(05-12-2016 02:12 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(05-12-2016 01:29 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  You can't kill expansion talk. Going to 12 didn't stop it. I doubt 16 would either. At some number though, you'd probably also start hearing contraction/split talk.

GREAT IDEA!!! Expand to 22. Then show Purdue and Northwestern the door for over a century of ineptitude.

Northwestern football has had 9 winning seasons (3 Big 10 Conference champions or Co-Champions) the last 21 seasons, 4 seasons with a 6-6 regular season record and 8 losing seasons. Not great but a huge improvement over the previous 50 years and better than a number of other conference members (Indiana, Minnesota, Illinois) from 1995 to the present. Before considering what program(s) you want to shed, look at what they've done in the last 20 years.

Cats also had their first 20 win basketball season in 15/16 and with Collins leading the program they will continue to trend upward

[quote='FriarTuck420' pid='13260200' dateline='1463066388

The product has to evolve. That likely means contraction of top teams into a whole new league - and then expansion as allows. I see a football only "NCAA".
[/quote]

Instead of contracting, the Big 10 is adding affiliate members in sports where it makes sense i.e Johns Hopkins for LaCrosse, Notre Dame for Ice Hockey.

I see the potential to add additional affiliate members in sports that have International appeal to not only strengthen the conference but add to it's International attractiveness. Even with the Notre Dame additional the conference has only 7 Ice Hockey members and with the cost of arena construction a financial obstacle for Big 10 conference members, adding North Dakota as an affiliate Ice Hockey member makes sense on a number of levels

1) The Sioux have been nationally competitive for years

2) Border a Big 10 conference member state

3) Have a strong fan base following in Canada

Not that the conference needs more Wrestling membership, but Missouri would a prime candidate for affiliate membership in that sport as the Tigers are nationally competitive in a sport the SEC does not offer (they are MAC affiliate members) and might want the challenge of a tougher conference schedule.

Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Missouri. Probably in 3 years.

(05-14-2016 04:24 PM)JHG722 Wrote:  Covering up rape for decades and being an embarrassing athletic department?

Cough Cosby Cough

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016...e-temple-u

(06-03-2016 03:37 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Missouri. Probably in 3 years.

Was that from the Mizzou "insider" post on land thieves?

(06-05-2016 11:05 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:37 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Missouri. Probably in 3 years.

Was that from the Mizzou "insider" post on land thieves?

Yes. he said 3 to 5. I wouldn't mind that. It would bring some balance to the population for the footprint.

(05-14-2016 06:26 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  Temple is carving out its own space in what has traditionally been known as Penn State and Rutgers territory. Just drive along North Broad Street and you'll notice substantive, positive change in the growth and expansion of Temple. It no longer is a commuter school. The students that live in North Philadelphia are fueling gentrification of the neighborhood, turning it into a college town but with urban feel and modern look.

The school president, a BIG man, realizes the importance of athletics to the overall image and financial health of a school, is moving forward with plans of building an on-campus, expandable football stadium. The football HC appears to enjoy working and living in the Philadelphia area. The basketball arena is new, although I think the school would be better off with a younger men's basketball HC. Baseball, lacrosse, and ice hockey are club sports. With additional revenue, there's no reason these sports could become competitive, scholarship-based sports.

While Temple is improving, give it a couple of years before considering them.

Their home conference schedule this year has Cincinnati, USF, ECU and SMU. If they can draw 35000 against that home slate, sure. They've built a following and can then add in an area that already has coverage. If not, then it's hard to justify the addition.

(06-05-2016 01:09 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(06-05-2016 11:05 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  

(06-03-2016 03:37 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Missouri. Probably in 3 years.

Was that from the Mizzou "insider" post on land thieves?

Yes. he said 3 to 5. I wouldn't mind that. It would bring some balance to the population for the footprint.

Mind linking? Curious to see what they are saying about it.

Edit: Nevermind, found it

Missouri would be fine with Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. The Big Ten could use some more football brands and Oklahoma and Texas fit the bill and provide a major foothold into the state of Texas. I can't imagine a better pair to get the Big Ten into Texas which should be the goal.

