(03-26-2019 05:08 AM)XLance Wrote:  If 4 blue-bloods are optimal, here is why the B1G should expand with Kansas and Kentucky.
1-The B1G already has at least 4 BBs in football (OSU, Mich, PSU and Nebraska...with Wisconsin as a first alternate) but only two BBs in basketball (Mich. St and Indiana). The Ky/Kansas pair would give the B1G unequaled balance in football and basketball. Remember that the top 12 basketball draws are east of Kansas and north of North Carolina.
2- Destroys the hope of the SEC ever becoming a legitimate power in basketball.
3- Leaves the SEC in a bind about their future hope for Texas or Oklahoma...why? The SEC already has too many football BBs if you count Auburn and Florida in the mix (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU). Adding one more creates problems at the top, but adding two sows the seeds of jealousy and dissent no matter how much money is on the table, plus locks both Oklahoma and Texas into a lesser status in basketball moving forward.
4- Texas seeing the need in the ACC for another football BB will join in some capacity (maybe ND status) and keep alive their hopes of growing into being a basketball power.
5- The B1G will have bested the SEC.

I find the use of the term "blue blood" to be a much more subjective thing than say "elite". In basketball, there are many who do not consider either Louisville or Syracuse as "blue bloods", but few who would doubt that they are "elite" programs. Same is true in football. When creating a list of "blue bloods" some include Florida State and Miami but I find more often than not they are excluded. However most still include them as being "elite".

So, I just don't see the need for the Big Ten to pursue both Kentucky and Kansas. Maybe one of them, but certainly not both.

As for optimal, for conferences with 12-14 I would say that they need minimally 4 elite programs in both sports. If the goal is 15/16 programs then that should probably be 5 and if the goal is 18 then the goal should probably be 6. In other words, you want a third of the conference to be "elite", a third to be mid-level with the ability for at least one of them to punch up a year or two when the an elite or two above them falters, and a third to be lower level with the ability for at least one of them to punch up a year or two when a mid-level program above them falters.

That is my ideal, but rarely are ideal situations achieved. In fact, as much as I hate the Big Ten, they are the closest that has come to achieving this ideal in both sports. The only thing they have not been able to do in both sports is to win national championships on a consistent basis. So I take joy in that at least.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-26-2019 02:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-26-2019 05:08 AM)XLance Wrote:  If 4 blue-bloods are optimal, here is why the B1G should expand with Kansas and Kentucky.
1-The B1G already has at least 4 BBs in football (OSU, Mich, PSU and Nebraska...with Wisconsin as a first alternate) but only two BBs in basketball (Mich. St and Indiana). The Ky/Kansas pair would give the B1G unequaled balance in football and basketball. Remember that the top 12 basketball draws are east of Kansas and north of North Carolina.
2- Destroys the hope of the SEC ever becoming a legitimate power in basketball.
3- Leaves the SEC in a bind about their future hope for Texas or Oklahoma...why? The SEC already has too many football BBs if you count Auburn and Florida in the mix (Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee, LSU). Adding one more creates problems at the top, but adding two sows the seeds of jealousy and dissent no matter how much money is on the table, plus locks both Oklahoma and Texas into a lesser status in basketball moving forward.
4- Texas seeing the need in the ACC for another football BB will join in some capacity (maybe ND status) and keep alive their hopes of growing into being a basketball power.
5- The B1G will have bested the SEC.

Yes and that is the difference between theory and practice. In practice it is about revenue and for good reason. Moving forward all revenue streams will be sought whether that is grant money (interesting scandal at Duke breaking in this regard) TV revenue for athletics, and particularly finding ways to replace a couple of generations of donors from a shrinking pool. The latter will only put more emphasis upon the former two.

And in that world X all movement will be toward more secure revenue streams. The big inroads have been in corporate grants, but those can be tricky with regard to intellectual property rights. So if there is movement it will be away from peaked or marginal revenue streams toward those with higher ceilings.

