(09-16-2022 03:09 PM)Claw Wrote:  I still think Kansas fits the overall mold for an SEC school.

It would close up the geography nicely, add another state flagship, culturally compatible, and great basketball.

If football stays bad it pads the records of the winners. If it gets good that's a win too.

The SEC wasn't built on TV market analysis. I don't think their future expansion will be driven exclusively by TV revenue.

Eh - I don't know about that here.

Texas A&M and Missouri were additions with the clear intent of adding households for creating a conference TV network (which was eventually launched).

Texas and Oklahoma are massive national brands that clearly help the national Tier 1 TV contracts along with UT being the flagship of a monster state.

Those schools may all fit into the SEC for reasons other than TV money, but they certainly all definitely added a ton of TV revenue at the times of their respective expansions.

(09-16-2022 01:17 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  A year ago, I was actually one of the people more bullish on Kansas *possibly* getting a Big Ten invite eventually. Of course, that was assuming that the Pac-12 and ACC were off-limits.

Now, though, I don't see it. I honestly believe that the Big Ten would rather have everyone in the Pac-12 other than Washington State and Oregon State over Kansas at a minimum (not to mention ACC schools in the 2030s once the GOR comes closer to expiration). The landscape and requirements to get into the Big Ten have changed *dramatically* since the USC/UCLA move.

SEC is an option though since there options could be limited depending on who presumably goes to Big 10.

Please explain carefully to me how the SEC options could be limited? The SEC added Texas A&M & Missouri. The Big Ten added Maryland & Rutgers. The SEC added Texas and Oklahoma. The Big Ten added USC and UCLA. All of the SEC's additions have strengthened regionality, consolidated regional leverage and have added academically with Oklahoma being in the middle of the SEC academically. Due to regionality and local rivals the SEC has the inside track on the Southernmost ACC schools and a darn good shot at schools in North Carolina and Virginia.

Even during the first realignment the SEC was close to matching the Big 10. P.S.U. and Nebraska were major additions but only one has panned out. The SEC didn't have a PSU quality add, but both additions have grafted well without failing.

It just puzzles me the Northern delusion that schools would fawn over a B1G invitation. When additions are made the SEC's regional appeal and accessibility will be major factors in these decisions as they were with Texas and Oklahoma. Diamond sports will be a deciding factor. Recruiting grounds will be a deciding factor, as will regional culture.

Kansas would at least fit with the SEC West naturally, though culturally they would be outliers to the rest of the SEC. I do not dismiss the allure of the B1G's academic appeal, but Southern schools have long held different research partners than their athletic ones so even that allure is tempered and a bit overplayed.

I assure you the SEC options will be full. Competition will be there for the Big 10, but the collection of sports offering will favor the SEC.

If the SEC or B1G is interested in KU, you need to invite very soon. Like this Tuesday or before:

https://www2.ljworld.com/news/ku/2022/se...-approval/

I think Kansas senses an opportunity, in that the B1G seems to still be loose for expansion, but is unsure about the PAC schools.

So it's kind of a public nudge like "hey, over here, don't forget about us, we're available". Kind of thing.

(09-16-2022 02:28 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 01:37 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  A year ago, I was actually one of the people more bullish on Kansas *possibly* getting a Big Ten invite eventually. Of course, that was assuming that the Pac-12 and ACC were off-limits.

Now, though, I don't see it. I honestly believe that the Big Ten would rather have everyone in the Pac-12 other than Washington State and Oregon State over Kansas at a minimum (not to mention ACC schools in the 2030s once the GOR comes closer to expiration). The landscape and requirements to get into the Big Ten have changed *dramatically* since the USC/UCLA move.

I strongly agree with Frank's assessment here.

The Pros for Kansas are that 1) it is an elite men's basketball program and 2) an AAU institution (which significantly helps its academic reputation among Presidents).

The Cons for Kansas are that 1) it has a negative value in football (it has lost consistently in the past decade, does not have a strong following and also does not have historical prestige), 2) does not carry a strong media market (either for audience or alumni to travel to watch games) and 3) the athletic department brand is basketball and really nothing else.

Kansas may very well right the ship with Leipold. However, with the new timeline of more movement being around 2030, Kansas (and others) have very little room for error between now and then. I do think Kansas, currently, carries more value to the SEC right now than the B1G; at least in the SEC, they would bring a new elite basketball brand to the league (along with Kentucky). And SEC Football needs more teams to beat up on other than Vanderbilt.

The B1G has clearly prioritized the rest of the PAC, as well as a handful of ACC programs as next targets (FSU, UNC, Miami, Georgia Tech and Virginia). I think that Duke may actually be in the same boat as Kansas (but could easily be paired with UNC/NC State in the SEC).

