Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Poll: Which teams would they be willing to accept if they get something they want
Kansas (KSU, ISU)
UVA (VT, WVU)
[Show Results]
 
Post Reply 
Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
Author Message
schmolik Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 369
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #41
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-18-2020 06:13 PM)cubucks Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 06:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Let's shoot for the moon:

Texas - Texas Tech
Now that, Gordon Gee isn't here to have that "Tech Problem" maybe things have changed? Who knows!?!

Just because Gee's the one who (allegedly) said it doesn't mean others in the conference don't agree with him. I highly doubt Texas Tech is wanted by the Big Ten and would be a deal breaker for them if Texas demands they come along. Think about it, they'd probably vote with Texas on practically every vote. Now would Oklahoma if they joined with Texas? I'd like to think they might have a mind of their own but at least if they are still Texas Lite they're valuable.
03-19-2020 05:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 15,802
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 579
I Root For: CinCity Pride
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-18-2020 05:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 02:30 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Not trying to be a jerk, but I just don't see the B10 adding Kansas. Yes Kansas is a Blue Blood Basketball school and they have a ravenous hoops fan base, I just don't see the B10 adding another terrible football program when you have Rutgers and some other schools that are only decent every few years (Purdue, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland up until a year or two ago Minnesota). I don't think Kansas is the only avenue to "get" a Texas nor do I think Texas is sitting down in Austin saying they won't go anywhere without KU.

Well, you of all people should know: once terrible, atrocious, horrible, 1-AA quality football programs may one day rise and win the Birmingham Bowl against former Cotton Bowl champs.

If Kansas had high schools with talent like Cincinnati Colerain, Moeller, St. Xavier, LaSalle, Princeton, etc. you might have a point.
03-19-2020 08:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,320
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 101
I Root For: Buckeyes/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #43
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-18-2020 09:14 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  From a B1G/SEC standpoint, very few schools add value. Some that could be on the list such as Notre Dame, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson and Florida State are locked up in the ACC GOR until June 2037. Others like USC and UCLA are too far away, as in 3 time zones for half the schools, 2 time zones for the rest.

When you recognize that you circle back to the B12 and it's structural problems, you find the schools who can be had in 5 years: Oklahoma and Texas. That's it.

Would the B1G consider an additional school to get to 16 necessary to balance a 9 game schedule? (if you have 15 one school has to play either 1 more or 1 less game ... the upside of 10 you get 5 B1G home games, the downside you are more limited in OOC.) Maybe. Obviously if Oklahoma accepted and invite the B1G would full court press Texas. And they might be willing to sit at 15 with all the schedule difficulty until the right school became available, especially if division-less football is instituted; after all they lived at 11 for 21 years until Nebraska joined. So waiting 12 years for the right ACC school is certainly possible should Texas give the "not now, not ever" response.

If Texas were to say no to the B1G, and they were not willing to wait for a likely fickle ACC possibility and feel they have to strike and fix the scheduling problem, then Kansas enters the picture. (I think the same is true for the SEC as well, except they have less pressure with 8 games, so can live forever at 15 teams.) A strong driver for the B1G expansion is being a flagship. (Same is true of the SEC ... FSU possible exception.) Kansas is a flagship, is an AAU research school, does add another State and pretty good slice of the Kansas City market (Mizzou get a share as well). The AI for other B12 public schools really falls off after Texas, OU and KU (Baylor and TCU are selective, but not research schools).

Kansas doesn't improve the value of the B1G (or SEC for that matter), and the same is true of any other school in the B12 not named Texas or Oklahoma. So a choice to add a 2nd school along with Oklahoma given Texas is a "no, no and no", you have to look at factors other than straight valuation. Kansas brings flagship, AAU, blue blood basketball, and some market reach (FWIW). No other little-8 school checks off those boxes. Still they are a long shot and need things to break just right to get the opportunity.

The B1G could take Oklahoma (or Texas) and just sleep on Expansion until 2037 when the ACC is ripe.
Great feedback and that all makes sense.

