Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
Author Message
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #41
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-24-2013 05:17 PM)Journeyman22 Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 11:38 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Had the B1G not shown Mizzou the "Heisman Hand" the last go'round, I'd agree with you, but something about being jilted will loom, and especially given how welcoming the SEC was to Mizzou last season. They're staying put, plus they have recruiting grounds in Texas and Florida.

True, the SEC's league office was very welcoming to Mizzou, but the fans were left scratching their heads. SEC fans don't really want Mizzou and have ridiculed their football from Day 1.

Mizzou cares a lot about basketball, too, while it's not really a priority in the SEC (Kentucky and 1-2 others are obvious exceptions).

Academics? Mizzou is a better fit with the B1G.

So while unlikely, I could see a possibility of both Mizzou and Vandy seriously weighing a B1G offer, if there was one.
I have no idea what fans you have been talking to, but I can assure you we made many friends on our first trip through the SEC. "SEC fans" must be you, but no.... I see you are a big Sunbelt fan. Spend a bit of time on the SECFanatics page and you might see what I mean... Let the BS rest
04-24-2013 06:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #42
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-24-2013 04:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 04:38 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 01:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 11:38 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Had the B1G not shown Mizzou the "Heisman Hand" the last go'round, I'd agree with you, but something about being jilted will loom, and especially given how welcoming the SEC was to Mizzou last season. They're staying put, plus they have recruiting grounds in Texas and Florida.
Thank you ecuacc4ever. That's the point I have been driving home for over a year, We are not Alabama, but we are not cannon fodder. It also remains to be seen which conference ends up making the most TV revenue... our 5-7 season was sub par with major injuries and all, but the SEC fans sealed the deal with Missouri fans last year. They were awesome. They didn't give us the Heisman Hand either... We are still signing kids out of the KC area (so much for the Jayhawk argument) and St Louis is totally on board. The closest the B1G will ever get to Mizzou is a revival of the Mizzou-Illini game in St Louis...
Did anyone seriously suggest that KU would start to dominate football recruiting in KC? If so, they've been knocking back a few, or perhaps enjoying some herbal supplements. 04-cheers

I do think that the KC area likely has the highest affinity of Big 12 vs SEC in the state, but I don't see Missouri going anywhere else. I do think they very much have their work cut out for them in the SEC, but (and this is not intended to be snarky) while they had some good seasons recently it's not like they were regularly sitting atop the Big 8/12 over the past 3 decades. Missouri is a solid addition for the SEC on many levels, and I can't see them leaving.
BTP... I am referring to a lot of media reports that the KC area was totally against any SEC move and that a lot of the HS players might take a Big XII scholarship. There are Mizzou-Jayhawk fans on both sides of the state line and family members living in opposite states of each other. If Mizzou were to lose out in a recruiting war, the KC area was supposed to be a Missouri weak spot. I am merely stating that from what has happened since our move has proved this to be incorrect. That said, when do we play again?
I do know a few KC-area MU alums that are still annoyed at the move, but I think that they're a minority, and that whole scenario was over-anticipated.

When do we play again? Not for a long time, I suspect. I just don't see a lot of incentive for us to do so.

First and foremost, there has to be demand from the fanbase, and it's simply not there. For all of the comments about hurt feelings (I'm enough of a curmudgeon that I'm just not going to stoop to use the usual message board term), I really don't think that's the case. As has been stated in other places, just as most MU fans have moved on, so have most KU fans. Sure, you can find some "they left the Big12, so screw them!" sentiment, but for the most part KU fans just don't care (although many of us are amused by Kim Mulkey's divorce analogy). While we're still watchful of what's happening in realignment, as far as the actual competition goes we do genuinely like the round-robin format of the current Big 12, and don't feel a void.

That leaves the cold-hearted calculation of what's in our best interests. To address specific sports, let's start with basketball. Fully acknowledging that this will come off sounding like an arrogant KU hoops fan, there's simply no incentive for us to schedule MU out-of-conference. We don't need them to visit in order to fill our arena, and we're able through tournaments and direct scheduling to get high-profile games on our schedule. We're certainly not fleeing for competitive reasons. We did recently start a new series with former Big 12 school Colorado, but their coach played at KU, and we have a significant number of fans in Colorado and Western KS who attend that game. It also doesn't hurt to cultivate a relationship within the Pac12, just in case. (Even if the Big 12 collapses at some point, I think an SEC invitation is so unlikely that I see less of a need to specifically cultivate relationships there.)