Kansas has several problems other than football.


First, it is a small school. At 27,600, it would be the 3rd smallest Big Ten school (40% smaller than the Big Ten average)

Second, it's not a top academic school. The Big Ten presidents overlooked that for Nebraska, and they feel burned over that move.

Third, it has a small market. The whole state has only 3 million people.

Fourth, its market is very slow growing. Kansas was 38th in population growth from 2010-20, and the KC metro area actually lost population from 2020-2021.


Basically, there are zero compelling reasons to pick Kansas over Washington (or even Arizona) except issues of travel and cultural cohesion.

Which leads us to the fifth and biggest issue: if the Big Ten wants another Midwest school for cultural/travel reasons, why would they pick Kansas over a much bigger school with a superior research profile from a faster growing region like Cincinnati (or even Iowa State, which beats Kansas on every metric except basketball)?

Unlike the Nebraska addition (which faced similar questions), there's no incentive to add Kansas in order to kill off a competing conference. Also unlike Nebraska, there's not a constituency within the Big Ten that really wants Kansas in the fold as a rival (other than Nebraska itself), especially now that Big Ten expansion votes are diluted by schools like Maryland and USC who have no interest in playing Kansas.

The first part of the post was so good, articulate, adding good reasons why they may be a risky bet. And then you ruined by putting bias forth and advocating for Cincinnati's inclusion. Congrats on the Big 12 invite but your school has been left behind multiple times in this game of musical chairs but of course they are now Big Ten worthy.

(09-16-2022 04:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  If the SEC or B1G is interested in KU, you need to invite very soon. Like this Tuesday or before:

https://www2.ljworld.com/news/ku/2022/se...-approval/

That’s probably being done to make sure KState isn’t left behind.

(09-16-2022 05:17 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 04:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  If the SEC or B1G is interested in KU, you need to invite very soon. Like this Tuesday or before:

https://www2.ljworld.com/news/ku/2022/se...-approval/

That’s probably being done to make sure KState isn’t left behind.

Or just gubmint officials wanting to flex. The last thing they ever want is to be out of the loop or not be in control. Very few genuinely “laissez faire” types go into politics.

I’m skeptical that KU could get in the B1G. I think they need to just do their utmost to stay in the tier just below the P2.

I don't see Kansas going to the BIG or the SEC.

Kansas is the only Big XII school with any realistic chance for a P2 invite.

(09-16-2022 01:17 PM)Scoochpooch1 Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 12:59 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  A year ago, I was actually one of the people more bullish on Kansas *possibly* getting a Big Ten invite eventually. Of course, that was assuming that the Pac-12 and ACC were off-limits.

Now, though, I don't see it. I honestly believe that the Big Ten would rather have everyone in the Pac-12 other than Washington State and Oregon State over Kansas at a minimum (not to mention ACC schools in the 2030s once the GOR comes closer to expiration). The landscape and requirements to get into the Big Ten have changed *dramatically* since the USC/UCLA move.

SEC is an option though since there options could be limited depending on who presumably goes to Big 10.

Any school on the border of both the B1G and SEC is either a candidate for both or neither.

UNC is certainly a candidate for both

NCState, UVA, VaTech might be candidates for either

Kansas is not currently on any radar screens, but if one or both of the P2 go to 24 then it seems likely Kansas gets in somewhere.

(09-16-2022 04:43 PM)PlayBall! Wrote:  If the SEC or B1G is interested in KU, you need to invite very soon. Like this Tuesday or before:

https://www2.ljworld.com/news/ku/2022/se...-approval/

Pass, you can stay in the big 12. You only have 1% the US population in your state, and less than 1% of the football fans no doubt.

And if one of the P2 changes their mind next week, next year, or next decade, you'll figure out a way to make it happen.

(09-16-2022 03:09 PM)Claw Wrote:  I still think Kansas fits the overall mold for an SEC school.

It would close up the geography nicely, add another state flagship, culturally compatible, and great basketball.

If football stays bad it pads the records of the winners. If it gets good that's a win too.

The SEC wasn't built on TV market analysis. I don't think their future expansion will be driven exclusively by TV revenue.

You're completely wrong. The school in liberal Lawrence, Kan., has AAU status and fancies itself a Pac-12/Big-10-type school. It has nothing in common with the redneck vibes given off by SEC schools (sans Vandy). Neither does Mizzou -- if would probably leave the SEC in a heartbeat to go to the Big10 if KU was invited.

PAC-12 should invite Kansas & Texas Tech, right to the PAC-12 South.

