(07-29-2018 04:21 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  

(07-28-2018 11:47 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  As far as the North/South alignments that split the Naturally Eastern and Western schools... We have to realize the era that we live in. Attendance has been falling with loss of regional rivals. We have to try to keep as much proximity in the league as possible so nearly broke college students and alumni can make a 4-5 hour roady and be back at work or school by Monday.

I agree regional games are important for traveling alums and students. But i still think letting every team get exposure east to west is good also.

What if the two divisions were set up so that every year one team from each division rotates to the other division and stays there for the 7 years or whatever till it rotates out. The next year another team rotates and so on. So you have continually shifting divisions. I think this would keep all parties happy and help build/maintain/renew rivalries and diversify recruiting grounds.

I don't see how you could divide them on a more equal basis strength wise and recruiting than below with the same team across as the locked in rival.

PSU OSU
MSU Mich.
Neb. Wisky
Ia. Minnesota
Illinois Northwestern
Purdue Indiana
Maryland Rutgers

Had the Big Ten simply backed the ACC's proposal for deregulation (which essentially just means top 2 teams in the CCG w/o a need for divisions), you could be playing EVERY team in a 2-year rotation and still have 3 permanents rivals AND 4 non-conference games...

From Penn State's point of view, not playing games against their three closest and most historic opponents is a non-starter. I'm sure each school has their own demands as well. Until divisions are eliminated and each school gets locked rivals while rotating through the rest, an east-west split seems to be best.

Here is a look at each school’s cross-division mark since the East-West split in 2014:

West
Wisconsin: 8-2
Iowa: 6-4
Nebraska: 6-4
Northwestern: 6-4
Minnesota: 3-7
Illinois: 3-7
Purdue: 1-9
OVERALL 33-37

EAST
Ohio State: 9-1
Michigan: 7-3
Penn State: 7-3
Michigan State: 6-4
Indiana: 4-6
Maryland: 4-6
Rutgers: 2-8
OVERALL 37-33

So overall that actually is pretty close. But when you look at CCG it's a little more lopsided

West
Wisconsin: 0-3
Iowa: 0-1
Overall 0-4

EAST
Ohio State: 2-0
Penn State: 1-0
Michigan State: 1-0
Overall 4-0

I believe the West is suffering from a perception problem because it has not won any CCG yet. That would obviously change if they could start winning some CCG, but until they do, the east is going to be perceived as better regardless of what the overall records are.

Also it should be noted that 2017 was a good year for the east. All of the Big 4 schools had good teams in 2017, but that is actually rare for all 4 teams to be so good in 1 year. 2016 is great example of a more typical year where MSU was down that year. In earlier years Mich and PSU were down. The only school that does not go through down cycles seems to be OSU.

One final note. How in the world is Iowa 2-0 against OSU and Mich and only 4-4 against the rest of east since the east-west split?

They won't do anything until after the next round of realignment (if any). Why change the divisions only to potentially have to change them again in 3-4 years.

Why have divisions at all?

(08-07-2018 12:17 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Why have divisions at all?

I don't think divisions are a good idea for leagues. I think they should have teams lock in 3-4 rivalry games and then play the rest of the league. If leagues get to 16-20, I also don't think you need to play teams the same % of time if they are not locked in games. Some teams could play 1 out of every 2 years, some 1 out of 3 years, maybe even 1 out of 4 years depending on the size. Then even if conference championships expand to conference semi-finals you just take the top 4 in the league.

But I think the B1G was impediment to this in the past as they wanted to block the ACC from having a lot of scheduling flexibility, probably to make it harder for the ACC to get ND as a full time member in the future.

(08-07-2018 01:37 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 12:17 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Why have divisions at all?

I don't think divisions are a good idea for leagues. I think they should have teams lock in 3-4 rivalry games and then play the rest of the league. If leagues get to 16-20, I also don't think you need to play teams the same % of time if they are not locked in games. Some teams could play 1 out of every 2 years, some 1 out of 3 years, maybe even 1 out of 4 years depending on the size. Then even if conference championships expand to conference semi-finals you just take the top 4 in the league.

But I think the B1G was impediment to this in the past as they wanted to block the ACC from having a lot of scheduling flexibility, probably to make it harder for the ACC to get ND as a full time member in the future.

