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 16317 times)

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18841
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #154 on: July 30, 2021, 07:58:48 PM »
If the three-division thing is made functional by allowing a four-team league playoff then I think I'd advocate for adding seven schools:

  • USC
  • Oregon
  • Washington
  • Colorado
  • Either Stanford, UCLA, Utah, or an Arizona school (would need to research to figure out which was the most valuable)
  • Either UVA or VaTech
  • UNC

Friend, you have North Carolina in a division with Washington.
Stop.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #155 on: July 30, 2021, 08:02:30 PM »
Friend, you have North Carolina in a division with Washington.
Stop.
Reading Comprehension Fail realized by OAM in 3 .... 2 ... 1

OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18841
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #156 on: July 30, 2021, 08:05:24 PM »
Many of you are acting like the Pac-12 doesn't have the same long, tradition-rich history as the B1G, with the same romanticized memories of making the Rose Bowl.
The Pac-12 started back in 1915, has its own legit helmet program that's been a big-boy for 100 years and ties with ND.  It has its prestigious academic institutions, it's whipping boys, and a program with a sugar daddy.
.
It's not just going to fold and spend money flying to Bloomington and Iowa City every weekend.
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #157 on: July 30, 2021, 08:22:56 PM »
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 #158 on: July 30, 2021, 11:31:38 PM »
Friend, you have North Carolina in a division with Washington.
Stop.
Oops, that was supposed to be UNL which is less absurd. 

TamrielsKeeper

  • Recruit
  • **
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 60
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #159 on: July 31, 2021, 04:55:56 AM »
Many of you are acting like the Pac-12 doesn't have the same long, tradition-rich history as the B1G, with the same romanticized memories of making the Rose Bowl.
The Pac-12 started back in 1915, has its own legit helmet program that's been a big-boy for 100 years and ties with ND.  It has its prestigious academic institutions, it's whipping boys, and a program with a sugar daddy.
.
It's not just going to fold and spend money flying to Bloomington and Iowa City every weekend.
Does college football look today like it did in 1915?  Ironically, I'd prefer it go back to that, but that's not a realistic outcome at this point.  What we want to matter (history/regional rivalries) and what has proven to matter (money) over the last 20 years are different things.

The SEC is kind of forcing the hand of everyone here to either go all in on football or concede you won't be competitive at the highest levels anymore.  The PAC12 schools get around $34M per school from their distribution based on the last data we have.  The B10 is pushing close to $60M and will go north of that in it's next deal.  The SEC's number is rumored to be $75M-$80M with UT/OU.

The bottom line is, there needs to be at least one other league that can keep up with the SEC's TV deal or every other league is going to fall behind significantly.  The NIL is the first step of this pro college sports world, I don't doubt eventually schools will be paying players directly.  Revenue is all that matters, and the bottom of the P12 doesn't care about football and doesn't generate the TV ratings to get paid at the same level of the B10/SEC.  Plus they have a time zone problem that lessens significantly if they blend their top brands with the CST/EST time zones.

In the new world we're entering here, Oregon/USC/Washington might as well concede if they're receiving a revenue distribution that's half what the SEC receives.  There really isn't a solution to that problem for the top football brands in the west if they remain in the P12, there's only so much inventory to buy and the SEC/B10 will always get a bigger cut for the reasons mentioned.

Additionally, for the B10, being relevant in the playoff is going to be more important moving forward then ever.  While tOSU will always be there, and UM/PSU have the resources to consistently be in that discussion, no one else outside of Wisconsin has been, and they're not in a state that's flush with football talent.  This is also about flipping the demographics to be more favorable for the B10 long term with respect to recruiting - I'd prefer Texas/Florida as my first options to bring into the footprint, but those options are gone/unlikely now.  California is probably #3 on the realistic want list in regard to a state that produces a lot of football talent that could be brought into the footprint.  Giving B10 schools an advantage in California over SEC schools would be a massive win long term IMO.

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 #160 on: July 31, 2021, 09:41:58 AM »
There are teams any conference would add immediately, of course, like Texas and OU.  ND and USC clearly are in the group.  It gets a bit iffy after that, I think, outside the other Blue Bloods which aren't on the market and won't be.

If we look solely at Pac and ACC teams, there are no more "obviously yes" teams, there are some that would be "probably yes", like say Clemson, then FSU/Miami.  UNC/UVA is there I think, maybe they are in the top group.

UCLA?  Colorado?  Washington?  Oregon?  

The more I mull this over, the more likely I think it is we see a B1g-Pac merger in effect, and an SEC-ACC merger, de facto, they may remain separate conferences with very obvious scheduling ties.

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37520
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #161 on: July 31, 2021, 09:57:13 AM »
Oops, that was supposed to be UNL which is less absurd.
but, absurd

UNL does have some history with the PAC
other than the obvious Colorado

4 games with Washington St
10 games with Washington
13 games with UCLA
1 Rose Bowl with Stanford
5 games with Southern Cal
8 games with Oregon
11 games with Oregon St.
3 with Arizona
8 with Arizona St.
3 with Cal
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

CWSooner

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 6045
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #162 on: July 31, 2021, 12:10:05 PM »
Oops, that was supposed to be UNL which is less absurd.
I have seen several here call Cal "Northern California," so I assumed that that was what you meant by "UNC."
Play Like a Champion Today

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20318
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #163 on: July 31, 2021, 02:06:06 PM »
I have seen several here call Cal "Northern California," so I assumed that that was what you meant by "UNC."
Makes more geographical sense than having South Florida in Tampa

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11237
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #164 on: July 31, 2021, 03:38:06 PM »
Who are the least likely expansion targets for the B1G? 
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

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25207
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #165 on: July 31, 2021, 03:57:23 PM »
I have seen several here call Cal "Northern California," so I assumed that that was what you meant by "UNC."
Northern Cal and Southern Cal.

Both solid additions.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!


OrangeAfroMan

  • Stats Porn
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 18841
  • Liked:
Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
« Reply #167 on: July 31, 2021, 04:20:25 PM »
Makes more geographical sense than having South Florida in Tampa
Yeah, plop it down in the Everglades...
“The Swamp is where Gators live.  We feel comfortable there, but we hope our opponents feel tentative. A swamp is hot and sticky and can be dangerous." - Steve Spurrier

 

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