I've thought for some time that OU and KU were good expansion candidates for the Big Ten. National brands - one fb, one bb. Also allows Purdue to move back to the East.

...or is it IU?

(06-06-2016 08:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've thought for some time that OU and KU were good expansion candidates for the Big Ten. National brands - one fb, one bb. Also allows Purdue to move back to the East.

...or is it IU?

Indiana is currently in the east.

(06-06-2016 08:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've thought for some time that OU and KU were good expansion candidates for the Big Ten. National brands - one fb, one bb. Also allows Purdue to move back to the East.

...or is it IU?

If 16 teams, Purdue and IL would go to east. That is without doing pods.

(06-06-2016 09:43 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(06-06-2016 08:10 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  I've thought for some time that OU and KU were good expansion candidates for the Big Ten. National brands - one fb, one bb. Also allows Purdue to move back to the East.

...or is it IU?

If 16 teams, Purdue and IL would go to east. That is without doing pods.

Just one team would need to move divisions if 2 added. Which would be Purdue.

7+1=8
7-1+2=8

(05-11-2016 10:59 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 10:06 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 09:29 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 12:58 PM)Strut Wrote:  If OU and KU were added to B1G would we be done with expansion and any talk about it for B1G?

Would all the who's going where now be left to other conferences and B1G get to focus on stuff like before expansion talk?

The OU + KU combo isn't even at the top of the list.

TX, ND to go along with UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech and FSU. That is the gold to 20.

FSU wants the B1G. Some people say that FSU reached out to the B1G with Georgia Tech, UVA and UNC as travel partners. If that went down, then it is all out to get ND and TX.

At the very least, if FSU is announced to be heading to the B1G, that is going to shake the entire landscape.

The B1G is going to attack like a cobra while the Big 12 people ***** and moan to the media.

Do you have any links to support the assertion the FSU wanted the B1G?

*wants

Bluevodreal. He knows a former FSU president.

The goal with the last 6 spots is to max out the big eyes, major revenue, large footprint grab, and major brands.

FSU is the lynchpin in all of this.

The leadership at the B1G offices will take the eastern expansion over the other options. Better fits with academics and population.

Then it is all about getting Texas and ND to finally join.

Heck yeah, FSU would be a great addition. A program that has built itself up into an athletic powerhouse and is the kingpin of ACC football. Adding a Florida presence in the B10 would be huge. they'd have to build a stadium addition with the the Big 10 alums in the southeast who would be roadtripping to games in Tallahasee. FSU has by far the largest undegrad enrollment in the ACC more than 5K larger than #2 VT and would leave the ACC with only 2 universities with undergrad enrollments above 20K.

FSU would be worth adding by itself.

(06-10-2016 12:38 PM)Policiious Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 10:59 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 10:06 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 09:29 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  

(05-11-2016 12:58 PM)Strut Wrote:  If OU and KU were added to B1G would we be done with expansion and any talk about it for B1G?

Would all the who's going where now be left to other conferences and B1G get to focus on stuff like before expansion talk?

The OU + KU combo isn't even at the top of the list.

TX, ND to go along with UVA, UNC, Georgia Tech and FSU. That is the gold to 20.

FSU wants the B1G. Some people say that FSU reached out to the B1G with Georgia Tech, UVA and UNC as travel partners. If that went down, then it is all out to get ND and TX.

At the very least, if FSU is announced to be heading to the B1G, that is going to shake the entire landscape.

The B1G is going to attack like a cobra while the Big 12 people ***** and moan to the media.

Do you have any links to support the assertion the FSU wanted the B1G?

*wants

Bluevodreal. He knows a former FSU president.

The goal with the last 6 spots is to max out the big eyes, major revenue, large footprint grab, and major brands.

FSU is the lynchpin in all of this.

The leadership at the B1G offices will take the eastern expansion over the other options. Better fits with academics and population.

Then it is all about getting Texas and ND to finally join.