My main confusion of current value is if team "X" was in the SEC for the past 20 years instead of the ACC, would their value be significantly higher than it currently is? If yes, why does it matter if they don't bring immediate value from day one? It's a long marriage and value will increase with time. Everybody can't be independent, so conferences aren't going away. Isn't the key to all of this to increase the portfolio of the conference to sell to networks?

Wouldn't team "X" be more valuable since they've been in the SEC the past 20 years with national exposure alone? Along with the valuable matchups they would be playing every year!

My point is, why are schools considered just on current value? Isn't their value based largely on their current competitors and exposure?

Clemson vs. Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee etc... has to be more valuable than...
Clemson vs. Florida State, VT, Miami, Virginia etc... correct?

Or...

VT vs. Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State etc... has to be more valuable than their current setup, correct?

And why restrain so many schools just for the sake of a conference affiliation?
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2020 12:56 PM by cubucks.)
03-19-2020 12:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cubucks Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,320
Joined: Apr 2015
Reputation: 101
I Root For: Buckeyes/Ohio
Location: Athens, Ohio
Post: #44
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 05:52 AM)schmolik Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 06:13 PM)cubucks Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 06:01 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  Let's shoot for the moon:

Texas - Texas Tech
Now that, Gordon Gee isn't here to have that "Tech Problem" maybe things have changed? Who knows!?!

Just because Gee's the one who (allegedly) said it doesn't mean others in the conference don't agree with him. I highly doubt Texas Tech is wanted by the Big Ten and would be a deal breaker for them if Texas demands they come along. Think about it, they'd probably vote with Texas on practically every vote. Now would Oklahoma if they joined with Texas? I'd like to think they might have a mind of their own but at least if they are still Texas Lite they're valuable.
I never would think that, Gee would be the only voice back then. I do think he could persuade others to align their thinking with his.

I don't think Texas Tech would ever be considered, even as a tag along with the Longhorns.

There are many new Presidents at these universities now and it's hard to tell if they are still made of the same mold as the former ones. Add in a new commisioner and it's anyone's guess to what is currently on the table.
03-19-2020 12:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 2,398
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #45
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2020 05:53 PM by Nerdlinger.)
03-19-2020 05:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,021
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 273
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
The way I look at it, the “Tech Problem” (having to take an undesirable little brother tagalong school that would never be considered for membership by themselves in order to make state politicians happy and secure membership of the actually desired big brother school) is now a thing of the past, at least for the SEC and B1G.

Simply put, the money that the SEC and soon the B1G will be making means that not even UT can bring enough value to make up for the revenue deficit that taking these sort of political tagalong schools would be costing the conference. Kansas can’t make up for KSU, OU can’t make up for OSU and UT can’t make up for TTU.

A combination of UT/OU/KU is the absolute minimum these conferences would consider in the new financial reality
03-19-2020 06:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,541
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 116
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2020 09:12 PM by The Cutter of Bish.)
03-19-2020 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,321
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 1315
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 06:27 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The way I look at it, the “Tech Problem” (having to take an undesirable little brother tagalong school that would never be considered for membership by themselves in order to make state politicians happy and secure membership of the actually desired big brother school) is now a thing of the past, at least for the SEC and B1G.

Simply put, the money that the SEC and soon the B1G will be making means that not even UT can bring enough value to make up for the revenue deficit that taking these sort of political tagalong schools would be costing the conference. Kansas can’t make up for KSU, OU can’t make up for OSU and UT can’t make up for TTU.

A combination of UT/OU/KU is the absolute minimum these conferences would consider in the new financial reality

I would tend to agree, but I thought the same about expansion to 14. Yet 3 conferences did it, and with Maryland/Rutgers, Pitt/Syracuse and Missouri/A&M. Not a blue blood among them and only A&M among the high revenue/high fan support schools. Perhaps noone but A&M a top 30 football program.
03-19-2020 09:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 369
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #49
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 09:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 06:27 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The way I look at it, the “Tech Problem” (having to take an undesirable little brother tagalong school that would never be considered for membership by themselves in order to make state politicians happy and secure membership of the actually desired big brother school) is now a thing of the past, at least for the SEC and B1G.