So basically they hurt everyone - including themselves - because they didn't want to allow something which might benefit someone else more? That's beyond poor sportsmanship - that's plain EVIL!

(08-07-2018 01:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 01:37 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 12:17 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Why have divisions at all?

I don't think divisions are a good idea for leagues. I think they should have teams lock in 3-4 rivalry games and then play the rest of the league. If leagues get to 16-20, I also don't think you need to play teams the same % of time if they are not locked in games. Some teams could play 1 out of every 2 years, some 1 out of 3 years, maybe even 1 out of 4 years depending on the size. Then even if conference championships expand to conference semi-finals you just take the top 4 in the league.

But I think the B1G was impediment to this in the past as they wanted to block the ACC from having a lot of scheduling flexibility, probably to make it harder for the ACC to get ND as a full time member in the future.

So basically they hurt everyone - including themselves - because they didn't want to allow something which might benefit someone else more? That's beyond poor sportsmanship - that's plain EVIL!

It was playing hardball to get what they wanted.

(08-07-2018 03:58 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 01:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 01:37 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 12:17 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Why have divisions at all?

I don't think divisions are a good idea for leagues. I think they should have teams lock in 3-4 rivalry games and then play the rest of the league. If leagues get to 16-20, I also don't think you need to play teams the same % of time if they are not locked in games. Some teams could play 1 out of every 2 years, some 1 out of 3 years, maybe even 1 out of 4 years depending on the size. Then even if conference championships expand to conference semi-finals you just take the top 4 in the league.

But I think the B1G was impediment to this in the past as they wanted to block the ACC from having a lot of scheduling flexibility, probably to make it harder for the ACC to get ND as a full time member in the future.

So basically they hurt everyone - including themselves - because they didn't want to allow something which might benefit someone else more? That's beyond poor sportsmanship - that's plain EVIL!

It was playing hardball to get what they wanted.

I don't see how the Big Ten got anything. In fact, they hurt themselves - first with those Leaders and Legends divisions, then by stacking the East to the point that the champ has missed the playoffs twice and the conference completely missed out once!

All so they could hold down the ACC? How's that working out?

Jim Delaney is a trip, complete with baggage...

(08-07-2018 09:33 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 03:58 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 01:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 01:37 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 12:17 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  Why have divisions at all?

I don't think divisions are a good idea for leagues. I think they should have teams lock in 3-4 rivalry games and then play the rest of the league. If leagues get to 16-20, I also don't think you need to play teams the same % of time if they are not locked in games. Some teams could play 1 out of every 2 years, some 1 out of 3 years, maybe even 1 out of 4 years depending on the size. Then even if conference championships expand to conference semi-finals you just take the top 4 in the league.

But I think the B1G was impediment to this in the past as they wanted to block the ACC from having a lot of scheduling flexibility, probably to make it harder for the ACC to get ND as a full time member in the future.

So basically they hurt everyone - including themselves - because they didn't want to allow something which might benefit someone else more? That's beyond poor sportsmanship - that's plain EVIL!

It was playing hardball to get what they wanted.

I don't see how the Big Ten got anything. In fact, they hurt themselves - first with those Leaders and Legends divisions, then by stacking the East to the point that the champ has missed the playoffs twice and the conference completely missed out once!

All so they could hold down the ACC? How's that working out?

Jim Delaney is a trip, complete with baggage...

The champ didn't mss the playoffs because the division was stacked. It was the losses outside the division that did them in.
OSU's 2 losses in 2017 were to Oklahoma and Iowa. PSU's loss to Pitt kept it out if the 2016 playoff.

Heck if Mich does not lose to Iowa i n 2016, then OSU would have been the champ and probably both Mich and OSU get into the playoffs. Ok if Mich beats OSU, then Mich is champion and in the playoffs, but it was the loss to Iowa that really screwed them.

Even in 2015, the only loss MSU had was to Nebraska.

In 2014, OSU's only loss was to VT.

Stop whining about how hard the east division is. Just beat Iowa and Pitt.

