wise, I suppose Indiana as of late might be a reasonable match for what Kansas and Oklahoma would be. But I don't think they're nearly as bad. Same for Iowa, Michigan and Ohio.

I would assume New Jersey similar to eastern PA. Maryland I don't know. So it's a fair point. But again, I think we agree that the expansion for Rutgers and Maryland was for markets and not the other stuff. So if this expansion is going to be for the other stuff, then I don't think it's fair to use the other stuff basis to assess the Rutgers/Maryland expansion and then turn around to say that another expansion is warranted via the other stuff because of that.



I agree, enough money can make anything happen. So it seems that we have some level ground on the dual flagship point.

So let me ask you then, in the scenario where the XII is faltering and you agree that the B1G won't be able to just scoop up KU and/or OU without there being a secured place for KSU and OKSt: what about IA St? Why should it be any different in that state? They're going to need some place to go in the remaining power conferences just as much as KSU is.

And it seems like the B1G would be the only reasonable place for them to land, unless you think the SEC would try to pair them with MU. But will the SEC take ISU, KSU and OKSt just so the B1G can take KU and OU?

Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots to potentially be seen on with the Networks. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

(04-17-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 08:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 07:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas and Oklahoma will never join The Big Ten if it means leaving behind Kansas State and Oklahoma State. Their respective States wouldn't allow one Institution to be damaged so that the other can be lifted up. So yes, it will require another Major to take them. You say that can't happen? I say money can make it happen. I have made this point so many times that I am just going to leave it at "money can make it happen" and go from there. If you have questions about that then I can answer those but at this point I am just about ready to just let the cards fall where they will. People know what I am saying is going to happen, it's attributed to me.

Kansas and Oklahoma are more culturally attuned to The Big Ten than Maryland and Rutgers were upon their day of joining. I don't see how that is even remotely arguable. Academics and Culture are not necessarily the same thing. Academics affect culture but culture is bigger than just that.

There's academic culture of the university and there's state culture. In my opinion, Kansas would fit with the institutional culture of the B1G but Oklahoma would not. State culture wise, I suppose Indiana as of late might be a reasonable match for what Kansas and Oklahoma would be. But I don't think they're nearly as bad. Same for Iowa, Michigan and Ohio.

I would assume New Jersey similar to eastern PA. Maryland I don't know. So it's a fair point. But again, I think we agree that the expansion for Rutgers and Maryland was for markets and not the other stuff. So if this expansion is going to be for the other stuff, then I don't think it's fair to use the other stuff basis to assess the Rutgers/Maryland expansion and then turn around to say that another expansion is warranted via the other stuff because of that.



I agree, enough money can make anything happen. So it seems that we have some level ground on the dual flagship point.

So let me ask you then, in the scenario where the XII is faltering and you agree that the B1G won't be able to just scoop up KU and/or OU without there being a secured place for KSU and OKSt: what about IA St? Why should it be any different in that state? They're going to need some place to go in the remaining power conferences just as much as KSU is.

And it seems like the B1G would be the only reasonable place for them to land, unless you think the SEC would try to pair them with MU. But will the SEC take ISU, KSU and OKSt just so the B1G can take KU and OU?

Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots they could. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

H1 I a basically agree with you, but....if I were Jim Delany I would push for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa State in the West and make a run at Syracuse in the East. Here's why. By placing three in the West balancing the conference with 3 divisions of 6 would be relatively easy and more equitable. Why Syracuse? Well first because they can't land Notre Dame and they won't get Virginia without Duke and U.N.C. but the Big 10 needs a stopper around the New York market. I think Syracuse would do that by and large and the Orange were at least recently AAU. Such a move truncates the ACC in the Big Apple.

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma

Mixing your major football brands regionally would really add a lot of S.O.S. to the Big 10 lineup. You have at least two national brands in every division this way, but also you have the markets to the East that you desired. With a wild card in the conference playoffs the Big 10 could easily place 4 brands in their championship round every year. Iowa State becomes an AAU add to balance out the West. I still think 18 is better than 16 because of the need to play more of a core regionally and because of the added late season interest in the Wild Card race.

