REALIGNMENT MOCK DRAFT .:. ON THE CLOCK: Big South (R2, #12), AAC (R1, #8) [pending trade approval], Big12 (R1, #11)

Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
Author Message
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 33,559
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 911
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #241
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
The ACC as it exists does make more sense for Notre Dame than anyplace else, with its mix of private schools and mostly smaller state schools. But until the Big East schools migrated, it didn't make sense.

Notre Dame doesn't make sense for the current Big East. They would be buried by the Irish football $$s.
06-10-2019 04:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,805
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #242
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-10-2019 04:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  The ACC as it exists does make more sense for Notre Dame than anyplace else, with its mix of private schools and mostly smaller state schools. But until the Big East schools migrated, it didn't make sense.

Notre Dame doesn't make sense for the current Big East. They would be buried by the Irish football $$s.

Yeah, i'm sure Villanova is happy not to be buried under FB money. hahahaha They didn't bury the old Big East when they were making a lot more money than everyone else in the conference.
06-10-2019 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerryD Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 11,790
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 533
I Root For: Notre Dame
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #243
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-10-2019 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-09-2019 10:15 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(06-09-2019 04:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(06-09-2019 01:56 PM)Statefan Wrote:  
(06-09-2019 12:14 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I wouldn't necessarily include Notre Dame, as their clear preference is "no conference". Also, we don't know if Notre Dame actually preferred the ACC to say the B1G or Big 12 in an "all things even" sense, it may be the ACC was just willing to give them more than those conferences were. Remember, Notre Dame preferred the Big East over the ACC - until the ACC destroyed the Big East with the 2011 raids.

As for UVA and UNC, that's undoubtedly correct. The ACC is obviously their preferred home, and the ACC would have to deteriorate significantly for that to change.

Notre Dame has wanted to be an ACC member for at least 40 years. The ACC would not allow ND the special favor of a curtailed football schedule for decades. That was the rub. The Big East was just a place to park their other sports. Don't take my word for it, give Boo Corrigan a ring over at State and ask him what his daddy told him about ND. Sometimes it takes a long time for a couple to make enough adjustments to walk down the aisle.

ND does not play 3 ACC football games a year and is not eligible for the ACC title game. That's it - the only caveat. Just like Syracuse not fielding a baseball team.
Notre Dame talked to the Big 10 throughout the 90s. They signed a deal to join the Big 10 as a full member in 1999. The faculty approved it overwhelmingly. The president approved. But it got killed by the trustees who wanted to keep independence.

You have your facts all wrong.

ND never, ever signed a deal with the Big Ten to become a full member.

The idea was approved by the faculty Senate (whose vote was meaningless) and was rejected by the Board of Trustees. No deal.

The alumni and especially the big donors were all dead against Big Ten membership

The Board of Trustees met in London and voted down the idea of Big Ten membership.

Father Monk Malloy, then president of ND issued this statement (which is still applicable today):

''Just as the Universities of Michigan or Wisconsin or Illinois have core identities as the flagship institutions of their states, so Notre Dame has a core identity, and at that core are these characteristics: Catholic, private, independent. As a Catholic university with a national constituency, we believe independence continues to be our best way forward.''

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/06/sport...g-ten.html
I've got my facts totally correct. You've got your emotions eliminating your logic.
Your facts are correct as well. Notre Dame reached an agreement in principle. The alumni and trustees threw a temper tantrum and overwhelmingly opposed it.

No emotion at all.

There was no deal. The Big Ten and ND had talked, as they had a number of times in the past.

There was an offer, a proposal, but never a deal.

The Faculty Senate vote was meaningless.

The Board of Trustees (the only entity whose vote counted, the only ones who could make a decision on the issue) overwhelming rejected the idea.
(This post was last modified: 06-10-2019 11:26 PM by TerryD.)
06-10-2019 09:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Mav Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 237
Joined: Jul 2016
Reputation: 11
I Root For: Omaha
Location:
Post: #244
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-10-2019 10:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(06-09-2019 11:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But AFAICT, Johns Hopkins was not a member of the CIC before it agreed to join Big Ten Lacrosse as an associate member, and membership of the CIC was not announced until after the agreement to join the Big Ten was announced, so it's only Chicago that is in the CIC but not the Big Ten.

Hopkins wasn't. The conference used the announcement of the lacrosse affiliation as an opportunity to note the school was immediately invited to join the CIC. IIRC, Hopkins didn't even bother mentioning the CIC invite in their press release about joining the Big Ten for men's lacrosse. Neither side mentioned CIC/BTAA when the women's team came over.