Simply put, the money that the SEC and soon the B1G will be making means that not even UT can bring enough value to make up for the revenue deficit that taking these sort of political tagalong schools would be costing the conference. Kansas can’t make up for KSU, OU can’t make up for OSU and UT can’t make up for TTU.

A combination of UT/OU/KU is the absolute minimum these conferences would consider in the new financial reality

I would tend to agree, but I thought the same about expansion to 14. Yet 3 conferences did it, and with Maryland/Rutgers, Pitt/Syracuse and Missouri/A&M. Not a blue blood among them and only A&M among the high revenue/high fan support schools. Perhaps noone but A&M a top 30 football program.

The Big Ten and ACC moves were clearly demographic (get the Northeast), they had little to do with the pigskin. The SEC's was also demographic although Texas A&M does bring a credible football program. Missouri was of course a tag along. If the Big Ten had thought a little ahead they could have just taken Maryland as #12 and they never would have taken Nebraska or Rutgers, two worthless members.
03-19-2020 09:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,220
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 09:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.

I wish that the Big Ten, back when there were just 11 members, would have made a play for the Big 12’s best content.

They could have taken 5 of: Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and still had all AAUs.

Our let’s make it an even 18 and take Oklahoma too.

Big Ten East: Penn St, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten West: Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St
Big Ten South: Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TAMU
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2020 10:08 PM by Fighting Muskie.)
03-19-2020 10:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nerdlinger Offline
Realignment Enthusiast
*

Posts: 2,398
Joined: May 2017
Reputation: 112
I Root For: Realignment!
Location: :uoᴉʇɐɔo⌉
Post: #51
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 09:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.

Interesting. I wonder why ISU was in there instead of Missouri.
03-19-2020 10:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
NJ2MDTerp Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,115
Joined: Aug 2013
Reputation: 29
I Root For: Maryland
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-18-2020 12:15 PM)Go College Sports Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 11:36 AM)esayem Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 08:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(03-18-2020 07:55 AM)esayem Wrote:  Virginia is not Maryland, they have no interest in the Big 10.

I used to think the same thing about Maryland.

Then the Big 10 showed Maryland's administrators how much more money they could make in the Big 10. I'm not joking - I remember reading several articles which said that was when Maryland started even considering the Big 10's sales pitch.

When did anyone have time to think about or speculate where Maryland would move? They were asked and jumped in a DC minute! Nobody saw that coming except their academic leaders who made it happen. There has always been a faction at UMD that wanted to be aligned with Penn State.

UVA has a much healthier athletic department than Maryland did at that time. They also have much stronger institutional ties with the research triangle.

The group of people that cared about Penn State before Maryland moved to the B1G was limited to football fanatics who follow recruiting incredibly closely, which is to say an incredibly small number of people.
Apparently this small group mistakenly believes Maryland can play big time college football and compete against and even beat Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State.
03-19-2020 10:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
IWokeUpLikeThis Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,310
Joined: Jul 2014
Reputation: 247
I Root For: NIU, Chicago St
Location: South Side
Post: #53
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 10:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 09:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.

I wish that the Big Ten, back when there were just 11 members, would have made a play for the Big 12’s best content.

They could have taken 5 of: Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and still had all AAUs.

Our let’s make it an even 18 and take Oklahoma too.