Heck yeah, FSU would be a great addition. A program that has built itself up into an athletic powerhouse and is the kingpin of ACC football. Adding a Florida presence in the B10 would be huge. they'd have to build a stadium addition with the the Big 10 alums in the southeast who would be roadtripping to games in Tallahasee. FSU has by far the largest undegrad enrollment in the ACC more than 5K larger than #2 VT and would leave the ACC with only 2 universities with undergrad enrollments above 20K.

FSU would be worth adding by itself.

FSU would be a solid addition. I'm not expecting it to happen though. They need the travel partners first. Until there is solid evicne of travel partners ready to come, it doesn't mean much.

I have started to think that west expansion in the Big 12 territory is the new focus. Omaha down to Dallas and back up to Indy.

Just FYI pessimist view ahead

FSU seems like a long shot (to many other factors). It seems like OU & KU are more likely at this point but are anything but guaranteed. I'm still not certain the presidents will vote for OU (based on academics, they SHOULD but not 100% certain they will). Will they let that hold them back? I think JD will be able to convince them but have a shade of doubt. Would Texas want to come? How do they deal with the LHN? Would Mizzou want to leave the SEC? If they decided to stay and they made it public, they B1G would have a ton on egg on its face. Who would be number 18 or do you add even more? Are we talking UConn (easy to add/no GOR) to get to 18? If going to 20 or more, who are they? Not convinced raiding the ACC would happen. So at that point are we talking about the PAC? (some crazy speculation of this on LandThieves).

(06-11-2016 07:07 PM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  Just FYI pessimist view ahead

Would Mizzou want to leave the SEC? .

Yes. It is and always has been our first choice. Money and buying into the network creates issues, but there is no doubt we would leave for full membership in the B1G.

Discussion is taking place among the school presidents and Delany, but the formal stuff isn't going to be for a while. They are busy with media rights and some student reform issues.

Scott Dochterman ‏@ScottDochterman 28m28 minutes ago
University of Iowa President on #B1G expansion: 'Always discussion' -

There is an article attached to the Tweet if anyone wants to read the article. I didn't copy and past the URL with the tweet.

Flyover Country: Oklahoma Unrest?

http://flyovercountry.weebly.com/main/fl...oma-unrest

Mad Chatter: Why Husker football is underrated in all-time rankings; the ideal 16-team Big Ten; Gabrielle Union goes off

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/bigre...3d30a.html

Quote:>> I try not to fall down the rabbit hole of conference realignment and yet it gets me every time. Why do I listen to podcasts about Big 12 politics when I’m driving? Why do I map out what the landscape might look like 10 years from now? It’s a sickness, my version of reality TV.

This week I read columns discussing the Big 12’s shaky status with TV networks, who want nothing to do with Memphis and Cincinnati and other Big 12 candidates. But I also consume all this information with the Big Ten in mind. What’s it all mean for Nebraska? And what’s the optimal (albeit unlikely) scenario for NU?

I keep coming back to a Big Ten with 16 teams, divided in football the way that MLB separates the National League and American League. In other words, they’re under the same umbrella, but they don’t have much to do with each other until the end.

West: Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Illinois, Oklahoma*, Kansas*

* The new guys

East: Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue, Indiana

Put yourself in that world, Husker fan. (You, too, Hawkeyes). You basically get the old Big Eight back, only better. Play all seven division rivals, plus two annual crossover games against the East’s top tier (Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State). Nebraska would never — I repeat, never! — face Rutgers, Maryland, Purdue or Indiana in the regular season.

In the other sports, you stay within your division almost exclusively, playing home-and-home, enabling schools to build rivalries as they did in the old days.

Take basketball, for instance. You have 14 games against your division plus four crossover games dedicated to preserving traditional rivalries and building new ones (Indiana-Illinois and Indiana-Kansas, for example). At conference tournament time, like the MLB playoffs, the entire West is on one side of the bracket, the entire East occupies the other side.

Could this alignment work with UConn and Syracuse instead of Oklahoma and Kansas? Sure. (It just wouldn’t be as appealing to Nebraska). But the attraction here is actually separating those divisions. Try to build two mini-conferences within a larger Big Ten.

That’s how you get the best of both worlds in the super-conference era.