(04-17-2015 07:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 08:41 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-16-2015 07:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Kansas and Oklahoma will never join The Big Ten if it means leaving behind Kansas State and Oklahoma State. Their respective States wouldn't allow one Institution to be damaged so that the other can be lifted up. So yes, it will require another Major to take them. You say that can't happen? I say money can make it happen. I have made this point so many times that I am just going to leave it at "money can make it happen" and go from there. If you have questions about that then I can answer those but at this point I am just about ready to just let the cards fall where they will. People know what I am saying is going to happen, it's attributed to me.

Kansas and Oklahoma are more culturally attuned to The Big Ten than Maryland and Rutgers were upon their day of joining. I don't see how that is even remotely arguable. Academics and Culture are not necessarily the same thing. Academics affect culture but culture is bigger than just that.

There's academic culture of the university and there's state culture. In my opinion, Kansas would fit with the institutional culture of the B1G but Oklahoma would not. State culture wise, I suppose Indiana as of late might be a reasonable match for what Kansas and Oklahoma would be. But I don't think they're nearly as bad. Same for Iowa, Michigan and Ohio.

I would assume New Jersey similar to eastern PA. Maryland I don't know. So it's a fair point. But again, I think we agree that the expansion for Rutgers and Maryland was for markets and not the other stuff. So if this expansion is going to be for the other stuff, then I don't think it's fair to use the other stuff basis to assess the Rutgers/Maryland expansion and then turn around to say that another expansion is warranted via the other stuff because of that.



I agree, enough money can make anything happen. So it seems that we have some level ground on the dual flagship point.

So let me ask you then, in the scenario where the XII is faltering and you agree that the B1G won't be able to just scoop up KU and/or OU without there being a secured place for KSU and OKSt: what about IA St? Why should it be any different in that state? They're going to need some place to go in the remaining power conferences just as much as KSU is.

And it seems like the B1G would be the only reasonable place for them to land, unless you think the SEC would try to pair them with MU. But will the SEC take ISU, KSU and OKSt just so the B1G can take KU and OU?

Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots they could. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

H1 I a basically agree with you, but....if I were Jim Delany I would push for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa State in the West and make a run at Syracuse in the East. Here's why. By placing three in the West balancing the conference with 3 divisions of 6 would be relatively easy and more equitable. Why Syracuse? Well first because they can't land Notre Dame and they won't get Virginia without Duke and U.N.C. but the Big 10 needs a stopper around the New York market. I think Syracuse would do that by and large and the Orange were at least recently AAU. Such a move truncates the ACC in the Big Apple.

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma

Mixing your major football brands regionally would really add a lot of S.O.S. to the Big 10 lineup. You have at least two national brands in every division this way, but also you have the markets to the East that you desired. With a wild card in the conference playoffs the Big 10 could easily place 4 brands in their championship round every year. Iowa State becomes an AAU add to balance out the West. I still think 18 is better than 16 because of the need to play more of a core regionally and because of the added late season interest in the Wild Card race.

Ok, alright, fine...... alright. I am going to say something I have never said before. If this situation was to happen, I'm not saying it will, then this line up for The Big Ten might be enough for them to accept Iowa State as a compromise. There, I said it, you finally came up with a scenario where Iowa State could possibly end up in The Big Ten. To be honest, that makes me like it. That makes me like it very much BUT I still don't see it as being the leading candidate scenario. If 18 is the future though, then this is the one for The Big Ten.

Now, whether or not The ACC would be willing to allow The Big Ten to grab that New York school with the blue blood basketball, the strong enough football program and perhaps the most Elite Lacrosse program in the country? That is an entirely different discussion all together.


If they would agree though, I definitely could see The Big Ten pulling the trigger on that. Since this is the first time I have pondered that, I must say that the above is simply my opinion.

(04-17-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots to potentially be seen on with the Networks. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

I don't agree that it's fair to analyze the culture of Maryland and Rutgers relative to the culture of the rest of the B1G, because Maryland and Rutgers weren't brand expansions. They were market expansions, hence culture was of a lower priority. With a brand expansion, culture is a higher priority.

Let's even throw institutional culture out the window. You can't ignore the state culture of Kansas and Oklahoma. They might rub too many B1G states the wrong way, eliciting no votes. That's my point, on that.