As for football, we've got a lot of work to do with our program. While some may not want to admit it, I think that we definitely believe it's prudent to emulate KSU's example in building a program, specifically as it pertains to getting winnable games on the non-conference schedule. At this stage, that usually means teams from non-power conferences, and we still have a long way to climb even against that "lesser" competition. With a 9-game conference schedule, we probably only have one slot each season to use against teams from top-tier leagues, and we probably want to be strategic with those slots. I think that they'd be prudent to use them to build relationships, particularly with schools in the B1G or Pac12. So far that doesn't seem to be the case, aside from a Rutgers series scheduled prior to their move, but I'd hope that it is figuring into future planning.

From MU's side, while playing KU is hardly essential, I think there are still more incentives to make the offer. First, it's a great PR move. Even though Missouri's departure from the Big 12 caused the initial discontinuity in the series, it makes them look good to make the offer, and forces KU to look either petty or calculating (or both). Second, on the football side while MU slumped last year they've played well recently, and KU's recent struggles make us look like a good chance to pick up a win, even though the overall series (both long-term and recent) is extremely close. Third, on the hoops side KU is a marquee opponent who would draw fans to the arena as well as garner good TV ratings. In short, I think MU has more incentive to offer to play KU than KU has to accept.
04-24-2013 11:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #43
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-24-2013 11:04 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 04:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 04:38 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 01:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 11:38 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Had the B1G not shown Mizzou the "Heisman Hand" the last go'round, I'd agree with you, but something about being jilted will loom, and especially given how welcoming the SEC was to Mizzou last season. They're staying put, plus they have recruiting grounds in Texas and Florida.
Thank you ecuacc4ever. That's the point I have been driving home for over a year, We are not Alabama, but we are not cannon fodder. It also remains to be seen which conference ends up making the most TV revenue... our 5-7 season was sub par with major injuries and all, but the SEC fans sealed the deal with Missouri fans last year. They were awesome. They didn't give us the Heisman Hand either... We are still signing kids out of the KC area (so much for the Jayhawk argument) and St Louis is totally on board. The closest the B1G will ever get to Mizzou is a revival of the Mizzou-Illini game in St Louis...
Did anyone seriously suggest that KU would start to dominate football recruiting in KC? If so, they've been knocking back a few, or perhaps enjoying some herbal supplements. 04-cheers

I do think that the KC area likely has the highest affinity of Big 12 vs SEC in the state, but I don't see Missouri going anywhere else. I do think they very much have their work cut out for them in the SEC, but (and this is not intended to be snarky) while they had some good seasons recently it's not like they were regularly sitting atop the Big 8/12 over the past 3 decades. Missouri is a solid addition for the SEC on many levels, and I can't see them leaving.
BTP... I am referring to a lot of media reports that the KC area was totally against any SEC move and that a lot of the HS players might take a Big XII scholarship. There are Mizzou-Jayhawk fans on both sides of the state line and family members living in opposite states of each other. If Mizzou were to lose out in a recruiting war, the KC area was supposed to be a Missouri weak spot. I am merely stating that from what has happened since our move has proved this to be incorrect. That said, when do we play again?
I do know a few KC-area MU alums that are still annoyed at the move, but I think that they're a minority, and that whole scenario was over-anticipated.

When do we play again? Not for a long time, I suspect. I just don't see a lot of incentive for us to do so.

First and foremost, there has to be demand from the fanbase, and it's simply not there. For all of the comments about hurt feelings (I'm enough of a curmudgeon that I'm just not going to stoop to use the usual message board term), I really don't think that's the case. As has been stated in other places, just as most MU fans have moved on, so have most KU fans. Sure, you can find some "they left the Big12, so screw them!" sentiment, but for the most part KU fans just don't care (although many of us are amused by Kim Mulkey's divorce analogy). While we're still watchful of what's happening in realignment, as far as the actual competition goes we do genuinely like the round-robin format of the current Big 12, and don't feel a void.

