CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: medinabuckeye1 on July 26, 2021, 11:06:54 AM
-
It appears to be a done deal that OU and TX are heading to the SEC thus creating a 16-team SEC super-league. We've already heard that the B1G is talking to Kansas.
I really don't want this to be a discussion of "should the B1G expand to 16 teams?" because I think that is a separate issue. The question I am posing here is this:
Assuming that expanding to 16 (or more) teams is necessary/beneficial, what teams should the B1G consider?
-
Notre Dame, Mizzou, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma
-
My thoughts:
First, I think that taking any team in the league's existing footprint would be a bad idea. Thus, I am against Pitt, Cincy, and ISU. They may have the academics and even pretty good athletics but I think we want more states, not better penetration in existing states. Besides, I think that taking Pitt, Cincy, or ISU would be harmful for PSU, tOSU, or Iowa respectively. It would not surprise me if the AD's/Presidents of PSU, tOSU, and Iowa form a block by all agreeing to oppose the addition of any school in a current B1G State (or possibly any school not named ND).
Second, Notre Dame:
We all know that the Big Ten approached them decades ago. I don't like it NOW for several reasons. First, I think their brand is weakening rather than strengthening. Second, see above, same footprint. Granted, this is different for ND because their fandom is more national than regional but still, Indiana. Third, they aren't even close academically. They have great undergrad academics but the CIC and the academics that the B1G cares about aren't undergrad rankings they are Graduate Programs and Research MONEY and Notre Dame is a non-factor there.
After ruling out schools in current B1G States not named Notre Dame and ruling out Notre Dame, I would be looking for State Flagship Universities in nearby states and my preference would be for high-end academics, quality athletics, and fast-growing states. Thus, my list is:
- North Carolina: The state is #9 in pop with 10.5M and growing rapidly, the academics are great, and the athletics are pretty good.
- Virginia: The state is #12 in pop with 8.5M and growing faster than any current B1G state, the academics are great, and the athletics are decent. These first two I basically see as a package and I'd be willing to swap UVA for VaTech.
- Mizzou: The state is #18 in pop with 6.1M but slow growth. The academics and athletics are decent. I see this as a BIG drop from the top two.
- Colorado: The state is #21 in pop (just passed MN) and growing FAST. The academics and athletics are good.
- Kansas: The state is small and slow growing, #36 in pop and I honestly don't know much about the academics. The athletics are a mixed bag. They obviously have a great BB tradition (possibly #1 nationally) but the rest of their athletics are pretty weak.
Those are the only semi-local ones I would even consider.
Texas would be great as the state is #2 in pop with 29M and growing FAST and their academics and athletics are great. I'd be willing to take Oklahoma as a package with Texas particularly if we could get a commitment from them to improve their academics (which would probably just happen anyway with them in the B1G/CIC).
I've seen some chatter about West Coast schools and I just don't like the idea of raiding or effectively "merging" with the PAC. Apart from the possibility of a border raid (Colorado) I just think that the West Coast schools are too far away and that fan support out there is dubious at best.
-
Notre Dame, Mizzou, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma
Wrong direction, IMHO.
If CFB morphs into a true AFC/NFC mini-NFL style league, the B1G can't compete in the SEC's back yard, so don't try. Give them the southern portion of the country and dominate everything else.
The SEC will eventually kill the ACC to continue growing its membership IMO, that will include UNC/UVA/FSU/Clemson IMO. If I were the B1G commissioner, my first step would be to grab:
USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington
Secure those four first, then go to Notre Dame and make the following pitch: the SEC is likely to demo the ACC at some point and that they better either join the B1G/PAC now or plan to join and compete in the SEC later. Let us know if you think that your a better fit in a conference that brands itself as being truly national - from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or if you fit better with a bunch of schools from just the south? If the latter, good luck to you, and the B1G's only play is to add two more from the PAC12.
If ND gets on board, you have one spot left - I think you go to Texas and ask them if they've made their mind up for sure or not. They likely have, but I think you need to at least offer them spot #20. If they say no, then you ask the 19 members who they want as #20, probably from the P12.
-
Notre Dame, Mizzou, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma
Clemson is an interesting one that I hadn't really considered (the rest of your list is covered in my post that I was working on when you typed this).
South Carolina is the #23 state in pop with 5.1M and growing rapidly. I don't know much about Clemson's academics but their athletics are good. Obviously their football has been phenomenal lately but they are also usually competitive in other sports.
I think my biggest concern here would be that taking Clemson now would be an overreaction to their CURRENT success in football. Ie, how would we feel about that in 20 years if they revert to pre-Dabo Clemson football once Dabo leaves?
-
My thoughts:
First, I think that taking any team in the league's existing footprint would be a bad idea. Thus, I am against Pitt, Cincy, and ISU. They may have the academics and even pretty good athletics but I think we want more states, not better penetration in existing states. Besides, I think that taking Pitt, Cincy, or ISU would be harmful for PSU, tOSU, or Iowa respectively. It would not surprise me if the AD's/Presidents of PSU, tOSU, and Iowa form a block by all agreeing to oppose the addition of any school in a current B1G State (or possibly any school not named ND).
Second, Notre Dame:
We all know that the Big Ten approached them decades ago. I don't like it NOW for several reasons. First, I think their brand is weakening rather than strengthening. Second, see above, same footprint. Granted, this is different for ND because their fandom is more national than regional but still, Indiana. Third, they aren't even close academically. They have great undergrad academics but the CIC and the academics that the B1G cares about aren't undergrad rankings they are Graduate Programs and Research MONEY and Notre Dame is a non-factor there.
After ruling out schools in current B1G States not named Notre Dame and ruling out Notre Dame, I would be looking for State Flagship Universities in nearby states and my preference would be for high-end academics, quality athletics, and fast-growing states. Thus, my list is:
- North Carolina: The state is #9 in pop with 10.5M and growing rapidly, the academics are great, and the athletics are pretty good.
- Virginia: The state is #12 in pop with 8.5M and growing faster than any current B1G state, the academics are great, and the athletics are decent. These first two I basically see as a package and I'd be willing to swap UVA for VaTech.
- Mizzou: The state is #18 in pop with 6.1M but slow growth. The academics and athletics are decent. I see this as a BIG drop from the top two.
- Colorado: The state is #21 in pop (just passed MN) and growing FAST. The academics and athletics are good.
- Kansas: The state is small and slow growing, #36 in pop and I honestly don't know much about the academics. The athletics are a mixed bag. They obviously have a great BB tradition (possibly #1 nationally) but the rest of their athletics are pretty weak.
Those are the only semi-local ones I would even consider.
Texas would be great as the state is #2 in pop with 29M and growing FAST and their academics and athletics are great. I'd be willing to take Oklahoma as a package with Texas particularly if we could get a commitment from them to improve their academics (which would probably just happen anyway with them in the B1G/CIC).
I've seen some chatter about West Coast schools and I just don't like the idea of raiding or effectively "merging" with the PAC. Apart from the possibility of a border raid (Colorado) I just think that the West Coast schools are too far away and that fan support out there is dubious at best.
I think, at this point, you have to plan on the SEC eventually getting bigger. If they will, where is there growth coming from? They're not in North Carolina, I have a really tough time believing UNC isn't really high on their list. As I previously mentioned, their next four targets almost have to be Clemson/FSU/UNC/UVA if it's about TV sets.
If you're any helmet school outside of the SEC, you have to ask if you'd rather join them or create something to compete with them. If tOSU wants to eventually join the SEC to compete at the highest level, then you do nothing here or you add a couple of weak additions like Kansas/ISU - that's a sure death knell long term to the B1G. If you want to create something that can compete w/ what the SEC is clearly trying to build here, you have no choice but to respond with massive force here IMO.
Yes, the bottom of the PAC has terrible fan support, and yes USC/UCLA have fair weather fan bases, but the media market is so large that doesn't completely matter. Additionally, with the amount of money in LA, I have a tough time believing one of USC/UCLA doesn't excel in the new pay to play era, and they have great fan support when they're winning. Oregon/Washington I would argue look a lot more like B1G fan bases.
I don't think the B1G will ever be able to compete with the SEC right in it's back yard, I get the desire to add UNC/UVA, but I think it would be a tactical mistake and you can't likely get UNC/UVA anyway because they're locked into a GOR through 2035. Hell, grab the best of the PAC now, then add UNC/UVA later if it works out, but the B1G has to make a counter punch here IMO.
-
I don't think the PAC programs have much to offer the B1G besides long travel requirements
the PAC doesn't value or promote football
Kansas doesn't add enough value. Just a hoops program.
as for Clemson, they are at the top now and this is all about grabbing the top football programs. I don't know if they can successfully replace Dabo some day, but that program is running well.
I'd rather bet on Clemson than the Gamecocks.
-
I don't think the B1G has to do anything right now.
They certainly don't need to add programs like ISU, KU that will only weaken the conference
-
I am geographically minded, and like that the Big Ten and SEC are divided along Civil War lines in the Eastern and Central Time Zones (yes, I know about Kentucky and Missouri), while the Pac 12 gets the Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. I would ideally like to maintain that geographic integrity.
If we HAVE to expand into the old Confederacy, then give me the helmets/near helmets that the SEC won't add; Florida St, Miami, and Clemson.
Personally I would prefer schools in the Northeast/Midwest, and don't really care if they are in a state that already has a big ten team. I'm not too bullish on Iowa St or Cincinnati. They are good "right now" but usually aren't.
Notre Dame and Oklahoma are my top two, but if we aren't allowed to use Oklahoma in this exercise, then the pool that I would consider fort the other team would be: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, **big gap** Kansas, KSU, **bigger gap** ISU, Cincy.
That said, my preference is to stand pat. I don't trust Karen Warren to do anything right. He'd probably add Georgia Tech and Louisville, or some such.
-
If we HAVE to expand into the old Confederacy, then give me the helmets/near helmets that the SEC won't add; Florida St, Miami, and Clemson.
How do you know they won't? This is all about TV Ratings and inventory moving forward - the SEC just broke precedent by adding a school inside a state in their current footprint. I get it's Texas, but Clemson would definitely be the "Texas" of South Carolina - seems like a no brainer for them to add Clemson. I'd say the same with Florida State. I'd double or triple the likelihood if either of those schools were in the B1G.
The SEC won't let the B1G have any control over the south in my view.
-
Warren appears to be in WAY over his head after hearing him speak at media days
hopefully, Alvarez is there is help
-
Totally agree, hoping that Barry Alvarez and Jim Delaney are actually calling the shots behind the scene, lol.
-
How do you know they won't? This is all about TV Ratings and inventory moving forward - the SEC just broke precedent by adding a school inside a state in their current footprint. I get it's Texas, but Clemson would definitely be the "Texas" of South Carolina - seems like a no brainer for them to add Clemson. I'd say the same with Florida State. I'd double or triple the likelihood if either of those schools were in the B1G.
The SEC won't let the B1G have any control over the south in my view.
Florida, S Carolina and Georgia have a pact to form a voting block designed to prevent any of those schools from joining.
Why aTm didn't join that pact, I don't know. But the only way around it would be to add enough teams that those three votes would be irrelevant.
Really this is all pretty dumb. What is the point of keeping the SEC also rans in the fold at this point? All they are is dead weight that create a scheduling nightmare. Why the Hell do they still need Kentucky, S Carolina, Vandy, etc? Just make a new southern conference with Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Bama, Auburn, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida St, Texas A&M and Miami.
-
FWIW, the population and pop rank of current B1G states and the states of schools mentioned so far is:
- #1 CA, 39.5M
- #2 TX, 29.0M
- #5 PA, 12.8M
- #6 IL, 12.7M, two schools
- #7 OH, 11.7M
- #9 NC, 10.6M
- #10 MI, 10.0M, two schools
- #11 NJ, 8.9M
- #12 VA, 8.5M
- #13 WA, 7.6M
- #17 IN, 6.7M, two schools
- #18 MO, 6.1M
- #19 MD, 6.0M
- #20 WI, 5.8M
- #21 CO, 5.8M
- #22 MN, 5.6M
- #23 SC, 5.1M
- #27 OR, 4.2M
- #28 OK, 4.0M
- #32 IA, 3.2M
- #36 KS, 2.9M
- #38 NE, 1.9M
The B1G already has two schools each from IL, MI, and IN but each of those states have populations at least double that of either IA or KS which is why I think that ISU or KSU would be a net-negative addition.