It will be interesting how that security unfolds in the next 3-5 years.
Will FOX's exit pull the market down for the upcoming contract renewals? Will the rejection of ESPN"S offer doom the PAC or at the very least prompt a massive restructuring of their network administration? Will the ACCN offer the security necessary to keep those schools "close enough" to be satisfied?
A lot could happen in the next 3-5 year time frame. If ESPN had money for PAC inventory, will they now look to buy their way into the BTN to secure a long term inventory supply?
It shouldn't be a surprise that Kentucky would at least "listen" to what the the B1G was offering.

In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

As for Kentucky, they are NEVER going to leave the SEC - the home of all of their football rivals except Louisville. Penn State to the ACC is still more likely than Kentucky to the Big Ten, IMO (but neither one is happening).

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

As for Kentucky, they are NEVER going to leave the SEC - the home of all of their football rivals except Louisville. Penn State to the ACC is still more likely than Kentucky to the Big Ten, IMO (but neither one is happening).

Kentucky to the ACC would excite many Big Blue fans but not enough to make it happen. Kentucky to the B1G would excite few Big Blue fans making the B1G out of the question. It's like Notre Dame becoming a full member of the ACC -- they're not making a move unless they have to and I don't see what will force them to move.

It's hard to see any P5 membership changes. I don't think there's any schools wanting to change conferences other than some in the B12 and the B12 has already been picked over. Nobody wants what's left apart from Texas and Oklahoma and they're not likely to move.

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

Basically agree, but would modify "is good right now" to "has been consistently great three of the past four decades". There still needs to be some standard of history involved, just not the length of history that is normally associated with the term "blue bloods". Virginia has certainly been great this decade and in the 80s, but not sure their 90s and 00s record gets them the "elite" designation. That's how I see it anyway at this time.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-27-2019 01:16 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

Basically agree, but would modify "is good right now" to "has been consistently great three of the past four decades". There still needs to be some standard of history involved, just not the length of history that is normally associated with the term "blue bloods". Virginia has certainly been great this decade and in the 80s, but not sure their 90s and 00s record gets them the "elite" designation. That's how I see it anyway at this time.

Cheers,
Neil

Thought I'd toss in some news. Alabama hired Nate Oates of Buffalo as their new head coach.

I think it's a good hire, but it's not a major steal.

(03-27-2019 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 01:16 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

Basically agree, but would modify "is good right now" to "has been consistently great three of the past four decades". There still needs to be some standard of history involved, just not the length of history that is normally associated with the term "blue bloods". Virginia has certainly been great this decade and in the 80s, but not sure their 90s and 00s record gets them the "elite" designation. That's how I see it anyway at this time.

Cheers,
Neil

Thought I'd toss in some news. Alabama hired Nate Oates of Buffalo as their new head coach.

I think it's a good hire, but it's not a major steal.

What a dirty move. The guy just signed an extension with Buffalo the end of last week. And he was announced today as Alabama's coach? I was hoping Cuse would get him if they couldnt lure Mike Hopkins back home, since Oates has been pretty much a life long Cuse fan. Im sure Cuse could still lure him when the time comes but no thanks, after this kind of dirty moving. It seems that he was working a deal with Bama as he was working an extension deal with Buffalo

ACC Basketball is hands down tops and that won't change..PLus AAC is coming on stronger as well with Houston, and Dan Hurley will get Uconn going this was his first year and we know what he did at RI, Plus Penny with Memphis and Rumors of Thad Matta to Cincy if Cronin goes to Vandy..But ACC has Duke, UNC, UVA. Syracuse just loaded in Basketball....SEC is doing much better, but you Know Big Ten had a down year and so too did the Pac-12...Not Sure SEC fans will get that behind Basketball like Football or Baseball as a whole....

(03-27-2019 07:56 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 01:16 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

Basically agree, but would modify "is good right now" to "has been consistently great three of the past four decades". There still needs to be some standard of history involved, just not the length of history that is normally associated with the term "blue bloods". Virginia has certainly been great this decade and in the 80s, but not sure their 90s and 00s record gets them the "elite" designation. That's how I see it anyway at this time.

Cheers,
Neil

Thought I'd toss in some news. Alabama hired Nate Oates of Buffalo as their new head coach.

I think it's a good hire, but it's not a major steal.

