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 16337 times)

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71537
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #70 on: July 27, 2021, 11:19:03 AM »
Better to stand pat than add weakness.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #71 on: July 27, 2021, 11:29:57 AM »
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. 
going west, only add two.  USC and Washington
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12186
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #72 on: July 27, 2021, 11:32:37 AM »
What is the logic behind expanding the Big Ten?
The market just got destabilized, so you look around to see if there's anyone you can get who improves the conference. 

In the immediate future, that means asking the question "do we want anyone from the current B12 other than UT/OU, because they've all immediately become available?"

What we SHOULD NOT do is make a desperation add. Iowa State, for example, screams that we're desperate to get to 16 teams. 

Complain as we do about Rutgers and Maryland, I think they were good additions. As was Nebraska. 

If we find two schools that are actually good additions, it makes sense to make a move. If we don't, I think we're currently strong enough at 14 teams to stand pat. 

After all, waiting may give us better options in the future. If the SEC starts making a move on the ACC, for example by snagging Clemson and FSU and cause a reshuffling, we might be able to backdoor our way into the two schools that I think the B1G would REALLY want, UNC/UVA. 

We could also just nuke the moon and take USC/UCLA/Wash/Ore/Stanford/Colorado and throw up two giant middle fingers to the SEC...

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #73 on: July 27, 2021, 11:35:04 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.
:-[
If this is true then our Conference Leadership needs to be restructured immediately.  

I'm not in favor of expansion for the sake of expanding but Texas is one of the top three or four revenue schools in the nation.  If they inquire about joining, you make it work.  

Here are some links that try to quantify this:
The spun from 2019 (never heard of them before):
  • Ohio State
  • Notre Dame
  • Alabama
  • Texas
  • Michigan
  • Nebraska
  • aTm
  • Penn State
  • Oklahoma
  • Tennessee
Per this list, the B1G already has four of the top-10.  The SEC has three.  The B12 has (or had) two and then there is ND.  If the B1G grabbed Texas and Oklahoma they'd have more than half of the top-10.  

Bleacher Report from 2011:
  • Bama
  • Penn State
  • Nebraska
  • Oregon
  • Florida
  • Michigan
  • Oklahoma
  • LSU
  • Service Academies
  • Auburn
  • Ohio State
  • Texas
This list is just ridiculously silly but it still has Texas in the top-12.  

Wall Street Journal College Football Value Rankings 2018 (2017):
  • Texas (2)
  • Ohio State (1)
  • Alabama (4)
  • Michigan (6)
  • Notre Dame (7)
  • Georgia (8)
  • Oklahoma (3)
  • Auburn (10)
  • LSU (5)
  • Tennessee (9)

Texas is #1 or #2 and Oklahoma is #3 or #7.  Conference affiliation of the top-10 currently:
  • 5 SEC:  Bama, UGA, Auburn, LSU, TN
  • 2 B1G: tOSU, M
  • 2 B12/moving to SEC:  TX, OU
  • 1 Ind:  ND

I frankly trust the WSJ a little more than the other two and according to these lists the B1G would need to take TX and OU just to stay close to the SEC and we'd also need to take ND to actually keep up.  Once Texas and OU are in the SEC there will be no combination of additions that would enable us to keep up.  


medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #74 on: July 27, 2021, 11:58:15 AM »
Here is a college football map of fans from the NYT.  

A few takeaways:
Texas is the leader in almost the entire state of Texas with only small exceptions right around the campuses of aTm, Baylor, TCU, and UTEP.  

Nebraska is a lot more valuable than they would be based solely on state population because they are the primary team in not only all of NE but also NW MO, Northern Kansas, NE CO, all of SE, SW MN, and Western IA.  

Oregon may be more valuable than we think because they not only dominate Oregon but also have substantial fanbase spill-over in WA, CA, AK, and MT.  

Ohio State's value comes from being the ONLY major program in the state.  The Buckeyes are one of the very few schools to be the #1 team in every single zipcode in their home state.  Also, Ohio is the most populous state to have one lead team in the entire state.  Others such as Nebraska are MUCH less populous.  They also have some bleed-over in PA, WV, KY, IN, and even MI.  

Granted this is from 2014 but at least then USCe dominated most of SC with Clemson only being the #1 team in a small area around their campus.  

Iowa dominates their state with ISU only being primary in a few zipcodes around their campus.  

Kansas is the main team in most of their state but not all.  Nebraska is #1 in the North, Oklahoma is #1 in the South, and KSU has a few zipcodes around their campus.  

Indiana is a convoluted mess.  It looks like at least 7 schools are #1 in at least some IN zipcodes (IU, PU, ND, IL, Louisville, tOSU, KY).  

Syracuse may be more valuable than we think.  They appear to dominate upstate NY and have a strong presence in the City.  Within the City itself lead teams include Cuse, ND, PSU, RU, and MI but the "lead" team is usually only around 10% of the fans.  

