The latest from Awful Announcing on the issues the B1G might face when cable starts fading away.

Rutgers and Maryland were added for cash not content

One thing's for sure. You won't see this article floating around in Big Ten fanboy circles...

Yeah, those were really terrible moves for the Big Ten.

They should have added Kansas and Missouri when they added Nebraska.

(05-25-2017 12:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah, those were really terrible moves for the Big Ten.

They should have added Kansas and Missouri when they added Nebraska.

That would have been fun and would have created a nice 6 team core with long history and deep rivalry in the Big 10 West.

KU, Missouri, and Nebraka...a combined 341 games in the triangle
KU vs. Missouri - 120
KU vs. Neb - 117
Missouri vs. Neb - 104

Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...a combined 326 games in the triangle
Iowa vs. Wisc - 90
Iowa vs. Minn - 110
Minn vs Wisc - 126

Wasn't there a rumor that Penn State was threatening to leave if neighbors weren't added soon?

(05-25-2017 01:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Wasn't there a rumor that Penn State was threatening to leave if neighbors weren't added soon?

I've heard that one. I don't know if it was true.

(05-25-2017 12:40 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah, those were really terrible moves for the Big Ten.

They should have added Kansas and Missouri when they added Nebraska.

That would have been fun and would have created a nice 6 team core with long history and deep rivalry in the Big 10 West.

KU, Missouri, and Nebraka...a combined 341 games in the triangle
KU vs. Missouri - 120
KU vs. Neb - 117
Missouri vs. Neb - 104

Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...a combined 326 games in the triangle
Iowa vs. Wisc - 90
Iowa vs. Minn - 110
Minn vs Wisc - 126

They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

(05-25-2017 02:08 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 01:30 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  Wasn't there a rumor that Penn State was threatening to leave if neighbors weren't added soon?

I've heard that one. I don't know if it was true.

I heard that on the message boards too, but I don't recall reading an article with a quote by someone from either Penn State or the Big 10. Even if true the options for Penn State were limited. Only the Big 10 or the ACC would make sense, and while I am certain the ACC would jump on this quickly; I doubt it would ever have come to fruition. So I don't believe the Big 10 took the threat (if there was one) seriously.

(05-25-2017 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:40 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah, those were really terrible moves for the Big Ten.

They should have added Kansas and Missouri when they added Nebraska.

That would have been fun and would have created a nice 6 team core with long history and deep rivalry in the Big 10 West.

KU, Missouri, and Nebraka...a combined 341 games in the triangle
KU vs. Missouri - 120
KU vs. Neb - 117
Missouri vs. Neb - 104

Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...a combined 326 games in the triangle
Iowa vs. Wisc - 90
Iowa vs. Minn - 110
Minn vs Wisc - 126

They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:40 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah, those were really terrible moves for the Big Ten.

They should have added Kansas and Missouri when they added Nebraska.

That would have been fun and would have created a nice 6 team core with long history and deep rivalry in the Big 10 West.

KU, Missouri, and Nebraka...a combined 341 games in the triangle
KU vs. Missouri - 120
KU vs. Neb - 117
Missouri vs. Neb - 104

Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...a combined 326 games in the triangle
Iowa vs. Wisc - 90
Iowa vs. Minn - 110
Minn vs Wisc - 126

They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

Chess? They play pinochle and uker.

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:40 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah, those were really terrible moves for the Big Ten.

They should have added Kansas and Missouri when they added Nebraska.

That would have been fun and would have created a nice 6 team core with long history and deep rivalry in the Big 10 West.

KU, Missouri, and Nebraka...a combined 341 games in the triangle
KU vs. Missouri - 120
KU vs. Neb - 117
Missouri vs. Neb - 104

Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...a combined 326 games in the triangle
Iowa vs. Wisc - 90
Iowa vs. Minn - 110
Minn vs Wisc - 126

They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

(05-26-2017 12:46 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:40 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah, those were really terrible moves for the Big Ten.

They should have added Kansas and Missouri when they added Nebraska.