In theory California is great because there are 40 Million people out there but I think it is too far (costly for non-revenue sports) and that fan support out on the West Coast is weak.
Texas is possibly the biggest prize in all of college football because the state has a large population and strong fan support. The only thing that makes me say "possibly" is that College Sports fandom in Texas is less monolithic than it is in places like Ohio and Georgia. Ohio and Georgia are a lot smaller in pop (under 1/3) but my perception is that college sports fandom in Ohio and Georgia is almost all tOSU/UGA while in Texas it is a LOT more divided between Texas, aTm, the other Texas schools, and some border schools such as LSU and OU.
The most populous states not listed here are:
- #3 FL, 21.5M, I think we just all agree that they are solidly SEC. For us to take someone like UCF would be to take too obviously a junior position in the state.
- #4 NY, 19.5M, what school would you take? Rutgers is arguably better than any school actually IN the state in terms of delivering fans.
- #8 GA, 10.6M, GaTech should probably be discussed. They are in ATL and have solid academics and quality overall athletics.
- #14 AZ, 7.3M, all the problems of CA without the 40M people.
- #15 MA, 6.9M, what school would you take, BC? That is like ND lite.
- #16 TN, 6.8M, not leaving the SEC.
- #24 AL, 4.9M, not leaving the SEC.
- #25 LA, 4.6M, not leaving the SEC.
- #26 KY, 4.5M, probably not leaving the SEC but they are a border state . . .
- #29 CT, 3.6M, UCONN?
- #30 UT, 3.2M, would you take Utah or BYU?
-
If you are adding teams from the Left coast, they'd almost have to be football only members. No way they are going to pay to fly their women's lacrosse teams to Hopkins, Rutgers, Maryland, etc every other week.
-
Totally agree, hoping that Barry Alvarez and Jim Delaney are actually calling the shots behind the scene, lol.
Me too. If we could just put Alvarez in charge and give him carte blanche, I'd be for it.
-
West Virginia has only 2 million people?
Be better off grabbing Kentucky
-
How do you know they won't? This is all about TV Ratings and inventory moving forward - the SEC just broke precedent by adding a school inside a state in their current footprint. I get it's Texas, but Clemson would definitely be the "Texas" of South Carolina - seems like a no brainer for them to add Clemson. I'd say the same with Florida State. I'd double or triple the likelihood if either of those schools were in the B1G.
The SEC won't let the B1G have any control over the south in my view.
Clemson may be the "Texas" of South Carolina but that isn't the point. The point is that South Carolina isn't Texas. South Carolina has a pop of 5.1M. Texas' population is nearly six times that. Adding a second school in SC (Clemson) doesn't bring in eyeballs anything like adding the flagship school in Texas does.
-
https://twitter.com/ESPNRittenberg/status/1419669765497311233?s=20
-
Then there is definitely no point in expanding.
-
yup, from that list I'd welcome Texas and/or Notre Dame
the Left coast schools might just drop football some day
Colorado would be a last resort - maybe
-
I'd bet against the BIG dying on the hill for AAU membership as a pre-req. It will be viewed as a fetish.
-
Ed Zachery
they would take the Sooners if it meant getting Texas
they would also take Notre Dame
-
Clemson football was solid prior to the current regime, including a national title in the eighties. With their strong donor system (IPTAY) that keeps the program in the money, they will likely remain a power regardless of the next coach...
-
I'd bet against the BIG dying on the hill for AAU membership as a pre-req. It will be viewed as a fetish.
It is a fetish, and if the tweet is true then it has to be USC and Notre Dame. Nothing else there moves the needle.
The Big Ten won't have any negotiation power either. They will have to concede every demand that either school makes, with a reach around and a happy ending.
-
I "think" the Big Ten should not be in any hurry, at all. They have a top conference, there is no need to get stampeded.
I saw a rumor they were talking with Ok State, maybe..
-
Ha!
Change my vote to OSUs 2 and 3 as my preferred expansion duo.
-
I "think" the Big Ten should not be in any hurry, at all. They have a top conference, there is no need to get stampeded.
I saw a rumor they were talking with Ok State, maybe..
Gag me!
-
SEC went all in on Athletics, Ivy went all in on Academics, Big Ten tries to keep one foot in each door, which hampers it's ability to be elite in either.
Jack of all trades, master of none.
-
Well, the SEC obviously was just a regional conference originally. They added USCe and Arkansas of course, neither especially known for academics, then they added Mizzou and A&M who are pretty good on that front. I don't think academics is a primary criterion for ruling out a program though. It's really eyeballs now.
-
Georgia Tech is an interesting case study, very good academics, large metro area with a lot of eyeballs, but not many fans. They have football history, a fair bit, and are good at other sports at times. But sports there is not at all a priority, and they have quite a few Asian students.
-
Clemson football was solid prior to the current regime, including a national title in the eighties. With their strong donor system (IPTAY) that keeps the program in the money, they will likely remain a power regardless of the next coach...
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.
-
Chasing eyeballs and population centers will land you Maryland and Rutgers.
-
or USC & UCLA
-
Or them, I suppose.
Nebraska and Penn St are in remote college towns, while Maryland and Rutgers are in huge population centers.
Which duo do you prefer?
- 1) Penn State and Nebraska
- B) Maryland and Rutgers
-
I don't know if I posted it here or over at H&R, but I came up with an argument that simultaneously gives you a reason to take Kansas and NOT take Iowa State...
- A big portion of this entire process is related to football, obviously.
- Iowa State (lately) is good at football, Kansas (historically and lately) isn't. So you'd think Iowa State is more valuable.
- However, football success is HEAVILY tied to recruiting.
- Recruiting is HEAVILY tied to conference power. I.e. Purdue and IU suck, but we still get much better recruiting classes than MAC schools.
- Iowa is in Iowa (duh), and competes for recruits with another [current] P5 school in their own state, Iowa State, and thus compete on relatively equal terms for recruits.
- Kansas and Kansas State are both in the same state, both [currently] in a P5 conference, and thus compete on relatively equal terms for recruits.
- It's my contention that the remainder of the B12, if the B12 falls apart, are not exactly going to be prime pickup targets for the ACC or the PAC-12 or the SEC.
- Therefore schools that the B1G does not invite to the conference are likely to become G5 schools.
- As a big portion of this is related to football, the prominence of the teams which make up the conference is important.
- Iowa will get better recruits and field better teams if Iowa State is relegated to G5 status. Thus, Iowa State falling to G5 status is beneficial to Iowa and thus beneficial to the B1G.
- Kansas, if they become B1G members and KSU is relegated to G5 status, will immediately have a better recruiting position relative to KSU and will see their recruiting classes improve, not even considering all the financial and reputational benefits of being in the B1G. JUST based on KSU being harmed and going to G5 status, Kansas improves.
So the B1G should not try to add Iowa State. The likely result of leaving them out in the cold will improve Iowa, thus improving the conference.
Whether or not the B1G should add Kansas is TBD, but the decision should be made with the expectation that Kansas will get better at football and Kansas State will get worse at football as soon as Kansas is chosen as KSU is likely to go G5. You can't make the addition without recognizing the potential of Kansas without P5 KSU, rather than the history of Kansas.
-
The P5/G5 divide is fairly well baked in.
Since the formation of the Big 12 there has been a ton of realignment including the obliteration of an entire conference. Yet over that time frame the only net difference in P5/G5 status is that Temple got demoted, while TCU, Utah and Louisville moved up.
The Big 12 can chug along with the top midmajors like the Big East did there for a while.
-
I "think" the Big Ten should not be in any hurry, at all. They have a top conference, there is no need to get stampeded.
I saw a rumor they were talking with Ok State, maybe..
Each conference has to be careful about negotiating with any school or risk being sued by the other conference for tortious interference with contractual rights.
-
The P5/G5 divide is fairly well baked in.
Since the formation of the Big 12 there has been a ton of realignment including the obliteration of an entire conference. Yet over that time frame the only net difference in P5/G5 status is that Temple got demoted, while TCU, Utah and Louisville moved up.
The Big 12 can chug along with the top midmajors like the Big East did there for a while.
There's one instance where I'd agree...
Because the idea for the 12-team CFP is the "top 6 conference champions", then technically the remains of the B12 can still have a chance at the CFP without anyone actually considering them to be "P5".
In a 4-team CFP, all determined by the committee, the remainder of the B12 would be relegate to tallest midget status by the CFP.
But if that changes, and the 12-team CFP takes the top 6 conference champions, then I think for a while we'd have a P4.5, in that some of those schools might keep some level of relevance for a few years.
I think eventually without any sort of realistic helmet in their conference, they'll fall off like the Big East did, and how we ended up with a P5 instead of a P6.
-
There's one instance where I'd agree...
Because the idea for the 12-team CFP is the "top 6 conference champions", then technically the remains of the B12 can still have a chance at the CFP without anyone actually considering them to be "P5".
In a 4-team CFP, all determined by the committee, the remainder of the B12 would be relegate to tallest midget status by the CFP.
But if that changes, and the 12-team CFP takes the top 6 conference champions, then I think for a while we'd have a P4.5, in that some of those schools might keep some level of relevance for a few years.
I think eventually without any sort of realistic helmet in their conference, they'll fall off like the Big East did, and how we ended up with a P5 instead of a P6.
You bring up a good point in that there really isn't a distinction between P5 and G5 anymore. They are likely to be firmly entrenched as the "tallest midget" conference; particularly when the poach the top teams out of the current tallest midget conferences of the AAC/MWC. Then those Conferences will poach the top teams from CUSA, and then CUSA will poach the top teams from the Sunbelt, who will poach the top teams from the FCS.
As far as falling off like the Big East, it is worth noting that they didn't lose their BCS status and rebrand as the AAC until the final original football member had been poached. At that point they were down to zero (0) members that were BCS when the Big 12 was formed, down from 8.
-
You bring up a good point in that there really isn't a distinction between P5 and G5 anymore. They are likely to be firmly entrenched as the "tallest midget" conference; particularly when the poach the top teams out of the current tallest midget conferences of the AAC/MWC. Then those Conferences will poach the top teams from CUSA, and then CUSA will poach the top teams from the Sunbelt, who will poach the top teams from the FCS.
As far as falling off like the Big East, it is worth noting that they didn't lose their BCS status and rebrand as the AAC until the final original football member had been poached. At that point they were down to zero (0) members that were BCS when the Big 12 was formed, down from 8.
Interesting point... I decided to look up recruiting rankings for two Big East members, Pitt and Syracuse. Picked 2001 as a start point (due to availability of rankings on 247) and 2011 as an end point (when Pitt and Cuse announced they were leaving for the ACC).
I was thinking that perhaps as the Big East lost its strength/respect during realignment, that they would lose their recruiting ability.
(https://i.imgur.com/DmFNnCf.png)
Syracuse with outliers in 2001 (29th) and 2009 (92nd), but classes ranged in the general 55-60 range through most of that time.
Pitt with outliers in 2006 (16th) and 2011 (62nd), but generally much stronger. Their variance is higher, but there's no trendline I can discern.
I don't see a trend either way, supporting your point that the Big East teams continued to be who they were even as the conference was deeply injured by the realignment in 2005. There was no sustained drop in recruiting for either team from 2005->2011 when they announced they were leaving the Big East.
Granted, I don't know if this was enough of a sample size either way... More about the length of time, rather than the number of teams I looked at... I would expect the recruiting dropoff to be a decade+ phenomenon, and we didn't have that much time in this case.
-
Probably even less of an impact now, where the top 6 Conference Champions make the playoffs.