What a dirty move. The guy just signed an extension with Buffalo the end of last week. And he was announced today as Alabama's coach? I was hoping Cuse would get him if they couldnt lure Mike Hopkins back home, since Oates has been pretty much a life long Cuse fan. Im sure Cuse could still lure him when the time comes but no thanks, after this kind of dirty moving. It seems that he was working a deal with Bama as he was working an extension deal with Buffalo

Coaches don't do this. Agents do. When they sign with an agent most have to agree to stay out of the way and let the agent handle things. Agents always pit on offer against others and that goes for extensions. The agent makes his commission off of his % of the increases.

(03-27-2019 11:49 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 07:56 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 03:36 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 01:16 PM)OrangeDude Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

Basically agree, but would modify "is good right now" to "has been consistently great three of the past four decades". There still needs to be some standard of history involved, just not the length of history that is normally associated with the term "blue bloods". Virginia has certainly been great this decade and in the 80s, but not sure their 90s and 00s record gets them the "elite" designation. That's how I see it anyway at this time.

Cheers,
Neil

Thought I'd toss in some news. Alabama hired Nate Oates of Buffalo as their new head coach.

I think it's a good hire, but it's not a major steal.

What a dirty move. The guy just signed an extension with Buffalo the end of last week. And he was announced today as Alabama's coach? I was hoping Cuse would get him if they couldnt lure Mike Hopkins back home, since Oates has been pretty much a life long Cuse fan. Im sure Cuse could still lure him when the time comes but no thanks, after this kind of dirty moving. It seems that he was working a deal with Bama as he was working an extension deal with Buffalo

Coaches don't do this. Agents do. When they sign with an agent most have to agree to stay out of the way and let the agent handle things. Agents always pit on offer against others and that goes for extensions. The agent makes his commission off of his % of the increases.

All true, but its up to the coaches to say yes or no. Especially when its the coach that ends up looking like a scoundrel in the public's eye. In the end, the coach is going to do whats best for him and his family. Cant blame him for that, but it still has bad visuals.

I don't know XLance do you maybe think now that the money is making a difference?

(03-29-2019 08:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't know XLance do you maybe think now that the money is making a difference?

Why, is Showcause Pearl paying his players substantially more than he did five years ago?

(03-29-2019 08:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't know XLance do you maybe think now that the money is making a difference?

congrats to Auburn....money well spent.

(03-27-2019 11:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

As for Kentucky, they are NEVER going to leave the SEC - the home of all of their football rivals except Louisville. Penn State to the ACC is still more likely than Kentucky to the Big Ten, IMO (but neither one is happening).

Kentucky to the ACC would excite many Big Blue fans but not enough to make it happen. Kentucky to the B1G would excite few Big Blue fans making the B1G out of the question. It's like Notre Dame becoming a full member of the ACC -- they're not making a move unless they have to and I don't see what will force them to move.

It's hard to see any P5 membership changes. I don't think there's any schools wanting to change conferences other than some in the B12 and the B12 has already been picked over. Nobody wants what's left apart from Texas and Oklahoma and they're not likely to move.

My opinion on this from the UK side:

1) The BIG east would be an exciting fit. The BIG west, though, would be a tough sell. Our bowl game with Penn State last year felt natural as an important match-up.
2) The central schools of the ACC (Louisville, VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, NC State, maybe Pitt) would be a great fit for UK.

As I am sure most schools would feel, a conference that held UK as the center of the universe would certainly be appealing. Short of that, though, UK is never leaving the SEC because it is our home to long standing traditions and best aligns with the culture of the entire state, which is itself quite varied from corner to corner. Short of a major shake-up where we join the top 30-40 programs in a national conference/league, we're not going anywhere.

For fun, below would likely be our 11 preferred members in a UK-centric 12 member conference (no particular order):

1) Louisville
2) Tennessee
3) South Carolina
4) North Carolina
5) Duke
6) Virginia
7) West Virginia (this one really is a shame to not be annual in basketball and frequent in football)
8) Penn State
9) Ohio State
10) Indiana
11) Michigan State

*We love playing Georgia and Florida, but I think we are historically an afterthought for them except for basketball.

(03-29-2019 09:29 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 08:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't know XLance do you maybe think now that the money is making a difference?

Why, is Showcause Pearl paying his players substantially more than he did five years ago?