Ok, so you're saying that the PAC will be paid off to take Iowa St and Kansas State (along with TCU and Tech). Does that mean Baylor and Oklahoma State go to the SEC?

I can't argue with that too much. I agree that, for the right amount of money, anything is possible.


However, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of Iowa, Kansas and Texas being the flag bearers for the Pacific coast. Don't you?

(04-18-2015 09:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots to potentially be seen on with the Networks. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

I don't agree that it's fair to analyze the culture of Maryland and Rutgers relative to the culture of the rest of the B1G, because Maryland and Rutgers weren't brand expansions. They were market expansions, hence culture was of a lower priority. With a brand expansion, culture is a higher priority.

Let's even throw institutional culture out the window. You can't ignore the state culture of Kansas and Oklahoma. They might rub too many B1G states the wrong way, eliciting no votes. That's my point, on that.


Ok, so you're saying that the PAC will be paid off to take Iowa St and Kansas State (along with TCU and Tech). Does that mean Baylor and Oklahoma State go to the SEC?

I can't argue with that too much. I agree that, for the right amount of money, anything is possible.


However, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of Iowa, Kansas and Texas being the flag bearers for the Pacific coast. Don't you?

Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots to potentially be seen on with the Networks. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

I don't agree that it's fair to analyze the culture of Maryland and Rutgers relative to the culture of the rest of the B1G, because Maryland and Rutgers weren't brand expansions. They were market expansions, hence culture was of a lower priority. With a brand expansion, culture is a higher priority.

Let's even throw institutional culture out the window. You can't ignore the state culture of Kansas and Oklahoma. They might rub too many B1G states the wrong way, eliciting no votes. That's my point, on that.


Ok, so you're saying that the PAC will be paid off to take Iowa St and Kansas State (along with TCU and Tech). Does that mean Baylor and Oklahoma State go to the SEC?

I can't argue with that too much. I agree that, for the right amount of money, anything is possible.


However, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of Iowa, Kansas and Texas being the flag bearers for the Pacific coast. Don't you?

Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

You underestimate the allure of the most profitable and most watched and most attended conference in the nation.

(04-18-2015 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots to potentially be seen on with the Networks. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

I don't agree that it's fair to analyze the culture of Maryland and Rutgers relative to the culture of the rest of the B1G, because Maryland and Rutgers weren't brand expansions. They were market expansions, hence culture was of a lower priority. With a brand expansion, culture is a higher priority.

Let's even throw institutional culture out the window. You can't ignore the state culture of Kansas and Oklahoma. They might rub too many B1G states the wrong way, eliciting no votes. That's my point, on that.


Ok, so you're saying that the PAC will be paid off to take Iowa St and Kansas State (along with TCU and Tech). Does that mean Baylor and Oklahoma State go to the SEC?

I can't argue with that too much. I agree that, for the right amount of money, anything is possible.


However, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of Iowa, Kansas and Texas being the flag bearers for the Pacific coast. Don't you?

Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

You underestimate the allure of the most profitable and most watched and most attended conference in the nation.

No I'm not. Also, the SEC is not the most profitable. It gets old though having to have you waving those SEC pom poms around when previously you have admitted and understood the logic behind OSU and WVU to the SEC.

(04-17-2015 07:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  H1 I a basically agree with you, but....if I were Jim Delany I would push for Kansas, Oklahoma, and Iowa State in the West and make a run at Syracuse in the East. Here's why. By placing three in the West balancing the conference with 3 divisions of 6 would be relatively easy and more equitable. Why Syracuse? Well first because they can't land Notre Dame and they won't get Virginia without Duke and U.N.C. but the Big 10 needs a stopper around the New York market. I think Syracuse would do that by and large and the Orange were at least recently AAU. Such a move truncates the ACC in the Big Apple.

Maryland, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, Rutgers, Syracuse
Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern, Wisconsin
Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Oklahoma

Mixing your major football brands regionally would really add a lot of S.O.S. to the Big 10 lineup. You have at least two national brands in every division this way, but also you have the markets to the East that you desired. With a wild card in the conference playoffs the Big 10 could easily place 4 brands in their championship round every year. Iowa State becomes an AAU add to balance out the West. I still think 18 is better than 16 because of the need to play more of a core regionally and because of the added late season interest in the Wild Card race.

