Would this movement make sense:

Big XII SOUTH (Bedlam and the Texas schools) to PAC-12
Big XII NORTH (everything else) to B1G or ACC

No because most of the Little 8 aren't wanted by any other conference.

(02-16-2021 07:01 AM)schmolik Wrote:  No because most of the Little 8 aren't wanted by any other conference.

Agreed

It's sad really, that no one wants the little 8. And kind of a surprise to, considering the demographics of West Virginia and Kansas. I've heard WVU has a SEC-like culture when it comes to football and there's not much to do in Kansas, but to follow sports during the fall and winter-much like the states of Alabama or Mississippi. Bill Snyder did tap into this potential with K-State, but it was extremely difficult to find a successor.

(02-16-2021 08:14 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's sad really, that no one wants the little 8. And kind of a surprise to, considering the demographics of West Virginia and Kansas. I've heard WVU has a SEC-like culture when it comes to football and there's not much to do in Kansas, but to follow sports during the fall and winter-much like the states of Alabama or Mississippi. Bill Snyder did tap into this potential with K-State, but it was extremely difficult to find a successor.

Kanas is not too far from Kansas City which is a major metro. If Kansas City can support professional teams it can definitely support P5 sports (and it does in basketball just not football).

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri should all be in the Big Ten as they fit in more traditionally with the other schools than Maryland or Rutgers.

(02-16-2021 08:34 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 08:14 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's sad really, that no one wants the little 8. And kind of a surprise to, considering the demographics of West Virginia and Kansas. I've heard WVU has a SEC-like culture when it comes to football and there's not much to do in Kansas, but to follow sports during the fall and winter-much like the states of Alabama or Mississippi. Bill Snyder did tap into this potential with K-State, but it was extremely difficult to find a successor.

Kanas is not too far from Kansas City which is a major metro. If Kansas City can support professional teams it can definitely support P5 sports (and it does in basketball just not football).

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri should all be in the Big Ten as they fit in more traditionally with the other schools than Maryland or Rutgers.

No, the original B12 is where they belong. Unfortunately, a waning Husker squad couldn't anchor the northern division by themselves. I don't know if an E/W split would have done better, but a move to the B1G would only be for money, not fit.

Geographically yes, they do, in actual practice, no. The Big Ten is probably the public school equivalent of the Ivy League. Notice I said "public school equivalent.".As Vandiver said, the old Big 12 was the best conference home for those teams, (KSU, ISU, etc.) but it no longer exists today. I couldn't tell you what would be an acceptable placement would be in today's world.

If not for Iowa, Iowa State would be a really good fit for an expanded Big Ten. They are an AAU institution, a public land grant flagship research school, have strong academics and endowment, great modern facilities and would definitely add value in football and men's basketball (not this year, but most years). Unfortunately, Iowa is just not a state that can have multiple schools from in a power conference.

Before the 2010 realignment wave, a trifecta of Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri would have been a strong foundation of expansion for the B1G. That would have still gotten them up to 14, with available additions of Rutgers/Maryland still be had later. Missed opportunity there for the Big Ten, IMO. Missouri has been a strong addition to the SEC, and there is no turning back for them now.

(02-16-2021 08:34 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 08:14 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's sad really, that no one wants the little 8. And kind of a surprise to, considering the demographics of West Virginia and Kansas. I've heard WVU has a SEC-like culture when it comes to football and there's not much to do in Kansas, but to follow sports during the fall and winter-much like the states of Alabama or Mississippi. Bill Snyder did tap into this potential with K-State, but it was extremely difficult to find a successor.

Kanas is not too far from Kansas City which is a major metro. If Kansas City can support professional teams it can definitely support P5 sports (and it does in basketball just not football).

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri should all be in the Big Ten as they fit in more traditionally with the other schools than Maryland or Rutgers.

Yeah, people who say that there's "nothing to do in Kansas" aren't really familiar with the state.

Kansas is 74% urban, which is right about at the national average. It's just as urban as Michigan and Georgia.


44% of Kansas residents live within 1 hour of Kansas City, MO (including Lawrence, which is 45 minutes away). And a lot of people on the Missouri side say they're from Kansas; if you count them then it's over 60%.

(02-16-2021 11:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If not for Iowa, Iowa State would be a really good fit for an expanded Big Ten. They are an AAU institution, a public land grant flagship research school, have strong academics and endowment, great modern facilities and would definitely add value in football and men's basketball (not this year, but most years). Unfortunately, Iowa is just not a state that can have multiple schools from in a power conference.