That would have been fun and would have created a nice 6 team core with long history and deep rivalry in the Big 10 West.

KU, Missouri, and Nebraka...a combined 341 games in the triangle
KU vs. Missouri - 120
KU vs. Neb - 117
Missouri vs. Neb - 104

Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...a combined 326 games in the triangle
Iowa vs. Wisc - 90
Iowa vs. Minn - 110
Minn vs Wisc - 126

They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

It was actually the best time for the B1G to at those two schools. Going forward they have to develop their on field products in the money sports to maximize future value

The B1G had the perfect opportunity to add any Of those former Big 8 schools during the 2011 summer window. You could have added Nebraska and Missouri in 2010, KU in 2011 during the Boren/PAC-12 summer of Wallflowering, and, of course, you added Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 for the boost in cable boxes premium subscription rates. The only reason I see the Big Ten going after KU in the future is to try and land OU.

OU's realignment concerns have been keeping Texas and Oklahoma State on the schedule, preferably in the same conference. OU might not meet Big Ten academic standards and their little brother surely doesn't. So the chance of somehow landing just the AAU,s without them being chained to an instate public is going to require some major instability in the college football landscape.

(05-26-2017 01:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 12:46 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:40 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  That would have been fun and would have created a nice 6 team core with long history and deep rivalry in the Big 10 West.

KU, Missouri, and Nebraka...a combined 341 games in the triangle
KU vs. Missouri - 120
KU vs. Neb - 117
Missouri vs. Neb - 104

Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...a combined 326 games in the triangle
Iowa vs. Wisc - 90
Iowa vs. Minn - 110
Minn vs Wisc - 126

They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

It was actually the best time for the B1G to at those two schools. Going forward they have to develop their on field products in the money sports to maximize future value

The B1G had the perfect opportunity to add any Of those former Big 8 schools during the 2011 summer window. You could have added Nebraska and Missouri in 2010, KU in 2011 during the Boren/PAC-12 summer of Wallflowering, and, of course, you added Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 for the boost in cable boxes premium subscription rates. The only reason I see the Big Ten going after KU in the future is to try and land OU.

OU's realignment concerns have been keeping Texas and Oklahoma State on the schedule, preferably in the same conference. OU might not meet Big Ten academic standards and their little brother surely doesn't. So the chance of somehow landing just the AAU,s without them being chained to an instate public is going to require some major instability in the college football landscape.

Think about what the Big 10 needs first, and then rethink this scenario. The Big 10 is trying to push all the way into Texas. That's the only way they get both the branding and eyeballs they are after. They know that OU in the Big 10 without Texas gives them nothing but another Nebraska (a historic brand cut off from its ties and a small population to draw from). I submit the actually want to see OU and OSU in the SEC. Because in that instability Texas and Kansas make sense and provides the Big 10 with what they need. It is the most efficient solution for both conferences. What both conferences fear however is that OU would draw Texas. So both are going to play OU while they wait to see if Texas gives either of them a sign of how to play it out.

(05-26-2017 12:46 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:40 PM)tcufrog86 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 12:21 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah, those were really terrible moves for the Big Ten.

They should have added Kansas and Missouri when they added Nebraska.

That would have been fun and would have created a nice 6 team core with long history and deep rivalry in the Big 10 West.

KU, Missouri, and Nebraka...a combined 341 games in the triangle
KU vs. Missouri - 120
KU vs. Neb - 117
Missouri vs. Neb - 104

Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota...a combined 326 games in the triangle
Iowa vs. Wisc - 90
Iowa vs. Minn - 110
Minn vs Wisc - 126

They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

I think you're missing the original point. Rutgers and Maryland did lead to a windfall under the market model. No one's disputing that. The problems come in the future...

Will Rutgers and Maryland be a financial drain on the league going forward, that's the question. Short term gains...absolutely, but at what cost for the next 20, 30, and 50 years?

