(04-28-2015 09:48 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  The BIG is crying all the way to the bank over their failed expansion.

Sometimes, when you laugh extremely hard, it can bring tears to your eyes.

How is the state of Texas viewed---- Southwest or Southeast?

(04-28-2015 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 04:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  None of these so called B10 expansion rules mean a damn thing. If 3/4ths want to do it, they can do it - just as in the ACC or SEC.

At least someone gets it. I will say this though, The Big Ten is a pretty tight knit and respectful place at the very top. They don't add schools with a 3/4 vote. Every expansion addition has been unanimous. Contiguous is actually a pretty big deal for The Big Ten. Other than that, the rest are just boxes that either get a check mark or don't. Get enough check marks and you are in.

It was a long time ago, but the Penn State addition was not unanimous. That one was quite divisive and contentious, actually. The presidents did everything in secret. Delany didn't even consult the athletic directors -- they didn't know until the vote had cleared and they were pissed.

(04-28-2015 11:41 PM)moo Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 04:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  None of these so called B10 expansion rules mean a damn thing. If 3/4ths want to do it, they can do it - just as in the ACC or SEC.

At least someone gets it. I will say this though, The Big Ten is a pretty tight knit and respectful place at the very top. They don't add schools with a 3/4 vote. Every expansion addition has been unanimous. Contiguous is actually a pretty big deal for The Big Ten. Other than that, the rest are just boxes that either get a check mark or don't. Get enough check marks and you are in.

It was a long time ago, but the Penn State addition was not unanimous. That one was quite divisive and contentious, actually. The presidents did everything in secret. Delany didn't even consult the athletic directors -- they didn't know until the vote had cleared and they were pissed.

That was a different Age. You are correct though.

(04-28-2015 11:33 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  How is the state of Texas viewed---- Southwest or Southeast?

To me, everything along the Gulf Coast (Houston, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, Victoria, etc.) is southeast. Everything west of the I-35 corridor (El Paso, Lubbock, Abilene, Amarillo, Midland/Odessa, etc.) is more southwest. The stuff in the middle (Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, College Station, Waco, etc.) could go either way. I've only been to Texas once (was on tour with a band through Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas) so most of my opinion is based on perception and not fact.

(04-28-2015 03:27 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  For all of the Big 10's schemes and dreams, they added Nebraska, which has added NOTHING. And then they added Rutgers and Maryland....solely for market value and because they fit the research quota. Meanwhile, they let Mizzou go, and they've had Texas A&M and Florida hanging out there the whole time. Why did the Big 10 not go after Texas A&M?? The entire contiguous state thing is stupid and out of date

Nebraska was a very nice pickup for the B1G if you consider their fan support.

The Rutgers/Maryland additions were somewhat of a surprise while both schools had the academic qualifications for a long time. Maryland was an original AAC member and Rutgers was never noted athletically. They were both the sort of adds only realignment junkies would contemplate.

B1G now is hemmed in by its geography without a lot of good expansion options. If they go East they are looking at UConn which is a decent add....go west of Nebraska and you get into Wyoming which isn't going to work.

I seriously doubt expansion by the Big 3 (PAC, SEC, B1G) is imminent. The SEC and B1G waited 20 years between expansions and the PAC over 30 years.

The B12 and ACC are more volatile and could make a move mid way through their contracts and largely are competing for the same realignment prizes (Texas, Cincinnati).

The G5 may rethink they way the look at membership over the next 10 years. More emphasis placed on maximizing SOS over media markets.

CUSA for example with its opening could take a gamble on bringing in NIU, Toledo and Ohio to beef up its East division strength by convincing those schools they would be better off in CUSA where they didn't have to play mid week TV games + have the ability to host a conference championship game at home. Or try something like UMass, Buffalo, Akron to concentrate more on basketball.

(04-29-2015 12:27 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 11:33 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  How is the state of Texas viewed---- Southwest or Southeast?