Big Ten East: Penn St, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten West: Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St
Big Ten South: Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TAMU

That’s realignment done right. Even if Texas/A&M stay in a southern conference, you could substitute K-State & Okie St and come up with a perfect 18-school midwest conference.
03-20-2020 12:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Erictelevision Online
Special Teams
*

Posts: 888
Joined: Jan 2016
Reputation: 12
I Root For: Uconn hoops
Location:
Post: #54
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
Cutter: IMO the local fans should be able to reasonably commute to road games. And I know this is a VERY quaint notion, but I consider athletics an extracurricular and that their priority should be getting a degree, and having far flung conferences is a detriment to that.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2020 04:28 AM by Erictelevision.)
03-20-2020 04:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,541
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 116
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-20-2020 04:06 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Cutter: IMO the local fans should be able to reasonably commute to road games. And I know this is a VERY quaint notion, but I consider athletics an extracurricular and that their priority should be getting a degree, and having far flung conferences is a detriment to that.

I agree that the student athlete is supposed to be a student first. I don't disagree with the first part, either, but, the concept of the regional territory is not what it used to be, or still is in places likes D2 or D3. Additionally, while there seems to be a stigma to components of "regionalism," the deep-seated politics and other competitive issues between institutions has really impacted D1. That may have to do with over-saturation in higher education or some schools' enrollment issues.

I don't know what the answer is. What's the general pulse at a place like Creighton or Wichita State, where they traded ease of travel for a more recognized, bigger conferences that aren't necessarily travel-friendly? It appears the support is definitely still there for home games, but the support isn't consistent for some of these road games.

I hopped around in my undergrad. I went to both a D3 school that was in a very travel-friendly conference, even for students during the weeknights, to a mega-sized D1 school where the nearest trip was at least a five-hour drive at the time. I miss the D3 feel of sports, especially what you get on weekends when a lot of this stuff is done. I think it still fosters community on the campus and improves spirit.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2020 05:17 AM by The Cutter of Bish.)
03-20-2020 05:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
schmolik Online
2nd String
*

Posts: 369
Joined: Sep 2019
Reputation: 16
I Root For: UIUC, PSU, Nova
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
Post: #56
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 10:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 09:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.

I wish that the Big Ten, back when there were just 11 members, would have made a play for the Big 12’s best content.

They could have taken 5 of: Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and still had all AAUs.

Our let’s make it an even 18 and take Oklahoma too.

Big Ten East: Penn St, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten West: Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St
Big Ten South: Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TAMU

From an OSU perspective, aren't Rutgers and Maryland closer to Columbus than half the schools in this Big Ten though? Do you really want a Big Ten where half of the conference is west of the Mississippi River? Are Texas and Oklahoma worth it? Yes. Are Iowa State, Nebraska, and Missouri? Kansas is in men's basketball.

The Big Ten is primarily a Midwestern conference but don't think the East isn't important to the Big Ten. Imagine what the Big Ten would be without Penn State or if Penn State were in the ACC. Instead of all those PSU/OSU and PSU/Mich games, you'd have PSU/FSU, PSU/Mia, and PSU/Clem games and the only showcase Big Ten games would be OSU/Mich and OSU and Mich vs. whatever other school has a breakthrough year like Minnesota did last year. The Big Ten would still be ahead of the ACC but the gap wouldn't be as big and the ACC would still be relevant. The ACC would be more relevant in the Northeast. Rutgers is pretty worthless, if the Big Ten were smarter they could've beaten the ACC to Pittsburgh and/or Syracuse instead of settling for Rutgers or taken UConn (would have given the Big Ten a foothold into New England). But the East Coast is important to the Big Ten and better than Nebraska or Iowa State.
03-20-2020 06:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
10thMountain Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,021
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation: 273
I Root For: A&M, TCU
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-19-2020 09:18 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 06:27 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The way I look at it, the “Tech Problem” (having to take an undesirable little brother tagalong school that would never be considered for membership by themselves in order to make state politicians happy and secure membership of the actually desired big brother school) is now a thing of the past, at least for the SEC and B1G.

Simply put, the money that the SEC and soon the B1G will be making means that not even UT can bring enough value to make up for the revenue deficit that taking these sort of political tagalong schools would be costing the conference. Kansas can’t make up for KSU, OU can’t make up for OSU and UT can’t make up for TTU.