A revamped Big 12 would be solidly entrenched as the 5th best Conference, with a large gap between them and the 4th place Conference, and a larger gap between them and the 6th place Conference.
-
Probably even less of an impact now, where the top 6 Conference Champions make the playoffs.
A revamped Big 12 would be solidly entrenched as the 5th best Conference, with a large gap between them and the 4th place Conference, and a larger gap between them and the 6th place Conference.
Agreed... But how big of a drop will it be? What happens to TV rights (and whether your game is televised)? What happens when recruits aren't going to be in big-game matchups against Texas and OU every year and their game will only be televised on the Ocho?
The B12 GoR is due for renegotiation as it expires in 2025, and Texas/OU have already said they don't plan to negotiate their rights in that renegotiation. B12 TV rights are about to take a serious market tumble. How excited are recruits going to be about your facilities when you're falling behind in that arms race?
Take Texas, OU, and for the sake of argument Kansas out of the B12.
Now you've got ISU, KSU, OkSU, TTU, Baylor, TCU, and WVU (who may be ripe for the picking in their own sense). Add some G5 teams like Houston and Memphis, SMU, maybe Tulsa or Tulane?
You don't think that regional recruits will be salivating for an Iowa or Kansas or Colorado or Arizona/ASU offer over those schools?
You don't think it's plausible that 15 years down the road, Iowa and Kansas' national recruiting rankings are 5-10 spots higher, while ISU and KSU's are 5-10 spots lower?
I realize of course that 15 years is a lifetime in college sports. Who knows--we could have three more realignments 15 years from now...
But I can't imagine that Iowa and Kansas wouldn't benefit from ISU and KSU being in a watered-down B12 while they were in the B1G.
-
arms race? What about coaches salaries if the money really isn't there?
-
arms race? What about coaches salaries if the money really isn't there?
Good point, but that might take a while to reset too...
If there's one thing that Americans are good at, it's spending money we don't have lol...
Just jack up tuition (via mandatory "student fee" that doesn't show up in reported tuition numbers) and you can pay a coach whatever you need...
-
Ohio St looks bored, winning the conference every year. Who is the B1G going to replace them with when the SEC takes them?
-
$80M per school, per year. B1G needs to add 2 helmet schools minimum. Kansas and Iowa State simply aren't options here.
https://twitter.com/ByBerkowitz/status/1419790400240459776?s=19
-
You could buy the state of Mississippi for $1.3 billion, damn!
-
$80M per school, per year. B1G needs to add 2 helmet schools minimum. Kansas and Iowa State simply aren't options here.
https://twitter.com/ByBerkowitz/status/1419790400240459776?s=19
notre dame and USC are the only 2 helmets left
-
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.
-
perhaps Kansas is part of the discussion to help lure Mizzou?
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E7QWxg4UUAACeuK.jpg)
-
Why's everyone so impressed with Mizzou? If you want to poach an SEC team, think big.
All poaching Mizzou does is open up a spot in the SEC for Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame or USC.
Come on now. Are you people even trying?
-
You could buy the state of Mississippi for $1.3 billion, damn!
And pick up Arkansas with the change.
-
Why's everyone so impressed with Mizzou? If you want to poach an SEC team, think big.
All poaching Mizzou does is open up a spot in the SEC for Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame or USC.
Come on now. Are you people even trying?
no one is impressed with Mizzou
it's just that Mizzou is about as good as the B1G can expect to poach from the SEC
-
Why's everyone so impressed with Mizzou? If you want to poach an SEC team, think big.
All poaching Mizzou does is open up a spot in the SEC for Clemson, Florida State, Miami, Notre Dame or USC.
Come on now. Are you people even trying?
For every migration, there are push factors and pull factors.
What factors would push a current SEC team out of the SEC?
I'm not saying that there aren't any, but I don't know what they would be.
-
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
-
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.
(https://twitter.com/Ian_A_Boyd/status/1400182966416969730?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1400182966416969730|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heartlandcollegesports.com%2F2021%2F06%2F04%2Fthe-big-12-needs-oklahoma-texas-to-get-along%2F)
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.
-
That was fast.
https://twitter.com/JasonWhitely/status/1419870246538600450?s=19
-
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.
-
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.
-
What is the logic behind expanding the Big Ten?
-
keeping up with the SEC and grabbing programs that add value before they find a place to land
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
better to be lucky than good
if/when they get kicked out, they can join the Big 12
-
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.
:-[
-
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.
-
Better to stand pat than add weakness.
-
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
-
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...
-
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 (https://thespun.com/college-football/the-10-most-powerful-fan-bases-in-college-football) (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 (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/750579-the-25-ultimate-college-football-fanbases):
- 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) (https://graphics.wsj.com/table/NCAA_2019):
- 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.
-
Here is a college football map of fans from the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-fan-map.html).
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.
-
The NYT map was hidden behind a paywall.
-
Here is a college football map of fans from the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-fan-map.html).
and how is this data compiled?
-
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.
-
agreed
-
(https://media.bleacherreport.com/w_800,h_533,c_fill/br-img-images/003/091/548/345218613d9f5814ba45379e338dbeb0_crop_north.png)
Found the map somewhere else.
-
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
-
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 (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=31) 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.
-
How would you draw up the CCG tie breakers, in order to accommodate the four pods?
-
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.
-
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.
-
I'm skeptical of the state of Iowa
-
How do you pry anyone out of the ACC?
with more $$$$
-
How would you draw up the CCG tie breakers, in order to accommodate the four pods?
Well you would be playing every team in your (temporary) division so I'd start with what we use now:
In the case of a multi-team tie:
- H2H...2H
- Record against the next best team(s) in the division.
- Highest overall win % (includes non-conference games).
- Random draw.
In the current tiebreaker there are a bunch involving the non-divisional games which would be irrelevant if all nine of your games were against divisional opponents so I omitted them.
If it were up to me I would drop all but #1 and my tiebreakers would be:
- H2H...2H
- Scoring margin among the tied teams
- Highest ranking in the latest CFP
- Random Draw
-
How do you pry anyone out of the ACC?
As I've said (I think elsewhere), the issue was always that the B1G and SEC were stable, and that to drop to four superconferences it meant that either the B12 or ACC had to be demolished. Well, we saw which one happened, which leaves the ACC stable IMHO.
I don't see any reason that UNC or UVA would feel uncomfortable enough about their future now that the B12 is dead that they'd have any reason to leave their traditional home conference.
I think the PAC-12 has major issues, and I think it's a long shot that to blow it up for the B1G's benefit, but oddly I see it as higher likelihood than getting UNC and UVA out of a now-stable ACC.
with more $$$$
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
california will be the first state to drop football
-
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.
-
I would hope like HELL, that has already happened
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Tennessee @ #10???
-
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.
this makes sense
-
I'm simply saying the B1G is in a position where it has no choice but to respond or concede, and the only realistic response is ND+USC and friends. There really aren't any options other than doing nothing, falling behind competitively/financially, and tOSU/UM ending up in the SEC super league someday. If you take the top 4-5 properties out of the P12, it basically nukes the revenue for whoever is left (plus the B12 contract/inventory, that would be greatly reduced) and that gets re-distributed to the next B1G contract. Keep in mind a move like this would basically consolidate all valuable non-SEC CFB content (outside of Clemson/FSU basically) to the B10 contract, and right now you could assume Fox/NBC/CBS would all be interested bidders - you'd want to confirm that before making any moves obviously.
It could be that ND/tOSU/UM are planning on joining a super league where they'll be the northern outposts in a southern conference someday, I would think they'd try to avoid that if they could, not sure how they'd view that to be in their best interest, but doing nothing here probably results in that over time as the SEC revenue would dramatically outpace the B1G revenue, as we seem to agree. If the revenue is close, tOSU/UM wouldn't ever put themselves at that kind of disadvantage, but given what the SEC just did, they're going to pull well ahead if the B1G does nothing.
If you're an attorney and know how you can get the ACC schools out of a GOR prior to 2035 cost effectively, my opinion on that would be different.
-
I wonder how "we" would assemble football conferences if we scattered the pieces around the floor and started over.
-
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.
I was wondering about that...
Could that be why--if the rumors are true and UT/OU approached the B1G--that we couldn't get it done?
Texas was saddled with an ESPN relationship that ESPN wouldn't let them out of to join the B1G, while the B1G couldn't accept a half-membership with a school that was in bed with ESPN for its own network?
ESPN has motivation to help Texas into the SEC--they have no motivation to help Texas into the B1G.
-
If revenue is shared equally, there would be some program in the Big Ten that is "average", it brings in about what it takes in. Whoever you add needs to be better than average. Let's say Iowa is "average", find programs more appealing to eyeballs than Iowa.
-
If revenue is shared equally, there would be some program in the Big Ten that is "average", it brings in about what it takes in. Whoever you add needs to be better than average. Let's say Iowa is "average", find programs more appealing to eyeballs than Iowa.
This clearly isn't perfect but it is a good rough approximation of the average eyeballs/revenue that each B1G school brings in, B1G states by population with national rank:
- #5 PA, 13M
- #7 OH, 11.8M
- #11 NJ, 9.3M
- Half of #6 IL, 6.4M
- Other half of IL, 6.4M
- #18 MD, 6.2M
- #20 WI, 5.9M
- #22 MN, 5.7M
- Half of #10 MI, 5M
- Other half of MI, 5M
- Half of #17 IN, 3.4M
- Other half of IN, 3.4M
- #32 IA, 3.2M
- #38 NE, 2M
You have to adjust for schools like Nebraska having a LOT of out-of-state fans and divide population by 2 (or be more complex) for the states with two schools but the middle would seem to be somewhere around 6M population which is why I'm leaning no on Kansas (#36, 2.9M).
The second school in IL marginally makes sense only if the two are near-even. The second schools in MI and IN really don't make sense and a second school in Iowa would be colossally stupid.
-
I wonder how "we" would assemble football conferences if we scattered the pieces around the floor and started over.
The best thing for CFB as a regional sport would be to have the top 64 or so schools break away and collectively bargain a single TV agreement - that would make all the conference realignment stuff go away entirely and everything could go back to being based on geography.
-
I think Va Tech would be easier to pry away than Virginia or UNC. I also think they are a solid addition. Virginia is the 12th most populous state. VT is a public land grant research institution (although not an AAU member, they are classified as an R1). They have a large enrollment. They have had success as a football program.
-
I wonder how "we" would assemble football conferences if we scattered the pieces around the floor and started over.
That is probably the best course of action at this point.
I am sure there are a bunch of boring financial reasons that would make such an approach impractical.
-
why not allow ESPN/ABC arrange conferences and therefore schedules
that's what they want and what it comes down to in the end
-
(https://scontent.ffod1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.6435-9/p526x296/221036066_4283572028346840_219876503603055129_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=HI169yJNEHMAX_wzWPi&_nc_ht=scontent.ffod1-1.fna&oh=fc9aa268bf0135b93ae91f97968a3cbc&oe=61269033)
overall, not just football
-
VT would be a very good addition IMHO good program/campus/facilities from what I've seen
-
It seems like the Oregon bandwagon has broken down.
Ten years ago you saw Oregon gear all over the West.
Now you really don't ever see any, unless you are up near that area.
-
Washington brings more TV eyeballs
-
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.
:-[
As someone who has been hoping to see OU wind up in the Big Ten since the 2010 realignment process began, I hope that's not true.
But I suspect that the Big Ten could have had the OU-Texas combo at any point in the last 10 years.
-
It seems like the Oregon bandwagon has broken down.
(https://i.imgur.com/lBOHf49.png)
-
As someone who has been hoping to see OU wind up in the Big Ten since the 2010 realignment process began, I hope that's not true.
But I suspect that the Big Ten could have had the OU-Texas combo at any point in the last 10 years.
If this is really true, Warren has to be gone.
-
I wonder how "we" would assemble football conferences if we scattered the pieces around the floor and started over.
We'd make 8 conferences of 10 teams each, strictly regionalized and fairly even, setting up a champs-only 8-team playoff.