He was guilty of paying in BBQ to a player at the wrong time of the year. Stupid mistake, but one of the most overblown and overly punitive show-causes I can remember.

(03-29-2019 09:32 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

As for Kentucky, they are NEVER going to leave the SEC - the home of all of their football rivals except Louisville. Penn State to the ACC is still more likely than Kentucky to the Big Ten, IMO (but neither one is happening).

Kentucky to the ACC would excite many Big Blue fans but not enough to make it happen. Kentucky to the B1G would excite few Big Blue fans making the B1G out of the question. It's like Notre Dame becoming a full member of the ACC -- they're not making a move unless they have to and I don't see what will force them to move.

It's hard to see any P5 membership changes. I don't think there's any schools wanting to change conferences other than some in the B12 and the B12 has already been picked over. Nobody wants what's left apart from Texas and Oklahoma and they're not likely to move.

My opinion on this from the UK side:

1) The BIG east would be an exciting fit. The BIG west, though, would be a tough sell. Our bowl game with Penn State last year felt natural as an important match-up.
2) The central schools of the ACC (Louisville, VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, NC State, maybe Pitt) would be a great fit for UK.

As I am sure most schools would feel, a conference that held UK as the center of the universe would certainly be appealing. Short of that, though, UK is never leaving the SEC because it is our home to long standing traditions and best aligns with the culture of the entire state, which is itself quite varied from corner to corner. Short of a major shake-up where we join the top 30-40 programs in a national conference/league, we're not going anywhere.

For fun, below would likely be our 11 preferred members in a UK-centric 12 member conference (no particular order):

1) Louisville
2) Tennessee
3) South Carolina
4) North Carolina
5) Duke
6) Virginia
7) West Virginia (this one really is a shame to not be annual in basketball and frequent in football)
8) Penn State
9) Ohio State
10) Indiana
11) Michigan State

*We love playing Georgia and Florida, but I think we are historically an afterthought for them except for basketball.

Interesting:
B1G -4
ACC -4
SEC -2
XII -1

(03-29-2019 09:37 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 09:29 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 08:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I don't know XLance do you maybe think now that the money is making a difference?

Why, is Showcause Pearl paying his players substantially more than he did five years ago?

He was guilty of paying in BBQ to a player at the wrong time of the year. Stupid mistake, but one of the most overblown and overly punitive show-causes I can remember.

And lying repeatedly about it. It's always the coverup.

(03-29-2019 10:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 09:32 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

As for Kentucky, they are NEVER going to leave the SEC - the home of all of their football rivals except Louisville. Penn State to the ACC is still more likely than Kentucky to the Big Ten, IMO (but neither one is happening).

Kentucky to the ACC would excite many Big Blue fans but not enough to make it happen. Kentucky to the B1G would excite few Big Blue fans making the B1G out of the question. It's like Notre Dame becoming a full member of the ACC -- they're not making a move unless they have to and I don't see what will force them to move.

It's hard to see any P5 membership changes. I don't think there's any schools wanting to change conferences other than some in the B12 and the B12 has already been picked over. Nobody wants what's left apart from Texas and Oklahoma and they're not likely to move.

My opinion on this from the UK side:

1) The BIG east would be an exciting fit. The BIG west, though, would be a tough sell. Our bowl game with Penn State last year felt natural as an important match-up.
2) The central schools of the ACC (Louisville, VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, NC State, maybe Pitt) would be a great fit for UK.

As I am sure most schools would feel, a conference that held UK as the center of the universe would certainly be appealing. Short of that, though, UK is never leaving the SEC because it is our home to long standing traditions and best aligns with the culture of the entire state, which is itself quite varied from corner to corner. Short of a major shake-up where we join the top 30-40 programs in a national conference/league, we're not going anywhere.

For fun, below would likely be our 11 preferred members in a UK-centric 12 member conference (no particular order):

1) Louisville
2) Tennessee
3) South Carolina
4) North Carolina
5) Duke
6) Virginia
7) West Virginia (this one really is a shame to not be annual in basketball and frequent in football)
8) Penn State
9) Ohio State
10) Indiana
11) Michigan State

*We love playing Georgia and Florida, but I think we are historically an afterthought for them except for basketball.