So, as of now, the CIC/BTAA only consists of the fourteen full members of the Big Ten. No more Chicago, no Hopkins.

No Irish, either...and I think the Big Ten, unlike with Johns Hopkins, simply didn't extend this invitation for the ice hockey affiliation?
When Nebraska joined the Big Ten, they asked if UNMC and UNO could join the CIC and used UIC's membership as precedent. The CIC said absolutely not, and then the question came up regarding UIC's special treatment compared to other non-B1G branch schools. UIC got the boot to give an air of consistency as to who was in. Chicago's basically an unofficial member now. They get all the perks but don't get their name on the list of members.

If you want a bit of tinfoil material, it looks like Virginia Tech works with the BTAA like Chicago still does. 05-stirthepot
https://mybtaa.org/Auth/SSO?returnUrl=%2F
06-10-2019 11:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BruceMcF Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,439
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 130
I Root For: Reds/Buckeyes/.
Location:
Post: #245
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-10-2019 10:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(06-09-2019 11:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But AFAICT, Johns Hopkins was not a member of the CIC before it agreed to join Big Ten Lacrosse as an associate member, and membership of the CIC was not announced until after the agreement to join the Big Ten was announced, so it's only Chicago that is in the CIC but not the Big Ten.

Hopkins wasn't. The conference used the announcement of the lacrosse affiliation as an opportunity to note the school was immediately invited to join the CIC. IIRC, Hopkins didn't even bother mentioning the CIC invite in their press release about joining the Big Ten for men's lacrosse. Neither side mentioned CIC/BTAA when the women's team came over.

So, as of now, the CIC/BTAA only consists of the fourteen full members of the Big Ten. No more Chicago, no Hopkins.
Yeah, I had not caught up on the BTAA transition in 2016. As the BTAA said when the rebranding took place, "Committee on Institutional Cooperation" requires another round of explaining, "Big Ten Academic Alliance" is pretty much self-explanatory ... but the University of Chicago was never going to agree to be a full member under that brand name.

Quote: No Irish, either...and I think the Big Ten, unlike with Johns Hopkins, simply didn't extend this invitation for the ice hockey affiliation?

Maybe after John Hopkins did not pick up the public offer, they learned their lesson and decided to make future offers to affiliate members in private until and unless accepted.

OTOH, the invitation to Johns Hopkins was a useful "shiny object" distraction from the controversy of accepting the first affiliate member and the precedent that it sets ... when Notre Dame Ice Hockey was invited, that precedent had already been set.
06-11-2019 05:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
TerpsNPhoenix Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,014
Joined: Nov 2014
Reputation: 68
I Root For: Maryland & Elon
Location: North Cackalacky
Post: #246
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-10-2019 11:36 PM)Mav Wrote:  If you want a bit of tinfoil material, it looks like Virginia Tech works with the BTAA like Chicago still does. 05-stirthepot
https://mybtaa.org/Auth/SSO?returnUrl=%2F

OMG! VT TO THE B1G! 04-jawdrop Ok, I'll take off the tin foil hat now. That is interesting to see even though it likely means very little. But it's fun to see stuff like that since expansion discussion has been really slow.
06-11-2019 05:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 7,769
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 680
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Planet Red
Post: #247
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
Expansion isn’t slow, expansion is dead.
We are about to enter a period of contraction.
The market requires some tying up of loose ends.
06-11-2019 06:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,365
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 228
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #248
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-11-2019 05:52 AM)TerpsNPhoenix Wrote:  
(06-10-2019 11:36 PM)Mav Wrote:  If you want a bit of tinfoil material, it looks like Virginia Tech works with the BTAA like Chicago still does. 05-stirthepot
https://mybtaa.org/Auth/SSO?returnUrl=%2F

OMG! VT TO THE B1G! 04-jawdrop Ok, I'll take off the tin foil hat now. That is interesting to see even though it likely means very little. But it's fun to see stuff like that since expansion discussion has been really slow.

