It seems like just about every realignment scenario has Kansas coming to the B1G. KU and OU, KU and VT, KU and UConn. Add in other scenarios where the conference goes to 18 or even 20. It almost seems like a foregone conclusion that they will be a part of the Big Ten within the next decade. But what I'm curious about is where did this come from? Back before Texas spurned the Pac, and Nebraska had moved there was a lot of chatter about KU being left behind if the Big 12 was ripped apart. They didn't seem to have many options. There was talk about them going to the MW or Big East. 6 years is not that long and changes don't take place over night. So what is it that happened? How long has "communication" been going on between them and the Big Ten? Have they totally given up on the Big 12? Are they no longer politically tied to KSU as it seemed they once were (or were they truly ever tied to them)? Just curious about the goings on and interested in others thoughts.

Kansas is a public state flagship school with around 20,000 undergraduate students and AAU status. It has the profile that can get the votes in its own merits.

the problem is how much profit can Kansas bring under the new TV contract?

My question is....why try to add Kansas when you could try and add Missouri?

(05-05-2016 03:00 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  My question is....why try to add Kansas when you could try and add Missouri?

Because Kansas is better. Kansas has a stud basketball program while Missouri excels at nothing.

(05-05-2016 09:18 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 03:00 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  My question is....why try to add Kansas when you could try and add Missouri?

Because Kansas is better. Kansas has a stud basketball program while Missouri excels at nothing.

Better than KU in almost every other sport....and demographics/market. Football, Wrestling (ku doesn't have), women's bball, baseball, softball, etc. etc. Academics are virtually tied as well.

From a geographic, athletics and academics stand point I would love to add Kansas, along with Oklahoma. However, Kansas doesn't do anything to help the B1G's shrinking demographics problem or add much in terms of network household TV's.

I think Oklahoma and Texas is the pair the B1G would prefer to add.

My personal opinion, the B1G shrinking demographics problem is overstated. B1G has massive alumni bases more so than any other conference, which also lends well to content based cord cutting if that is the route the industry goes. Further, if we want to look at migration patterns and demographics in 20-30 years, why not look at 50-100 years when climate change makes the south near not habitable? Migration patterns will then occur back to the north. I'm being dramatic but the point is: who can get the B1G the most money here and now is what matters!

(05-06-2016 09:55 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 09:18 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 03:00 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  My question is....why try to add Kansas when you could try and add Missouri?

Because Kansas is better. Kansas has a stud basketball program while Missouri excels at nothing.

Better than KU in almost every other sport....and demographics/market. Football, Wrestling (ku doesn't have), women's bball, baseball, softball, etc. etc. Academics are virtually tied as well.

Kansas has a top 5 basketball history while Missouri is rather pedestrian. Missouri's football history is also pedestrian but that is slightly better than Kansas's football history. However, Missouri isn't THAT much better than Kansas football, although the last couple years have swung that way.

Missouri has a 15-16 bowl record in their history with Kansas at 8-8. Missouri's last conference championship was 1969 while Kansas was 1968. Missouri only leads the all-time series against Kansas by one win: 56-55-9.

Missouri and Kansas are near equals in everything from my opinion. It's just Kansas has the much better basketball while not as far a drop off in football. I would take whichever one Texas would prefer if they demanded one to join the Big Ten.

(05-06-2016 06:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 09:55 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 09:18 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 03:00 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  My question is....why try to add Kansas when you could try and add Missouri?

Because Kansas is better. Kansas has a stud basketball program while Missouri excels at nothing.

Better than KU in almost every other sport....and demographics/market. Football, Wrestling (ku doesn't have), women's bball, baseball, softball, etc. etc. Academics are virtually tied as well.

Kansas has a top 5 basketball history while Missouri is rather pedestrian. Missouri's football history is also pedestrian but that is slightly better than Kansas's football history. However, Missouri isn't THAT much better than Kansas football, although the last couple years have swung that way.

Missouri has a 15-16 bowl record in their history with Kansas at 8-8. Missouri's last conference championship was 1969 while Kansas was 1968. Missouri only leads the all-time series against Kansas by one win: 56-55-9.