Interesting:
B1G -4
ACC -4
SEC -2
XII -1

Before Mizzou joined, UK has always been the outlier geographically, so Tennessee has been an important connection to our conference mates. Kentuckians generally show their affection through disdain, so I think Indiana, Ohio State, West Virginia, and Tennessee in an alternate universe would be the most natural rivals for the Wildcats. Every conference member who resides at the geographical border to other conferences will naturally have other schools who they more naturally align than the conference foes on the other end of the geographic spectrum. Center of the universe schools like Alabama/Auburn, Illinois/Wisconsin, Utah/California, and Tobacco Road have it pretty good in terms of an abundance of natural rivals.

(03-30-2019 01:34 AM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 10:04 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(03-29-2019 09:32 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 11:05 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(03-27-2019 10:29 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  In my mind, the difference between "blue blood" and "elite" is duration. A blue blood has been excellent over a very long time; an elite is good right now. A team can be one without being the other - both ways.

As for Kentucky, they are NEVER going to leave the SEC - the home of all of their football rivals except Louisville. Penn State to the ACC is still more likely than Kentucky to the Big Ten, IMO (but neither one is happening).

Kentucky to the ACC would excite many Big Blue fans but not enough to make it happen. Kentucky to the B1G would excite few Big Blue fans making the B1G out of the question. It's like Notre Dame becoming a full member of the ACC -- they're not making a move unless they have to and I don't see what will force them to move.

It's hard to see any P5 membership changes. I don't think there's any schools wanting to change conferences other than some in the B12 and the B12 has already been picked over. Nobody wants what's left apart from Texas and Oklahoma and they're not likely to move.

My opinion on this from the UK side:

1) The BIG east would be an exciting fit. The BIG west, though, would be a tough sell. Our bowl game with Penn State last year felt natural as an important match-up.
2) The central schools of the ACC (Louisville, VT, UVA, UNC, Duke, NC State, maybe Pitt) would be a great fit for UK.

As I am sure most schools would feel, a conference that held UK as the center of the universe would certainly be appealing. Short of that, though, UK is never leaving the SEC because it is our home to long standing traditions and best aligns with the culture of the entire state, which is itself quite varied from corner to corner. Short of a major shake-up where we join the top 30-40 programs in a national conference/league, we're not going anywhere.

For fun, below would likely be our 11 preferred members in a UK-centric 12 member conference (no particular order):

1) Louisville
2) Tennessee
3) South Carolina
4) North Carolina
5) Duke
6) Virginia
7) West Virginia (this one really is a shame to not be annual in basketball and frequent in football)
8) Penn State
9) Ohio State
10) Indiana
11) Michigan State

*We love playing Georgia and Florida, but I think we are historically an afterthought for them except for basketball.

Interesting:
B1G -4
ACC -4
SEC -2
XII -1

Before Mizzou joined, UK has always been the outlier geographically, so Tennessee has been an important connection to our conference mates. Kentuckians generally show their affection through disdain, so I think Indiana, Ohio State, West Virginia, and Tennessee in an alternate universe would be the most natural rivals for the Wildcats. Every conference member who resides at the geographical border to other conferences will naturally have other schools who they more naturally align than the conference foes on the other end of the geographic spectrum. Center of the universe schools like Alabama/Auburn, Illinois/Wisconsin, Utah/California, and Tobacco Road have it pretty good in terms of an abundance of natural rivals.

All of us in the successful South are now victims of "northern creep", and Kentucky is no exception.
As companies have moved headquarters out of the North and Mid-West into the traditional South we (native southerners) have had to fight culture change brought with the B1G educated executives that also came with the headquarters.
Culture shift in Maryland paved the way for the B1G to even become an option for the Terps.
Unfortunately it's happening rapidly in North Carolina with the growth of RTP. In a State where Baptists outnumber everybody ,Wake County (Raleigh) stands alone in the State as reporting Roman Catholic the majority denomination.
As time has changed culture, Kentucky's "fit" may have changed as well.

Idk if already mentioned but it looks like Texas A&M is going after Buzz Williams.

https://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/tamu-f...id-in-sec/