Before the 2010 realignment wave, a trifecta of Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri would have been a strong foundation of expansion for the B1G. That would have still gotten them up to 14, with available additions of Rutgers/Maryland still be had later. Missed opportunity there for the Big Ten, IMO. Missouri has been a strong addition to the SEC, and there is no turning back for them now.

Agree.

Ohio State's president at the time (Gordan Gee) actually told donors on a recorded conference call that they made a mistake. He said that if they'd have known the SEC would add Missouri, that the Big 10 would have added Kansas & Missouri instead of Rutgers & Maryland.

(02-16-2021 03:31 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would this movement make sense:

Big XII SOUTH (Bedlam and the Texas schools) to PAC-12
Big XII NORTH (everything else) to B1G or ACC

I think the Big 12 South fits in really well with USC & the Arizona schools.

I think if you proposed the following conference, the major schools involved would approve it:

East:
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas Tech

West:
USC
UCLA
Arizona
Arizona State
BYU

After this, they could have their pick. Colorado, UTEP, & New Mexico to fill in the geographic gap? TCU & Houston to get in the major Texas cities? LSU & Texas A&M for more giant fanbases? SDSU & UNLV to encourage water cooler talk among alumni bases in Southern California? Any of these options are good.

(02-16-2021 12:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 11:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If not for Iowa, Iowa State would be a really good fit for an expanded Big Ten. They are an AAU institution, a public land grant flagship research school, have strong academics and endowment, great modern facilities and would definitely add value in football and men's basketball (not this year, but most years). Unfortunately, Iowa is just not a state that can have multiple schools from in a power conference.

Before the 2010 realignment wave, a trifecta of Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri would have been a strong foundation of expansion for the B1G. That would have still gotten them up to 14, with available additions of Rutgers/Maryland still be had later. Missed opportunity there for the Big Ten, IMO. Missouri has been a strong addition to the SEC, and there is no turning back for them now.

Agree.

Ohio State's president at the time (Gordan Gee) actually told donors on a recorded conference call that they made a mistake. He said that if they'd have known the SEC would add Missouri, that the Big 10 would have added Kansas & Missouri instead of Rutgers & Maryland.

I have a feeling the B1G would have still taken UMD.

(02-16-2021 12:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 12:11 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 11:32 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  If not for Iowa, Iowa State would be a really good fit for an expanded Big Ten. They are an AAU institution, a public land grant flagship research school, have strong academics and endowment, great modern facilities and would definitely add value in football and men's basketball (not this year, but most years). Unfortunately, Iowa is just not a state that can have multiple schools from in a power conference.

Before the 2010 realignment wave, a trifecta of Nebraska, Kansas and Missouri would have been a strong foundation of expansion for the B1G. That would have still gotten them up to 14, with available additions of Rutgers/Maryland still be had later. Missed opportunity there for the Big Ten, IMO. Missouri has been a strong addition to the SEC, and there is no turning back for them now.

Agree.

Ohio State's president at the time (Gordan Gee) actually told donors on a recorded conference call that they made a mistake. He said that if they'd have known the SEC would add Missouri, that the Big 10 would have added Kansas & Missouri instead of Rutgers & Maryland.

I have a feeling the B1G would have still taken UMD.

There is a lot more money to be made in Maryland/DC and New Jersey/ NYC than in Missouri and Kansas

I have a hard time believing anything changes as we currently are, status quo.

Why would Texas and Oklahoma want anything than what they already have? They are in control of their conference, they have plenty of money and they play a wonderful round-robin schedule in football.

As for the PAC, they are the ones that need help. I just can't see the California schools meshing with Oklahoma and the Texas schools...at all! For me personally, I would drop Oregon State and Washington State to start trimming the fat and work the conference from there. The BIG, at one time, was willing to have a partnership of games and see if that's still on the table.

Money is great, but so is being in a good relationship with your peers. You have to do what's right and what fits for your program. Academics, culture, facilities, history and coaches will attract top-tier talent, no matter where you are on the map.

(02-16-2021 12:08 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 08:34 AM)Carolina_Low_Country Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 08:14 AM)DawgNBama Wrote:  It's sad really, that no one wants the little 8. And kind of a surprise to, considering the demographics of West Virginia and Kansas. I've heard WVU has a SEC-like culture when it comes to football and there's not much to do in Kansas, but to follow sports during the fall and winter-much like the states of Alabama or Mississippi. Bill Snyder did tap into this potential with K-State, but it was extremely difficult to find a successor.