A combination of UT/OU/KU is the absolute minimum these conferences would consider in the new financial reality

I would tend to agree, but I thought the same about expansion to 14. Yet 3 conferences did it, and with Maryland/Rutgers, Pitt/Syracuse and Missouri/A&M. Not a blue blood among them and only A&M among the high revenue/high fan support schools. Perhaps noone but A&M a top 30 football program.


Not same at all.

All those programs are AAU, Flagship, Land Grant or Flag Ship Equivalent schools (showing that academics and cultural fit are indeed a factor)

They were chosen for their wholistic value to the conferences because they were the desired selections made by those conferences under no obligation to take any of them in particular.

Someone like Texas Tech on the other hand is NOT desired by these conferences and instead would be a pick they are forced into making in order to get who they really wanted.

A school forced on them vs a school they actually wanted. That’s the difference

And as I said, due to new financial reality, the SEC and B1G are beyond the point where a coerced, political choice will be entertained by them.
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2020 02:15 PM by 10thMountain.)
03-20-2020 07:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ohio1317 Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 5,301
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 231
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-20-2020 06:55 AM)schmolik Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 10:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 09:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.

I wish that the Big Ten, back when there were just 11 members, would have made a play for the Big 12’s best content.

They could have taken 5 of: Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and still had all AAUs.

Our let’s make it an even 18 and take Oklahoma too.

Big Ten East: Penn St, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten West: Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St
Big Ten South: Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TAMU

From an OSU perspective, aren't Rutgers and Maryland closer to Columbus than half the schools in this Big Ten though? Do you really want a Big Ten where half of the conference is west of the Mississippi River? Are Texas and Oklahoma worth it? Yes. Are Iowa State, Nebraska, and Missouri? Kansas is in men's basketball.

The Big Ten is primarily a Midwestern conference but don't think the East isn't important to the Big Ten. Imagine what the Big Ten would be without Penn State or if Penn State were in the ACC. Instead of all those PSU/OSU and PSU/Mich games, you'd have PSU/FSU, PSU/Mia, and PSU/Clem games and the only showcase Big Ten games would be OSU/Mich and OSU and Mich vs. whatever other school has a breakthrough year like Minnesota did last year. The Big Ten would still be ahead of the ACC but the gap wouldn't be as big and the ACC would still be relevant. The ACC would be more relevant in the Northeast. Rutgers is pretty worthless, if the Big Ten were smarter they could've beaten the ACC to Pittsburgh and/or Syracuse instead of settling for Rutgers or taken UConn (would have given the Big Ten a foothold into New England). But the East Coast is important to the Big Ten and better than Nebraska or Iowa State.

From my personal perspective, have always thought of Big Ten as Midwestern. Penn State has worked well and I get that Maryland and Rutgers were long term necessary because you couldn't leave Penn State on an island. That said, none of the east coast schools except kind of Penn State feel remotely close to Ohio even if the actual distance might be less. If any additional expansion would rather it come from the west so the east division gains a traditional member rather than lose one.

All that said above, I think Maryland and Rutgers were the right east coast calls unless you can get North Carolina/Duke/Virginia. Pitt and Syracuse were stronger schools than Rutgers historically and made more sense for the ACC, but the Big Ten was made up mostly of state flagships and the move allowed them to get a solid Mid-Atlantic new secondary core of the conference. They didn't need the two new schools to be immediately competitive, just to add new areas that might get more interested in the Big Ten and not places that would feel like islands (as Penn State had).
03-20-2020 09:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,220
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #59
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-20-2020 12:17 AM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 10:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 09:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:51 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  It's why I think we overlook Iowa State. Probably not that much of an undesirable when you have supportive fans, travel, and you're AAU. Maybe to the Big Ten (or just Iowa) they aren't wanted, but, then, wasn't it said that a faction of Big XII schools, including Kansas and ISU, were working on a contingency plan with the conference?

I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.

I wish that the Big Ten, back when there were just 11 members, would have made a play for the Big 12’s best content.

They could have taken 5 of: Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and still had all AAUs.