Then, in turn, the Big 12 invites Boise State & Memphis.

(09-16-2022 07:56 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  PAC-12 should invite Kansas & Texas Tech, right to the PAC-12 South.

Then, in turn, the Big 12 invites Boise State & Memphis.

Hard pass. If UO and UW leave the Pac, it is way less attractive than staying put, which pains me to say.

(09-16-2022 07:56 PM)AuzGrams Wrote:  PAC-12 should invite Kansas & Texas Tech, right to the PAC-12 South.

Then, in turn, the Big 12 invites Boise State & Memphis.

That isn't happening.

Iowa State will be announcing a project as well on Monday.

(09-16-2022 03:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 03:09 PM)Claw Wrote:  I still think Kansas fits the overall mold for an SEC school.

It would close up the geography nicely, add another state flagship, culturally compatible, and great basketball.

If football stays bad it pads the records of the winners. If it gets good that's a win too.

The SEC wasn't built on TV market analysis. I don't think their future expansion will be driven exclusively by TV revenue.

Eh - I don't know about that here.

Texas A&M and Missouri were additions with the clear intent of adding households for creating a conference TV network (which was eventually launched).

Texas and Oklahoma are massive national brands that clearly help the national Tier 1 TV contracts along with UT being the flagship of a monster state.

Those schools may all fit into the SEC for reasons other than TV money, but they certainly all definitely added a ton of TV revenue at the times of their respective expansions.

You’re correct to a point, but there still isn’t a lot of evidence that the SEC would make a Maryland/Rutgers type expansion.

And I’m not sure the SEC really wanted Mizzou that much- they mostly seem to have been selected because the SEC couldn’t find anybody else to be Texas A&M’s partner.

(09-16-2022 09:13 PM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 03:26 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 03:09 PM)Claw Wrote:  I still think Kansas fits the overall mold for an SEC school.

It would close up the geography nicely, add another state flagship, culturally compatible, and great basketball.

If football stays bad it pads the records of the winners. If it gets good that's a win too.

The SEC wasn't built on TV market analysis. I don't think their future expansion will be driven exclusively by TV revenue.

Eh - I don't know about that here.

Texas A&M and Missouri were additions with the clear intent of adding households for creating a conference TV network (which was eventually launched).

Texas and Oklahoma are massive national brands that clearly help the national Tier 1 TV contracts along with UT being the flagship of a monster state.

Those schools may all fit into the SEC for reasons other than TV money, but they certainly all definitely added a ton of TV revenue at the times of their respective expansions.

You’re correct to a point, but there still isn’t a lot of evidence that the SEC would make a Maryland/Rutgers type expansion.

And I’m not sure the SEC really wanted Mizzou that much- they mostly seem to have been selected because the SEC couldn’t find anybody else to be Texas A&M’s partner.

Mizzou2SEC was a website which preexisted their entry by 2 years. SEC fans were being primed for N.C. State and Va Tech while ESPN was working hard with Deloss Dodds about considering the ACC and bringing pals (N.D. & Oklahoma and possibly Kansas). The SEC would get A&M, Missouri, Va Tech, and N.C. State and the SEC and ACC would move to 16 each with an ACCN opening a year following the SECN.

The idea was to scoop all of the B12 value before FOX got wind of it. The 2 conferences would have been set up for rivalries and would have given ESPN two massive content conferences to pit against each other.

It's why John Pennington (Mr. SEC) was selling folks weekly on NCSt and Va Tech and the value they would bring. It's why Clay Travis was pimping the same and hyping the potential value of the SECN with ridiculous numbers.

There were 3 issues which arose which created chaos.
1. Duke, UNC, Wake, and UVa allegedly realized that without Va Tech and NC State's votes and given Dodds relationship with Swarbrick that BC, Pitt & Cuse could side with ND on ACC matters while OU, Ga Tech, Clemson, Miami, and Texas could easily join forces with ND and the Big East schools and outvote Tobacco Road. So they balked in the final stages.

2. Maryland needing a cash infusion and which was counting on what would have been a huge boost in ACC revenue bolted when it fell apart and of course it never went public in a trial and Maryland got out relatively cheaply by today's standards.

3. Boren at Oklahoma never really bought in and insisted on Oklahoma State's inclusion. When he got no encouragement on the initial deal he shopped the same to the SEC leading many to believe Missouri was Oklahoma's replacement. They weren't and the SEC's hands were tied by their contracts renegotiation clause which required 2 new markets before ESPN would adjust value. OSU would have been a duplicate market. The SEC was willing to entertain adding OU as a third but not with OSU.