To me, everything along the Gulf Coast (Houston, Corpus Christi, Beaumont, Victoria, etc.) is southeast. Everything west of the I-35 corridor (El Paso, Lubbock, Abilene, Amarillo, Midland/Odessa, etc.) is more southwest. The stuff in the middle (Dallas/Ft. Worth, Austin, San Antonio, College Station, Waco, etc.) could go either way. I've only been to Texas once (was on tour with a band through Houston, San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas) so most of my opinion is based on perception and not fact.

I have been to Corpus Christi and San Antonio many times. I have been to Laredo as well, El Paso too.

I think that East Texas is Southeast, but Corpus Christi and San Antonio are definitely Southwest, especially the latter.

Houston is the dividing line to me.

(04-28-2015 06:51 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 04:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 03:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that Jim Delany had his sights set in 2010 on Texas and/or Notre Dame, but whiffed.

Everything else since has been Plan B, but Delany has done well with it by having the BTN in his back pocket.

The B1G expansion in 2010 was rumored to be ND, Texas, and Texas A&M.

The latter always wanted the SEC.

Texas claimed to have a "Tech problem".

ND wants to remain independent for football.

As good as JD is, those were HUGE obstacles to overcome, even for him.

Cheers,
Neil

Not really, it was supposed to be ND/Texas and Rutgers if a slot were available, but ND turned them down and Texas is still "considering it" now. Nebraska suddenly became available, so Rutgers was shelved until they were able to get either Texas or another east coast school to come aboard. Fast forward a couple years later and Maryland's chancellor reaches out to Delany and deal is done.

B1G still waiting on Texas' decision as the next step.

Rutgers was going to be #15 or #16 preferably with Maryland.

They only got pushed up to #14 because the huge targets (ND and Texas) were denied to the B1G and when the ACC expanded with SU and Pitt they were worried that PSU might eventually bolt.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-28-2015 11:33 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  How is the state of Texas viewed---- Southwest or Southeast?

The four geographical regions are Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.

Those four regions are usually divided into sub-regions. One version of the geographical sub-regions of the South are West South Central, East South Central, and South Atlantic. Texas would be in the West South Central.

Cheers,
Neil

(04-29-2015 02:40 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 03:27 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  For all of the Big 10's schemes and dreams, they added Nebraska, which has added NOTHING. And then they added Rutgers and Maryland....solely for market value and because they fit the research quota. Meanwhile, they let Mizzou go, and they've had Texas A&M and Florida hanging out there the whole time. Why did the Big 10 not go after Texas A&M?? The entire contiguous state thing is stupid and out of date

Nebraska was a very nice pickup for the B1G if you consider their fan support.

The Rutgers/Maryland additions were somewhat of a surprise while both schools had the academic qualifications for a long time. Maryland was an original AAC member and Rutgers was never noted athletically. They were both the sort of adds only realignment junkies would contemplate.

B1G now is hemmed in by its geography without a lot of good expansion options. If they go East they are looking at UConn which is a decent add....go west of Nebraska and you get into Wyoming which isn't going to work.

I seriously doubt expansion by the Big 3 (PAC, SEC, B1G) is imminent. The SEC and B1G waited 20 years between expansions and the PAC over 30 years.

The B12 and ACC are more volatile and could make a move mid way through their contracts and largely are competing for the same realignment prizes (Texas, Cincinnati).

The G5 may rethink they way the look at membership over the next 10 years. More emphasis placed on maximizing SOS over media markets.

CUSA for example with its opening could take a gamble on bringing in NIU, Toledo and Ohio to beef up its East division strength by convincing those schools they would be better off in CUSA where they didn't have to play mid week TV games + have the ability to host a conference championship game at home. Or try something like UMass, Buffalo, Akron to concentrate more on basketball.

I wouldn't exactly call Cincinnati a realignment prize, Texas yes, but Cincinnati no!

(04-28-2015 11:33 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  How is the state of Texas viewed---- Southwest or Southeast?

South Central

actually I would call
Houston, Southeast
EL Paso, Southwest
Dallas, Midwest

Too early to tell but the B1G has driven a wedge into the ACC's northern flank. Maryland and Rutgers were huge pickups geographically.