-
How would you go about dividing the teams up into 8 even, geographically sound, 10-team Conferences if you were the one that was tasked with doing it?
-
We'd make 8 conferences of 10 teams each, strictly regionalized and fairly even, setting up a champs-only 8-team playoff.
Champs-only? Wait, then when do we fit in wild card weekend?
-
How about three thirty team leagues, but have promotion/relegation.
-
I am starting to subscribe to the theory that the Big Ten is just going to build an AAU super conference.
Covid really shone a spotlight on the way that each conference operates, and the SEC and Big Ten were at opposite ends of the spectrum.
SEC is going to be football first and win at all costs. Meanwhile, the Big Ten is going to do the "right thing to do" from the vantage point of Academia, while patting their athletic directors on the head, and maybe placating them with a hefty bonus.
-
How would you go about dividing the teams up into 8 even, geographically sound, 10-team Conferences if you were the one that was tasked with doing it?
Old Big 10 (10)
Old Pac-10 (10)
Old Big 8 + Utah + BYU (10)
Old ACC + FSU + East Carolina (10)
Old SWC + New Mexico
Old Big East - Temple + ND + Penn St + Cincinnati (10)
Split the Old SEC into 2 conferences (5 West, 5 East)
5 West + Memphis, South Florida, LA Tech, Louisiana, Southern Miss (10)
5 East + USCe + Tulane + Louisville + Coastal Carolina + UCF (10)
.
Each conference has it's big-boy teams (and this would probably allow some aging helmets to have a resurgence) and each former SEC half does, too.
-
The Ragin' Cajuns?
-
Big East
PSU
Pitt
WVU
Cuse
BC
Maryland
UVA
VT
Cincinnati
Louisville
ACC
Clemson
FSU
Miami
Florida
GT
Duke
Wake
UNC
NC St
South Carolina
SEC
Bama
Auburn
UGA
UT
Ole Miss
Miss St
Kentucky
Southern Miss
UCF
USF
SWC
Texas
TAMU
LSU
Arkansas
Houston
TCU
SMU
Baylor
Texas Tech
Memphis
Big Ten
Michigan
MSU
ND
Wisconsin
Ohio St
Purdue
NW
Indiana
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Midwest
Oklahoma
Ok St
Nebraska
Colorado
Iowa
Iowa St
KSU
Mizzou
Colorado St
Tulsa
PAC 10
USC
UCLA
Cal
Stanford
Arizona
ASU
San Diego St
Fresno St
San Jose St
New Mexico
Big West
Washington
Wazzu
Oregon
Oregon St
BYU
Utah
Boise St
Wyoming
Nevada
Rice
So, in order to make them as balanced and geographically sound as I could I threw some tradition out the window. The current SEC was scattered all over.
The Big Ten lost Iowa and got Notre Dame. Current P5’s Rutgers, Vandy, and Kansas didn’t make my 80 team cut. Go ahead, pick it apart. I can take it.😁
-
Or whoever.
The point is, they'd serve as the cannon-fodder for the helmet teams. Like Oregon State, Vanderbilt, and Rutgers are.
-
I was musing a bit more about an SEC-ACC quasi merger and think it's not totally beyond the realm, but is unlikely "soon". Pull the more southern teams out of the ACC and collapse the conference, maybe th B1G would pick up BC and Pitt. You could have a three division conference of about ten teams with some adjustments.
If the B1G followed by setting up with the Pac, you'd have two conferences, which really are five or six divisions. G5 separation.
-
The South (plus Texas) is where the real population growth in this country is occuring. Lots of people and especially people with money right now are fleeing California, the tri-state area, and midwest for Florida, Georgia, Carolinas- better state governments, more freedoms, MUCH lower taxes, better quality of life and more affordable housing.
I'd try to go after the Carolina, Georgia, and Florida schools. This is where the growth is at hence where the future is at.
USC is the only team out west that makes even a little bit of sense at all. The rest of them are basically useless and worthless, in my opinion. I'd even think about kicking Rutgers out.
ND is a fading brand and they've had their chance multiple times to join the B1G and acted like they were too good to join. SO F them.
-
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.
-
What are the odds OU/TX asked the B1G and were turned away? Versus the odds that was a rumor unfounded?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :-)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
I'd feel much better knowing Barry was leading the charge on this than Warren.
-
I'd feel much better knowing Barry was leading the charge on this than Warren.
Honestly, I think this is exactly why he was brought in. Which, if you think about, is a shot across Warren's bow, from the Presidents/Chancellors.
I look for USC, UCLA, Ferd, Northern Cal, Oregon, Washington, Arizona and Colorado to make the jump, if offered. That gets it to 22.
ASU, Orsu, WSU, Utah, BYU and Boise to the XII.
-
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.
I'd be shocked if the top PAC teams HADN'T approached representatives of the B1G at this point.
-
I'm very comforted by the fact that the Emperor is leading this effort.
Warren is on my shit list. He absolutely sucks.
-
A B1G/Pac "alignment" would be a good thing, I think. Maybe not a merger, but a closer association.
-
College football realignment: FSU president John Thrasher does not want Florida State to be ‘left behind’ (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/Article/Florida-State-president-John-Thrasher-does-not-want-Seminoles-football-to-be-left-behind-in-ACC-conference-realignment--168461962/?fbclid=IwAR3iGqLtiOesYHGNxSZHstslcOt_0eX9SjCE6cWGcTeowf1kq_WY2DdL8T8)
-
I don't think Warren has much support among the OSU leadership
-
College football realignment: FSU president John Thrasher does not want Florida State to be ‘left behind’ (247sports.com) (https://247sports.com/college/georgia/Article/Florida-State-president-John-Thrasher-does-not-want-Seminoles-football-to-be-left-behind-in-ACC-conference-realignment--168461962/?fbclid=IwAR3iGqLtiOesYHGNxSZHstslcOt_0eX9SjCE6cWGcTeowf1kq_WY2DdL8T8)
Maybe he shouldn't have let their football program turn into a dumpster fire...
-
Here is a solution that may work especially since the PAC-12 and Big Ten seem somewhat married to Fox Sports, and television networks are driving these changes according to Bob Bowlsby:
Big Ten adds the following four PAC-12 programs:
California, USC, UCLA, and Stanford. The Big Ten has not bared the PAC-12 cupboard, but adds value. The Big Ten now has 18 teams. Divide them in three divisions.
- USC, UCLA, Stanford, California, Nebraska, and Northwestern.
- Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Penn State, and Purdue.
- Ohio St, Michigan, Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers, and Michigan St.
This leaves the PAC-12 with at least three strong programs that can compete fairly well regularly on a national level. The PAC-12 adds the remaining Big 8 teams, and perhaps a few others like BYU and Houston, or Boise St. The new PAC-12 has some interesting regional rivalries and could be divided into two divisions:
- Oregon, Washington, Washington St., Oregon St, Arizona St., Arizona, Utah, BYU/Houston/or Boise St
- Oklahoma State, Kansas, K-State, Iowa State, Colorado, TCU, Baylor, Texas Tech
West Virginia is sent to the ACC.
For basketball, a round-robin schedule of 17 Big Ten games can be played, and to get to 20-conference games add 3 regional rivalry conference games to the schedule.
Adding Notre Dame is the best solution to all this, but unless Notre Dame is threatened with loss of its NBC TV contract, or with narrowing of its access to it to a national title game, Notre Dame will not be coming into the Big Ten.
-
Maybe put Illinois and Northwestern in the the Western Division, and keep Nebraska in the Central Division to keep the Illinois schools in the same division.
-
Divide them in three divisions.
You are definitely not the only person to suggest this and I don't mean this to be argumentative, just a question:
How does this three division thing work? I guess I could see it if the NCAA permitted a four-team league championship playoff. Then you'd have the top-2 Division Champions host the other Division Champion and the Wildcard followed by a CCG of the two winners. Otherwise how do you handle this?
Here is a solution that may work especially since the PAC-12 and Big Ten seem somewhat married to Fox Sports, and television networks are driving these changes according to Bob Bowlsby:
Big Ten adds the following four PAC-12 programs:
California, USC, UCLA, and Stanford. The Big Ten has not bared the PAC-12 cupboard, but adds value. The Big Ten now has 18 teams.
IMHO, the most valuable programs in the PAC are, in order:
- USC - helmet, LA
- Oregon - great history for quite a while now, Phil Knight connection
- Washington - adds another state and near-helmet long-term football history
- Colorado - adds another state and good football history
- Stanford - NorCal
- UCLA - another LA school
- One of the Arizona schools but I'm not sure which one
- Utah - adds another state
- Cal - just not sure how much they bring
- The other Arizona school
- WSU
- OrSU
I might be wrong around the margins and if I were Barry Alvarez I'd have staffers doing deep research to get this list EXACTLY right but I think if we are adding four PAC schools it should add at least three states to the B1G footprint. Your suggestion adds four California schools. There are a LOT of people in California but I'd also consider two things:
- Among the US born football in general and CFB specifically aren't anywhere near as high a priority as they are in the Midwest or South.
- A HUGE percentage of California's population is foreign born mostly from Mexico and Central/South America. I'd want to see some research to confirm or contradict this but my guess is that most of the sports fans among them tend to be Soccer fans rather than college sports (and specifically CFB) fans.
-
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
Then your three, 7-team divisions would be
East:
- Rutgers
- Penn State
- Maryland
- UVA/VaTech
- UNC
- tOSU
- Indiana
Central:
- Purdue
- Michigan
- Michigan State
- Illinois
- Northwestern
- Wisconsin
- Minnesota
West:
- Iowa
- Nebraska
- USC
- Oregon
- Washington
- Colorado
- Stanford/UCLA/Utah/Zona/ASU
It would suck to ship the Hawkeyes and Cornhuskers out west but they'd still have regionalish rivalries with each other and Colorado.
Assuming an eight game league schedule you'd play the six other teams in your division and one team from each of the other two on a rotating basis except for a few annual rivalries.
Probably better to have a nine game league schedule playing the other six in your division, one permanent (or perhaps semi-permanent) match-up against a team from each of the other two divisions and the ninth game could rotate or something like that.
Assume, for the sake of this example, that tOSU loses to PSU and finishes 8-1 while PSU also finishes 8-1. PSU wins the H2H tiebreaker and is the East Champion. Meanwhile USC wins the West at 9-0 and Wisconsin wins the Central at 7-2. Your four league playoff entrants would be:
- 9-0 USC
- 8-1 East Champion Penn State
- 8-1 Wildcard Ohio State
- 7-2 Central champion Wisconsin
So the League Championship Playoff would be:
First round:
- tOSU at PSU
- Wisconsin at USC
CCG:
-
since TV networks control the $$$
perhaps each team should individually sign a contract with each network - pay per game, ratings are important
Schedule accordingly
or just two conferences - one owned by ESPN, the other owned by FOX
-
You are definitely not the only person to suggest this and I don't mean this to be argumentative, just a question:
How does this three division thing work? I guess I could see it if the NCAA permitted a four-team league championship playoff. Then you'd have the top-2 Division Champions host the other Division Champion and the Wildcard followed by a CCG of the two winners. Otherwise how do you handle this?
I am not advocating for the Big Ten to do what I wrote. I believe this is something that is possible to do that would not blow up college football entirely for the remaining Big 8 teams, and for most of the PAC-12, and probably would add value to the TV contract of the Big Ten.
Frankly, I do not like the idea of the Big Ten adding teams from two-time zones, or three-time zones away. This is one way of doing things, that would not destroy or largely hurt the football programs of the remaining Big 8 and PAC-12 schools. I do think it is important to retain fan interest for college football to remain a national sport. Destroying or minimizing several programs by realignment will make college football less interesting in the long run.
The sport of football in 100-years may be replaced by another sport with fewer traumatic brain injuries, like lacrosse. But, we are not there yet. Mothers may get us there. Lumping things together in some of the manners speculated, could hasten the demise of college football if wide swaths of the population do not have access to viewing their school play the better teams in person if realignment relegates their school to a lower division or quality of play.
-
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.