That leaves the cold-hearted calculation of what's in our best interests. To address specific sports, let's start with basketball. Fully acknowledging that this will come off sounding like an arrogant KU hoops fan, there's simply no incentive for us to schedule MU out-of-conference. We don't need them to visit in order to fill our arena, and we're able through tournaments and direct scheduling to get high-profile games on our schedule. We're certainly not fleeing for competitive reasons. We did recently start a new series with former Big 12 school Colorado, but their coach played at KU, and we have a significant number of fans in Colorado and Western KS who attend that game. It also doesn't hurt to cultivate a relationship within the Pac12, just in case. (Even if the Big 12 collapses at some point, I think an SEC invitation is so unlikely that I see less of a need to specifically cultivate relationships there.)

As for football, we've got a lot of work to do with our program. While some may not want to admit it, I think that we definitely believe it's prudent to emulate KSU's example in building a program, specifically as it pertains to getting winnable games on the non-conference schedule. At this stage, that usually means teams from non-power conferences, and we still have a long way to climb even against that "lesser" competition. With a 9-game conference schedule, we probably only have one slot each season to use against teams from top-tier leagues, and we probably want to be strategic with those slots. I think that they'd be prudent to use them to build relationships, particularly with schools in the B1G or Pac12. So far that doesn't seem to be the case, aside from a Rutgers series scheduled prior to their move, but I'd hope that it is figuring into future planning.

From MU's side, while playing KU is hardly essential, I think there are still more incentives to make the offer. First, it's a great PR move. Even though Missouri's departure from the Big 12 caused the initial discontinuity in the series, it makes them look good to make the offer, and forces KU to look either petty or calculating (or both). Second, on the football side while MU slumped last year they've played well recently, and KU's recent struggles make us look like a good chance to pick up a win, even though the overall series (both long-term and recent) is extremely close. Third, on the hoops side KU is a marquee opponent who would draw fans to the arena as well as garner good TV ratings. In short, I think MU has more incentive to offer to play KU than KU has to accept.
Good post and many good points. I thought Missouri had requested that the series continue. Coach Self, on the BB side, seemed pretty angry. I just wish that we played both KU and Illinois because we are neighbors. Not in Arrowhead or the Edward Jones Dome, but at the school sites. I guess time will tell. I think your Jayhawks are on the B1G short list now.04-cheers
04-24-2013 11:13 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BewareThePhog Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,881
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 137
I Root For: KU
Location:
Post: #44
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-24-2013 11:13 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 11:04 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 04:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 04:38 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 01:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Thank you ecuacc4ever. That's the point I have been driving home for over a year, We are not Alabama, but we are not cannon fodder. It also remains to be seen which conference ends up making the most TV revenue... our 5-7 season was sub par with major injuries and all, but the SEC fans sealed the deal with Missouri fans last year. They were awesome. They didn't give us the Heisman Hand either... We are still signing kids out of the KC area (so much for the Jayhawk argument) and St Louis is totally on board. The closest the B1G will ever get to Mizzou is a revival of the Mizzou-Illini game in St Louis...
Did anyone seriously suggest that KU would start to dominate football recruiting in KC? If so, they've been knocking back a few, or perhaps enjoying some herbal supplements. 04-cheers

I do think that the KC area likely has the highest affinity of Big 12 vs SEC in the state, but I don't see Missouri going anywhere else. I do think they very much have their work cut out for them in the SEC, but (and this is not intended to be snarky) while they had some good seasons recently it's not like they were regularly sitting atop the Big 8/12 over the past 3 decades. Missouri is a solid addition for the SEC on many levels, and I can't see them leaving.
BTP... I am referring to a lot of media reports that the KC area was totally against any SEC move and that a lot of the HS players might take a Big XII scholarship. There are Mizzou-Jayhawk fans on both sides of the state line and family members living in opposite states of each other. If Mizzou were to lose out in a recruiting war, the KC area was supposed to be a Missouri weak spot. I am merely stating that from what has happened since our move has proved this to be incorrect. That said, when do we play again?
I do know a few KC-area MU alums that are still annoyed at the move, but I think that they're a minority, and that whole scenario was over-anticipated.

When do we play again? Not for a long time, I suspect. I just don't see a lot of incentive for us to do so.

First and foremost, there has to be demand from the fanbase, and it's simply not there. For all of the comments about hurt feelings (I'm enough of a curmudgeon that I'm just not going to stoop to use the usual message board term), I really don't think that's the case. As has been stated in other places, just as most MU fans have moved on, so have most KU fans. Sure, you can find some "they left the Big12, so screw them!" sentiment, but for the most part KU fans just don't care (although many of us are amused by Kim Mulkey's divorce analogy). While we're still watchful of what's happening in realignment, as far as the actual competition goes we do genuinely like the round-robin format of the current Big 12, and don't feel a void.

