Author
Topic: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
(Read 16319 times)

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #84 on:** July 27, 2021, 12:25:57 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 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.

How do you pry anyone out of the ACC?

As I've said (I think elsewhere), the issue was always that the B1G and SEC were stable, and that to drop to four superconferences it meant that either the B12 or ACC had to be demolished. Well, we saw which one happened, which leaves the ACC stable IMHO.

I don't see any reason that UNC or UVA would feel uncomfortable enough about their future now that the B12 is dead that they'd have any reason to leave their traditional home conference.

I think the PAC-12 has major issues, and I think it's a long shot that to blow it up for the B1G's benefit, but oddly I see it as higher likelihood than getting UNC and UVA out of a now-stable ACC.

FearlessF · « **Reply #85 on:** July 27, 2021, 12:26:17 PM »

I'm skeptical of the state of Iowa

FearlessF · « **Reply #86 on:** July 27, 2021, 12:26:53 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on July 27, 2021, 12:25:57 PM

How do you pry anyone out of the ACC?

with more $$$$

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #87 on:** July 27, 2021, 12:27:34 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 27, 2021, 12:20:16 PM

How would you draw up the CCG tie breakers, in order to accommodate the four pods?

Well you would be playing every team in your (temporary) division so I'd start with what we use now:

H2H for any two-team tie

In the case of a multi-team tie:

H2H...2H
Record against the next best team(s) in the division.
Highest overall win % (includes non-conference games).
Random draw.

In the current tiebreaker there are a bunch involving the non-divisional games which would be irrelevant if all nine of your games were against divisional opponents so I omitted them.

If it were up to me I would drop all but #1 and my tiebreakers would be:

H2H...2H
Scoring margin among the tied teams
Highest ranking in the latest CFP
Random Draw

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #88 on:** July 27, 2021, 12:33:39 PM »

Quote from: betarhoalphadelta on July 27, 2021, 12:25:57 PM

How do you pry anyone out of the ACC?

As I've said (I think elsewhere), the issue was always that the B1G and SEC were stable, and that to drop to four superconferences it meant that either the B12 or ACC had to be demolished. Well, we saw which one happened, which leaves the ACC stable IMHO.

I don't see any reason that UNC or UVA would feel uncomfortable enough about their future now that the B12 is dead that they'd have any reason to leave their traditional home conference.

I think the PAC-12 has major issues, and I think it's a long shot that to blow it up for the B1G's benefit, but oddly I see it as higher likelihood than getting UNC and UVA out of a now-stable ACC.

Quote from: FearlessF on July 27, 2021, 12:26:53 PM

with more $$$$

Exactly. Maryland didn't join because they wanted to give up their traditional rivalries and join a Midwestern League that they don't really fit into. They joined because the B1G pays a LOT more and because when Nebraska, Penn State, Michigan, or Ohio State come to College Park they bring LEGIONS of ticket-buying, money spending alumni and fans with them.

In the ACC my guess is that UNC and UVA/VaTech are two of the bigger financial contributors in terms of ratings/eyeballs/money so they are giving a lot more than they get. In the B1G I think they'd be closer to even and making a LOT more money.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #89 on:** July 27, 2021, 12:37:25 PM »

TV revenue is the Big Factor in all of this, not so much fannies in seats (except at home).

If the B1G adds programs that add more revenue than they take back, it's a win.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #90 on:** July 27, 2021, 12:57:58 PM »

The following states are currently subject to California’s ban on state-funded and state-sponsored travel:

Alabama
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia

FearlessF · « **Reply #91 on:** July 27, 2021, 12:59:09 PM »

california will be the first state to drop football

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #92 on:** July 27, 2021, 01:01:10 PM »

Quote from: Temp430 on July 27, 2021, 07:24:31 AM

What is the logic behind expanding the Big Ten?

The more I'm thinking about this, a couple things come to mind:

First, I think that the B1G need to make a REALLY strong push RIGHT NOW to get Texas and Oklahoma.

Right now the B1G and SEC have similarly sized revenue potential. If they get TX and OU, I don't think we'll ever be able to catch up. Basically no possible combination of additions makes up for that. Thus, I think we need to make a push to get them ourselves.

FearlessF · « **Reply #93 on:** July 27, 2021, 01:08:13 PM »

I would hope like HELL, that has already happened

TamrielsKeeper · « **Reply #94 on:** July 27, 2021, 01:09:55 PM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 27, 2021, 01:01:10 PM

The more I'm thinking about this, a couple things come to mind:

First, I think that the B1G need to make a REALLY strong push RIGHT NOW to get Texas and Oklahoma.

Right now the B1G and SEC have similarly sized revenue potential. If they get TX and OU, I don't think we'll ever be able to catch up. Basically no possible combination of additions makes up for that. Thus, I think we need to make a push to get them ourselves.

You might not like the combinations necessary, but they do exist IMO. Mostly USC/ND would be required.

The B1G whiffed on UT/OU already, UT/OU already applied for membership in the SEC this morning, and frankly, the B1G never really had a shot because ESPN is straight up bankrolling the move to get 100% control of UT/OU's Tier 1-Tier 3 rights:

https://twitter.com/ChipBrown247/status/1420045125850435597?s=20

ESPN is basically paying $160M to get out of their failed LHN experiment and kill the B12, making it cost almost nothing for UT to make this move - UT wouldn't get that deal going anywhere else.

TamrielsKeeper · « **Reply #95 on:** July 27, 2021, 01:12:48 PM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 27, 2021, 12:57:58 PM

The following states are currently subject to California’s ban on state-funded and state-sponsored travel:
Alabama
Florida
Idaho
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Mississippi
Montana
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia

So they play Iowa on a neutral field you're saying?

In all seriousness, this wouldn't apply to USC/Stanford I assume?

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #96 on:** July 27, 2021, 01:17:33 PM »

Quote from: TamrielsKeeper on July 27, 2021, 01:09:55 PM

You might not like the combinations necessary, but they do exist IMO. Mostly USC/ND would be required.

I'm going off of the WSJ valuation of college football programs that I linked a couple pages back:

Texas - now SEC
Ohio State - B1G
Bama - SEC
Michigan - B1G
Notre Dame - Ind/available
Georgia - SEC
Oklahoma - now SEC
Auburn - SEC
LSU - SEC
Tennessee - SEC

If Texas and Oklahoma are a done deal to the SEC (seems like it) then they now have seven of the top 10 while we only have two with one theoretically available. Even if we added Notre Dame we'd still be down 7-3 among the top-10. We'd have three of the top-5 which is great but not enough to keep up from the looks of this and I don't think that USC (even with Oregon and Washington) changes that in any substantial way.

FearlessF · « **Reply #97 on:** July 27, 2021, 01:26:19 PM »

Tennessee @ #10???

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.

Topic: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

medinabuckeye1

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

medinabuckeye1

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

Cincydawg

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

medinabuckeye1

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

TamrielsKeeper

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

TamrielsKeeper

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

medinabuckeye1

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G