-
Friend, you have North Carolina in a division with Washington.
Stop.
Reading Comprehension Fail realized by OAM in 3 .... 2 ... 1
-
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.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/d654b1bf13964f761787e3acf00cceea.png)
-
Friend, you have North Carolina in a division with Washington.
Stop.
Oops, that was supposed to be UNL which is less absurd.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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."
-
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
-
Who are the least likely expansion targets for the B1G?
-
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.
-
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sports/looking-for-new-conference-social-media-reacts-to-promotional-tweet-from-kansas/
-
Makes more geographical sense than having South Florida in Tampa
Yeah, plop it down in the Everglades...
-
Reading Comprehension Fail realized by OAM in 3 .... 2 ... 1
This is fun, where you choose - CHOOSE to focus on insulting me and ignore the fact that he listed UVA/VT just above UNC. So now that we know UNC was a typo and was supposed to be UNL, the point remains the same.
A division with Washington and Virginia in it.
And you're going to dwell on me.
.
You couldn't possibly be the problem at all.
-
This is fun, where you choose - CHOOSE to focus on insulting me and ignore the fact that he listed UVA/VT just above UNC. So now that we know UNC was a typo and was supposed to be UNL, the point remains the same.
A division with Washington and Virginia in it.
And you're going to dwell on me.
.
You couldn't possibly be the problem at all.
No. Reading comprehension.
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
Doesn't say anywhere, anything, about those schools belonging in the same division as each other.
Pay attention.
-
So an insult instead of a correction. Much better.
But still, a conference from sea to shining see with 20-some odd teams. What will we call it?
The Big Ten!!!!!!!
.
-
So an insult instead of a correction. Much better.
But still, a conference from sea to shining see with 20-some odd teams. What will we call it?
The Big Ten!!!!!!!
.
Spit venom, get venom back.
Medina is one of the most careful posters here. And one which doesn't normally get dragged into your crap. So how about you take your medicine and realize that you misread it and flew off the handle wrongly?
Nope, instead you try to change the subject.
-
Of course I misread it.
This isn't about medina, it's about the other guy who rarely posts and when he does, it's 83% insults. At least I contribute.
-
Northern Cal and Southern Cal.
Both solid additions.
I thought I remembered you as one of the "several here" who have used that term.
-
https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sports/looking-for-new-conference-social-media-reacts-to-promotional-tweet-from-kansas/
Yes, that Kansas City-Lawrence metro area is chock-full of winning sports teams.
But Kansas Jayhawk football is not one of them.
-
Who are the least likely expansion targets for the B1G?
Anyone worse than Rutger and Merryland.
-
While the bay area is in the Geographic center of the state, it is "North" compared to other major population centers. You see similar concepts in other states like NY, where West Point, Syracuse and Buffalo are all "Upstate" even though they couldn't be much farther apart from one another.
Oftentimes what appears to be a geographical abomination actually isn't. Like in Ohio everyone would point to Upper Sandusky being located quite a ways south of Sandusky as one that is ridiculous, but it isn't. The "Upper" is in relation to the elevation and not the direction. The headwaters of the Sandusky River are near Upper Sandusky, and then the River gradually meanders downhill until it dumps in Lake Erie's "Sandusky Bay" on which you find the city of Sandusky.
Another one that comes to mind is in West Virginia, where South Charleston is basically just a western extension of Charleston. Well this is because of the way that the Charleston River snakes through the area, so that South Charleston is contained entirely on its south bank.
A third is Westerville Ohio being on the East side of the Columbus metro. It turns out that the name is not a reference to direction at all, and that the city was founded by a man by the last name of Westervelt. However, I cannot leap to the defense of Westerville's geographical sensibilities because their "Central" HS is located quite a ways north of their "North" HS, which is extremely offensive to my geographic sensibilities. Their school system is just blatantly teaching incorrect facts by naming them that way.
-
I'd opine "New York" is not really new either, except relative to Old York.
North Carolina is in what most view as the south. I don't know what to do with Arkansas relative to Kansas.
We have a 'burb called Sandy Springs, which might have springs long lost to development. Stone Mountain is largely stone at least, which is gneiss.
-
Arkansas and Kansas derive from similar roots. The Algonquin name for the Quapaw tribe was acansa. The Algonquin name for the related Kaw tribe was kansa.
It was not until 1881 that it was settled that Arkansas would be pronounced AR-ken-SAW rather than Ar-KAN-ses.
In Kansas, the Arkansas River is known as the Ar-KAN-ses River. There is a Kansas River--sometimes called the Kaw River--in northeastern Kansas. It flows into the Missouri River where Kansas City--named for the river--is today.
The former British Empire is littered with "News."
New England, New York, New Jersey, Newfoundland, New Georgia, New South Wales, New Britain, New Ireland, New Hebrides, Nova Scotia, New London. I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch.
-
Anyone worse than Rutger and Merryland.
Kansas is worse than Rutgers and Maryland, and they aren't all that unlikely.
-
You couldn't possibly be the problem at all.
Look in a mirror once in awhile.
-
Arkansas and Kansas derive from similar roots. The Algonquin name for the Quapaw tribe was acansa. The Algonquin name for the related Kaw tribe was kansa.
It was not until 1881 that it was settled that Arkansas would be pronounced AR-ken-SAW rather than Ar-KAN-ses.
In Kansas, the Arkansas River is known as the Ar-KAN-ses River. There is a Kansas River--sometimes called the Kaw River--in northeastern Kansas. It flows into the Missouri River where Kansas City--named for the river--is today.
The former British Empire is littered with "News."
New England, New York, New Jersey, Newfoundland, New Georgia, New South Wales, New Britain, New Ireland, New Hebrides, Nova Scotia, New London. I'm sure I'm leaving out a bunch.
The Kansas river starts at the confluence of the Kaw and Big Blue rivers. Some businessmen traveled up the Kansas to the Blue River to start a new town to be called New Boston. They had a change of heart and named the town Manhattan after the city in New (kinda) York. It became the home of the KSU Wildcats.
You left out Newport News.:)
-
Arkansas and Kansas derive from similar roots. The Algonquin name for the Quapaw tribe was acansa. The Algonquin name for the related Kaw tribe was kansa.
The Algonquin were native to Canada as well. They have a beer named after them up there, Algonquin Honey Brown. It's delicious.
The drinking age in Canada is 19 (18 in some territories). We used to take weekend road trips up there from Pittsburgh to enjoy it.
Niagra Falls is something everyone should see, it's spectacular in person. The Canadian city of Niagra is a fun experience as well. There's a casino. The beer is quality. They are obsessed with wax museums and haunted houses (strange niche). Strip clubs are full nude and you can touch (don't judge, we were teenagers then). Good weed too. Toronto is a short drive from there, excellent city.
-
https://twitter.com/flugempire/status/1421498852662824966?s=19
-
Pretty much need to split off the bay area for it to make sense, or add Notre Dame.
I don't think you can take all 4 CA schools, only 4 valuable properties in the P12 are USC/UCLA/UW/OU.
https://twitter.com/flugempire/status/1421500476416217089?s=19
-
I'd opine "New York" is not really new either, except relative to Old York.
North Carolina is in what most view as the south. I don't know what to do with Arkansas relative to Kansas.
We have a 'burb called Sandy Springs, which might have springs long lost to development. Stone Mountain is largely stone at least, which is gneiss.
Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam.
Why they changed it, I can't say.
People just liked it better that way.
-
When someone posts "It is believed that...", it's about as vague a statement as one can make, or so it is believed.
-
Adding a Cali school would be a huge mistake. Their govt likes to meddle heavy handily in everything, and they will be the first state to ban FB because of concussions.
Adding Rutgers was less short sighted than it would be to add a school from California.
-
Adding a Cali school would be a huge mistake. Their govt likes to meddle heavy handily in everything, and they will be the first state to ban FB because of concussions.
Adding Rutgers was less short sighted than it would be to add a school from California.
Maybe just the two private ones?
-
Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam.
Why they changed it, I can't say.
People just liked it better that way.
They changed it because the English defeated the Dutch Republic in one of the Anglo-Dutch wars of the 17th century and took New Amsterdam in the process. Control of it was given to James, Duke of York (the future King James II), who passed control on to four of his friends (maybe he owed them money) with the stipulation that it be named for him.
-
He was quoting song lyrics.
-
Novia Scotia is French for New Scotland.
That's pretty weird.
-
Latin, actually.
The French called it Acadia.
Know where the Acadians went and who they became after the Brits kicked them out of Acadia (and named it Nova Scotia)?
Think strange accents in Louisiana.
-
Frank the Tank in Chicago on why the Big Ten doesn't need to expand.
https://frankthetank.org/2021/07/26/texas-and-oklahoma-leave-the-big-12-why-newtons-third-law-doesnt-apply-to-conference-realignment-and-the-big-ten/
-
Frank the Tank in Chicago on why the Big Ten doesn't need to expand.
https://frankthetank.org/2021/07/26/texas-and-oklahoma-leave-the-big-12-why-newtons-third-law-doesnt-apply-to-conference-realignment-and-the-big-ten/
I like the idea of adding Army and Navy to the Big Ten that someone put forward in the comments section of the Frank the Tank piece.
-
Tom Shatel thinks there are 3 options................
https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/shatel-how-the-big-ten-can-become-college-footballs-biggest-superconference/article_5f019e82-f17c-11eb-9ffc-cf66f0cdcbf3.amp.html (https://omaha.com/sports/huskers/football/shatel-how-the-big-ten-can-become-college-footballs-biggest-superconference/article_5f019e82-f17c-11eb-9ffc-cf66f0cdcbf3.amp.html)
1. Form an alliance with the Pac-12, with nonconference scheduling among the 26 schools in all sports.
Create big-time matchups for Fox. Become partners in everything, share conference rules, etc.
That’s fine. But that’s not enough.
2. Target and pursue six Pac-12 schools to join the Big Ten.
USC, UCLA, Oregon, Washington, Stanford and Colorado.
Boom. There’s a 20-team super conference. There’s a Big Ten that stretches from Los Angeles to New York.
Now there’s one more option for those with a heartier appetite.
3. Take on the entire Pac-12.
That’s 26 schools. One giant conference. Divide it into two 13-school divisions. Call them the “Mamas” and the “Papas” ("California Dreaming"?).
Nebraska, the San Diego of the Big Ten, would be happy to slide west. And start counting the money.
-
Ought to give the Big Ten/Pac 12 "alliance" a go before jumping into anything rash.
Basically the same thing as "standing pat" only some non-con games mixed in.
Each conference would get their own autobid that way, instead of having to share one like SWC/SEC. (SWEC?)
Plus you can always back out if it sucks, or merge down the road if it is the cat's pajamas.
-
"Alliance" is a good term for it, I think, instead of "merger" or whatever else. What if the "SEC Alliance" cherry picks from the Big 12 and ACC to form four large "divisions"?
You'd perhaps have four 8 team "conferences" in alliance with each other sharing revenue. Maybe four ten team "conferences"?
-
I'm kind of amazed that the Pac 12 hasn't gobbled up Texas Tech yet, it seems so obvious to me that they need to extend a tentacle into Texas, and that west Texas would be the ideal place for them to do it.
Of course there isn't really an obvious candidate to pair them with. New Mexico would be a geographic bridge, but they are hilariously bad. Boise and UNLV have the markets, but not the "Academics" (or in UNLV's case, the football). BYU and Baylor are obviously out on religious grounds, and I can't even entertain the idea of OSUs 2&3 being in the same conference as one another, even if they are in alternate divisions. Hawaii would be kind of cool, but there are probably a myriad of issues there as well.
-
Before the University of Texas made the decision to cut loose from the Big 12 and join the SEC, two other conferences were under consideration. School president Jay Hartzell confirmed that during a special Senate committee meeting in front of Texas lawmakers on Monday.
