(03-18-2020 11:49 AM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Nebraska and Wisconsin fatting up their resumes and getting 10 to 11 wins would be better off for the Big Ten than trying to get more big boys in. Kansas and Iowa State would play a very important role in that regard.

Wisconsin is already there. Nebraska would need to have at least 5 more cupcakes added to the conference.

(03-18-2020 10:39 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  With how top-heavy power conferences have evolved into, I would not be surprised to eventually see the P5 add programs not only for additional content, and likely added revenue, but also to "help-out" the middle-programs and even lower-programs for competitive parity reasons.

For the B1G, SEC and ACC, 14-team leagues have eliminated - just 30 years ago - the ability to have smaller leagues each have a top-level program representing it. Back then, you could have had Michigan (B1G), Clemson (ACC), Nebraska (Big 8), USC (PAC 10), Alabama (SEC), Texas (SWC), Miami (Big East) and Notre Dame (Independent) all legitimately have top-10 teams, and each representing its conference. However, with mass consolidation, there only are five leagues that can really have representatives in the final rankings - which, IMO, has hurt a number of programs that were once able to compete for top-level status annually. The elimination of major leagues, has eliminated the quantity of perceived top-level teams too. For schools now, there are no complaints about the money they are earning; however, long-term, it is only a matter of time before the notion of being "too big" might be revealed, where there can be a pursuit from the middle-to-low programs wishing more competitive balance and/or opportunity. No school wants to be cemented into the bottom of a major sport long-term, which is where a significant number of power programs find themselves in at present.

I am not arguing to move backwards, but - with this topic in mind - what we could find is the opposite: power conferences moving to super-conference status not just in the name of more content, exposure and, likely, revenues, but also for the ability to create more parity and competition for its middle and bottom programs by establishing additional divisions/leagues within the conference. Maybe we see the evolution of super-conferences to four divisions, creating two additional recognitions and/or achievements that could create competitive incentives for many programs that, at present, simply is unrealistic (or so far away) that is is unattainable. For a program like Rutgers or Maryland or Indiana, for example, their ability to win a B1G East title with Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Michigan State is - long-term - remarkably low. Similarly, programs like Duke, UNC, NC State and Virginia have each had either one or zero ACC Championship game appearances (zero wins) in the ACC Championship game. The middle and bottom programs can only accept checks for so long before they will begin to desire ways to win more.

With five power conferences, there can only be five true champions, and only eight divisional champions (Big 12 has no divisional champions). At some point, there will be push back from schools within the P5 that will want ways to be able to win more (and not just be lambs for the slaughter for the blue blood dynasties that have been formed).

Utilizing a previous method is not necessarily moving backwards. Sometimes we try to improve something that was already working. I prefer the smaller, regional conferences. I don't think money should control everything - but it does. If we do head to further consolidation, we could have megaconferences that negotiate massive deals for tons of money with regionalized divisions that act like the smaller conferences of the past. Best of both worlds.

(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.

Kansas & Oklahoma is absolutely the pair the Big Ten should pursue. Texas brings too much drama. it also leaves Texas a way out of the Big 12 with the SEC there and capable of absorbing 2 more schools to reach 16.

KU and Virginia are desirable for the Big 10, IF: some network was willing to pay for it. I doubt they are. But both meet the academic standards (UVA by some polls is even ahead of Michigan) and KU has great basketball and UVA a great, growing market.

This is pretty simple:

1) The B1G is not interested in either UVA or Kansas.

2) If the B1G was interested in Kansas, Kansas would jump at the invitation.

3) If the B1G invited UVA, UVA would probably decline, as they naturally prefer the ACC membership, but would think twice as (a) the B1G money is so much greater, and UVA has been struggling financially, with one of the highest student transfer rates among P5 schools, and (b) with Maryland in the B1G they would have one natural partner.

I'd say 60% to 40% chance they decline, but it wouldn't shock me if they did join the B1G.

(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.

In a former life and on another few boards, it wasn't that rare to speculate about UMD. I know I did, but, what didn't sell me on it being probable was that their athletic department and program profile looked far more like its ACC peers than the Big Ten. Stereotyping, sure, but basketball, lacrosse, soccer, women's sports...doesn't project Big Ten.

We knew they weren't SEC material, but, given their size compared to the ACC and Big Ten, one wondered if they fit some of the profiles.

But, yeah, UMD itself didn't let it slip. The Big Ten didn't let it slip they specifically profiled or targeted them. I still remember the "holy ****" moment when they and FSU didn't approve the exit fee increase. I think that was when it became clear they were talking to someone. I do think that when it comes to the right school, and UMD was probably more desired than Nebraska, the Big Ten wasn't going to chase, but only listen to the conversation, and, if they thought a deal could be had, give them the moon. Sounds like that's exactly what they did.

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.

Georgia Tech and FSU

I think Kansas does have a good chance to be a B1G member. They aren't a jewel that can demand a little brother (Kansas St or Iowa St) but they are a great #2 to an Oklahoma or Texas. Even if the B1G could somehow pry Missouri from the SEC, bringing Kansas along would work and be acceptable.

You have the wrong teams listed in your poll.
For the B1G it should be the pair of Kansas and Missouri.

Lance: yeah THAT pair makes ALOT of sense! The rivalry can come back, as a bonus.

(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.

(03-18-2020 03:01 PM)XLance Wrote:  You have the wrong teams listed in your poll.
For the B1G it should be the pair of Kansas and Missouri.

At this point, I'm thinking Kansas and Kansas State/Iowa State. Back in the day, Bobby Knight wanted Iowa State instead of Penn State.

(03-18-2020 02:56 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  Georgia Tech and FSU

Now you're on the right track.

Let's shoot for the moon:

Texas - Texas Tech

(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!?!

FSU makes the most sense out of all non-AAU schools. Exception = Notre Dame.

I know there is a ton of talk about what value schools add. I need someone to help me understand this a little better.
For example- Texas, Oklahoma and Notre Dame bring instant increases to a conference.
It's been mentioned that other's do not. So, wouldn't the value of FSU, for example, increase in value with the right set of peers? Just a thought and I never understood this part of the discussion.

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.

It's not a Time Zone issue but New Brunswick or Happy Valley to Austin/Norman ain't a picnic.

(03-18-2020 09:37 PM)Erictelevision Wrote:  It's not a Time Zone issue but New Brunswick or Happy Valley to Austin/Norman ain't a picnic.

But if the fans show up to your place? Programs with good, traveling bases alleviate the travel woes because they are good for the traditional revenue piece of ticket sales and local stimulants. Granted, you'd think Penn State and Ohio State fans would mob New Brunswick to make up for what Rutgers doesn't put in there, and that hasn't happened...

...but that philosophy is how the Big East has done it. Creighton really stretched out the conference, but provided a fanbase that always packed their own house and came along with the team to others.

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?

But, like another Rutgers, and if it came to adding something "undesirable," to appease Texas, would it be Rice? And not just the Big Ten...could be any conference. Strategic in moving another Texas institution to potentially lessen political heat, in a top market, with a strong and clean reputation, even if awful in football and basketball? Personally, I'm tired of how they come into this stuff, but, I've often wondered if Rice could be an alternative to the "Tech problem." I don't think it would really come to that for Texas...I think any other conference would take Tech on for the Longhorns. It's something Texas can do that Oklahoma can't with State.