Actually VT to the B1G along with Colorado makes a lot of sense.
06-11-2019 07:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
XLance Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,365
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 228
I Root For: Carolina
Location:
Post: #249
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
I would prefer, however, that NC State move to the B1G instead of VT. There are certainly enough B1G alumni running around Wake and Durham counties to support every team in the mid-west.
06-11-2019 07:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SeaBlue Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,060
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 39
I Root For: Michigan
Location: Indy
Post: #250
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-10-2019 11:36 PM)Mav Wrote:  If you want a bit of tinfoil material, it looks like Virginia Tech works with the BTAA like Chicago still does. 05-stirthepot
https://mybtaa.org/Auth/SSO?returnUrl=%2F

Virginia Tech has been showing up on various network connectivity searches (somewhat related to the Big Ten) for some time. They seem to be very well connected. No doubt related to research projects.
06-11-2019 07:45 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AuzGrams Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 414
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 2
I Root For: Utah, UVU
Location:
Post: #251
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
Any stats to back up that a 1-11 to 4-8 Rutgers team & the amazing NYC media market bring more eye balls to the conference? Or does it just bring PSU/tOSU/Michigan/MSU fans once/twice a year to HighPoint.com Stadium?
06-12-2019 02:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,805
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #252
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-11-2019 06:56 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Expansion isn’t slow, expansion is dead.
We are about to enter a period of contraction.
The market requires some tying up of loose ends.

You better hope theirs no contraction because if the ACC kicks out members the newest ones are going first. But thats not going to happen, no one is kicking any one out of their conference especially at the P5 level.

Expansion will happen once the XII contract is coming to an end. College football hasn't reached it's final form yet for you Dragon Ball fans out there. 4 conferences for 4 playoff slots. Mark it down, it's going to happen.
06-12-2019 07:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 30,247
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 728
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #253
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-11-2019 07:02 AM)XLance Wrote:  Actually VT to the B1G along with Colorado makes a lot of sense.

VT as a conference member is vastly overrated on this board, and I say that as someone from Virginia with a fondness for VT, a place several relatives have graduated from.

Remember, VT wouldn't even be in a P5 conference if the Virginia state government hadn't pulled a strong-arm maneuver that would make Texas blush to make it happen. And since joining the ACC, VT's brand value has, if anything, gone a bit down from that point.

And yet some around here have VT being lusted after by both the B1G and SEC?

It's crazy. 01-wingedeagle
06-12-2019 08:34 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,008
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 107
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #254
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-10-2019 11:36 PM)Mav Wrote:  
(06-10-2019 10:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(06-09-2019 11:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  But AFAICT, Johns Hopkins was not a member of the CIC before it agreed to join Big Ten Lacrosse as an associate member, and membership of the CIC was not announced until after the agreement to join the Big Ten was announced, so it's only Chicago that is in the CIC but not the Big Ten.

Hopkins wasn't. The conference used the announcement of the lacrosse affiliation as an opportunity to note the school was immediately invited to join the CIC. IIRC, Hopkins didn't even bother mentioning the CIC invite in their press release about joining the Big Ten for men's lacrosse. Neither side mentioned CIC/BTAA when the women's team came over.

So, as of now, the CIC/BTAA only consists of the fourteen full members of the Big Ten. No more Chicago, no Hopkins.

No Irish, either...and I think the Big Ten, unlike with Johns Hopkins, simply didn't extend this invitation for the ice hockey affiliation?
When Nebraska joined the Big Ten, they asked if UNMC and UNO could join the CIC and used UIC's membership as precedent. The CIC said absolutely not, and then the question came up regarding UIC's special treatment compared to other non-B1G branch schools. UIC got the boot to give an air of consistency as to who was in. Chicago's basically an unofficial member now. They get all the perks but don't get their name on the list of members.

If you want a bit of tinfoil material, it looks like Virginia Tech works with the BTAA like Chicago still does. 05-stirthepot
https://mybtaa.org/Auth/SSO?returnUrl=%2F

It speaks to just how silly the whole thing is. Chicago isn't a formal member, but is on the login portal. UNO can't be in it, so UIC has to get the boot. Hopkins is like "heh, this is ****," so Notre Dame isn't thrown the bone. But, Virginia Tech.

Everything stupid and wrong with higher ed and its pettiness and fiefdoms...look no further than that simple portal for that coop.
06-12-2019 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
esayem Offline
Hark The Sound!
*

Posts: 5,178
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation: 156
I Root For: The Heels
Location: Tobacco Road
Post: #255
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-12-2019 07:25 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 06:56 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Expansion isn’t slow, expansion is dead.
We are about to enter a period of contraction.
The market requires some tying up of loose ends.

You better hope theirs no contraction because if the ACC kicks out members the newest ones are going first. But thats not going to happen, no one is kicking any one out of their conference especially at the P5 level.