Kanas is not too far from Kansas City which is a major metro. If Kansas City can support professional teams it can definitely support P5 sports (and it does in basketball just not football).

Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, and Missouri should all be in the Big Ten as they fit in more traditionally with the other schools than Maryland or Rutgers.

Yeah, people who say that there's "nothing to do in Kansas" aren't really familiar with the state.

Kansas is 74% urban, which is right about at the national average. It's just as urban as Michigan and Georgia.


44% of Kansas residents live within 1 hour of Kansas City, MO (including Lawrence, which is 45 minutes away). And a lot of people on the Missouri side say they're from Kansas; if you count them then it's over 60%.

I'm not sure it's 74 percent. Seems more like 68 percent. But still noteworthy.

I see this from the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

In 2019, 911,973 Kansans lived in rural areas and 2,001,341 Kansans lived in urban areas. "Urban" and "rural" definitions were based on metro and nonmetro areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget in February 2013. Kansas has five MSAs (those of K.C., Wichita, Topeka, Lawrence and Manhattan). None is a large city (I'm counting K.C., Kansas, and not K.C. Missouri) but all five collectively have a good number of residents.

Regardless, Kansas is not a particularly populated state with truly urbanized areas. The five cities mentioned don't "play big," from what I've been told and have seen on Google Maps and watching aerial videos. My brother and I once drove the bulk of urban K.C., Kansas. It's nice but not large.

However, and as you note, that fact that many Kansans live near K.C. Missouri is very noteworthy.

(02-16-2021 01:27 PM)cubucks Wrote:  I have a hard time believing anything changes as we currently are, status quo.

Why would Texas and Oklahoma want anything than what they already have? They are in control of their conference, they have plenty of money and they play a wonderful round-robin schedule in football.

As for the PAC, they are the ones that need help. I just can't see the California schools meshing with Oklahoma and the Texas schools...at all! For me personally, I would drop Oregon State and Washington State to start trimming the fat and work the conference from there. The BIG, at one time, was willing to have a partnership of games and see if that's still on the table.

Money is great, but so is being in a good relationship with your peers. You have to do what's right and what fits for your program. Academics, culture, facilities, history and coaches will attract top-tier talent, no matter where you are on the map.

In their current memberships the Big 12 is worth more than the Pac 12 and given Texas's popularity and Oklahoma's football strength it is justified. If the choices are Pac 12 or Big 12, UT and UO of course should choose the Big 12.

Now if you are FOX or ESPN, is having UT and UO in the Big 12 vs. the Pac 12 in your best interest? If they are in the Big 12, you have to pay them and you still have to pay the Little 8 at least a comparable amount of money. You also probably have to give the Pac-12 something. While the California schools are less valuable than Texas and Oklahoma, they aren't worthless. Oregon also has some value. You do have some big markets out west. On the other hand, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Pac 12, you probably have to give Texas and Oklahoma more (as well as the other Pac 12 schools) more but you don't have to give Iowa State, Kansas State, and Baylor anything. If the networks wanted Texas and Oklahoma in the Pac-12, they can make it financially worth their while. Now Texas and Oklahoma could say no for the reasons you said plus the Big 10 and SEC could also be factors. But why should FOX and/or ESPN have to pay ten schools P5 rates when they only believe two schools deserve it? Texas and Oklahoma want the Little Eight to be paid reasonably. They'd be in the AAC and still get the same money if they could. Ohio State would move to the MAC if they could still get the same money they get now. It's up to the networks to make sure schools are paid what they are worth. Half the schools in the SEC are overpaid and living off Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

(02-16-2021 02:35 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(02-16-2021 01:27 PM)cubucks Wrote:  I have a hard time believing anything changes as we currently are, status quo.

Why would Texas and Oklahoma want anything than what they already have? They are in control of their conference, they have plenty of money and they play a wonderful round-robin schedule in football.

As for the PAC, they are the ones that need help. I just can't see the California schools meshing with Oklahoma and the Texas schools...at all! For me personally, I would drop Oregon State and Washington State to start trimming the fat and work the conference from there. The BIG, at one time, was willing to have a partnership of games and see if that's still on the table.

Money is great, but so is being in a good relationship with your peers. You have to do what's right and what fits for your program. Academics, culture, facilities, history and coaches will attract top-tier talent, no matter where you are on the map.