(08-08-2018 11:29 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 09:33 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 03:58 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 01:48 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 01:37 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  I don't think divisions are a good idea for leagues. I think they should have teams lock in 3-4 rivalry games and then play the rest of the league. If leagues get to 16-20, I also don't think you need to play teams the same % of time if they are not locked in games. Some teams could play 1 out of every 2 years, some 1 out of 3 years, maybe even 1 out of 4 years depending on the size. Then even if conference championships expand to conference semi-finals you just take the top 4 in the league.

But I think the B1G was impediment to this in the past as they wanted to block the ACC from having a lot of scheduling flexibility, probably to make it harder for the ACC to get ND as a full time member in the future.

So basically they hurt everyone - including themselves - because they didn't want to allow something which might benefit someone else more? That's beyond poor sportsmanship - that's plain EVIL!

It was playing hardball to get what they wanted.

I don't see how the Big Ten got anything. In fact, they hurt themselves - first with those Leaders and Legends divisions, then by stacking the East to the point that the champ has missed the playoffs twice and the conference completely missed out once!

All so they could hold down the ACC? How's that working out?

Jim Delaney is a trip, complete with baggage...

The champ didn't mss the playoffs because the division was stacked. It was the losses outside the division that did them in.
OSU's 2 losses in 2017 were to Oklahoma and Iowa. PSU's loss to Pitt kept it out if the 2016 playoff.

Heck if Mich does not lose to Iowa i n 2016, then OSU would have been the champ and probably both Mich and OSU get into the playoffs. Ok if Mich beats OSU, then Mich is champion and in the playoffs, but it was the loss to Iowa that really screwed them.

Even in 2015, the only loss MSU had was to Nebraska.

In 2014, OSU's only loss was to VT.

Stop whining about how hard the east division is. Just beat Iowa and Pitt.

Clemson lost to Pitt at home and made the playoffs the same year as Penn State in Pittsburgh. Clemson also lost to a bad Syracuse team last year and still made it.

On another note, the Big Ten didn't block "no divisions" to keep Notre Dame from joining the ACC. That doesn't even make sense. Why would no divisions be a positive for Notre Dame? The Big Ten blocked it because they didn't want the ACC to pair their top two schools against each other in the conference championship, thus giving the winner an SOS boost and potentially knocking out a Big Ten team. East/west works best for the Big Ten as that preserves the most rivalries and the presidents obviously want that.

(08-09-2018 09:00 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  ...the Big Ten didn't block "no divisions" to keep Notre Dame from joining the ACC. That doesn't even make sense. Why would no divisions be a positive for Notre Dame? The Big Ten blocked it because they didn't want the ACC to pair their top two schools against each other in the conference championship, thus giving the winner an SOS boost and potentially knocking out a Big Ten team. East/west works best for the Big Ten as that preserves the most rivalries and the presidents obviously want that.

Wouldn't the Big Ten also benefit from pairing their top two schools?

Wouldn't the Big Ten also benefit from having fewer fixed games so they can rotate through the rest of the conference faster?

(08-09-2018 10:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-09-2018 09:00 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  ...the Big Ten didn't block "no divisions" to keep Notre Dame from joining the ACC. That doesn't even make sense. Why would no divisions be a positive for Notre Dame? The Big Ten blocked it because they didn't want the ACC to pair their top two schools against each other in the conference championship, thus giving the winner an SOS boost and potentially knocking out a Big Ten team. East/west works best for the Big Ten as that preserves the most rivalries and the presidents obviously want that.

Wouldn't the Big Ten also benefit from pairing their top two schools?

Wouldn't the Big Ten also benefit from having fewer fixed games so they can rotate through the rest of the conference faster?

If I remember correctly, the ACC plan didn’t have clear rules on how the championship game participants would have been decided. It looked like the ACC was trying to game the system by selecting teams that would give them the best shot to get 2 teams in the playoffs, not who was most deserving or who the rules said should go. Now, I’m sure Delany wasn’t altruistic in is voting, but the ACC’s idea wasn’t either.

I'd leave it alone. You have Ohio ST, Michigan, Michigan ST, and Penn ST constantly knocking each other off in the top of the east. Once Nebraska gets back to the days of old you have Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska knocking each other off for the western division. I would go back to 8 conference games though so the mid level and bottom dwellers in the conference have a better chance to become bowl eligible. If the B-10 is worried about strength of schedule rips for the National Championship Playoff spots let the top teams in the conference schedule at least 2 OOC top quality teams from other P5 conferences for strength of schedule reasons instead of beating up bottom dwellers with in conference in their opposing divisions. If they win those OOC games they might even knock the other conferences out of the playoffs with head to head quality wins on the field.