Missouri and Kansas are near equals in everything from my opinion. It's just Kansas has the much better basketball while not as far a drop off in football. I would take whichever one Texas would prefer if they demanded one to join the Big Ten.

The last paragraph is what stands out for me. Especially the last sentence. You take whoever Texas wants. It seems like they'd probably want Kansas over Mizzou. That isn't to say you couldn't look at them for #18 or #20 (TBD how difficult it would be to get them out of the SEC). But they aren't a must have that drives you to get another school to go along with them. But back to Kansas, you take them to get to Oklahoma & Texas.

Add Oklahoma and Kansas....make the last Saturday in the football regular season all rivalry games:
Ohio State-Michigan, Nebraska-Oklahoma, Iowa-Kansas, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern, Penn State-Michigan State, Rutgers-Maryland, Wisconsin-Minnesota...Kansas in hoops (and even Oklahoma) make it stronger.....balance out the East-West divisions more in football with Oklahoma. All probably makes way too much sense

(05-09-2016 09:46 AM)Gern Blanston Wrote:  Add Oklahoma and Kansas....make the last Saturday in the football regular season all rivalry games:
Ohio State-Michigan, Nebraska-Oklahoma, Iowa-Kansas, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern, Penn State-Michigan State, Rutgers-Maryland, Wisconsin-Minnesota...Kansas in hoops (and even Oklahoma) make it stronger.....balance out the East-West divisions more in football with Oklahoma. All probably makes way too much sense

Yep put Purdue in the East and the conference looks incredible on paper with good balance in football. If the TV money is right I am all for this alignment.

Getting OU/NU Thanksgiving is a football fan's dream. As an IU alum, I'd love to see annual IU/KU match ups in basketball. MSU/KU in basketball would be great as well.

Seeing a B1G championship of OSU vs. Oklahoma would be incredible. Maybe the matchup this season is a preview...

@flugempire on Twitter has some very interesting tweets. Lots of friction between OU and UT. No expansion likely equals the end of the Big 12. Texas has no incentive to expand, has the luxury of waiting things out. UT mentioned they'd rather change conferences than give up the LHN. Now with the most recent report that OU's board of regents does not favor expansion, it appears OU and UT could be heading their separate ways. Both schools might want to keep the Big 12 at ten members so it will be easier to dissolve.

Greg Fluguar also suggests UT is close with ESPN thus the ACC/SEC/Independent are UT's options should the Big 12 dissolve.

(05-08-2016 07:15 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 06:48 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-06-2016 09:55 AM)5thTiger Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 09:18 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(05-05-2016 03:00 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  My question is....why try to add Kansas when you could try and add Missouri?

Because Kansas is better. Kansas has a stud basketball program while Missouri excels at nothing.

Better than KU in almost every other sport....and demographics/market. Football, Wrestling (ku doesn't have), women's bball, baseball, softball, etc. etc. Academics are virtually tied as well.

Kansas has a top 5 basketball history while Missouri is rather pedestrian. Missouri's football history is also pedestrian but that is slightly better than Kansas's football history. However, Missouri isn't THAT much better than Kansas football, although the last couple years have swung that way.

Missouri has a 15-16 bowl record in their history with Kansas at 8-8. Missouri's last conference championship was 1969 while Kansas was 1968. Missouri only leads the all-time series against Kansas by one win: 56-55-9.

Missouri and Kansas are near equals in everything from my opinion. It's just Kansas has the much better basketball while not as far a drop off in football. I would take whichever one Texas would prefer if they demanded one to join the Big Ten.

The last paragraph is what stands out for me. Especially the last sentence. You take whoever Texas wants.

But Texas doesn't want anyone, they want the LHN....