Hartzell was asked if the school explored joining the B1G or the ACC before making a decision to reach out to the SEC. He confirmed that those two leagues were under consideration, but Texas did not reach out to either conference.
https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/university-of-texas-president-says-joining-b1g-acc-were-under-internal-consideration/?fbclid=IwAR2LSzkEkocOsp0_CeY1mtdIpp6E053XL5XZGK4pPBGqCcrseRJph_4294c (https://saturdaytradition.com/big-ten-football/university-of-texas-president-says-joining-b1g-acc-were-under-internal-consideration/?fbclid=IwAR2LSzkEkocOsp0_CeY1mtdIpp6E053XL5XZGK4pPBGqCcrseRJph_4294c)
-
Ought to give the Big Ten/Pac 12 "alliance" a go before jumping into anything rash.
Basically the same thing as "standing pat" only some non-con games mixed in.
Each conference would get their own autobid that way, instead of having to share one like SWC/SEC. (SWEC?)
Plus you can always back out if it sucks, or merge down the road if it is the cat's pajamas.
This is about expanding the B1G's geographic footprint to improve exposure and recruiting advantages. An alliance does nothing to advance that goal, and in order for it to make financial sense, the B1G has to cut some of the "takers" from the P12.
I get the hesitancy with the state of California, but there aren't many moves left on the board, especially if the SEC will take FSU and Clemson, which I think they will at some point.
https://twitter.com/MarcRyanOnAir/status/1422255062185910274?s=19
I don't think the ACC falls apart because of the GOR, but I do wonder what it takes to dissolve the conference. You could probably find a home for maybe 8 ACC schools between the B1G/SEC (UNC/UVA being the biggest prizes for the B1G).
-
Maybe just the two private ones?
This would be a good compromise on the California situation. USC is the real prize anyway, no doubt UCLA is more valuable athletically than Stanford, but academically I'm sure the president's would love to add Stanford.
You could also use that option as leverage to tell UCLA they can only come without Cal or we'll just go with Stanford/USC and be done adding in California.
-
The PAC-12 is not going to break up. Such speculation is about as feasible as the PAC-12 poaching Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, and Wisconsin.
-
I would agree
-
This is about expanding the B1G's geographic footprint to improve exposure and recruiting advantages. An alliance does nothing to advance that goal, and in order for it to make financial sense, the B1G has to cut some of the "takers" from the P12.
I get the hesitancy with the state of California, but there aren't many moves left on the board, especially if the SEC will take FSU and Clemson, which I think they will at some point.
https://twitter.com/MarcRyanOnAir/status/1422255062185910274?s=19
I don't think the ACC falls apart because of the GOR, but I do wonder what it takes to dissolve the conference. You could probably find a home for maybe 8 ACC schools between the B1G/SEC (UNC/UVA being the biggest prizes for the B1G).
I disagree. To me, this is about finding the best way to generate more revenue for the conference members without making any short-sighted, reactionary yet permanent decisions.
A scheduling agreement with the PAC does exactly that while biding time on the ACC GOR. If ACC is truly on shakey legs, then sure, be more aggressive in securing UVA, UNC, ND.
-
The term "alliance" may be the solution obviously instead of poaching and superconferences. That can happen with no impact on GOR or anything else, just scheduling agreements and sharing TV rev.
-
I say grab USC, Stanford, Oregon, Washington, Arizona and Colorado.
You get LA, SF, Portland, Seattle, Phoenix and Denver.
Done.
Divisions:
East
Rutgers
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Indiana
Purdue
Northwestern
Illinois
West
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Wisconsin
USC
Stanford
Oregon
Washington
Arizona
Colorado
Subdivisions:
East A
Rutgers
Maryland
Penn State
Purdue
Indiana
East B
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Illinois
Northwestern
West A
Iowa
Minnesota
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Colorado
West B
USC
Stanford
Oregon
Washington
Arizona
-
Arizona doesn't get you Phoenix, it gets you Tucson.
Big difference.
-
Plus Arizona State has the hottest talent. That's who I'd go with.
-
Plus Arizona State has the hottest talent. That's who I'd go with.
We have enough _______ states already.
ASU is not AAU, and they are about to get hammered by the NCAA.
-
We have enough _______ states already.
ASU is not AAU, and they are about to get hammered by the NCAA.
Nebraska's not AAU either. Gonna kick them out?
-
Nobody in Phoenix gives a crap about the Wildcats.
-
Arizona doesn't get you Phoenix, it gets you Tucson.
Big difference.
It gets you the Phoenix TV market. That's what matters here.
-
Nebraska's not AAU either. Gonna kick them out?
They are in the process of becoming AAU again.
-
It gets you the Phoenix TV market. That's what matters here.
Tuscon has a separate media market from Phoenix.
It would be like adding Cincinnati in order to get the Cleveland market.
(https://tbh.lerctr.org/~ekb/TVMarkets/Maps/arizona.gif)
-
Tuscon has a separate media market from Phoenix.
It would be like adding Cincinnati in order to get the Cleveland market.
I know that, but as I understand it, the BTN requires carriage in markets state-wide.
That said, I'd be fine with taking Utah over 'Zona.
They should get hammered by the NCAA too. But will they?
-
I disagree. To me, this is about finding the best way to generate more revenue for the conference members without making any short-sighted, reactionary yet permanent decisions.
A scheduling agreement with the PAC does exactly that while biding time on the ACC GOR. If ACC is truly on shakey legs, then sure, be more aggressive in securing UVA, UNC, ND.
That's 100% the primary motivation for the top helmet schools in the P12 because they're so far behind in revenue, the B1G's problem isn't revenue, right now anyway. The B1G could have a revenue problem long term if it fails to field nationally competitive football teams over the coming decades.
For the B1G, the primary motivating factor is setting itself up with the best odds to succeed in the new playoff landscape and compete for national championships against this retooled SEC. In order to do that, the B1G needs:
1. Exposure in good football recruiting states.
2. Revenue
3. Helmet schools that carry the banner for the B1G.
#1 is where the SEC has a monumental lead on the B1G, and why they've created such a dominant recruiting advantage. Bringing a state like California into the B1G footprint would give the conference an advantage there over the SEC in the #3/#4 recruiting hotbed in the country.
-
It'd be nice if there were a suitable (UT or aTm) Texas school available.
The only AAU in Florida is UF and they aren't going anywhere.
The only AAU in Georgia is GT, and meh, sans the Atlanta market.
-
I disagree. To me, this is about finding the best way to generate more revenue for the conference members without making any short-sighted, reactionary yet permanent decisions.
A scheduling agreement with the PAC does exactly that while biding time on the ACC GOR. If ACC is truly on shakey legs, then sure, be more aggressive in securing UVA, UNC, ND.
The Twitter rumor that FSU and Clemson reached out to the SEC seems to have been debunked.
-
That's 100% the primary motivation for the top helmet schools in the P12 because they're so far behind in revenue, the B1G's problem isn't revenue, right now anyway. The B1G could have a revenue problem long term if it fails to field nationally competitive football teams over the coming decades.
For the B1G, the primary motivating factor is setting itself up with the best odds to succeed in the new playoff landscape and compete for national championships against this retooled SEC. In order to do that, the B1G needs:
1. Exposure in good football recruiting states.
2. Revenue
3. Helmet schools that carry the banner for the B1G.
#1 is where the SEC has a monumental lead on the B1G, and why they've created such a dominant recruiting advantage. Bringing a state like California into the B1G footprint would give the conference an advantage there over the SEC in the #3/#4 recruiting hotbed in the country.
Unless you're expecting OSU, Michigan, etc to play 2+ games in California every year, a scheduling agreement accomplishes all three of your bullet points.
-
The Twitter rumor that FSU and Clemson reached out to the SEC seems to have been debunked.
What about the UT/OU rumor? (https://www.cfb51.com/Smileys/fantasticsmileys/grin.gif)
-
I suspect FSU would join the SEC if there were no barriers at all, and if they were invited.
Clemson, probably not.
The B1G is already playing 9 conference games, so they can play one P5 team OOC and still have the two pastries. If they fill up with Pac teams, it would mean no ACC/SEC/B12 opponents in the future though.
-
I suspect FSU would join the SEC if there were no barriers at all, and if they were invited.
Clemson, probably not.
The B1G is already playing 9 conference games, so they can play one P5 team OOC and still have the two pastries. If they fill up with Pac teams, it would mean no ACC/SEC/B12 opponents in the future though.
Most likely scheduling scenario would be 8 B1G, 2 PAC (1 home, 1 away), 2 open for OOC.
-
Yeah, that makes more sense, I agree.
-
Okay, one problem with a scheduling agreement--too many teams have OOC slates inked too many years in advance. So if something like this is announced, it would take too long to take effect at which point neither conference really benefits.
So here's my proposal:
- Both the B1G and PAC currently maintain a 9-game conference schedule.
- Each conference should revert back to an 8-game conference schedule.
- The teams will be mandated by the conference to a matchup (selected by the conferences together) against the other conference each year. It will be structured like the B1G/ACC challenge such that teams alternate home and away games each year.
- Since the conferences are unequal in number, there will be two extra teams from the B1G each year, which will rotate.
- The B1G will mandate that all schools must schedule 10 P5 opponents each season, so those B1G teams which are not included in the PAC challenge are not given a scheduling advantage by being granted a paycheck game against an inferior opponent. If they do not have a PAC game, they will need to schedule two P5 OOC that year.
- Given that both the B1G and the PAC have Fox tie-ins for media rights, I'm sure they can work out the revenue sharing/etc between them such that the networks are still happy despite dropping to 8 conference games.
We're too close to the season to do this for 2021, but I'll bet they could have it in place for 2022.
-
It'd be nice if there were a suitable (UT or aTm) Texas school available.
The only AAU in Florida is UF and they aren't going anywhere.
The only AAU in Georgia is GT, and meh, sans the Atlanta market.
Rice could probably be poached...
-
Rice could probably be poached...
I prefer my Rice fried.
-
What People Know: UGA & AAU (http://whatpeopleknow.blogspot.com/2016/12/uga-aau.html)
Emory is an AAU university in the state, but no football of course.
Tech technically is part of the UGA system.
I attended UNC of course and never heard anything at all about the AAU there. Perhaps it was mentioned and didn't resonate, I did visit when I was making up my mind where to attend, along with Princeton.
-
I prefer my Rice fried.
What People Know: UGA & AAU (http://whatpeopleknow.blogspot.com/2016/12/uga-aau.html)
Emory is an AAU university in the state, but no football of course.
Tech technically is part of the UGA system.
I attended UNC of course and never heard anything at all about the AAU there. Perhaps it was mentioned and didn't resonate, I did visit when I was making up my mind where to attend, along with Princeton.
UNC didn't become AAU until 1922.
-
UNC didn't become AAU until 1922.
Ha!
-
So the Big Ten needs to "keep up with the SEC" by matching each "Helmet" that the SEC adds with a member of the AAU?
How exactly does that keep the Big Ten up with the SEC?
What's the point of considering anything other than a USC/ND home run? Just to widen the Academic/Athletic chasm between the Big Ten and SEC from both ends, instead of just one?
That said, they are SO gonna add Kansas and Iowa State, with "AAU" as the reasoning. The SEC will point and laugh, and then maybe add FSU and Clemson just to rub our noses in it.
-
So the Big Ten needs to "keep up with the SEC" by matching each "Helmet" that the SEC adds with a member of the AAU?
How exactly does that keep the Big Ten up with the SEC?
What's the point of considering anything other than a USC/ND home run? Just to widen the Academic/Athletic chasm between the Big Ten and SEC from both ends, instead of just one?
That said, they are SO gonna add Kansas and Iowa State, with "AAU" as the reasoning. The SEC will point and laugh, and then maybe add FSU and Clemson just to rub our noses in it.
It is my opinion that the B1G should not cheapen ourselves in order to keep up with the SEC at all costs.
Now, that doesn't mean that we should just take any AAU school that wants to join. We should only admit schools that align with our academic AND athletic standards.
UNC / UVA would do that. Taking the collection of schools mentioned from the PAC (USC/UCLA/Stan/Ore/Wash/Colo) would do that.