However, Syracuse would need to believe that the ACC as it currently exists would not be able to survive somewhat in tact in future conference realignment for this strategy to work.

Even knowing that the Big East would not likely survive if the ACC expanded with Miami back in 2003 they were more reluctant to leave that conference than BC or even any of the other football schools that didn't get invited. And the Orange didn't even try to become #12 a few months later when the ACC went back north to get to twelve.

Syracuse, the university, is where it wants to be right now in an East Coast conference with mid-Atlantic and southern elite academic universities. They willingly left the AAU without a fight (unlike Nebraska) because they know they are not a huge state public that grinds out Medical and STEM graduate students in large numbers but rather a research institution more focused on psychology, sociology, political science, public administration, and education.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-18-2015 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots to potentially be seen on with the Networks. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

I don't agree that it's fair to analyze the culture of Maryland and Rutgers relative to the culture of the rest of the B1G, because Maryland and Rutgers weren't brand expansions. They were market expansions, hence culture was of a lower priority. With a brand expansion, culture is a higher priority.

Let's even throw institutional culture out the window. You can't ignore the state culture of Kansas and Oklahoma. They might rub too many B1G states the wrong way, eliciting no votes. That's my point, on that.


Ok, so you're saying that the PAC will be paid off to take Iowa St and Kansas State (along with TCU and Tech). Does that mean Baylor and Oklahoma State go to the SEC?

I can't argue with that too much. I agree that, for the right amount of money, anything is possible.


However, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of Iowa, Kansas and Texas being the flag bearers for the Pacific coast. Don't you?

Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

You underestimate the allure of the most profitable and most watched and most attended conference in the nation.

No I'm not. Also, the SEC is not the most profitable. It gets old though having to have you waving those SEC pom poms around when previously you have admitted and understood the logic behind OSU and WVU to the SEC.

"Paid off" by whom? Where does the payoff come from?

(04-18-2015 11:30 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I don't agree that it's fair to analyze the culture of Maryland and Rutgers relative to the culture of the rest of the B1G, because Maryland and Rutgers weren't brand expansions. They were market expansions, hence culture was of a lower priority. With a brand expansion, culture is a higher priority.

Let's even throw institutional culture out the window. You can't ignore the state culture of Kansas and Oklahoma. They might rub too many B1G states the wrong way, eliciting no votes. That's my point, on that.


Ok, so you're saying that the PAC will be paid off to take Iowa St and Kansas State (along with TCU and Tech). Does that mean Baylor and Oklahoma State go to the SEC?

I can't argue with that too much. I agree that, for the right amount of money, anything is possible.


However, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of Iowa, Kansas and Texas being the flag bearers for the Pacific coast. Don't you?

Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

You underestimate the allure of the most profitable and most watched and most attended conference in the nation.

No I'm not. Also, the SEC is not the most profitable. It gets old though having to have you waving those SEC pom poms around when previously you have admitted and understood the logic behind OSU and WVU to the SEC.

"Paid off" by whom? Where does the payoff come from?

Who pays the conferences?

(04-18-2015 11:38 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:30 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

You underestimate the allure of the most profitable and most watched and most attended conference in the nation.

No I'm not. Also, the SEC is not the most profitable. It gets old though having to have you waving those SEC pom poms around when previously you have admitted and understood the logic behind OSU and WVU to the SEC.

"Paid off" by whom? Where does the payoff come from?

Who pays the conferences?

TV networks are businesses. They compete against one another. If one of them is willing to pay four conference shares to the PAC to accommodate four unattractive programs, they wouldn't be competitive for long.

(04-18-2015 11:17 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 11:13 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-18-2015 09:29 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(04-17-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Ok, first off the point that you allude to in the first paragraph is the discussion about whether an expansion candidate is a Brand expansion or a Market expansion. We could go into that more but that is a long post kind of discussion so I will just leave it there for now.

What we are talking about here is neither. We are simply talking about whether a University, and all that comes with it including the State, is a good cultural fit for the Conference. With that in mind it is absolutely a fair counter point to bring up Rutgers and Maryland when you try to say that Kansas and Oklahoma aren't good culture fits. Why is that? It is because Kansas and Oklahoma are much more akin to the original Big Ten culture than Rutgers and Maryland are.