When cord cutting takes full effect then those large markets on the East Coast won't mean much if no one's watching. The cable subs will dry up. I don't think anyone's knocking RU or UM. The point is simply that they don't have large and passionate fan bases. Those are the people that will subscribe to OTT options to watch their favorite college teams.

(05-26-2017 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 12:46 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

It was actually the best time for the B1G to at those two schools. Going forward they have to develop their on field products in the money sports to maximize future value

The B1G had the perfect opportunity to add any Of those former Big 8 schools during the 2011 summer window. You could have added Nebraska and Missouri in 2010, KU in 2011 during the Boren/PAC-12 summer of Wallflowering, and, of course, you added Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 for the boost in cable boxes premium subscription rates. The only reason I see the Big Ten going after KU in the future is to try and land OU.

OU's realignment concerns have been keeping Texas and Oklahoma State on the schedule, preferably in the same conference. OU might not meet Big Ten academic standards and their little brother surely doesn't. So the chance of somehow landing just the AAU,s without them being chained to an instate public is going to require some major instability in the college football landscape.

Think about what the Big 10 needs first, and then rethink this scenario. The Big 10 is trying to push all the way into Texas. That's the only way they get both the branding and eyeballs they are after. They know that OU in the Big 10 without Texas gives them nothing but another Nebraska (a historic brand cut off from its ties and a small population to draw from). I submit the actually want to see OU and OSU in the SEC. Because in that instability Texas and Kansas make sense and provides the Big 10 with what they need. It is the most efficient solution for both conferences. What both conferences fear however is that OU would draw Texas. So both are going to play OU while they wait to see if Texas gives either of them a sign of how to play it out.

Agree that Texas is the big target here, but the SEC seems more likely to land OU/UT in some combo because the SEC is more likely to accept an OSU or a Tech. The SEC might have to make that move, take OU and OSU, if the B1G formally offers OU during the next round of negotiations. Also, if a move is made, it is wise to not make another one so soon that would anger the TV rights holders who would have to renegotiate those contracts again

(05-26-2017 02:33 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 12:46 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

It was actually the best time for the B1G to at those two schools. Going forward they have to develop their on field products in the money sports to maximize future value

The B1G had the perfect opportunity to add any Of those former Big 8 schools during the 2011 summer window. You could have added Nebraska and Missouri in 2010, KU in 2011 during the Boren/PAC-12 summer of Wallflowering, and, of course, you added Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 for the boost in cable boxes premium subscription rates. The only reason I see the Big Ten going after KU in the future is to try and land OU.

OU's realignment concerns have been keeping Texas and Oklahoma State on the schedule, preferably in the same conference. OU might not meet Big Ten academic standards and their little brother surely doesn't. So the chance of somehow landing just the AAU,s without them being chained to an instate public is going to require some major instability in the college football landscape.

Think about what the Big 10 needs first, and then rethink this scenario. The Big 10 is trying to push all the way into Texas. That's the only way they get both the branding and eyeballs they are after. They know that OU in the Big 10 without Texas gives them nothing but another Nebraska (a historic brand cut off from its ties and a small population to draw from). I submit the actually want to see OU and OSU in the SEC. Because in that instability Texas and Kansas make sense and provides the Big 10 with what they need. It is the most efficient solution for both conferences. What both conferences fear however is that OU would draw Texas. So both are going to play OU while they wait to see if Texas gives either of them a sign of how to play it out.

Agree that Texas is the big target here, but the SEC seems more likely to land OU/UT in some combo because the SEC is more likely to accept an OSU or a Tech. The SEC might have to make that move, take OU and OSU, if the B1G formally offers OU during the next round of negotiations. Also, if a move is made, it is wise to not make another one so soon that would anger the TV rights holders who would have to renegotiate those contracts again

Unless you make the move all at once.

Go to 4: Texa-homa
Go to 6: Texa-homa, Kansas, W.V.U.

(05-26-2017 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 12:46 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 03:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  They should have added Iowa State, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska and Oklahoma and let Penn State move to the ACC. Then two of the worst three scandals of the last decade would have belonged to the ACC.

Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

It was actually the best time for the B1G to at those two schools. Going forward they have to develop their on field products in the money sports to maximize future value

The B1G had the perfect opportunity to add any Of those former Big 8 schools during the 2011 summer window. You could have added Nebraska and Missouri in 2010, KU in 2011 during the Boren/PAC-12 summer of Wallflowering, and, of course, you added Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 for the boost in cable boxes premium subscription rates. The only reason I see the Big Ten going after KU in the future is to try and land OU.

OU's realignment concerns have been keeping Texas and Oklahoma State on the schedule, preferably in the same conference. OU might not meet Big Ten academic standards and their little brother surely doesn't. So the chance of somehow landing just the AAU,s without them being chained to an instate public is going to require some major instability in the college football landscape.

Think about what the Big 10 needs first, and then rethink this scenario. The Big 10 is trying to push all the way into Texas. That's the only way they get both the branding and eyeballs they are after. They know that OU in the Big 10 without Texas gives them nothing but another Nebraska (a historic brand cut off from its ties and a small population to draw from). I submit the actually want to see OU and OSU in the SEC. Because in that instability Texas and Kansas make sense and provides the Big 10 with what they need. It is the most efficient solution for both conferences. What both conferences fear however is that OU would draw Texas. So both are going to play OU while they wait to see if Texas gives either of them a sign of how to play it out.

That is why the SEC's (ESPN's) Missouri move is so significant.
The B1G needed to do two things at once. Destabilize the Big 12 and move on Oklahoma and Texas.
If they had taken Missouri first, instead of Nebraska, they would be much closer on the Oklahoma/Texas goal but the loss of Missouri would not have destabilized the Big 12 in the same way that taking Nebraska did (because the Big 12 would have survived the loss of Missouri).
By the SEC taking Missouri it is forcing the B1G to move through Kansas (which really holds no value for anybody)Which is why we are in such a stalemate.

(05-27-2017 08:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 12:46 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(05-25-2017 08:00 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Looks like the superiorly intellectual conference lacked a bit of insight regarding their future. I wonder how well they play chess?

The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

It was actually the best time for the B1G to at those two schools. Going forward they have to develop their on field products in the money sports to maximize future value

The B1G had the perfect opportunity to add any Of those former Big 8 schools during the 2011 summer window. You could have added Nebraska and Missouri in 2010, KU in 2011 during the Boren/PAC-12 summer of Wallflowering, and, of course, you added Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 for the boost in cable boxes premium subscription rates. The only reason I see the Big Ten going after KU in the future is to try and land OU.

OU's realignment concerns have been keeping Texas and Oklahoma State on the schedule, preferably in the same conference. OU might not meet Big Ten academic standards and their little brother surely doesn't. So the chance of somehow landing just the AAU,s without them being chained to an instate public is going to require some major instability in the college football landscape.

Think about what the Big 10 needs first, and then rethink this scenario. The Big 10 is trying to push all the way into Texas. That's the only way they get both the branding and eyeballs they are after. They know that OU in the Big 10 without Texas gives them nothing but another Nebraska (a historic brand cut off from its ties and a small population to draw from). I submit the actually want to see OU and OSU in the SEC. Because in that instability Texas and Kansas make sense and provides the Big 10 with what they need. It is the most efficient solution for both conferences. What both conferences fear however is that OU would draw Texas. So both are going to play OU while they wait to see if Texas gives either of them a sign of how to play it out.

That is why the SEC's (ESPN's) Missouri move is so significant.
The B1G needed to do two things at once. Destabilize the Big 12 and move on Oklahoma and Texas.
If they had taken Missouri first, instead of Nebraska, they would be much closer on the Oklahoma/Texas goal but the loss of Missouri would not have destabilized the Big 12 in the same way that taking Nebraska did (because the Big 12 would have survived the loss of Missouri).
By the SEC taking Missouri it is forcing the B1G to move through Kansas (which really holds no value for anybody)Which is why we are in such a stalemate.

