header pic

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

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22   Go Down
Author

Topic: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

 (Read 29506 times)

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12097
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #28 on: July 26, 2021, 02:09:28 PM »
SEC went all in on Athletics, Ivy went all in on Academics, Big Ten tries to keep one foot in each door, which hampers it's ability to be elite in either.

Jack of all trades, master of none.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83006
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #29 on: July 26, 2021, 02:14:41 PM »
Well, the SEC obviously was just a regional conference originally.  They added USCe and Arkansas of course, neither especially known for academics, then they added Mizzou and A&M who are pretty good on that front.  I don't think academics is a primary criterion for ruling out a program though.  It's really eyeballs now.
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 83006
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2021, 02:21:06 PM »
Georgia Tech is an interesting case study, very good academics, large metro area with a lot of eyeballs, but not many fans.  They have football history, a fair bit, and are good at other sports at times.  But sports there is not at all a priority, and they have quite a few Asian students.
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 10652
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2021, 03:41:04 PM »
Quote from: JerseyTerrapin on July 26, 2021, 01:41:07 PM
Clemson football was solid prior to the current regime, including a national title in the eighties.  With their strong donor system (IPTAY) that keeps the program in the money, they will likely remain a power regardless of the next coach...
All of this is true, but none of it is guaranteed and at the end of the day they are still one of two major conference schools in a state with a pop of 5.1M.  That would be the B1G's third least-populous state ahead of only IA (3.2M) and Nebraska (1.9M).  '

Their football was generally pretty good pre-Dabo and they did have that one NC back in the 1980's but they were nowhere near elite and if they slid back to pre-Dabo "pretty good" then they aren't a home run in anything.  Why add them?  

Now if we are confident that they are going to stay at their current level in football then they are an obvious homerun there and a decent add everywhere else (I assume).  

You are probably right but it seems like too much of a gamble based on current success in football. 
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12097
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2021, 04:10:51 PM »
Chasing eyeballs and population centers will land you Maryland and Rutgers. 
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 45616
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #33 on: July 26, 2021, 04:15:46 PM »
or USC & UCLA
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12097
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #34 on: July 26, 2021, 04:29:59 PM »
Or them, I suppose. 

Nebraska and Penn St are in remote college towns, while Maryland and Rutgers are in huge population centers. 

Which duo do you prefer? 

  • 1) Penn State and Nebraska
  • B) Maryland and Rutgers

Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14558
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #35 on: July 26, 2021, 04:46:37 PM »
I don't know if I posted it here or over at H&R, but I came up with an argument that simultaneously gives you a reason to take Kansas and NOT take Iowa State...


  • A big portion of this entire process is related to football, obviously. 
  • Iowa State (lately) is good at football, Kansas (historically and lately) isn't. So you'd think Iowa State is more valuable.
  • However, football success is HEAVILY tied to recruiting.
  • Recruiting is HEAVILY tied to conference power. I.e. Purdue and IU suck, but we still get much better recruiting classes than MAC schools.
  • Iowa is in Iowa (duh), and competes for recruits with another [current] P5 school in their own state, Iowa State, and thus compete on relatively equal terms for recruits.
  • Kansas and Kansas State are both in the same state, both [currently] in a P5 conference, and thus compete on relatively equal terms for recruits.
  • It's my contention that the remainder of the B12, if the B12 falls apart, are not exactly going to be prime pickup targets for the ACC or the PAC-12 or the SEC. 
  • Therefore schools that the B1G does not invite to the conference are likely to become G5 schools.
  • As a big portion of this is related to football, the prominence of the teams which make up the conference is important.
  • Iowa will get better recruits and field better teams if Iowa State is relegated to G5 status. Thus, Iowa State falling to G5 status is beneficial to Iowa and thus beneficial to the B1G.
  • Kansas, if they become B1G members and KSU is relegated to G5 status, will immediately have a better recruiting position relative to KSU and will see their recruiting classes improve, not even considering all the financial and reputational benefits of being in the B1G. JUST based on KSU being harmed and going to G5 status, Kansas improves.

So the B1G should not try to add Iowa State. The likely result of leaving them out in the cold will improve Iowa, thus improving the conference.

Whether or not the B1G should add Kansas is TBD, but the decision should be made with the expectation that Kansas will get better at football and Kansas State will get worse at football as soon as Kansas is chosen as KSU is likely to go G5. You can't make the addition without recognizing the potential of Kansas without P5 KSU, rather than the history of Kansas.

Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12097
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #36 on: July 26, 2021, 05:06:25 PM »
The P5/G5 divide is fairly well baked in. 

Since the formation of the Big 12 there has been a ton of realignment including the obliteration of an entire conference. Yet over that time frame the only net difference in P5/G5 status is that Temple got demoted, while TCU, Utah and Louisville moved up. 