(08-15-2018 11:45 AM)panite Wrote:  I'd leave it alone. You have Ohio ST, Michigan, Michigan ST, and Penn ST constantly knocking each other off in the top of the east. Once Nebraska gets back to the days of old you have Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska knocking each other off for the western division. I would go back to 8 conference games though so the mid level and bottom dwellers in the conference have a better chance to become bowl eligible. If the B-10 is worried about strength of schedule rips for the National Championship Playoff spots let the top teams in the conference schedule at least 2 OOC top quality teams from other P5 conferences for strength of schedule reasons instead of beating up bottom dwellers with in conference in their opposing divisions. If they win those OOC games they might even knock the other conferences out of the playoffs with head to head quality wins on the field.

Your not factoring in the importance of West teams getting exposure in the better recruiting states. Wisconsin has done excellent but will be hard pressed to continue their play in the current west setup and Nebraska will have a hard time getting back to their status.

You need to put PSU, Neb., Iowa, Maryland and Rutgers in the same division to balance out the recuiting. I think people underestimate the value New Jersey and Maryland/DC areas have had in helping PSU regain their previous blueblood status. Its also what would give Nebraska and Iowa some years a fair chance, unless you want the east to always have the better team coming out which devalues the Nebraska brand to the league and leaves them as an outlier.

division 1: PSU, Neb., Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland & Rutgers
division 2: OSU, Mich., MSU, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
***Or you could flip Wisconsin & MSU and lock in some rivals such as Mich vs MSU, OSU vs PSU, IA vs Wisconsin or Mn.

If the rules were changed about divisions and we had one league standings and locked in 4 games and rotated other teams(maybe even at different frequencies such as some 1 out of 2 years some 1 out of 3 years you would have a better league setup). But we know the B1G blocked the ACC from being able to set things up like they wanted so I don't know if that could get changed in the future.

If the B1G wants to get OU I think they need to think of something creative like this because OU would be stupid to come to the B1G and be left on a western island like Nebraska has been. The only way that works is if Texas comes to and Texas isn't coming without at least 2 more regional partners they like(and that's not Rice or Kansas for that matter). Texas will absolutely not be the southern most team in a northern league while A&M plays in the SEC it would be suicide.

(08-29-2018 05:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 11:45 AM)panite Wrote:  I'd leave it alone. You have Ohio ST, Michigan, Michigan ST, and Penn ST constantly knocking each other off in the top of the east. Once Nebraska gets back to the days of old you have Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska knocking each other off for the western division. I would go back to 8 conference games though so the mid level and bottom dwellers in the conference have a better chance to become bowl eligible. If the B-10 is worried about strength of schedule rips for the National Championship Playoff spots let the top teams in the conference schedule at least 2 OOC top quality teams from other P5 conferences for strength of schedule reasons instead of beating up bottom dwellers with in conference in their opposing divisions. If they win those OOC games they might even knock the other conferences out of the playoffs with head to head quality wins on the field.

Your not factoring in the importance of West teams getting exposure in the better recruiting states. Wisconsin has done excellent but will be hard pressed to continue their play in the current west setup and Nebraska will have a hard time getting back to their status.

You need to put PSU, Neb., Iowa, Maryland and Rutgers in the same division to balance out the recuiting. I think people underestimate the value New Jersey and Maryland/DC areas have had in helping PSU regain their previous blueblood status. Its also what would give Nebraska and Iowa some years a fair chance, unless you want the east to always have the better team coming out which devalues the Nebraska brand to the league and leaves them as an outlier.

division 1: PSU, Neb., Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland & Rutgers
division 2: OSU, Mich., MSU, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
***Or you could flip Wisconsin & MSU and lock in some rivals such as Mich vs MSU, OSU vs PSU, IA vs Wisconsin or Mn.