That leaves the cold-hearted calculation of what's in our best interests. To address specific sports, let's start with basketball. Fully acknowledging that this will come off sounding like an arrogant KU hoops fan, there's simply no incentive for us to schedule MU out-of-conference. We don't need them to visit in order to fill our arena, and we're able through tournaments and direct scheduling to get high-profile games on our schedule. We're certainly not fleeing for competitive reasons. We did recently start a new series with former Big 12 school Colorado, but their coach played at KU, and we have a significant number of fans in Colorado and Western KS who attend that game. It also doesn't hurt to cultivate a relationship within the Pac12, just in case. (Even if the Big 12 collapses at some point, I think an SEC invitation is so unlikely that I see less of a need to specifically cultivate relationships there.)

As for football, we've got a lot of work to do with our program. While some may not want to admit it, I think that we definitely believe it's prudent to emulate KSU's example in building a program, specifically as it pertains to getting winnable games on the non-conference schedule. At this stage, that usually means teams from non-power conferences, and we still have a long way to climb even against that "lesser" competition. With a 9-game conference schedule, we probably only have one slot each season to use against teams from top-tier leagues, and we probably want to be strategic with those slots. I think that they'd be prudent to use them to build relationships, particularly with schools in the B1G or Pac12. So far that doesn't seem to be the case, aside from a Rutgers series scheduled prior to their move, but I'd hope that it is figuring into future planning.

From MU's side, while playing KU is hardly essential, I think there are still more incentives to make the offer. First, it's a great PR move. Even though Missouri's departure from the Big 12 caused the initial discontinuity in the series, it makes them look good to make the offer, and forces KU to look either petty or calculating (or both). Second, on the football side while MU slumped last year they've played well recently, and KU's recent struggles make us look like a good chance to pick up a win, even though the overall series (both long-term and recent) is extremely close. Third, on the hoops side KU is a marquee opponent who would draw fans to the arena as well as garner good TV ratings. In short, I think MU has more incentive to offer to play KU than KU has to accept.
Good post and many good points. I thought Missouri had requested that the series continue. Coach Self, on the BB side, seemed pretty angry. I just wish that we played both KU and Illinois because we are neighbors. Not in Arrowhead or the Edward Jones Dome, but at the school sites. I guess time will tell. I think your Jayhawks are on the B1G short list now.04-cheers
Thanks. Bill is an old Big 8 guy, so I suspect that he's a bit irked at the whole realignment thing with so many Big 8 schools having left. I'm just glad that Missouri didn't hire him when they had the chance to do so. 04-cheers

Good point about the games being played at the schools' sites. I understand the appeal of the Arrowhead game in particular since KC straddles the state line, but I prefer when teams play in their home towns. It's really important for the local economies, and I think it's just a better environment. KU's home football environment is light years away from what you'd see in the SEC or at other traditional football powers, but it has improved a lot in the last decade or so and the area around the stadium on game day has taken on a great new energy and feel.

As for being on the B1G's short list, I'm not holding my breath. As much as KU has to offer, there are still enough shortcomings that I could only see an offer coming as part of a well-considered package deal. Once upon a time I thought the B1G could make an amazing stroke by adding KU, MU, OU, and UT, but of course there were too many obstacles for that to happen and now even if some of them could be overcome I just can't imagine it happening with the moves that have taken place in the last couple of years.
04-24-2013 11:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #45
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-24-2013 11:32 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 11:13 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 11:04 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 04:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 04:38 PM)BewareThePhog Wrote:  Did anyone seriously suggest that KU would start to dominate football recruiting in KC? If so, they've been knocking back a few, or perhaps enjoying some herbal supplements. 04-cheers

I do think that the KC area likely has the highest affinity of Big 12 vs SEC in the state, but I don't see Missouri going anywhere else. I do think they very much have their work cut out for them in the SEC, but (and this is not intended to be snarky) while they had some good seasons recently it's not like they were regularly sitting atop the Big 8/12 over the past 3 decades. Missouri is a solid addition for the SEC on many levels, and I can't see them leaving.
BTP... I am referring to a lot of media reports that the KC area was totally against any SEC move and that a lot of the HS players might take a Big XII scholarship. There are Mizzou-Jayhawk fans on both sides of the state line and family members living in opposite states of each other. If Mizzou were to lose out in a recruiting war, the KC area was supposed to be a Missouri weak spot. I am merely stating that from what has happened since our move has proved this to be incorrect. That said, when do we play again?
I do know a few KC-area MU alums that are still annoyed at the move, but I think that they're a minority, and that whole scenario was over-anticipated.

