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.


Author

Topic: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

 (Read 16353 times)

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #56 on: July 26, 2021, 09:19:50 PM »
Ohio St looks bored, winning the conference every year.  Who is the B1G going to replace them with when the SEC takes them?


They'd trade us to you for Missouri, straight up, and they might even toss in a couple of bags of skittles in order to sweeten the deal. ;D
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

Hawkinole

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 2219
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2021, 12:40:36 AM »
Random thoughts.

First, Kansas to the Big Ten is whacko. The football program is in disarray after hiring Les Miles. Football attendance in 2019 was 26,650 or 53% of capacity vs. KSU 51,828 or 54% of capacity. The basketball program is under investigation by the NCAA. The football program is in disarray; the weakest in the Big 12 for years.

Second, Iowa State was involved in 4 of the top 8 highest rated TV games from the Big 12 in 2020. Bringing Kansas into the Big Ten may bring in more TV sets, but those TV sets will not be turned on.


Oklahoma vs. Texas: 4.81 million
Oklahoma vs. Oklahoma State: 4.10 million
Texas vs Oklahoma State: 4.04 million
Oklahoma vs Iowa State: 3.71 million
Texas vs Iowa State: 3.57 million
Big 12 Championship Game (Oklahoma vs. Iowa State): 2.99 million
Iowa State vs Oklahoma State: 2.81 million
Texas vs Texas Tech: 2.72 million

Iowa State is a better catch than Kansas. The Big Ten might benefit from poaching teams, but probably would not benefit by much. 

Third, Barry Alvarez taught and coached high school football at Mason City, Iowa before becoming an assistant coach at the University of Iowa. He has an understanding of of Iowa, and its affection for football.

Fourth, Barry Alvarez was an assistant coach at Notre Dame. I doubt he would have influence on Big Ten expansion with Notre Dame, but hope springs eternal Gene Smith was a ND football player.

Fifth, I am fine with the 4-team playoff. It has been apparent the past few years there usually is a drop-off after the top 3 teams. We can constitute 4-teams for the playoff and it seems very accurate. The 12-team playoff idea with 6-conference champions, and 6-at large entries gives license to Notre Dame to remain independent, and to Oklahoma and Texas to try their hand in the SEC.

Sixth, the Big XII could reconstitute by adding 4-schools if the remaining schools do not turn tail and run. There are huge universities looking for a new conference home:


  • Houston (enrollment 46,000); Avg. attendance 2019: 32,733, 82% capacity
  • Cincinnati (enrollment 46,000); Avg. attendance 2019: 31,695, 79% capacity
  • BYU (enrollment 34,000); Avg. attendance 2019: 56,597, 89% capacity

If the Big 12 is trying to bring in viewership the Big 12 needs schools with a loyal following, and large enrollment. BYU fills both these criteria best. That said, I don't think the Big 12 could afford to lose Okie St., Kansas, or Iowa State, and reconstitute. WVU would be a big loss, too, but they are outside the rest of the Big 12 market unless Cincy were added.

Mega conferences are too big for their own good, unless regional rivalries are preserved.



« Last Edit: July 27, 2021, 01:25:24 AM by Hawkinole »

TamrielsKeeper

  • Recruit
  • **
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked:

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25208
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #59 on: July 27, 2021, 07:00:30 AM »
I'm not a fan of Texas and OU to the SEC. The balance of power shifts too much. If those helmets went west and ND joined the ACC then there would have been 4 stable strong conferences. And probably a break from the P5 and G5.

With this move you have one super conference.
then a big drop off...
the B1G and ACC as second and third
then a big drop off ...
Pac and a reimaged B12...
another big drop off and the G5 bottom feeders.

I'm so annoyed with how the SEC out played and out smarted Kevin Warren. "Let's go to a 12 team playoff, look shining dollar signs" What the SEC meant to say is look there will be 6 SEC teams in the playoff and 6 of you other chumps can come and lose to us first round.

"Wait, does this mean 9-3 Michigan isn't going to the playoffs anymore?" Kevin Warren Probably

The SEC has been working for months (if not years) to get two of the biggest brands out there. Kevin Warren responds with, "I haven't even consider the possibility of expansion."

Fire this chump. NOW! I'd also back a bid for King Barry to take over.

For Expansion; my number one target is still one of the Virginia Schools (I pefer Tech, but both are decent additions. However they are locked up for another decade.

My number 2; does anyone think there is a way to use the Big Ten Academic Consortium to lure Missouri from the SEC? Maybe I'm listening to the wrong people but everyone I hear from the SEC is saying if they get Texas and OU can they give back Missouri? That would leave 3 of the big conferences with 15, and shift the balance of power by 8 mullion people to the North.
This was a terrible hire to start with. He had ZERO qualifications to run a conference (into the ground) like the B1G. ZERO.

There is a reason BA was brought in to consult. Warren is on thin ice.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

MaximumSam

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13093
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #60 on: July 27, 2021, 07:11:52 AM »
There were big fractures in the conference that COVID brought out. I was doubtful the B1G would survive canceling the season. Still not sure it will survive.

Temp430

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2506
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #61 on: July 27, 2021, 07:24:31 AM »
What is the logic behind expanding the Big Ten? 
A decade of Victory over Penn State.

All in since 1969

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #62 on: July 27, 2021, 08:14:58 AM »
keeping up with the SEC and grabbing programs that add value before they find a place to land
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

MaximumSam

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13093
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #63 on: July 27, 2021, 08:55:26 AM »
What is the logic behind expanding the Big Ten?
To my mind, expanding for the sake of expanding makes no sense. Having more teams just dilutes the money pool if they don't bring more money.

However, football money is the big driver here. Each team gets an equal share. However, sort of like revenue sharing in pro sports, not all teams are created equal in what money they bring in. If the SEC makes more money, it makes more sense for OSU to join up with them. There is a clear writing on the wall here for a football-centric super conference, and if the B1G wants to be a driver of that, instead of eventually breaking up, they should look at what teams they can pull in. Raiding the PAC 12 has been mentioned and I think that makes the most sense. 

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #64 on: July 27, 2021, 09:31:00 AM »
agreed, outside of the SEC there are only a handful of teams out there that bring more than their equal share

those are the only teams that should be considered
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20320
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #65 on: July 27, 2021, 10:43:21 AM »
What is the logic behind expanding the Big Ten?
None; if you are confident you aren't going to lose any teams to a football super conference.  Which makes me think they aren't confident in that

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #66 on: July 27, 2021, 10:55:15 AM »

There are a lot of SEC teams that don't have any business being in a Nationwide "Super Conference" with all the helmets and near helmets. 

1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2021, 11:00:25 AM »
better to be lucky than good

if/when they get kicked out, they can join the Big 12
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #68 on: July 27, 2021, 11:09:24 AM »



I'm listening to James Laurenitis on the radio, and they were talking about a rumor that Texas and Oklahoma approached the Big Ten first and got rebuffed, and the SEC was their plan B. 

:-[
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #69 on: July 27, 2021, 11:10:25 AM »
agreed, outside of the SEC there are only a handful of teams out there that bring more than their equal share

those are the only teams that should be considered
This is well and succinctly put.  THIS needs to be the #1 consideration which is why there should be no thought whatsoever of adding a small revenue school (ISU for example). 

OTOH, if you are talking about a West wing of Washington, Oregon, USC, and UCLA that is a LOT of eyeballs.  Also UVA/UNC bring a lot of eyeballs.  I don't think Kansas brings enough to the table.  I KNOW that OkSU, KSU, ISU don't.  

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.