(05-09-2016 01:37 PM)akhosrof Wrote:  

(05-09-2016 09:46 AM)Gern Blanston Wrote:  Add Oklahoma and Kansas....make the last Saturday in the football regular season all rivalry games:
Ohio State-Michigan, Nebraska-Oklahoma, Iowa-Kansas, Indiana-Purdue, Illinois-Northwestern, Penn State-Michigan State, Rutgers-Maryland, Wisconsin-Minnesota...Kansas in hoops (and even Oklahoma) make it stronger.....balance out the East-West divisions more in football with Oklahoma. All probably makes way too much sense

Yep put Purdue in the East and the conference looks incredible on paper with good balance in football. If the TV money is right I am all for this alignment.

Getting OU/NU Thanksgiving is a football fan's dream. As an IU alum, I'd love to see annual IU/KU match ups in basketball. MSU/KU in basketball would be great as well.

Seeing a B1G championship of OSU vs. Oklahoma would be incredible. Maybe the matchup this season is a preview...

@flugempire on Twitter has some very interesting tweets. Lots of friction between OU and UT. No expansion likely equals the end of the Big 12. Texas has no incentive to expand, has the luxury of waiting things out. UT mentioned they'd rather change conferences than give up the LHN. Now with the most recent report that OU's board of regents does not favor expansion, it appears OU and UT could be heading their separate ways. Both schools might want to keep the Big 12 at ten members so it will be easier to dissolve.

Greg Fluguar also suggests UT is close with ESPN thus the ACC/SEC/Independent are UT's options should the Big 12 dissolve.

the great thing on that last football Saturday would be OSU-UM at noon...then Nebraska-Oklahoma at 330.....for us old farts that would be bring back great memories, and likely would be division titles.

Would the SEC take Texas Tech if it meant UT would join the SEC? Would look good on paper: UT, TTU and Mizzou to the SEC West, Bama and Auburn to the SEC East. I'm sure ESPN would love to savage the LHN by folding it into the SEC Network. I bet there's enough synergy between UT and the SEC where each could make more money from a partnership than otherwise.

Maybe UT and TTU to the SEC, and OU and KU to the B1G (new acronym "B16" haha) is how each conference gets to 16.

I do not believe for a minute that Texas would want Texas Tech in the SEC with them as A&M is already there.

I believe Texas will try to get a Notre Dame type deal out of the ACC. That would be a game changer in conference realignment. Texas puts all their baseball and olympic sports in the ACC, schedules 3-4 games with ACC teams plus 1 with ND. Then a few with their former mates in the Big 12 and home games with Tulane, Tulsa, SMU. They will get 9 home games a year which will make their fans very happy and their treasury even richer.

Except for North Carolina & Duke, no other tandem of programs that the Big 10 would have a realistic chance of landing would make enough positive financial impact upon the conference to make expanding the conference from 14 to 16 worthwhile.

Texas is not coming to the Big 10 and while Oklahoma does great on the field, it has no major market. Kansas great on the hardcourt, bad on the gridiron and while Kansas City is somewhat of a major market, KU splits that with KSU & Missouri

The B1G already has somewhat of a share of the KC market with Nebraska. I'm not sure the exact breakdown of that market, but I've had friends in Missouri guesstimate to me KC is 50% Mizzou, 40% KU, 10% Nebraska so take that FWIW. I guess getting the B1G Network in basic KC cable packages would be a gain, but how much?

So you don't buy the long standing rumor that Texas politics has Texas and Texas Tech tied at the hip? I agree in that there is no way Texas is coming to the B1G. ESPN wouldn't allow it. They would much prefer UT to fold the LHN into their existing property in the SEC Network.

A ND-like deal with the ACC could be possible for Texas: especially if ESPN is involved and uses it as part of an ACC Network. I have to think the SEC would make a serious play for Texas to prevent the ACC from encroaching their territory and lock up all of the Texas markets (A&M has a good foothold in Houston, but the rest of Texas is solid UT).

Oklahoma carries OKC market, but could Oklahoma get the B1G Network on regular cable packages in the DFW market? That would be the make or break with OU to the B1G. St. Louis has the B1G Network on regular cable packages. Illinois is close to St. Louis, but St. Louis has many B1G alumni in general. Interesting to see if OU could deliver DFW. OU's largest alumni base is in DFW.