For all of the Big 10's schemes and dreams, they added Nebraska, which has added NOTHING. And then they added Rutgers and Maryland....solely for market value and because they fit the research quota. Meanwhile, they let Mizzou go, and they've had Texas A&M and Florida hanging out there the whole time. Why did the Big 10 not go after Texas A&M?? The entire contiguous state thing is stupid and out of date

I think that Jim Delany had his sights set in 2010 on Texas and/or Notre Dame, but whiffed.

Everything else since has been Plan B, but Delany has done well with it by having the BTN in his back pocket.

(04-28-2015 03:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that Jim Delany had his sights set in 2010 on Texas and/or Notre Dame, but whiffed.

Everything else since has been Plan B, but Delany has done well with it by having the BTN in his back pocket.

In the old world of college athletics, I think Notre Dame was a valued prize for the Big 10

Today, I think Texas and Florida are the valued prizes, and I don't know why not a single Big 10 person looked at Texas A&M as having potential....they're AAU. If they're willing to look at North Carolina, Virginia, and GIT as potential targets, why not just get past the formalities and eye Texas A&M (because UT isn't joining) and Florida....

I think it was fairly obvious that Texas A@M always wanted to go to the SEC. The Big Ten did make a mistake not taking Mizzou when they had the chance. But what's done is done.

I like the contiguous state rule. All the stable conferences follow this rule. No school should be left on an Island. The Big 12 and Big East should have made more of an effort to follow this rule.

(04-28-2015 04:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I like the contiguous state rule. All the stable conferences follow this rule. No school should be left on an Island. The Big 12 and Big East should have made more of an effort to follow this rule.

its regional thinking in a world of TV markets

(04-28-2015 04:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I think it was fairly obvious that Texas A@M always wanted to go to the SEC. The Big Ten did make a mistake not taking Mizzou when they had the chance. But what's done is done.

I like the contiguous state rule. All the stable conferences follow this rule. No school should be left on an Island. The Big 12 and Big East should have made more of an effort to follow this rule.

A&M would never have gone to the Big 10.

I think when all is said and done, the Big 10 will probably be the happiest with their expansions. What you fail to understand is that it was not primarily about athletics. Nebraska gave them the ability to invite a Rutgers and a Maryland. They have 4 of the 12 biggest brands, so some weak links are ok. Rutgers and Maryland gave them faster growing states and additional population along with a connection with alumni and decision makers in DC and NYC. Missouri did nothing for them but a 12th team for a ccg and more of what they already had. Nationally they do no better in ratings than Maryland and Rutgers.

(04-28-2015 03:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that Jim Delany had his sights set in 2010 on Texas and/or Notre Dame, but whiffed.

Everything else since has been Plan B, but Delany has done well with it by having the BTN in his back pocket.

The B1G expansion in 2010 was rumored to be ND, Texas, and Texas A&M.

The latter always wanted the SEC.

Texas claimed to have a "Tech problem".

ND wants to remain independent for football.

As good as JD is, those were HUGE obstacles to overcome, even for him.

Cheers,
Neil

The B1G is a great conference with lots of prestigious schools and athletic programs but it was never going to be a good fit for Texas A&M just based on sheer geography alone where Iowa is your closest conference neighbor. We are where we've always wanted to be: in a league comprised mainly of fellow large, Southern Land Grant/Flagship Universities.

None of these so called B10 expansion rules mean a damn thing. If 3/4ths want to do it, they can do it - just as in the ACC or SEC.

(04-28-2015 04:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 03:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that Jim Delany had his sights set in 2010 on Texas and/or Notre Dame, but whiffed.

Everything else since has been Plan B, but Delany has done well with it by having the BTN in his back pocket.

The B1G expansion in 2010 was rumored to be ND, Texas, and Texas A&M.

The latter always wanted the SEC.

Texas claimed to have a "Tech problem".

ND wants to remain independent for football.

As good as JD is, those were HUGE obstacles to overcome, even for him.

Cheers,

Neil

Yep, that is what I was referring to.

There were a number of articles in 2010 about Delany being the "smartest man in sports" and how he was going to scoop up Texas and " checkmate" ND into the Big Ten with TV dollars.

Expansion is all about $$$ and the B10 is raking it in. They didn't fail at anything.