(04-29-2015 06:52 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 06:51 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 04:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 03:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that Jim Delany had his sights set in 2010 on Texas and/or Notre Dame, but whiffed.

Everything else since has been Plan B, but Delany has done well with it by having the BTN in his back pocket.

The B1G expansion in 2010 was rumored to be ND, Texas, and Texas A&M.

The latter always wanted the SEC.

Texas claimed to have a "Tech problem".

ND wants to remain independent for football.

As good as JD is, those were HUGE obstacles to overcome, even for him.

Cheers,
Neil

Not really, it was supposed to be ND/Texas and Rutgers if a slot were available, but ND turned them down and Texas is still "considering it" now. Nebraska suddenly became available, so Rutgers was shelved until they were able to get either Texas or another east coast school to come aboard. Fast forward a couple years later and Maryland's chancellor reaches out to Delany and deal is done.

B1G still waiting on Texas' decision as the next step.

Rutgers was going to be #15 or #16 preferably with Maryland.

They only got pushed up to #14 because the huge targets (ND and Texas) were denied to the B1G and when the ACC expanded with SU and Pitt they were worried that PSU might eventually bolt.

Cheers,
Neil

The bigger worry about PSU wasn't that they would bolt but that their brand was being squandered without a supporting cast around them.

(04-29-2015 08:04 AM)TexanMark Wrote:  Too early to tell but the B1G has driven a wedge into the ACC's northern flank. Maryland and Rutgers were huge pickups geographically.

That's why they need to finish the job and grab UConn. We'll see who will be more relevant in the Northeast between the B1G with Rutgers, Maryland, Penn St. and hopefully UConn vs. the ACC with Syracuse, BC, and Pitt. My bet would be on the B1G in that scenario in both hoops and football.

"It ain't over 'til it's over." The conferences with networks moved for markets last time around. The new money multiplier will be content and the SEC and Big 10 both get it. It's hard to tell your rank & file that markets are the primary goal if you pick up either non contiguous brands or brands within your footprint. Therefore Delany and Slive moved for markets in contiguous states. For the Big 10 they might well violate the rule of contiguity to pick up national brands for #15 & #16 prior to their next contract. For the SEC you might see those brand pick ups within its existing footprint next time around.

The Big 10 did want Texas and Notre Dame, just as they wanted North Carolina and Virginia. Big deal. The SEC wouldn't have turned down any of those either. The issue is Notre Dame didn't want the Big 10, Texas might not want them either and North Carolina and Virginia won't move until the ship sinks around them and maybe not then either. So the next time around the targets will change. I think the Big 10 will make a push for Oklahoma, Kansas, Virginia Tech, and either Connecticut or Syracuse. But, that doesn't mean they won't make another push for Texas, or if they are successful in picking off another ACC school another run at N.D. ever how unlikely the run would be.

I think the SEC will make a run for Texas and Oklahoma and if they have to they might take Texas Tech and Oklahoma State to get them. I'm sure the SEC will continue to eye the markets in Virginia and North Carolina, but unless there is major instability created within the ACC it won't happen. If however the Big 10 is able to pick up someone like Virginia Tech the SEC may make a push for brands within our footprint just to ensure the regional brand identity. Clemson and Florida State would be the brands most closely identified with our own and they may or may not get picked up to add content and protect that brand. We'll see. But in any case no ACC school will be coming to the SEC unless it is a move that ESPN wants to make to protect and consolidate property if times prove to be uncertain again.

The Big 12 is another matter. West Virginia makes sense as a football add and to reconnect the footprint for the ACC. An Oklahoma school and perhaps another Texas school make sense for the SEC. We know who might appeal to the Big 10. But the Gordian knot remains tight because there are only 5 brands there with enough cache to fit somebody's 15th and 16th slot. There isn't enough there to really move to 18 profitably and unless the PAC takes the leftovers it's not happening until the GOR buyout is affordable. Until then I think their brands keep their options open by not adding any schools. About 4 or 5 years out from the end of the GOR if something is going to happen it will. Until then it would take a massive cooperation between all parties, conference and network, to accomplish the movement and that's not that likely.