Which is why even though I do not think the move likely, Texas to the ACC would be alright by me. It removes the Big 10's objective. And I strongly suspect their interest in Kansas and Oklahoma would be tempered in a major way should that happen. Kansas as you say has no particular value for them and without Texas then Oklahoma becomes a non AAU from a small state. Even though OU's branding would help them and they could profit by them, taking Kansas to get them might make it too nebulous of a gain for their academicians to take.

(05-27-2017 11:14 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2017 08:29 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 01:23 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 12:46 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  The BIG plays chess really well. Cable boxes affected the last round of expansion. Which was good news for RU/Md, schools in heavily populated affluent states. We brought tons of income to the BTN based on total cable subscriptions. Cord cutting will affect the next round. That is good news for OU and KU that are in low population states, but have large national followings. They bring their worth by way of national appeal for paid viewership.
OAON, why do you think the BIG should have added 5 Big 8 flagships and ISU? What does it bring to the table that KSU or OSU don't?

It was actually the best time for the B1G to at those two schools. Going forward they have to develop their on field products in the money sports to maximize future value

The B1G had the perfect opportunity to add any Of those former Big 8 schools during the 2011 summer window. You could have added Nebraska and Missouri in 2010, KU in 2011 during the Boren/PAC-12 summer of Wallflowering, and, of course, you added Rutgers and Maryland in 2014 for the boost in cable boxes premium subscription rates. The only reason I see the Big Ten going after KU in the future is to try and land OU.

OU's realignment concerns have been keeping Texas and Oklahoma State on the schedule, preferably in the same conference. OU might not meet Big Ten academic standards and their little brother surely doesn't. So the chance of somehow landing just the AAU,s without them being chained to an instate public is going to require some major instability in the college football landscape.

Think about what the Big 10 needs first, and then rethink this scenario. The Big 10 is trying to push all the way into Texas. That's the only way they get both the branding and eyeballs they are after. They know that OU in the Big 10 without Texas gives them nothing but another Nebraska (a historic brand cut off from its ties and a small population to draw from). I submit the actually want to see OU and OSU in the SEC. Because in that instability Texas and Kansas make sense and provides the Big 10 with what they need. It is the most efficient solution for both conferences. What both conferences fear however is that OU would draw Texas. So both are going to play OU while they wait to see if Texas gives either of them a sign of how to play it out.

That is why the SEC's (ESPN's) Missouri move is so significant.
The B1G needed to do two things at once. Destabilize the Big 12 and move on Oklahoma and Texas.
If they had taken Missouri first, instead of Nebraska, they would be much closer on the Oklahoma/Texas goal but the loss of Missouri would not have destabilized the Big 12 in the same way that taking Nebraska did (because the Big 12 would have survived the loss of Missouri).
By the SEC taking Missouri it is forcing the B1G to move through Kansas (which really holds no value for anybody)Which is why we are in such a stalemate.

Which is why even though I do not think the move likely, Texas to the ACC would be alright by me. It removes the Big 10's objective. And I strongly suspect their interest in Kansas and Oklahoma would be tempered in a major way should that happen. Kansas as you say has no particular value for them and without Texas then Oklahoma becomes a non AAU from a small state. Even though OU's branding would help them and they could profit by them, taking Kansas to get them might make it too nebulous of a gain for their academicians to take.

JR, Texas to the ACC is extremely likely when you put it into the context of a short term solution (maybe 20 years).
If the PAC is not ready to capitulate and the SEC is not an option (which I think it is not), then the ACC is as good a place as any to "park" an asset.
What it does do is allows ESPN time. It postpones the "100 year decisions" and may keep Oklahoma out of the B1G.
Plus giving Texas a chance to take an east coast tour would only enhance their "national" appeal and status.
Who knows, they may take up lacrosse and field hockey and decide to stay.

I would also mention conservative estimates show that the addition of Texas (even as a partial) would generate projected income (from subscriptions alone) somewhere between $5 and $8 million per month for the ACCN.