That means the conference is about expanding the culture. So when you do the comparison to Maryland and Rutgers, it seems to me that it is obvious that Kansas and Oklahoma would be fine culture wise. Yes, Oklahoma isn't as high in academic rankings but they are absolutely rising and they do have some strong programs. Their academic identity would be fine considering they would be bringing a Blue Blood football program as well as a strong basketball program. They bring their Norman, Oklahoma location which is only 2.5 hours from Dallas/Ft. Worth by car.


Now in terms of Iowa State? The Pac would be paid to accept Texas Tech, TCU, Kansas State and Iowa State. Iowa State knows that when the GoR runs out, they are on their own to find a place and they wont find a P4 place. They will begrudgingly accept all that travel. What does the PAC get? They get over 90 new time slots to potentially be seen on with the Networks. Currently the PAC doesn't schedule games for the Noon Eastern time slot. Their games can be broadcast upon ABC/ESPN/ESPN2/Fox/FS1. That is deserving of a massive pay increase. That is why the PAC will eventually take "the leftovers" because they make the best use of them. They get two Texas programs which means playing a Texas team every year and a trip to Texas every other year. Iowa State and Kansas State being in division with them will still get to Texas every year so they are simply expanding their recruiting areas by this move. They lose nothing.

I don't agree that it's fair to analyze the culture of Maryland and Rutgers relative to the culture of the rest of the B1G, because Maryland and Rutgers weren't brand expansions. They were market expansions, hence culture was of a lower priority. With a brand expansion, culture is a higher priority.

Let's even throw institutional culture out the window. You can't ignore the state culture of Kansas and Oklahoma. They might rub too many B1G states the wrong way, eliciting no votes. That's my point, on that.


Ok, so you're saying that the PAC will be paid off to take Iowa St and Kansas State (along with TCU and Tech). Does that mean Baylor and Oklahoma State go to the SEC?

I can't argue with that too much. I agree that, for the right amount of money, anything is possible.


However, I think it's a little ridiculous to think of Iowa, Kansas and Texas being the flag bearers for the Pacific coast. Don't you?

Expansions are expansions. We categorize as market or brand but its possible to turn the brands of Maryland and Rutgers into solid brands given time. You are wrong when you are trying to categorize Kansas as being so dissimilar to much of the Big Ten. I know folks that have graduated from Kansas. They fit in much better with Big Ten folks than they do with most big 12 folks. Kansas is a great fit. If you want to argue culture on this then you can argue it for Oklahoma but Oklahoma has Oklahoma football and Norman, Oklahoma just 2.5 hours away from DFW. It would be overlooked.

In terms of brand expansions, culture is a higher priority? When Penn State joined, they were absolutely a Brand expansion. Yes there are great markets in Pennsylvania but at the time Penn State was an Elite football program. That is why they were allowed in. The Big Ten Network didn't even exist, it was all about Penn State football. So, I am sorry but I do not agree with your premise on brand versus market in terms of culture being a factor.

In terms of Iowa State and Kansas State being able to carry the flag for a conference named the Pacific Athletic Conference? I would say they fit that just as well as the 11th through 16th teams joining a conference named The Big Ten. I would say they fit that just as well as a school in Indiana joining a conference called the Atlantic Coast Conference. How about Louisville for that matter? Pitt? Look these names are nothing but tradition at this point. The factors for why TCU, Texas Tech, ISU and KSU make for a good expansion for the PAC are sound and those schools benefit the PAC more than they would any of the other conferences.

Baylor to the ACC with Texas. Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC.

You underestimate the allure of the most profitable and most watched and most attended conference in the nation.

No I'm not. Also, the SEC is not the most profitable. It gets old though having to have you waving those SEC pom poms around when previously you have admitted and understood the logic behind OSU and WVU to the SEC.

H1 the SEC is the most profitable and by a bit. What we do not have is the most TV contract revenue. But that revenue is only a fraction of Athletic Department revenues. As to OSU and WVU I did entertain them as a work around to getting to a P4. I just don't think the SEC will go for it.

A lot depends of how much value ESPN sees in getting the exclusive rights to broadcast the PAC in other parts of the country.
If they see great value then they must move Texas west. Pays off the PAC and creates a marketing gateway for PAC product to other parts of the country.