In their current memberships the Big 12 is worth more than the Pac 12 and given Texas's popularity and Oklahoma's football strength it is justified. If the choices are Pac 12 or Big 12, UT and UO of course should choose the Big 12.

Now if you are FOX or ESPN, is having UT and UO in the Big 12 vs. the Pac 12 in your best interest? If they are in the Big 12, you have to pay them and you still have to pay the Little 8 at least a comparable amount of money. You also probably have to give the Pac-12 something. While the California schools are less valuable than Texas and Oklahoma, they aren't worthless. Oregon also has some value. You do have some big markets out west. On the other hand, if Texas and Oklahoma move to the Pac 12, you probably have to give Texas and Oklahoma more (as well as the other Pac 12 schools) more but you don't have to give Iowa State, Kansas State, and Baylor anything. If the networks wanted Texas and Oklahoma in the Pac-12, they can make it financially worth their while. Now Texas and Oklahoma could say no for the reasons you said plus the Big 10 and SEC could also be factors. But why should FOX and/or ESPN have to pay ten schools P5 rates when they only believe two schools deserve it? Texas and Oklahoma want the Little Eight to be paid reasonably. They'd be in the AAC and still get the same money if they could. Ohio State would move to the MAC if they could still get the same money they get now. It's up to the networks to make sure schools are paid what they are worth. Half the schools in the SEC are overpaid and living off Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.

You bring up fair points, schmolik!

I do feel the "little 8" statement might be over used at times, imo. Oki State, TCU, Iowa State and even K-state are damn good programs at times, just lacking consistency.

Would The Little 8 be attractive to the American?

(02-16-2021 03:31 AM)Erictelevision Wrote:  Would this movement make sense:

Big XII SOUTH (Bedlam and the Texas schools) to PAC-12
Big XII NORTH (everything else) to B1G or ACC

Have you seen the Pac-12?

(02-16-2021 01:27 PM)cubucks Wrote:  I have a hard time believing anything changes as we currently are, status quo.

Why would Texas and Oklahoma want anything than what they already have? They are in control of their conference, they have plenty of money and they play a wonderful round-robin schedule in football.

As for the PAC, they are the ones that need help. I just can't see the California schools meshing with Oklahoma and the Texas schools...at all! For me personally, I would drop Oregon State and Washington State to start trimming the fat and work the conference from there. The BIG, at one time, was willing to have a partnership of games and see if that's still on the table.

Money is great, but so is being in a good relationship with your peers. You have to do what's right and what fits for your program. Academics, culture, facilities, history and coaches will attract top-tier talent, no matter where you are on the map.

Texas and Oklahoma do have a good setup now. But it is a house of cards. The B1G and SEC are about to get huge raises to a good 50-70% more than the B12 in the next TV contracts. Texas can ride it out for the rest of the decade because the LHN will give them an average of $18m the final 6 years of their contract, effectively closing the B12 revenue gap with the SEC and B1G to shouting distance.

Oklahoma doesn't have the LHN money and even with their SoonerTV deal (FOX administered by the BTN) leaves them almost $12m short of the Longhorns plus perhaps another $10m annually to the what B1G and SEC schools will get. That gap could very well be even wider by 2030. Switching conferences could mean an extra $250m in revenue for Oklahoma athletics over a decade. (Texas will get $170m more out of the LHN before it expires, that is their cushion OU lacks.) That money makes OU a very likely candidate to walk.

The B12 is not likely to get the extra boost in the next contract it got in the last. The LHN takes a real network off the table. The B12 is already getting a "don't expand" bonus (paying for 111th and 12th schools not there) and CCG bonus. This means a lot of gain is already factored in, lowering the likely contract increase.

This leads me to a simple conclusion. To keep OU the little-8 will have to agree to uneven media revenue distribution, taking maybe $3m less each every year to give OU and Texas $12m to close the gap to the SEC and B1G enough to keep them.

As for the Pac-12, they will likely see a bigger jump than anyone. Everything is on the table including a new P12 Network set up, junking the old one. Everything from 9 am games to Labor Day weekend Sunday games, to perhaps 10 conference games to maximize revenues. They have items available to up the contract value, items the B12 has already thrown in the mix. (I do not think they will come close to the B1G or SEC, but they should be ahead of the ACC and B12)

...............

But I agree after OU there is nobody out there worth moving or likely to move. The B12 will probably continue with just 9 schools if OU leaves.