Our let’s make it an even 18 and take Oklahoma too.

Big Ten East: Penn St, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten West: Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St
Big Ten South: Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TAMU

That’s realignment done right. Even if Texas/A&M stay in a southern conference, you could substitute K-State & Okie St and come up with a perfect 18-school midwest conference.

Thanks! OK St and Kansas St don’t make the academic cut. If the Texas schools were a no go I’d stick with 16 or make a run at ND and an eastern team.
03-20-2020 09:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fighting Muskie Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,220
Joined: Sep 2016
Reputation: 111
I Root For: Ohio St, MAC
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Convincing B1G to add undesirable teams
(03-20-2020 09:08 AM)ohio1317 Wrote:  
(03-20-2020 06:55 AM)schmolik Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 10:05 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 09:10 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(03-19-2020 05:53 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  I'd heard of a contingency plan with the Big East for the Big 12 remnant in the event of Texoma-to-Pac, but not one with the Big Ten.

Five schools: Nebraska, Oklahoma, TAMU, Kansas, and Iowa State. Talk about a haul.

I'm sure Oklahoma, TAMU, and Nebraska make Kansas and Iowa State easier to swallow, but, I wonder if KU and ISU would still generate some support?

Agreed with others, though...go back and get Missouri.

I wish that the Big Ten, back when there were just 11 members, would have made a play for the Big 12’s best content.

They could have taken 5 of: Texas, TAMU, Nebraska, Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa St and still had all AAUs.

Our let’s make it an even 18 and take Oklahoma too.

Big Ten East: Penn St, Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, Indiana, Purdue
Big Ten West: Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Iowa St
Big Ten South: Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, TAMU

From an OSU perspective, aren't Rutgers and Maryland closer to Columbus than half the schools in this Big Ten though? Do you really want a Big Ten where half of the conference is west of the Mississippi River? Are Texas and Oklahoma worth it? Yes. Are Iowa State, Nebraska, and Missouri? Kansas is in men's basketball.

The Big Ten is primarily a Midwestern conference but don't think the East isn't important to the Big Ten. Imagine what the Big Ten would be without Penn State or if Penn State were in the ACC. Instead of all those PSU/OSU and PSU/Mich games, you'd have PSU/FSU, PSU/Mia, and PSU/Clem games and the only showcase Big Ten games would be OSU/Mich and OSU and Mich vs. whatever other school has a breakthrough year like Minnesota did last year. The Big Ten would still be ahead of the ACC but the gap wouldn't be as big and the ACC would still be relevant. The ACC would be more relevant in the Northeast. Rutgers is pretty worthless, if the Big Ten were smarter they could've beaten the ACC to Pittsburgh and/or Syracuse instead of settling for Rutgers or taken UConn (would have given the Big Ten a foothold into New England). But the East Coast is important to the Big Ten and better than Nebraska or Iowa State.

From my personal perspective, have always thought of Big Ten as Midwestern. Penn State has worked well and I get that Maryland and Rutgers were long term necessary because you couldn't leave Penn State on an island. That said, none of the east coast schools except kind of Penn State feel remotely close to Ohio even if the actual distance might be less. If any additional expansion would rather it come from the west so the east division gains a traditional member rather than lose one.

All that said above, I think Maryland and Rutgers were the right east coast calls unless you can get North Carolina/Duke/Virginia. Pitt and Syracuse were stronger schools than Rutgers historically and made more sense for the ACC, but the Big Ten was made up mostly of state flagships and the move allowed them to get a solid Mid-Atlantic new secondary core of the conference. They didn't need the two new schools to be immediately competitive, just to add new areas that might get more interested in the Big Ten and not places that would feel like islands (as Penn State had).

I always thought that Penn St fit in well with the Big Ten two. They are an industrial state the same way that Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc are.

Rutgers and Maryland? Academic peers yes, but cultural kinsmen, aside from Midwestern transplants, no.
03-20-2020 09:54 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




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


Copyright © 2002-2020 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, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.