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #75 on: July 27, 2021, 12:04:01 PM »
The NYT map was hidden behind a paywall. 
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 #76 on: July 27, 2021, 12:07:35 PM »
Here is a college football map of fans from the NYT
and how is this data compiled?
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12186
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #77 on: July 27, 2021, 12:08:00 PM »
If this is true then our Conference Leadership needs to be restructured immediately. 
That's why I have trouble taking that rumor seriously...

To rebuff UT/OU if they came to you would be such a colossally stupid move that I find it hard to believe that even the B1G HQ janitor wouldn't have slapped Warren silly for not making it work.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #78 on: July 27, 2021, 12:09:07 PM »
agreed
"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 #79 on: July 27, 2021, 12:14:30 PM »


Found the map somewhere else. 
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 #80 on: July 27, 2021, 12:16:00 PM »
In my mind:
If you are going to 16:  UNC and either UVA or VaTech.  

If you are going to 20:  UNC and either UVA or VaTech along with a western wing of Washington, Oregon, USC, and Colorado.  

I've laid out my pods for a 16-team B1G with UVA and UNC.  

In a 20-team conference with them and the Western wing it gets complicated because you can't have cross-overs since playing your entire division will take all nine games.  Just spitballing but:

East Coast Pod:

  • Penn State
  • Maryland
  • Virginia (or VaTech)
  • North Carolina
  • Rutgers
Great Lakes Pod:
  • Ohio State
  • Michigan
  • Michigan State
  • Indiana
  • Purdue
Great Plains Pod:
  • Wisconsin
  • Minnesota
  • Iowa
  • Northwestern
  • Illinois
Western Pod:
  • USC
  • Oregon
  • Washington
  • Colorado
  • Nebraska

No cross-overs, divisions rotate annually, your schedule is the other four teams in your pod and the five teams in one of the other three pods.  Example for my school, tOSU:
2025:
  • @ Michigan
  • vs Michigan State
  • @ Indiana
  • vs Purdue
  • @ Penn State
  • vs Maryland
  • @ Virginia
  • vs North Carolina
  • @ Rutgers
2026:
  • vs Michigan
  • @ Michigan State
  • vs Indiana
  • @ Purdue
  • vs Wisconsin
  • @ Minnesota
  • vs Iowa
  • @ Northwestern
  • vs Illinois
2027:
  • @ Michigan
  • vs Michigan State
  • @ Indiana
  • vs Purdue
  • @ USC
  • vs Oregon
  • @ Washington
  • vs Colorado
  • @ Nebraska
2028:
  • vs Michigan
  • @ Michigan State
  • vs Indiana
  • @ Purdue
  • vs Penn State
  • @ Maryland
  • vs Virgnia
  • at North Carolina
  • vs Rutgers
2029:
  • @ Michigan
  • vs Michigan State
  • @ Indiana
  • vs Purdue
  • @Wisconsin
  • vs Minnesota
  • @ Iowa
  • vs Northwestern
  • @ Illinois
2030:
  • vs Michigan
  • @ Michigan State
  • vs Indiana
  • @ Purdue
  • vs USC
  • @ Oregon
  • vs Washington
  • @ Colorado
  • vs Nebraska
So in six years the Buckeyes would play the other 19 teams in the league:
  • 6 vs Michigan, 3 home and 3 away
  • 6 vs Michigan State, 3 home and 3 away
  • 6 vs Indiana, 3 home and 3 away
  • 6 vs Purdue, 3 home and 3 away
  • 2 vs Penn State H/A
  • 2 vs UMD H/A
  • 2 vs UVA H/A
  • 2 vs UNC H/A
  • 2 vs RU H/A
  • 2 vs UW H/A
  • 2 vs MN H/A
  • 2 vs IA H/A
  • 2 vs NU H/A
  • 2 vs IL H/A
  • 2 vs USC H/A
  • 2 vs Oregon H/A
  • 2 vs Washington H/A
  • 2 vs Colorado H/A
  • 2 vs UNL H/A


medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #81 on: July 27, 2021, 12:19:33 PM »
The NYT map was hidden behind a paywall.
Yeah, I got it because they give you something like 6 free articles a year but then I couldn't get to the fanbase size article they did a number of years ago (that one was very good).  
and how is this data compiled?
The fanbase size one was based on an impressively large data-set of internet clicks.  Basically which teams had the most clicks.  I think this one also somehow took FB into account.  

Thanks @Brutus Buckeye for finding the map.  If you happen to find a free version of their fanbase size article I'd love to add that to this discussion.  


Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #82 on: July 27, 2021, 12:20:16 PM »
How would you draw up the CCG tie breakers, in order to accommodate the four pods? 
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 #83 on: July 27, 2021, 12:21:22 PM »
That's why I have trouble taking that rumor seriously...

To rebuff UT/OU if they came to you would be such a colossally stupid move that I find it hard to believe that even the B1G HQ janitor wouldn't have slapped Warren silly for not making it work.
agreed
Hopefully.  

For some reason the image of a typically dressed janitor literally slapping Warren (dressed in a suit and seated at a big executive desk) is now playing in my head and I find it unreasonably funny.  

 

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