But, any thread that tries to judge the Big 10's success or lack thereof based upon mid stream results is pointless. If they did land Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and Notre Dame what would you think then? If all they got was Connecticut and Iowa State what would you think then? It ain't over 'til it's over!

Quote:The bigger worry about PSU wasn't that they would bolt but that their brand was being squandered without a supporting cast around them.

Let's meet in the middle and say the worry was that PSU wouldn't be a member of the Big Ten. Be it through expulsion or defection, their future in the conference was very much in question. B1G-PAC falling through only escalated the need for a bigger media presence in the northeast.

It's interesting. To hear Alvarez say it, UMD and Rutgers were to keep Penn State from bolting or feeling isolated. To hear Delany say it, it was a consolation prize to the PAC deal falling through.

What would/could have happened if B1G-PAC worked? No expansion? PSU?

Also, it's not like PSU's fate has been decided. We're still waiting on the DoE's findings. And they can still drop the hammer on them, reopening this topic of their fate; though, the way the Freeh Report and NCAA butchered things, adding their non-contributions to the grind of government investigations, who knows when, if ever, this gets resolved.

(04-29-2015 06:52 AM)omniorange Wrote:  Rutgers was going to be #15 or #16 preferably with Maryland.

They only got pushed up to #14 because the huge targets (ND and Texas) were denied to the B1G and when the ACC expanded with SU and Pitt they were worried that PSU might eventually bolt.

Cheers,
Neil

Rutgers was always out there as a possibility, as the most likely possibility in the east in the same way Utah was for for the PAC-10. I don't think it was a foregone conclusion though. I don't think the Big Ten was looking up and down the ACC, but North Carolina, Duke, and Virginia I think were probably higher on the list (and oddly Georgia Tech, which feels like a poor fit to me being so far away, but was mentioned enough). Similarly, the PAC-10 tried to bypass Utah and go straight for massive expansion from the Big 12.

(04-29-2015 06:58 AM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 11:33 PM)RaiderRed Wrote:  How is the state of Texas viewed---- Southwest or Southeast?

The four geographical regions are Northeast, Midwest, South, and West.

Those four regions are usually divided into sub-regions. One version of the geographical sub-regions of the South are West South Central, East South Central, and South Atlantic. Texas would be in the West South Central.

Cheers,
Neil

I always learned in school of 5 regions with Southwest the 5th (and Texas as part of that). I think that's the more traditional teaching (although not one officially used by the federal government).

(04-28-2015 04:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I think it was fairly obvious that Texas A@M always wanted to go to the SEC. The Big Ten did make a mistake not taking Mizzou when they had the chance. But what's done is done.

I like the contiguous state rule. All the stable conferences follow this rule. No school should be left on an Island. The Big 12 and Big East should have made more of an effort to follow this rule.

Is it really done, though?

How about the B1G gives Oklahoma to the SEC in exchange for Mizzou?

I agree with OP. Rutgers is in, but doesn't deliver, a market. Neither does Maryland. They both don't fit the attendance and support level profile of other schools that would have jumped.

And if a la carte comes to college football TV, you'll find out rather quickly how much support they really have in DC/Baltimore/Philly/NYC. They have supporters, but that support isn't very strong.

This expansion didn't keep pace with the SEC. Nor can I conceive either Rutgers or Maryland ever really having the support profile of even a mid range SEC program like South Carolina or Missouri.

(04-28-2015 04:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I think it was fairly obvious that Texas A@M always wanted to go to the SEC. The Big Ten did make a mistake not taking Mizzou when they had the chance. But what's done is done.

I like the contiguous state rule. All the stable conferences follow this rule. No school should be left on an Island. The Big 12 and Big East should have made more of an effort to follow this rule.

All conferences should have to be contiguous states - that should just be a given and would end a lot of the nonsense expansion ideas.

That said --

B1G messed up by not grabbing Mizzou and Kansas before GOR kicked in and before MU went to SEC.

They could have added the also-rans (Rutgers, MD) as #15 and #16 anytime.

Then again, the B12 messed up not grabbing Louisville first.