When do we play again? Not for a long time, I suspect. I just don't see a lot of incentive for us to do so.

First and foremost, there has to be demand from the fanbase, and it's simply not there. For all of the comments about hurt feelings (I'm enough of a curmudgeon that I'm just not going to stoop to use the usual message board term), I really don't think that's the case. As has been stated in other places, just as most MU fans have moved on, so have most KU fans. Sure, you can find some "they left the Big12, so screw them!" sentiment, but for the most part KU fans just don't care (although many of us are amused by Kim Mulkey's divorce analogy). While we're still watchful of what's happening in realignment, as far as the actual competition goes we do genuinely like the round-robin format of the current Big 12, and don't feel a void.

That leaves the cold-hearted calculation of what's in our best interests. To address specific sports, let's start with basketball. Fully acknowledging that this will come off sounding like an arrogant KU hoops fan, there's simply no incentive for us to schedule MU out-of-conference. We don't need them to visit in order to fill our arena, and we're able through tournaments and direct scheduling to get high-profile games on our schedule. We're certainly not fleeing for competitive reasons. We did recently start a new series with former Big 12 school Colorado, but their coach played at KU, and we have a significant number of fans in Colorado and Western KS who attend that game. It also doesn't hurt to cultivate a relationship within the Pac12, just in case. (Even if the Big 12 collapses at some point, I think an SEC invitation is so unlikely that I see less of a need to specifically cultivate relationships there.)

As for football, we've got a lot of work to do with our program. While some may not want to admit it, I think that we definitely believe it's prudent to emulate KSU's example in building a program, specifically as it pertains to getting winnable games on the non-conference schedule. At this stage, that usually means teams from non-power conferences, and we still have a long way to climb even against that "lesser" competition. With a 9-game conference schedule, we probably only have one slot each season to use against teams from top-tier leagues, and we probably want to be strategic with those slots. I think that they'd be prudent to use them to build relationships, particularly with schools in the B1G or Pac12. So far that doesn't seem to be the case, aside from a Rutgers series scheduled prior to their move, but I'd hope that it is figuring into future planning.

From MU's side, while playing KU is hardly essential, I think there are still more incentives to make the offer. First, it's a great PR move. Even though Missouri's departure from the Big 12 caused the initial discontinuity in the series, it makes them look good to make the offer, and forces KU to look either petty or calculating (or both). Second, on the football side while MU slumped last year they've played well recently, and KU's recent struggles make us look like a good chance to pick up a win, even though the overall series (both long-term and recent) is extremely close. Third, on the hoops side KU is a marquee opponent who would draw fans to the arena as well as garner good TV ratings. In short, I think MU has more incentive to offer to play KU than KU has to accept.
Good post and many good points. I thought Missouri had requested that the series continue. Coach Self, on the BB side, seemed pretty angry. I just wish that we played both KU and Illinois because we are neighbors. Not in Arrowhead or the Edward Jones Dome, but at the school sites. I guess time will tell. I think your Jayhawks are on the B1G short list now.04-cheers
Thanks. Bill is an old Big 8 guy, so I suspect that he's a bit irked at the whole realignment thing with so many Big 8 schools having left. I'm just glad that Missouri didn't hire him when they had the chance to do so. 04-cheers

Good point about the games being played at the schools' sites. I understand the appeal of the Arrowhead game in particular since KC straddles the state line, but I prefer when teams play in their home towns. It's really important for the local economies, and I think it's just a better environment. KU's home football environment is light years away from what you'd see in the SEC or at other traditional football powers, but it has improved a lot in the last decade or so and the area around the stadium on game day has taken on a great new energy and feel.