Expansion will happen once the XII contract is coming to an end. College football hasn't reached it's final form yet for you Dragon Ball fans out there. 4 conferences for 4 playoff slots. Mark it down, it's going to happen.


I've been hearing about this for quite some time. I don't think it will happen, but if it does, the ACC would welcome Notre Dame and Texas as full members.

It is my opinion that Texas will continue to fight to commandeer their own conference much the same way ND fights for independence. Right now, the Big XII is stronger than any incarnation of the Big East football conference (a conference that was considered power, and then BCS). Even if Texas loses Oklahoma as a conference mate, the Big XII will still be considered a P5 league. So it comes down to what Texas wants. I say they continue to run their own ship with some hodgepodge of old SWC, Big 8, Big East, MWC, and C-USA teams.

My prediction: the Big XII remains P5 with or without Oklahoma, and the playoffs expand to 8 (although I believe 12 is ideal).
06-12-2019 10:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 14,898
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 556
I Root For: California
Location: Bear Territory
Post: #256
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-12-2019 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, VT wouldn't even be in a P5 conference if the Virginia state government hadn't pulled a strong-arm maneuver that would make Texas blush to make it happen.

That was mild compared to the political power play in Texas. The only thing the Virginia governor reportedly did was tell the UVa president to not vote yes on ACC expansion unless VT was included (and the UVa president denied that even that happened). UVa didn't have to send their athletics to another conference against their will, no one threatened to withhold money from them, no one had to give UVa more money to vote in favor of VT.
(This post was last modified: 06-12-2019 10:58 AM by Wedge.)
06-12-2019 10:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,805
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #257
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-12-2019 10:03 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(06-12-2019 07:25 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  
(06-11-2019 06:56 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Expansion isn’t slow, expansion is dead.
We are about to enter a period of contraction.
The market requires some tying up of loose ends.

You better hope theirs no contraction because if the ACC kicks out members the newest ones are going first. But thats not going to happen, no one is kicking any one out of their conference especially at the P5 level.

Expansion will happen once the XII contract is coming to an end. College football hasn't reached it's final form yet for you Dragon Ball fans out there. 4 conferences for 4 playoff slots. Mark it down, it's going to happen.


I've been hearing about this for quite some time. I don't think it will happen, but if it does, the ACC would welcome Notre Dame and Texas as full members.

It is my opinion that Texas will continue to fight to commandeer their own conference much the same way ND fights for independence. Right now, the Big XII is stronger than any incarnation of the Big East football conference (a conference that was considered power, and then BCS). Even if Texas loses Oklahoma as a conference mate, the Big XII will still be considered a P5 league. So it comes down to what Texas wants. I say they continue to run their own ship with some hodgepodge of old SWC, Big 8, Big East, MWC, and C-USA teams.

My prediction: the Big XII remains P5 with or without Oklahoma, and the playoffs expand to 8 (although I believe 12 is ideal).

Yeah so would every conference in the country, but it's not going to happen. Texas isn't going to join an eastern conference. The ACC is the one power conference I can assure you they wont join. SEC, B1G or even the PAC. The PAC is the one Power Conference that Texas has the best chance of throwing it's weight around in. They also have the most room for the Longhorns to bring some friends with them.

Oh and Notre Dame isn't joining any conference.

When I said 4 conferences and 4 slots I didn't mean on the books autobids, but assumed autobids with a top 4 ranked Irish team getting in over a conference champ
06-12-2019 11:05 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,805
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #258
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-12-2019 10:53 AM)Wedge Wrote:  
(06-12-2019 08:34 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, VT wouldn't even be in a P5 conference if the Virginia state government hadn't pulled a strong-arm maneuver that would make Texas blush to make it happen.

That was mild compared to the political power play in Texas. The only thing the Virginia governor reportedly did was tell the UVa president to not vote yes on ACC expansion unless VT was included (and the UVa president denied that even that happened). UVa didn't have to send their athletics to another conference against their will, no one threatened to withhold money from them, no one had to give UVa more money to vote in favor of VT.

The UVA president denied that happening but VT got the invite over Cuse who was originally offered. Soooooo the proofs in the pudding.
06-12-2019 11:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 363
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #259
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-03-2019 04:13 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(06-01-2019 01:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(06-01-2019 12:23 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  PAC would have been very interested in Nebraska. Nebraska is a top 10 brand in college football. It was a slam dunk done deal for the Big Ten. That is why no chatter for the PAC expansion on them.

