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 16327 times)

Mdot21

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 14340
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #126 on: July 28, 2021, 09:51:18 AM »
If this is really true, Warren has to be gone.
If that is true he needs to be sued personally by the B1G for everything and anything they can think of. Forget fired. They need to go after his ass til he's penniless. 

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71536
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #127 on: July 28, 2021, 12:06:32 PM »
What are the odds OU/TX asked the B1G and were turned away?  Versus the odds that was a rumor unfounded?

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #128 on: July 28, 2021, 12:15:31 PM »
What are the odds OU/TX asked the B1G and were turned away?  Versus the odds that was a rumor unfounded?
More likely just a rumor.
Play Like a Champion Today

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17672
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #129 on: July 28, 2021, 12:41:40 PM »
What are the odds OU/TX asked the B1G and were turned away?  Versus the odds that was a rumor unfounded?
More likely just a rumor.

I think it sort of depends on what we mean by "asked the B1G and were turned away."

If we're talking about "made overtures through back-channels as much as two years ago" then I'd expect that it absolutely did happen.  Clearly, all of this has been worked in the background for a very long time, which is what it takes to make a conference move like this.  I'd be shocked if Texas and OU didn't explore options with each of the two premier conferences.

And given what we know about some of the higher-ups at both OU and Texas in the recent past, who clearly desired the B1G for academic purposes, I'd think those were very serious overtures, not just some low-level Q&A bulljive.  I think both Texas and OU would absolutely, seriously, have considered the B1G, once they made the decision to leave the B12.

If my assumptions above are true (and they may or may not be), then this would suggest that either a) The B1G entertained the overtures and decided against it or b) The B1G was receptive, discussions proceeded at least somewhat down the path of submitting for membership, but that ultimately Texas and OU decided that given both options, they preferred the SEC.

I could see it going in any direction, but I don't think I'd dismiss the idea that B1G leadership took a pass on the option, given that we KNOW OU and Texas were serious about leaving the B12, and we know that in the past, factions within OU and Texas have had a strong preference for the B1G, because of academics.




betarhoalphadelta

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 12185
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #130 on: July 28, 2021, 12:52:16 PM »
Exactly, 94.

Also as mentioned, there might have been outlying issues that were insoluble... I.e. ESPN and their financial stake in LHN. If it would have cost UT tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to go into the B1G but that was all forgiven to get into the SEC, UT/OU might have said "yeah, that works for us" all else being close to equal.

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #131 on: July 28, 2021, 12:54:43 PM »
I think it sort of depends on what we mean by "asked the B1G and were turned away."

If we're talking about "made overtures through back-channels as much as two years ago" then I'd expect that it absolutely did happen.  Clearly, all of this has been worked in the background for a very long time, which is what it takes to make a conference move like this.  I'd be shocked if Texas and OU didn't explore options with each of the two premier conferences.

And given what we know about some of the higher-ups at both OU and Texas in the recent past, who clearly desired the B1G for academic purposes, I'd think those were very serious overtures, not just some low-level Q&A bulljive.  I think both Texas and OU would absolutely, seriously, have considered the B1G, once they made the decision to leave the B12.

If my assumptions above are true (and they may or may not be), then this would suggest that either a) The B1G entertained the overtures and decided against it or b) The B1G was receptive, discussions proceeded at least somewhat down the path of submitting for membership, but that ultimately Texas and OU decided that given both options, they preferred the SEC.

I could see it going in any direction, but I don't think I'd dismiss the idea that B1G leadership took a pass on the option, given that we KNOW OU and Texas were serious about leaving the B12, and we know that in the past, factions within OU and Texas have had a strong preference for the B1G, because of academics.
That makes sense.
I may be spring-loaded to disbelieve the story.
If the story is true, then OU's academics could have been the sticking point, and Texas didn't want to make the move alone.
If so, it was short-sighted of the B1G.
The conference could have taken OU as a probationary member and given it 10 years to gain AAU status or face a post-season ban.  Or something like that.
The current B1G plus OU and Texas would have been an equal-or-slightly stronger football conference than the SEC.  Now there is a gap that some of the most astute observers on this board of astute observers have said is one that can't be closed.
As I posted awhile ago on the Big 12 board, I don't like the trend toward larger and larger conferences stacked heavier and heavier with helmet programs.  It takes a lot of charm out of CFB, and makes rags-to-riches stories like Bill Snyder taking Kansas State from a national joke to national relevance even closer to impossible.
Play Like a Champion Today

utee94

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 17672
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #132 on: July 28, 2021, 01:00:09 PM »
Exactly, 94.

Also as mentioned, there might have been outlying issues that were insoluble... I.e. ESPN and their financial stake in LHN. If it would have cost UT tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to go into the B1G but that was all forgiven to get into the SEC, UT/OU might have said "yeah, that works for us" all else being close to equal.
Excellent point, as well.

A move to the SEC is likely "easier" for Texas and, probably, for OU, for this reason and some others.

Temp430

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 2506
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #133 on: July 28, 2021, 01:11:37 PM »
I’ve examined my feelings carefully and at length and am fine with OU and Texas going to the SEC.  Happy for them.  Better there than the Big Ten. I suspect the Big 12 will add a few teams and be just fine.  The Big Ten is fine as is. 
A decade of Victory over Penn State.

All in since 1969

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #134 on: July 28, 2021, 01:20:47 PM »
The Big Ten is going to be pressured to respond.  Maybe standing pat is the better course of action.  Sometimes it's better to do nothing than to do the wrong thing.
Play Like a Champion Today

JerseyTerrapin

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 189
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #135 on: July 28, 2021, 01:44:21 PM »
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.

I wasn't really advocating for adding Clemson or anybody else, actually.  I should have quoted the post I was responding to; I was only trying to suggest that Clemson wasn't going to go away after the current coach departs.

Besides, I'm still a provisional member and don't get a vote on if/who to add, anyway :-)

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71536
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #136 on: July 28, 2021, 04:32:23 PM »
I don't see why the B1G would make any kind of panicky move, at all, or any move.  If they get the right program, add it, if not, don't.  Seems pretty simple, and there are not many "right programs" out there, probably none realistically available.

Thumper

  • Red Shirt
  • ***
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 480
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #137 on: July 28, 2021, 06:06:26 PM »
I think what should (and maybe does) make everyone uneasy is that ESPN has given Sankey has the authority to approach any team on a "A list" with a full pro rata offer, currently $57 mil per year going to about $70 mil in 2024.    Ohio State, Michigan, ND and USC is on it.   There is also a "B list" but I don't know the names on it or the contract amounts.  Like OU and Texas, some teams may have been discussing this back channel for months now.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25208
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #138 on: July 29, 2021, 05:39:55 PM »
Lots of chatter on USC boards about going with the B1G. Some "insider" type even posted that the wonks from USC and UCLA already talked with Emperor Barry. 
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25208
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #139 on: July 29, 2021, 05:45:27 PM »
Thinking back to 1990, when Penn State was brought in, the Big Ten really screwed up by issuing an expansion moratorium, waiting on Notre Dame. Texas wanted in at that point, and was told no.

Things would look a lot different today, had that happened.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

 

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