As for being on the B1G's short list, I'm not holding my breath. As much as KU has to offer, there are still enough shortcomings that I could only see an offer coming as part of a well-considered package deal. Once upon a time I thought the B1G could make an amazing stroke by adding KU, MU, OU, and UT, but of course there were too many obstacles for that to happen and now even if some of them could be overcome I just can't imagine it happening with the moves that have taken place in the last couple of years.
If the Texhoma four had split from the Big XII, the rest of us would have probably joined the Old BE and that would now be a thriving conference. Seems like everyone got along in the Big 8 and even in the Big 12, with the exception of Texas. KU football will be back soon. 5-6 years ago we played as 10-0 teams... as far as the KU facilities, they are probably about as good as several of the B1G, PAC 12, and SEC venues, including ours... we count rock seats. lol. You guys seat over 50,000 and it's easily expandable in the end zone. best wishes. 04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 04-25-2013 12:19 AM by USAFMEDIC.)
04-25-2013 12:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JunkYardCard Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,875
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #46
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-24-2013 04:12 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 03:55 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 03:03 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Nebraska is nice and all, but their brand was built on what is now a non-existent rivalry -- Nebraska v. Oklahoma.

I've often wondered if Nebraska isn't just a rural version of Miami. Both of them seem to have their glory years pretty far back in the rear view mirror.
And by moving to the B1G, Nebraska volunteered for the same problem WVU has - no natural place to recruit.

Getting Texas recruits was easy when you played games in Texas. But getting those same recruits to move to corn country is a lot more difficult when the games are in Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin.

It wouldn't surprise me if in 10 to 15 years, Nebraska was considered third best of the B1G's three additions.

They didn't rely that much on Texas when they were in the Big 8. They recruited nationally. Hasn't hurt Notre Dame or Tennessee to have no talent in their backyard. Just have to work a little harder.

They have a brand and diehard fans and will continue to be good. Whether they get back to being Nebraska or slip to being a Wisconsin is an issue, but they will definitely be the top of the 3 additions.

I'm definitely not predicting that kind of drop off - just saying I wouldn't be surprised. Also, Rutgers and Maryland leapfrogging Nebraska over 10 to 15 years would require huge leaps forward by the Terps and Knights, not just a big fall back by the Huskers. I know that.

ND still has that national cache. I am not sure Nebraska does with recruits. Tennessee can recruit the south much easier than Nebraska because the Volunteers PLAY in the south. Coming to Knoxville is an easier sell.

I'm not trying to insult Nebraska. This is all conjecture. I'm just looking for where the unintended consequences might turn up in the next decade.
04-25-2013 08:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bullet Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 66,292
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 3285
I Root For: Texas, UK, UGA
Location:
Post: #47
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-24-2013 04:58 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 04:53 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Nebraska was at its height when they were allowed partial qualifiers and to use the entire state to fund Corn husker football.

Without those 2 advantages, NU has had a hard time sustaining their previous success
And the University of Texas called BS on them for that after joining the Big XII....hence the ill-will by Nebraska towards the Longhorns.

Mostly confined to Tom Osborne. Any ill will comes from his leadership. Of course, losing 9 out of 10 to Texas contributed too. Those Nebraska teams of the mid-90s were probably the best ever. They also, one of those years, had more prop 16s than any other conference in the country. Osborne justified using those players and justified putting his star running back back on the team after beating up his girlfriend (who was also a Nebraska student-athlete).

But Nebraska was good before they got excessive with that and before Osborne.
04-25-2013 08:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Frank the Tank Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 18,720
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 1773
I Root For: Illinois/DePaul
Location: Chicago
Post: #48
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
A couple of things:

(1) Nebraska has sold every single game for over *50* years straight. Repeat: they have not failed to sellout a game in over half of a century. No one - not Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Alabama, LSU or anyone else - comes close to that type of support.

(2) They just had 60,000 people show up for their spring game, which is also something that happens every year.

They're like the Green Bay Packers of college football - small market doesn't matter. That type of uniform and unwavering fan support will always give them the resources to be an elite school.
04-25-2013 08:15 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HP-TBDPITL Offline
All American
*

Posts: 3,495
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 82
I Root For: College Sports
Location:
Post: #49
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
I kind of find it funny that some folks still don't get the B1G's moves....Nebraska had the best "national" appeal of the potential schools to the West of the B1G...over Kansas (FB trumps basketball on TV) and Missouri....Rutgers and Maryland were THE State Universities (with virtually no competition) of two of the most populous states in the country and include the Wash DC, Baltimore and NYC (as well as close to Philly) markets. Those two universities have been discussed in B1G circles since Penn State was added over 20 years ago before the ACC had even added Florida State. They provide some synergy to the Penn State add and JoePa had wanted it for years....the money was right for the B1G right now.