The Big 12 can chug along with the top midmajors like the Big East did there for a while. 
Logged

Hawkinole

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2389
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #37 on: July 26, 2021, 05:19:07 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on July 26, 2021, 01:51:00 PM
I "think" the Big Ten should not be in any hurry, at all.  They have a top conference, there is no need to get stampeded.

I saw a rumor they were talking with Ok State, maybe..
Each conference has to be careful about negotiating with any school or risk being sued by the other conference for tortious interference with contractual rights. 
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14558
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #38 on: July 26, 2021, 05:19:52 PM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 26, 2021, 05:06:25 PM
The P5/G5 divide is fairly well baked in.

Since the formation of the Big 12 there has been a ton of realignment including the obliteration of an entire conference. Yet over that time frame the only net difference in P5/G5 status is that Temple got demoted, while TCU, Utah and Louisville moved up.

The Big 12 can chug along with the top midmajors like the Big East did there for a while.
There's one instance where I'd agree... 

Because the idea for the 12-team CFP is the "top 6 conference champions", then technically the remains of the B12 can still have a chance at the CFP without anyone actually considering them to be "P5". 

In a 4-team CFP, all determined by the committee, the remainder of the B12 would be relegate to tallest midget status by the CFP. 

But if that changes, and the 12-team CFP takes the top 6 conference champions, then I think for a while we'd have a P4.5, in that some of those schools might keep some level of relevance for a few years. 

I think eventually without any sort of realistic helmet in their conference, they'll fall off like the Big East did, and how we ended up with a P5 instead of a P6. 
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12097
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #39 on: July 26, 2021, 05:27:42 PM »
Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on July 26, 2021, 05:19:52 PM
There's one instance where I'd agree...

Because the idea for the 12-team CFP is the "top 6 conference champions", then technically the remains of the B12 can still have a chance at the CFP without anyone actually considering them to be "P5".

In a 4-team CFP, all determined by the committee, the remainder of the B12 would be relegate to tallest midget status by the CFP.

But if that changes, and the 12-team CFP takes the top 6 conference champions, then I think for a while we'd have a P4.5, in that some of those schools might keep some level of relevance for a few years.

I think eventually without any sort of realistic helmet in their conference, they'll fall off like the Big East did, and how we ended up with a P5 instead of a P6.
You bring up a good point in that there really isn't a distinction between P5 and G5 anymore. They are likely to be firmly entrenched as the "tallest midget" conference; particularly when the poach the top teams out of the current tallest midget conferences of the AAC/MWC. Then those Conferences will poach the top teams from CUSA, and then CUSA will poach the top teams from the Sunbelt, who will poach the top teams from the FCS. 

As far as falling off like the Big East, it is worth noting that they didn't lose their BCS status and rebrand as the AAC until the final original football member had been poached. At that point they were down to zero (0) members that were BCS when the Big 12 was formed, down from 8. 
Logged

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14558
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #40 on: July 26, 2021, 06:14:18 PM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 26, 2021, 05:27:42 PM
You bring up a good point in that there really isn't a distinction between P5 and G5 anymore. They are likely to be firmly entrenched as the "tallest midget" conference; particularly when the poach the top teams out of the current tallest midget conferences of the AAC/MWC. Then those Conferences will poach the top teams from CUSA, and then CUSA will poach the top teams from the Sunbelt, who will poach the top teams from the FCS.

As far as falling off like the Big East, it is worth noting that they didn't lose their BCS status and rebrand as the AAC until the final original football member had been poached. At that point they were down to zero (0) members that were BCS when the Big 12 was formed, down from 8.
Interesting point... I decided to look up recruiting rankings for two Big East members, Pitt and Syracuse. Picked 2001 as a start point (due to availability of rankings on 247) and 2011 as an end point (when Pitt and Cuse announced they were leaving for the ACC). 

I was thinking that perhaps as the Big East lost its strength/respect during realignment, that they would lose their recruiting ability.




Syracuse with outliers in 2001 (29th) and 2009 (92nd), but classes ranged in the general 55-60 range through most of that time.

Pitt with outliers in 2006 (16th) and 2011 (62nd), but generally much stronger. Their variance is higher, but there's no trendline I can discern.

I don't see a trend either way, supporting your point that the Big East teams continued to be who they were even as the conference was deeply injured by the realignment in 2005. There was no sustained drop in recruiting for either team from 2005->2011 when they announced they were leaving the Big East.

Granted, I don't know if this was enough of a sample size either way... More about the length of time, rather than the number of teams I looked at... I would expect the recruiting dropoff to be a decade+ phenomenon, and we didn't have that much time in this case. 
Logged

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12097
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #41 on: July 26, 2021, 06:25:47 PM »
Probably even less of an impact now, where the top 6 Conference Champions make the playoffs. 

A revamped Big 12 would be solidly entrenched as the 5th best Conference, with a large gap between them and the 4th place Conference, and a larger gap between them and the 6th place Conference. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 22   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Custom Jeep Badges

Custom Candied Sign