Kansas is borderline. I could see them as part of a package, for example if we were going to 18 or 20 and needed one additional school to fill it out, they might be ok. But I've soured on them as any sort of a "Plan A".
Iowa State should not be a part of this conference under any circumstances.
-
I just think that they are more likely to "do the right thing" and throw the AAU Big 12ers a lifeline.
I also have a hard time seeing them poaching some AAUs from the Pac 12, which would put the other Pac 12 AAUs in the same situation as the Big 12 AAUs.
The AAUs are going to have each others back, and the plan is going to involve as many AAUs staying "P5 relevant" as possible.
-
No Kansas. Just no.
If we're adding from an AAU pool and the ACC can be looted (big IF), then UVA and UNC (and maybe Pitt) make the most sense.
I prefer going West, and then waiting to see if the ACC schools start poking around and if that conference implodes.
-
FWIW, I am not saying that I "want" them to take Kansas and Iowa State. I am just predicting that they will, and I will be happy to be wrong.
I've felt this way for a while though, so I have kind of made my peace with it. At least it maintains the geographic integrity of the SEC and Big Ten being divided along civil war lines, while the Pac 12 gets everything west of the Central Time Zone.
Silver linings are my specialty, I know.
-
the AAU thing is a great talking point from the academicians in the B1G, but we all know it doesn't mean squat compared to TV football revenue
Kansas, K-State, Iowa St., Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah aren't getting an invite
-
the AAU thing is a great talking point from the academicians in the B1G, but we all know it doesn't mean squat compared to TV football revenue
Kansas, K-State, Iowa St., Texas Tech, TCU, Rice, Arizona, Arizona St., Utah aren't getting an invite
The school Presidents and Chancellors make the decisions. The tails do not wag the dogs in the B1G.
-
https://twitter.com/dillondavis3/status/1422665049815109632
-
FWIW, I am not saying that I "want" them to take Kansas and Iowa State. I am just predicting that they will, and I will be happy to be wrong.
I've felt this way for a while though, so I have kind of made my peace with it. At least it maintains the geographic integrity of the SEC and Big Ten being divided along civil war lines, while the Pac 12 gets everything west of the Central Time Zone.
Silver linings are my specialty, I know.
So will I, but WTF??
(https://i.imgur.com/706CqXG.png)
This better be just some sunshine pumper from Lawrence.
-
hopefully, King Barry is on the scene
-
The school Presidents and Chancellors make the decisions. The tails do not wag the dogs in the B1G.
unfortunately, this is why the SEC will win
-
So the Big Ten needs to "keep up with the SEC" by matching each "Helmet" that the SEC adds with a member of the AAU?
How exactly does that keep the Big Ten up with the SEC?
What's the point of considering anything other than a USC/ND home run? Just to widen the Academic/Athletic chasm between the Big Ten and SEC from both ends, instead of just one?
That said, they are SO gonna add Kansas and Iowa State, with "AAU" as the reasoning. The SEC will point and laugh, and then maybe add FSU and Clemson just to rub our noses in it.
The B1G is trying to be the best academically and athletically....and they can't. No one can. The Ivy League did, but that was over 100 years ago.
The SEC, in all its mouth-breathing, good-ole-boy way, is smart enough to know you can be the best in one and have some schools check the other box.
It was the best athletically before adding UT and OU and had Vandy, Florida, A&M, and UGA for academics. Now it has OU for athletics and UT for academics. It got stronger in both.
The B1G can be the best P5 academically, but recently, with MSU's fall, it's falling short athletically. It's Ohio State and the 13 dwarfs. It's not an insult, it's the reality. I may be too football-centric here, but that's the $$$ of the situation.
-
The B1G is trying to be the best academically and athletically....and they can't. No one can. The Ivy League did, but that was over 100 years ago.
The SEC, in all its mouth-breathing, good-ole-boy way, is smart enough to know you can be the best in one and have some schools check the other box.
It was the best athletically before adding UT and OU and had Vandy, Florida, A&M, and UGA for academics. Now it has OU for athletics and UT for academics. It got stronger in both.
The B1G can be the best P5 academically, but recently, with MSU's fall, it's falling short athletically. It's Ohio State and the 13 dwarfs. It's not an insult, it's the reality. I may be too football-centric here, but that's the $$$ of the situation.
Ouch, talk about backhanded compliments... :)
You know, Texas did just win the Director's Cup All-Sports Trophy, first time Stanford hasn't won it in several decades.
But yes, as you point out, this is really all about football, and Texas has sucked at that particular sport for over a decade now.
-
The school Presidents and Chancellors make the decisions. The tails do not wag the dogs in the B1G.
Yes, as their covid reaction recently illustrated.
Big Ten isn't going to approach this like the SEC, because their goals are quite different.
-
What about Missouri? Would they be attractive to the B1G?
It's no secret at all that inn 2010 they desperately coveted the spot that was eventually given to Nebraska. I think if the B1G offered, they'd take it in a heartbeat. And there's no penalty in the SEC for leaving.
That could even free up a spot for the SEC to take someone else that's potentially more strategic or a better cultural fit.
-
That tweet was a sunshine pumper.
https://twitter.com/M_Vernon/status/1422667620248014851
-
and the PAC approaches things much differently than the B1G
-
What about Missouri? Would they be attractive to the B1G?
It's no secret at all that inn 2010 they desperately coveted the spot that was eventually given to Nebraska. I think if the B1G offered, they'd take it in a heartbeat. And there's no penalty in the SEC for leaving.
That could even free up a spot for the SEC to take someone else that's potentially more strategic or a better cultural fit.
I've had the same thought
KU and Mizzou make a good pair
-
What about Missouri? Would they be attractive to the B1G?
It's no secret at all that inn 2010 they desperately coveted the spot that was eventually given to Nebraska. I think if the B1G offered, they'd take it in a heartbeat. And there's no penalty in the SEC for leaving.
There's a reason there's no penalty for leaving the SEC.
-
What's the Kansas City breakdown?
Kansas is closer, but most of the metro is in Missouri.
I should know this since I lived there for a year in second grade, but that was when the Royals had George Brett, Brett Saberhagan and Bo Jackson. So they gobbled up most of the schoolyard sports banter.
-
Kansas City???
Jayhawks hoops, Mizzou football
-
There's a reason there's no penalty for leaving the SEC.
Obviously. Not sure why you even felt the need to say this.
But Mizzou always wanted the B1G because they coveted the academic prestige. To them the SEC was actually their 2nd choice. If the B1G offered them today, they'd be gone tomorrow.
The SEC would be fine without them, of course. There are plenty of schools that would gladly replace them.
-
If Mizzou left the SEC: (https://media0.giphy.com/media/aHat4DbkRrlHa/giphy.gif)
-
it's a long shot
-
Missouri is right where they should be.
(https://i.redd.it/f9y3ehafojj41.png)
-
so, we get W. Virginia, Kansas, and New Mexico?
-
That divide only applies to the Eastern and Central Time Zones.
New Mexico is west of the Central Time Zone, which is Pac 12 gang turf and not divided along civil war lines.
Big Ten's options are Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Notre Dame, W Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn and BC.
There is going to be a test later, so make sure that you write all this down.
-
Obviously. Not sure why you even felt the need to say this.
But Mizzou always wanted the B1G because they coveted the academic prestige. To them the SEC was actually their 2nd choice. If the B1G offered them today, they'd be gone tomorrow.
The SEC would be fine without them, of course. There are plenty of schools that would gladly replace them.
Yes, KU & MU are really bitter with each other and it isn't just sports rivalries. It's like the Bushwhackers and Jayhawks are still raiding towns. That would leave a spot in the SEC for Okie State, which is the best of the remaining B12 teams. I doubt it happens but it is what I'd like to see.
-
the Mizzou exit (escape to the B1G) would leave a spot for FSU
-
Question: Would Kansas consider dropping football if it meant it could join the Big East?
-
so, we get W. Virginia, Kansas, and New Mexico?
Get?
-
Question: Would Kansas consider dropping football if it meant it could join the Big East?
I think the new football coach would be pissed (and he's really good).
I'm shying away from programs with sketchy basketball programs. Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC need not apply.
-
the Mizzou exit (escape to the B1G) would leave a spot for FSU
Mizzou Exit = Mexit?
-
I think the new football coach would be pissed (and he's really good).
I'm shying away from programs with sketchy basketball programs. Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Duke, UNC need not apply.
don't leave out Syracuse
-
That divide only applies to the Eastern and Central Time Zones.
New Mexico is west of the Central Time Zone, which is Pac 12 gang turf and not divided along civil war lines.
Big Ten's options are Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Notre Dame, W Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn and BC.
There is going to be a test later, so make sure that you write all this down.
Missouri was a slave state that remained in the Union.
Sort of.
But not if you asked Jesse and Frank James.
Kentucky was another slave state that remained in the Union. So was Maryland. So was West Virginia, although it got there by a different path.
And the split in Arizona indicates that the SEC gets AAU-member U of A, while the B1G gets non-AAU and about-to-be-sanctioned ASU.
-
Question: Would Kansas consider dropping football if it meant it could join the Big East?
I think if they dropped football the B1G would pick them up in a heartbeat
-
Missouri was a slave state that remained in the Union.
Sort of.
But not if you asked Jesse and Frank James.
Kentucky was another slave state that remained in the Union. So was Maryland. So was West Virginia, although it got there by a different path.
And the split in Arizona indicates that the SEC gets AAU-member U of A, while the B1G gets non-AAU and about-to-be-sanctioned ASU.
Maryland was a tough pill for me to swallow because it was the first time that the Big Ten extended itself south of the Mason Dixon line. But they were all in on the Union, unlike Kentucky and Missouri who had one foot in and one foot out, so it's all good. West Virginia became a state in order to remain in the Union, so they are also fine. I suppose I could maybe accept Missouri and Kentucky if it came to that, but I hope that it doesn't come to that. If it's Virginia and UNC, I'm out. Might as well just join the SEC at that point, since geography no longer matters.
-
Maryland was a tough pill for me to swallow because it was the first time that the Big Ten extended itself south of the Mason Dixon line. But they were all in on the Union, unlike Kentucky and Missouri who had one foot in and one foot out, so it's all good. West Virginia became a state in order to remain in the Union, so they are also fine. I suppose I could maybe accept Missouri and Kentucky if it came to that, but I hope that it doesn't come to that. If it's Virginia and UNC, I'm out. Might as well just join the SEC at that point, since geography no longer matters.
Yeah, it's a tough call determining which state was more which way.
For example, Maryland's slaveholders were mostly in the east, and Baltimore was a particular hub of pro-slavery sentiment. Some state regiments from northern states had to fight their way through pro-slavery street mobs in Baltimore to get to Washington DC, with fatalities on both sides. In the western part of Maryland, not so much. When Lee invaded Maryland in 1862, he sounded a call for all good slavery supporters to join the Army of Northern Virginia. He didn't get much logistical support, and very few young Marylanders joined his army.
Maryland did field some Confederate regiments, though.
There would seem to be two bright lines: free state vs. slave state; Union vs. Confederate.
-
The mountainous areas tended to be more pro-Union in every state, including Georgia, and east Tennessee. In my book, East Tennessee and Kentucky combine with some western NC counties to form the state of Franklin which remains in the Union. Maryland secedes but stays independent with their new capital in DC.
-
https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCF8/status/1422937553934635010
-
^^^^^^^^
(wait for it... :) )
-
Don't get too excited. Look at "Bruce Feldman's" twitter handle...
-
The Big should jump all over this
-
The Big Ten should just add the rest of the Big12 and rename the conference the Big Whatever.
-
https://twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCF8/status/1422937553934635010
(https://i.imgur.com/e7aUuMF.png)
-
^^^^^^^^
(wait for it... :) )
"You, yes you, I'm still waiting".
-
"You, yes you, I'm still waiting".
@BruceFeldmanCF8
-
(https://i.imgur.com/e7aUuMF.png)
Exactly what I got.
Anybody want to post the contents?
-
@BruceFeldmanCF8
Who has time to sit around and memorizes everyone's twitter handle?