If the rules were changed about divisions and we had one league standings and locked in 4 games and rotated other teams(maybe even at different frequencies such as some 1 out of 2 years some 1 out of 3 years you would have a better league setup). But we know the B1G blocked the ACC from being able to set things up like they wanted so I don't know if that could get changed in the future.

If the B1G wants to get OU I think they need to think of something creative like this because OU would be stupid to come to the B1G and be left on a western island like Nebraska has been. The only way that works is if Texas comes to and Texas isn't coming without at least 2 more regional partners they like(and that's not Rice or Kansas for that matter). Texas will absolutely not be the southern most team in a northern league while A&M plays in the SEC it would be suicide.

The western schools should hire coaches who have pipelines to better recruiting areas like Frost at Nebraska. We'll see if that pays off but I thought it was a grand slam hire. Wisconsin hired a Wisconsin guy which recruits Wisconsin-type players. Lovie Smith was an NFL guy without recruiting experience. Fleck and Brohm look promising. Iowa is what it is. Most Maryland and New Jersey kids won't want to go there even if they were in the same division due to the distance from home.

Adding Oklahoma would help open the door to the state of Texas; even more if Texas was included. That's where the western schools should direct their attention to. As for UT: it's way better to be the southern most school in a conference than the northern most. There are more recruits from southern states where the weather is better.

I'd personally prefer a lot of different arrangements over the current one, but honestly I think the odds of any change without adding teams in near future is basically zero (I also think expansion is not anywhere near). There are a few reasons:

1. The conference already tried divisions with geography downplayed (I will not say ignored because they basically had an east and a west, with just Wisconsin out of place). They were hugely criticized for them. While there are more natural options this time, there isn't enough push for them to want to go that route again.

2. Competitive balance is a good goal, but can be a shifting one while geography is constant. Maybe the east is a bigger powerhouse 9 years out of 10, but there is less guarantee on that than of the geography not changing.

3. For TV purposes, they probably don't hate the current set-up. They get a ton of games of top powers vs. each other and also get most the biggest national draws in New York/DC area frequently On the flip side, the west gives them games that sound more traditional.

I still maintain the divisions are a mistake on several fronts, but I will be floored if changing them gets even a minor glance from the powers-that-be.

(08-30-2018 12:34 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I'd personally prefer a lot of different arrangements over the current one, but honestly I think the odds of any change without adding teams in near future is basically zero (I also think expansion is not anywhere near). There are a few reasons:

1. The conference already tried divisions with geography downplayed (I will not say ignored because they basically had an east and a west, with just Wisconsin out of place). They were hugely criticized for them. While there are more natural options this time, there isn't enough push for them to want to go that route again.

2. Competitive balance is a good goal, but can be a shifting one while geography is constant. Maybe the east is a bigger powerhouse 9 years out of 10, but there is less guarantee on that than of the geography not changing.

3. For TV purposes, they probably don't hate the current set-up. They get a ton of games of top powers vs. each other and also get most the biggest national draws in New York/DC area frequently On the flip side, the west gives them games that sound more traditional.

I still maintain the divisions are a mistake on several fronts, but I will be floored if changing them gets even a minor glance from the powers-that-be.

I think #3 is the biggest reason they stick with the current divisions in addition to they think the winner of the east has an easier CCG giving them an easier path to the CFP.

I think it really holds down the Nebraska brand being on an island in the west with no real access to recruits. While I don't expect it, I do think the door is open for Nebraska to decide someday the B1G was not the best fit for them in the future unless OU comes to the B1G, and I don't think OU comes without Texas and I don't think Texas comes without a couple more regional partners they want, not just partners determined by academics. I don't think its out of the realm of possibility to think they could do better in a new league that OU went to such as the SEC, Big 12, or Big 12/PAC merger for recruiting. The tv money will be great in the B1G but if another league could be close, success could lead to other sources of revenue that make that up as well as the fact isn't the reason you play to have success?

(08-29-2018 09:14 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  

(08-29-2018 05:12 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  

(08-15-2018 11:45 AM)panite Wrote:  I'd leave it alone. You have Ohio ST, Michigan, Michigan ST, and Penn ST constantly knocking each other off in the top of the east. Once Nebraska gets back to the days of old you have Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska knocking each other off for the western division. I would go back to 8 conference games though so the mid level and bottom dwellers in the conference have a better chance to become bowl eligible. If the B-10 is worried about strength of schedule rips for the National Championship Playoff spots let the top teams in the conference schedule at least 2 OOC top quality teams from other P5 conferences for strength of schedule reasons instead of beating up bottom dwellers with in conference in their opposing divisions. If they win those OOC games they might even knock the other conferences out of the playoffs with head to head quality wins on the field.