Anyway it fell apart, and as with all realignment deals that fail it never happened, except their was fallout evidence everywhere.

When the SEC "allegedly" met with Va Tech at the Greenbriar in W.V. the Dude of W.V. saw the flight tracker on the SEC's jet and assumed West Virginia was headed to the SEC. It wasn't. To appease the SEC FSU and Clemson were announced on a crawler on ESPN as headed to the SEC which in the wake of the failed deal they were supposedly cleared to do until. Until N.D. countered ESPN with a partial deal like the Big East had given them but not if the 2 big football schools left. Clemson and FSU were pulled within a few days and full carriage was offered the SECN as a salve.
The fictitious misinterpretation of the Gentlemen's agreement was put out when in reality it had been Slives request for S. Carolina and Florida not to nominate instate rivals as they had wanted to do to protect their donation games and ticket priorities, Florida having nominated FSU in '90. Slive promised them if we added 2 new markets first all restrictions would be lifted and profit would be the only future qualifier.

And finally the ACC got a 2 million dollar bump not to have a network. Oh, and due to ESPN's near coup of all B12 value schools GOR's were instituted in the B12 to protect FOX's investment and in the ACC to keep schools from bolting like Maryland now that they would be stuck at a low value compared to other conferences.

My point is Missouri was not a sub. They were a market add where one school secured a whole state. Odd fit? Yes, but they weren't a perfect fit anywhere.

Texas and Oklahoma which had been in talks with the SEC since '87-88 moved back to ESPN's front burner for the SEC and now they are here.

All of this is why if something happens to the ACC you can bet ESPN will want their top brands completely within their control, and that's not the Big 10.

(09-16-2022 07:36 PM)kurtrundell Wrote:  

(09-16-2022 03:09 PM)Claw Wrote:  I still think Kansas fits the overall mold for an SEC school.

It would close up the geography nicely, add another state flagship, culturally compatible, and great basketball.

If football stays bad it pads the records of the winners. If it gets good that's a win too.

The SEC wasn't built on TV market analysis. I don't think their future expansion will be driven exclusively by TV revenue.

You're completely wrong. The school in liberal Lawrence, Kan., has AAU status and fancies itself a Pac-12/Big-10-type school. It has nothing in common with the redneck vibes given off by SEC schools (sans Vandy). Neither does Mizzou -- if would probably leave the SEC in a heartbeat to go to the Big10 if KU was invited.

Actually, Kansas has a lot in common with Missouri, Arkansas, OU, A&M, and texas, we were all in a conference together, remember? That's 5/16 of the current SEC. Florida and Vanderbilt are AAU, so they have something in common with them. Now 7/16. Kentucky plays basketball. 8/16.

Wait, what am I doing. We don't want you guys, anyway. Call the Pac.

(09-16-2022 01:44 PM)CO Jayhawk Wrote:  

Quote: The Cons for Kansas are that 1) it has a negative value in football (it has lost consistently in the past decade, does not have a strong following and also does not have historical prestige), 2) does not carry a strong media market (either for audience or alumni to travel to watch games) and 3) the athletic department brand is basketball.

Well, well, well... on the contrary, this is a perfect opportunity to let everyone know that KU has sold out its' visitors allotment at Houston this week, and ticket sales are brisk for next week's game vs. Duke. A win at UH and we will have a full house for a football game with our basketball rival from the ACC. Rock Chalk

Yeah, people seem to forget that the "flyover" schools in Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, etc., usually have very very good turnout, with an avid fanbase.

Besides that, while football is definitely part of the conversation, I think people underestimate how important bball is to the big10.

And of course, they are AAU.

And note: We found out recently, that part of the reason MD and Rutgers happened was because Penn state was feeling a bit alone on the edge of the conference, with not much in the way of regional rivalries.

I think the same could be said of Nebraska. Now, you may be in the camp of "who cares", but if adding, let's say, Kansas and Colorado, helps Nebraska - by giving them some local rivalries/matchups - then that could be a benefit as well. Remember - Nebraska pretty much walked away from all its in-conference rivalries. I think it's becoming obvious that that hurts Nebraska in a way. And, I think shoring that up, is in the B10's interest. Having Nebraska in the conference can be worth big media money - it's worth investing in by the conference.

And I don't think it's hard to see that Kansas is easily a better choice for the B10 than half the remaining PAC. They could add KS and CO, and still invite more, if they wanted. (plus both those schools are likely more willing to accept partial initial payouts, like Nebraska did - never underestimate the value of being less expensive than the other guy).

So yes, Kansas to the B10 is a valid option. It, like so many things, will likely depend upon circumstances.