-
Maryland was a tough pill for me to swallow because it was the first time that the Big Ten extended itself south of the Mason Dixon line. But they were all in on the Union, unlike Kentucky and Missouri who had one foot in and one foot out, so it's all good. West Virginia became a state in order to remain in the Union, so they are also fine. I suppose I could maybe accept Missouri and Kentucky if it came to that, but I hope that it doesn't come to that. If it's Virginia and UNC, I'm out. Might as well just join the SEC at that point, since geography no longer matters.
Wikipedia says Missouri contributed 100,000 soldiers to the Union, and 40,000 to the Confederacy.
-
Looking at the map, UNC and Virginia are somewhat logical. It's like the only part of the CSA that the SEC hasn't infiltrated yet, it's Big Ten adjacent through Maryland, and it is somewhat fertile recruiting grounds. I don't love it, but it isn't the worst idea that anyone has put forth so far.
-
Looking at the map, UNC and Virginia are somewhat logical. It's like the only part of the CSA that the SEC hasn't infiltrated yet, it's Big Ten adjacent through Maryland, and it is somewhat fertile recruiting grounds. I don't love it, but it isn't the worst idea that anyone has put forth so far.
What about DOOOK
-
UNC and UVA would make a lot of sense for the B1G.
If the conference doesn't get some kind of foot in the high-growth states, it's going to become the Ivy League in 50 years (if football still exists). The VA Beach/Norfolk/Newport News area is probably a top-10 region for recruiting. Charlotte is great, too.
They expand the footprint.
The footprint remains contiguous.
Good population/high growth states.
AAU.
Good academics overall.
Plus good basketball as a bonus.
.
If I was the commissioner of the B1G (don't go running off a cliff, this is just a hypothetical), I'd poke and prod those 2 schools to see what they're thinking and/or see if it's even feasible for them to leave the ACC. It would've been my first call(s) when UT/OU to the SEC came out.
Not some PAC-6 or Iowa State/KU silliness.
-
I'll be dead in 50 years, or damn close, so I don't particularly concern myself about the long term ramifications.
In the meantime...
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FWwwxdOu.jpg&hash=07c4705926fc96bdfc0ed182729c1076)
-
Yeah, the northern half of that map hasn't changed in the past 20 years.
CA, TX, and FL are already the top recruiting states. GA, NC, VA, and LA are or have already bypassed every northern state besides maybe OH. And the gap grows every day.
.
Top 5 Cities in terms of actual growth of number of people the past 10 years:
+234K Phoenix
+225K Houston
+221K San Antonio
+186K LA
+177K Austin..........NYC is 7th, and the only B1G city is Columbus at 13th.
.
Top 5 Cities in terms of actual loss of number of people the past 10 years:
-43K Detroit
-27K Baltimore
-19K St. Louis
-16K Cleveland
-15K Toledo...........there are southern cities on the list, but 1/3 as many as northern cities.
.
The population argument is akin to northerners on the Titanic assuring everyone that it's fine, everything's fine.
You simply just need to look at the list of national champions the past 30 years to see it's not about strict population - it's about weather, youth, growth, and culture.
.
Bama Bama Bama? Go back pre-Bama. Florida, LSU, Florida, Texas, USC, LSU, OSU, Miami, OU, FSU, Tennessee!, Neb/UM, Florida, Neb, Neb, FSU, Bama, Miami/UW, GT/CU, Miami, ND......I consider that '88 NC by ND as a place-marker.
What's the tally?
Rust Belt: 6
Sun Belt: 16
Other: 2 (UW, CU)
.
Since then?
Rust Belt: 1
Sun Belt: 11
Other: 0
.
Going back to '88?
Rust Belt: 7
Sun Belt: 27
Other: 2
.
AND THE GAP IS GROWING.
-
You are a very pushy salesman for UNC and Virginia.
-
I'd take them
heck a deal could be made that details what happens years from now when the ACC GOR is closer to expiring
-
Become a southern conference just to be relevant in some distant future where they won't be playing football anyway because of concussions? Eff that.
If the North dies, the Big Ten goes down with the ship.
That said, the population in the North is still ten times as "dense" as in the south, and 100 times as dense as out west.
If you are between NYC and Chicago, you can't get away from people if you try. Even the rural areas have a farm on every plot, and a house on every farm. Out west I can 100 miles without passing a single house.
-
Metro area growth is probably more of consequence than inside the city.
I think any conference would take UNC/UVA, there is no real barrier there. When you get to Wake and Dook it gets dicey.
VT, NCSU, fairly decent football schools. FSU/Miami make an interesting pair but probably more for the SEC.
-
True, if the northern cities are losing population to their own suburbs, then they aren't really losing population other than in a very technical, statistical manner.
-
The city of Atlanta was losing population rather quickly for a couple decades while the metro area was expanding significantly.
-
If the Big Ten is going to expand....and they will....an obvious choice is ND. I have to think that they are starting to feel the pressure with conferences continuing to grow. Once the SEC and Big Ten reach 16.....who knows how long it will be until they make a move to 20. ND is not going to want to be left out when that happens. Maybe they don't worry about it as much.....seeing as how the ACC would be a consolation if the Big Ten and SEC hit their limits.....but it would be stupid to wait that long.
But count me in on the idea of adding Virginia and UNC. Both fit the mold of a Big Ten school both athletically and academically. Sure....it stretches out the footprint of the conference a little more.....but that's kind of the point. Reach other large media markets and grow conference revenues. Plus.....Virginia and UNC would be far better to add than USC and UCLA (which there have been rumors about). Those two don't fit the geographical region of the Big Ten AT ALL.
-
I may be wrong, but I believe that The Big Ten Academic Alliance provides more money to the Universities than the TV Money provides. I can't see the B1G bringing any school in that might dilute the academics since all schools of the B1G share in the BTAA.
-
If they add Virginia and UNC and keep the two division format, it would force Indiana West. What this would do is set things up so that everyone who joined the Big Ten after 1900 would be in the East Division except for Nebraska, who would occupy Chicago's spot with the OGs in the West.
You'd have the Noobs and the Rubes.
-
I may be wrong, but I believe that The Big Ten Academic Alliance provides more money to the Universities than the TV Money provides. I can't see the B1G bringing any school in that might dilute the academics since all schools of the B1G share in the BTAA.
That's really not how it works. They don't share money. They share resources.
Really miss having The UC in the CIC.
-
If the Big Ten is going to expand....and they will....an obvious choice is ND. I have to think that they are starting to feel the pressure with conferences continuing to grow. Once the SEC and Big Ten reach 16.....who knows how long it will be until they make a move to 20. ND is not going to want to be left out when that happens. Maybe they don't worry about it as much.....seeing as how the ACC would be a consolation if the Big Ten and SEC hit their limits.....but it would be stupid to wait that long.
ND is under zero pressure and is in the driver's seat, considering any conference would love to have them.
Unless they really want to be in the B1G (which does not seem to be the case), they would be foolish to lock themselves into anything until the long-term CFB landscape is more clear.
-
True, if the northern cities are losing population to their own suburbs, then they aren't really losing population other than in a very technical, statistical manner.
But what you're describing is zero net growth. That's bad.
-
You are a very pushy salesman for UNC and Virginia.
I just don't see the B1G staying on the same plane as the SEC without some kind of talent influx that is growing instead of stagnant. And they check all the silly boxes the B1G requires.
The SEC is running a 100m dash and the B1G is choosing to put hurdles in their own lane. That's on them.
-
ND is under zero pressure and is in the driver's seat, considering any conference would love to have them.
Unless they really want to be in the B1G (which does not seem to be the case), they would be foolish to lock themselves into anything until the long-term CFB landscape is more clear.
I agree, and the only chance ND has of feeling any type of squeeze or sense of urgency is if they have an elite period in the 12-team playoff format and are repeatedly left out of the top 4 seeds.
.
That MIGHT be a big-enough itch in their craw, but I doubt it.
-
I just don't see the B1G staying on the same plane as the SEC without some kind of talent influx that is growing instead of stagnant. And they check all the silly boxes the B1G requires.
The SEC is running a 100m dash and the B1G is choosing to put hurdles in their own lane. That's on them.
I don't think the Big Ten is very concerned about keeping up with the SEC on the gridiron, since they are talking to Kansas.
UNC and Virginia doesn't get the Big Ten any closer, and might even widen the gap.
-
True.
I may be thinking of UVA & UNC to the B1G as an act of keeping them out of the SEC, which would strengthen the SEC's academics.
-
I may be wrong, but I believe that The Big Ten Academic Alliance provides more money to the Universities than the TV Money provides. I can't see the B1G bringing any school in that might dilute the academics since all schools of the B1G share in the BTAA.
I believe this is correct. Huge sums of money pass through these universities and almost all the Big Ten schools are in the top 40 or 50 in terms of research dollars.
-
ND is under zero pressure and is in the driver's seat, considering any conference would love to have them.
Unless they really want to be in the B1G (which does not seem to be the case), they would be foolish to lock themselves into anything until the long-term CFB landscape is more clear.
I'm not sure that's true. As conferences expand....so will their conference schedules. At 16 teams, assuming two divisions, you'll have seven games dedicated to your own division. And assuming that schools will want to see cross division opponents more than once every four years....you're looking at probably another three there. As conferences expand, so will their conference schedules. That puts pressure on independents like ND who piece their schedules together. If/when expansion continues....ND is going to find it harder and harder to stay unaffiliated.....because once conference schedules hit 10 games.....there are going to be fewer and fewer teams willing to play them.
Not many schools are going to want to give up one of their two likely wins against the G5.....or in the SECs case.....the FCS.
-
Virginia and UNC would really beef up Big Ten Lacrosse.
They would definitely overtake the ACC as the top dog at that point, leaving them with only Duke, Cuse and ND (which is of course still pretty good).
I'm sure this will be factored heavily into their decision. O0
-
Virginia and UNC would really beef up Big Ten Lacrosse.
They would definitely overtake the ACC as the top dog at that point, leaving them with only Duke, Cuse and ND (which is of course still pretty good).
I'm sure this will be factored heavily into their decision. O0
To expand on this since you are all on the edge of your seat with bated breath, there are only 8 teams to win more than one NC in the NCAA Tournament era (1971-present). So those would be the 8 "Helmets" of College Lacrosse. They are:
- Syracuse - 10 (14 overall)
- J Hopkins - 9 (36 overall)
- Virginia - 7 (8 overall)
- Princeton - 6 (14 overall)
- N Carolina - 5
- Maryland - 3 (10 overall)
- Cornell - 3 (4 overall)
- Duke - 3
So set aside the two Ivys, and you have Cuse and Hopkins as the two "Uber Helmets," plus the old guard ACC quartet of Maryland, Virginia, N Carolina and Duke as the run of the mill "Helmets."
So if the Big Ten poached UNC and Virginia, then they would have one Uber Helmet, and 3 more Helmets.
The ACC would have 1 Uber Helmet as well, but only 1 regular Helmet, each of which would be the "worst" in their respective category. Now they will tout that they have more "Helmets per capita" and they will argue that their non-helmet (Notre Dame) is by far the best team in the Midwest, and they would point out that they don't have any hilariously bad teams like the Wolverines... and while all this would be true, the reality would be that we picked them clean.
Virginia won the last two NCs, Fwiw.
-
I believe this is correct. Huge sums of money pass through these universities and almost all the Big Ten schools are in the top 40 or 50 in terms of research dollars.
Yes, but they do not share the money. They collaborate in research and have purchasing agreements for goods/services that save the schools money. They share libraries. But not money.
Research rankings:
NSF – NCSES Academic Institution Profiles – Rankings by total R&D expenditures (https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd)
-
Interesting that UChicago is part of this.
Big Ten Academic Alliance and University of Michigan Press Announce Fund to Mission Agreement | Big Ten Academic Alliance (btaa.org) (https://www.btaa.org/about/news-and-publications/news/2021/08/05/big-ten-academic-alliance-and-university-of-michigan-press-announce-fund-to-mission-agreement)