They could add UConn, but really whats the point, its not like they would want them for recruiting or anything. I can see it dying out now.

I still think the B12 will look at Cincy (Ohio territory and travel partner with WVU) and BYU, maybe not right now, but at some point.
04-25-2013 08:35 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ODUalum78 Online
Overseer of the Unwashed Masses
*

Posts: 9,325
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 158
I Root For: ODU
Location: Chesterfield, Va

Lion's Den Poster of the Year
Post: #50
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-25-2013 08:35 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I kind of find it funny that some folks still don't get the B1G's moves....Nebraska had the best "national" appeal of the potential schools to the West of the B1G...over Kansas (FB trumps basketball on TV) and Missouri....Rutgers and Maryland were THE State Universities (with virtually no competition) of two of the most populous states in the country and include the Wash DC, Baltimore and NYC (as well as close to Philly) markets. Those two universities have been discussed in B1G circles since Penn State was added over 20 years ago before the ACC had even added Florida State. They provide some synergy to the Penn State add and JoePa had wanted it for years....the money was right for the B1G right now.

They could add UConn, but really whats the point, its not like they would want them for recruiting or anything. I can see it dying out now.

I still think the B12 will look at Cincy (Ohio territory and travel partner with WVU) and BYU, maybe not right now, but at some point.

This certainly would make sense.
Would the Big 12 then add another and got to 12 or just stay at 11?
04-25-2013 08:46 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JunkYardCard Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,875
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Louisville, KY
Post: #51
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-25-2013 08:35 AM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  I kind of find it funny that some folks still don't get the B1G's moves....

I think plenty of people get it. It's just a discussion of how it will play out in the long run.
04-25-2013 08:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Poliicious Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,138
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 7
I Root For: WildcatsHuskies
Location:
Post: #52
RE: ACC deal makes Big Ten expansion unlikely, Jim Delany says (Link)
(04-24-2013 02:30 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 01:52 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-24-2013 11:38 AM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Had the B1G not shown Mizzou the "Heisman Hand" the last go'round, I'd agree with you, but something about being jilted will loom, and especially given how welcoming the SEC was to Mizzou last season. They're staying put, plus they have recruiting grounds in Texas and Florida.
Thank you ecuacc4ever. That's the point I have been driving home for over a year, We are not Alabama, but we are not cannon fodder. It also remains to be seen which conference ends up making the most TV revenue... our 5-7 season was sub par with major injuries and all, but the SEC fans sealed the deal with Missouri fans last year. They were awesome. They didn't give us the Heisman Hand either... We are still signing kids out of the KC area (so much for the Jayhawk argument) and St Louis is totally on board. The closest the B1G will ever get to Mizzou is a revival of the Mizzou-Illini game in St Louis...

Mizzou is a much better brand than Maryland and Rutgers...Delaney was idiotic for not taking Mizzou.
Your right about Mizzou being a better brand than either Rutgers or MD. Adding Rutgers & MD was not only about expanding into new markets but growing content and adding new conference sports. Here's what I mean by that:

Big 10 has 168 hours of programming time to fill up. MD & Rutgers sponsor several more sports than Mizzou does like Soccer, LaCrosse, MD won the LaCrosse national championship last year and the Soccer title in 08.

Big 10 wants to have at least 2 sports to televise from August through May; there are only 8 programs that sponsor Soccer: PSU, OSU, Michigan, MSU, Indiana,NU, WI & MN. Adding MD & Rutgers gets them up to 10 which is easier for scheduling.

PSU adding Ice Hockey gets the Big 10 to 6 in that sport which is why Ice Hockey will be a conference sport next year. MD & Rutgers added to PSU, OSU & Michigan gets the Big 10 to 5 for Lacrosse, only need one more current member to add it to make Lacrosse a conference sport. That will give them this sports schedule

August: Soccer-Football
Sept- Soccer-Foootball
Oct-Soccer-Football-Ice Hockey
Nov-Football-Ice Hockey- Hoops
Dec- Ice Hockey- Hoops
Jan- Ice Hockey-Hoops
Feb- Ice Hockey-Hoops
March- Ice Hockey-Hoops-Baseball-Lacrosse
April- Baseball-Lacrosse
May- Baseball-Lacrosse

When all of your content comes from only 1 conference you need at least 2 sports to broadcast to fill up all those hours.
04-25-2013 10:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.