Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Agree for the most part, except for Texas at least, it was never about "playing in an easier conference."  It was about playing in a conference that makes more geographic sense, especially for the non-revenue sports. 

But adding in WVU started changing the geography, and then the revenue disparity was starting to become so disproportionate, that a move became inevitable.

For those that remember, I predicted exactly this, back in 2011.  I knew that the LHN and improved B12 contracts would be good enough to keep Texas "in the ballpark" for a few years, but that ultimately the money in the B1G and the SEC would just become too much to pass up.  And I believed that Texas and OU would make the break together at the same time, and so I knew it was going to have to be the SEC rather than the B1G.

Texas would have been a great fit in the B1G. Back then a lot of people questioned it for geographic reasons but now that USC and UCLA are joining, those doubts look silly.

Oklahoma was more questionable for academic reasons but I still think we (the B1G) missed out and would be better off with TX/OU than USC/UCLA. 

The SEC added 2 helmet programs.
The B1G added 1 helmet program and its red-headed stepchild.

It's not about "outgrowing your conference". It's about those sweet, sweet, Benjamins.

But chasing the money is coming at a cost to what else college football has traditionally been about - the fan experience, protected rivalries, and maybe the alumni culture. Which is what the Sooners fan is pointing out. Those three decline as CFB focuses only on money.

It appears that the limit is somewhere between roughly $20M and roughly $50M. Below that tradition matters and playing in an easier conference matters. Above that money trumps everything.

To the fans who retort "more money, better coaches and better faculties, etc..." I believe your words quantify a point I'm trying to make about the structural limit to paying more for better coaching or picking up the arms race of better facilities. If ALL 16 SEC Teams pay their head coach $15M/yr thanks to the new TV deal it doesn't progressively yield more Sabans or Kirby Smarts. Texas and Texas A&M are learning the hard way paying Sark and especially Fisher like Kings. What instead happens is average coaches like Mel Tucker getting paid like a National Championship coach. And there's also a structural limit to money proportionally resulting in increasing wins due to the competition factor.

something more than K-State and TCU

waiting to lock up ND

It's hard to see how Texas fades from being a Blue Blood even after a decade or more of mediocrity (if that happened).  Flagship program in large state etc.

USC could fade, Nebraska probably has faded, Notre Dame could easily fade, OU could fade, but not Texas, for a long time.  Even Bama could fade.  If I were to start a conference from Ground Zero, I think Texas or Ohio State would be my first school picked.

Ohio State recruits very well obviously, and Ohio has good HS football.  I agree with your point of course.  Texas recruits get pulled in a lot of directions, but UT has to be a major player there for most.  California has good HS football, as does Florida, with large populations, but again, a lot of programs from which to choose.  Florida should be consistently very good to elite, but as we've all seen in spades, coaching ...

Mark Richt was, I think, a "pretty good coach", better than terrible, maybe even a notch above average, but not elite.  I've only seen two elite coaches of late in CFB, Saban and Meyer.  Meyer in particular won nearly everywhere.  Kelly is starting to impress me also, we'll see.  The "winning everywhere" is a key metric for me.  Smart obviously has done great things and is still learning, and works hard, but he hasn't "won everywhere", not had the chance (unless you count as DC).

Saban didn't do much at MSU.  We'll see about Reilly at USC and Day at Ohio State down the road I think.