Culturally, Texas A&M is a SEC school. I actually think going after Texas A&M would have been a solid idea for the Big Ten, but Nebraska, Rutgers and Maryland are all much better cultural fits. Nebraska is a national brand with a massive fan base while Rutgers and Maryland bring in two massive population bases. That is basically as good as it gets when it comes to the off-the-field factors in conference realignment outside of adding the white whales of Texas and Notre Dame.

With respect to Missouri, everyone needs to understand that the Big Ten would have added Maryland over Mizzou 100 times out of 100. Once they added Maryland, then Rutgers was a natural pairing for East Coast exposure. It's not that Mizzou couldn't add value to the B1G, but once it was clear Texas wasn't going to be part of the expansion picture, the league had eyes toward the east.

The Big Ten would never offer A&M. It's just a poor fit all around.

Delany might have wanted Notre Dame but that wasn't happening. Texas had too much baggage in the way of the other Texas schools. And I believe Oklahoma was even considered at one point but that wasn't happening without OSU and OSU's academics were a no-go.

(04-28-2015 04:06 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 03:41 PM)TerryD Wrote:  I think that Jim Delany had his sights set in 2010 on Texas and/or Notre Dame, but whiffed.

Everything else since has been Plan B, but Delany has done well with it by having the BTN in his back pocket.

The B1G expansion in 2010 was rumored to be ND, Texas, and Texas A&M.

The latter always wanted the SEC.

Texas claimed to have a "Tech problem".

ND wants to remain independent for football.

As good as JD is, those were HUGE obstacles to overcome, even for him.

Cheers,
Neil

Not really, it was supposed to be ND/Texas and Rutgers if a slot were available, but ND turned them down and Texas is still "considering it" now. Nebraska suddenly became available, so Rutgers was shelved until they were able to get either Texas or another east coast school to come aboard. Fast forward a couple years later and Maryland's chancellor reaches out to Delany and deal is done.

B1G still waiting on Texas' decision as the next step.

(04-28-2015 04:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I think it was fairly obvious that Texas A@M always wanted to go to the SEC. The Big Ten did make a mistake not taking Mizzou when they had the chance. But what's done is done.

I like the contiguous state rule. All the stable conferences follow this rule. No school should be left on an Island. The Big 12 and Big East should have made more of an effort to follow this rule.

Yes..A&M always wanted the SEC and actually they fit the SEC a whole lot better than the Big10 in more ways than one....especially geographically

(04-28-2015 04:12 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  None of these so called B10 expansion rules mean a damn thing. If 3/4ths want to do it, they can do it - just as in the ACC or SEC.

At least someone gets it. I will say this though, The Big Ten is a pretty tight knit and respectful place at the very top. They don't add schools with a 3/4 vote. Every expansion addition has been unanimous. Contiguous is actually a pretty big deal for The Big Ten. Other than that, the rest are just boxes that either get a check mark or don't. Get enough check marks and you are in.

I have no doubt that Texas A&M had an invite as long as Texas was coming. The problem was a "Tech problem." That said, it doesn't matter. Texas leaders didn't want in the Big Ten and I really don't think A&M leaders did either. You go full court for A&M, maybe, maybe you get them, but I'd bet heavily against it.

On Missouri, the Big Ten clearly didn't see the value for the Big Ten as others do. Yes they were a natural fit when the goal was to get to 12, but Nebraska was the stronger add it's very doubtful the conference would have taken Missouri over Maryland anyway (I say this as someone who wished they would). They might have taken them over Rutgers, but given the shift to an east coast focus after all the other movement, I'm not sure at that point they would have (although they would have probably taken Missouri over Rutgers in 2010 if Nebraska had said no).

In short, the expansion wasn't a home run, but it was very strong.

I don't know if any of the AAU schools from the other P5 conferences would jump when there are GORs or better tv deal. The only ones that could jump at a dime to be accepted that are AAU are Buffalo, Stony Brook, Rice, Cal.-Davis and Cal.-Poly. The later 2 would be out on an island and Rice would be on an island to the south. Only Stony Brook and Buffalo would get into the NY state TV market.

(04-28-2015 04:05 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(04-28-2015 04:01 PM)goofus Wrote:  I like the contiguous state rule. All the stable conferences follow this rule. No school should be left on an Island. The Big 12 and Big East should have made more of an effort to follow this rule.

its regional thinking in a world of TV markets

The BE/AAC went for the TV market prize by adding a bunch of schools in large urban markets in large population states. It didn't exactly work out for maximizing TV contract revenue.

The BIG is crying all the way to the bank over their failed expansion.