Your not factoring in the importance of West teams getting exposure in the better recruiting states. Wisconsin has done excellent but will be hard pressed to continue their play in the current west setup and Nebraska will have a hard time getting back to their status.

You need to put PSU, Neb., Iowa, Maryland and Rutgers in the same division to balance out the recuiting. I think people underestimate the value New Jersey and Maryland/DC areas have had in helping PSU regain their previous blueblood status. Its also what would give Nebraska and Iowa some years a fair chance, unless you want the east to always have the better team coming out which devalues the Nebraska brand to the league and leaves them as an outlier.

division 1: PSU, Neb., Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Maryland & Rutgers
division 2: OSU, Mich., MSU, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue
***Or you could flip Wisconsin & MSU and lock in some rivals such as Mich vs MSU, OSU vs PSU, IA vs Wisconsin or Mn.

If the rules were changed about divisions and we had one league standings and locked in 4 games and rotated other teams(maybe even at different frequencies such as some 1 out of 2 years some 1 out of 3 years you would have a better league setup). But we know the B1G blocked the ACC from being able to set things up like they wanted so I don't know if that could get changed in the future.

If the B1G wants to get OU I think they need to think of something creative like this because OU would be stupid to come to the B1G and be left on a western island like Nebraska has been. The only way that works is if Texas comes to and Texas isn't coming without at least 2 more regional partners they like(and that's not Rice or Kansas for that matter). Texas will absolutely not be the southern most team in a northern league while A&M plays in the SEC it would be suicide.

The western schools should hire coaches who have pipelines to better recruiting areas like Frost at Nebraska. We'll see if that pays off but I thought it was a grand slam hire. Wisconsin hired a Wisconsin guy which recruits Wisconsin-type players. Lovie Smith was an NFL guy without recruiting experience. Fleck and Brohm look promising. Iowa is what it is. Most Maryland and New Jersey kids won't want to go there even if they were in the same division due to the distance from home.

Adding Oklahoma would help open the door to the state of Texas; even more if Texas was included. That's where the western schools should direct their attention to. As for UT: it's way better to be the southern most school in a conference than the northern most. There are more recruits from southern states where the weather is better.

Actually I disagree with both your points. So Frost is going to pull in a bunch of kids from Florida and those kids will want to come to Nebraska but other west schools can't develop a pipeline to New Jersey or Maryland if they were in their division playing them? Those two ideas contradict each other. Iowa matter of fact had a big pipeline of players that came from New Jersey in the Hayden Fry years, it was a long list of players it was a lot bigger list than the players they pulled out of Texas where Fry was from.

To the last comment, if you are the southern most school yes you have recruits in your area but you are competing with other southern schools for the recruits. In the example of Texas, schools such as A&M, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, etc will use the fact you are a southern school playing in a yankee conference. Sure both schools have some marquee games but don't forget the top matchups against Alabama, LSU, Florida & Georgia and maybe A&M because they are in state will have more appeal than Michigan, Ohio St. & Penn St., possibly a Wisconsin, (Nebraska if they can get back to their status) due to where they are located. Then when you go to the secondary matchups of Arkansas, Ole Miss, Tennessee, South Carolina etc. I think it becomes even more in their favor over Iowa, MSU, Northwestern, Purdue, etc. Those secondary games don't have the appeal the top games do but geography fixes some of that.

That is why Texas needs to be able to at least pick two other partners besides OU. But Texas would open up a huge number of recruits to the league as well as viewership, plus the B1G would regain a true blue blood rivalry in the sport with OU vs Neb so giving Nebraska a better chance to succeed is like getting another team in the expansion. BTW, disclosure I'm not a Nebraska fan.

While I don't think it would happen if I was the B1G I would try Texas, A&M, OU & Arkansas since A&M sought membership once, swing for the fences! If that didn't work and probably wouldn't UT, OU, TT & Houston.