Texas, A&M, TTU, Okla, Ok St, and Colorado were who they wanted--not Nebraska.v

Of those, A&M did NOT want the PAC. From a PAC fan point of view combined with an SEC point of view, the PAC should have concentrated on Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Ok St., and Colorado, since A&M knew they wanted the SEC.

(06-02-2019 06:37 PM)goofus Wrote:  Missouri is a better cultural and geographic fit for the Big Ten.

Regardless of market size, most of the midwest schools in the Big Ten simply don't get the new obsession with East coast expansion and playing bowl games or tourneys in NYC. It would not bother me if I never set foot in New York City ever again. It's just not a great place to visit.

Two words: Penn State. That's why. Much like how FSU strong-armed the ACC into taking Miami, Penn State strong-armed the Big Ten into taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I think establishing PSU with regional partners was very important for the B1G and if you look at PSU ratings the last 2-3 years they have had some monster ratings games, so it was a success.

People also overlook how good of recruiting grounds New Jersey and the Maryland/DC area are compared to other B1G footprint recruiting grounds. Its why I think any B1G future expansion needs to again include state or states with a high number of recruits because the B1G footprint pales in comparison to the southeastern states.

From a B1G perspective I think it has to involve one of 3 areas and in this order:
1.Texas- Obviously if got Texas OU would be coming. I would let Texas pick 2 other teams of whoever they want to get them to come. Homerun would be for expansion to include A&M even if they had to wait until SEC GOR is up. If Texas wanted TT & UH, I would do it in a heartbeat if I was the B1G. I wouldn't care if they wanted Arkansas and Arkansas could get out of the SEC. You take whatever 2 other regional rivals UT wants to get it done.

2. Atlantic states-The state of North Carolina and Viriginia, maybe Georgia with Ga. Tech.

3. California schools in the PAC
06-12-2019 11:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RutgersGuy Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,805
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation: 121
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #260
RE: Jim Delany botched the 2010-2013 Big Ten Expansion
(06-12-2019 11:50 AM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(06-03-2019 04:13 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  
(06-01-2019 01:42 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(06-01-2019 12:23 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  PAC would have been very interested in Nebraska. Nebraska is a top 10 brand in college football. It was a slam dunk done deal for the Big Ten. That is why no chatter for the PAC expansion on them.

Texas, A&M, TTU, Okla, Ok St, and Colorado were who they wanted--not Nebraska.v

Of those, A&M did NOT want the PAC. From a PAC fan point of view combined with an SEC point of view, the PAC should have concentrated on Texas, TTU, Oklahoma, Ok St., and Colorado, since A&M knew they wanted the SEC.

(06-02-2019 06:37 PM)goofus Wrote:  Missouri is a better cultural and geographic fit for the Big Ten.

Regardless of market size, most of the midwest schools in the Big Ten simply don't get the new obsession with East coast expansion and playing bowl games or tourneys in NYC. It would not bother me if I never set foot in New York City ever again. It's just not a great place to visit.

Two words: Penn State. That's why. Much like how FSU strong-armed the ACC into taking Miami, Penn State strong-armed the Big Ten into taking Rutgers and Maryland.

I think establishing PSU with regional partners was very important for the B1G and if you look at PSU ratings the last 2-3 years they have had some monster ratings games, so it was a success.

People also overlook how good of recruiting grounds New Jersey and the Maryland/DC area are compared to other B1G footprint recruiting grounds. Its why I think any B1G future expansion needs to again include state or states with a high number of recruits because the B1G footprint pales in comparison to the southeastern states.

From a B1G perspective I think it has to involve one of 3 areas and in this order:
1.Texas- Obviously if got Texas OU would be coming. I would let Texas pick 2 other teams of whoever they want to get them to come. Homerun would be for expansion to include A&M even if they had to wait until SEC GOR is up. If Texas wanted TT & UH, I would do it in a heartbeat if I was the B1G. I wouldn't care if they wanted Arkansas and Arkansas could get out of the SEC. You take whatever 2 other regional rivals UT wants to get it done.

2. Atlantic states-The state of North Carolina and Viriginia, maybe Georgia with Ga. Tech.

3. California schools in the PAC

I'm pretty sure the SEC doesn't have a GoR, they really don't need one. Same with the B1G. As far as I know only the ACC and XII have them.
06-12-2019 12:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2019 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2019 MyBB Group.