Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Big Ron Buckeye Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 659
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 25
I Root For: THE Ohio State
Location:
Post: #1
Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
With 4 of the "original" Big 12 schools having left the Big12 (A&M, Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska) I've had the lingering thought that perhaps the B1G could get part of the old Big 8 band back together again in the B1G West. We already have Nebraska and Iowa, we could add the namesake Universities in the remainder of the states (Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, & Missouri) to take us to 18. We obviously can't double down in sparsely populated states and by only taking the Flagships in each state the lack of population per school is somewhat mitigated.

The question is the financial viability of such an arrangement and if the schools would be interest and/or able to leave their current alignment.

Missouri: long wanted the B1G before being left at the alter in 2010. I think the idea would still garner a lot of support from the academics. Major issue would be the Grant of rights with the SEC however I don't get the feeling that the SEC loves Mizzou like the love A&M. In fact I think most SEC fans would be open to the idea of losing Mizzou.

Colorado: I think that the shine of the Pac 12 especially the woeful underperformance thus far of the Pac 12 Networks leaves an opening that can be exploited along with historic and more proximate rivals from the old Big 8.

Oklahoma & Kansas: both have the same problem. The other university in the state. A&M was able to pull it off but will the politics of their state allow it. In many regards I would say these 2 are the most realistic of all candidates for the B1G and I think there is massive support for each of these schools for a B1G move.

What about Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State? Iowa plays Iowa State in everything every year and I think if Kansas and Oklahoma are able to politically make this move that the lawmakers will require annual competitions in all sponsored sports.

What about Texas? Texas will do whatever Texas wants to do. They are in a position financially, geographically, and prestigiously to go to any conference they want or go independent or try to hold the Big 12 together. The Big 12 would only lose 2 taking them to 8 and the Big 12 would probably add the UCF/USF duo and some combination of the Best available in Texas, Mountain states and/or Mid-South to get back to a number Texas would be comfortable with. Because it is ALL ABOUT TEXAS!
08-18-2018 03:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
Drop Rutgers and Maryland. Neither is doing the conference any favors. Add Missouri, Kansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Texas, and Connecticut. The Huskies get the conference back in the Northeast without the recent problems of the other two.

West: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska
Central: Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan St
East: Indiana, Purdue, Michigan, Ohio St, Penn St, Connecticut
08-18-2018 04:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #3
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-18-2018 03:59 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  With 4 of the "original" Big 12 schools having left the Big12 (A&M, Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska) I've had the lingering thought that perhaps the B1G could get part of the old Big 8 band back together again in the B1G West. We already have Nebraska and Iowa, we could add the namesake Universities in the remainder of the states (Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, & Missouri) to take us to 18. We obviously can't double down in sparsely populated states and by only taking the Flagships in each state the lack of population per school is somewhat mitigated.

The question is the financial viability of such an arrangement and if the schools would be interest and/or able to leave their current alignment.

Missouri: long wanted the B1G before being left at the alter in 2010. I think the idea would still garner a lot of support from the academics. Major issue would be the Grant of rights with the SEC however I don't get the feeling that the SEC loves Mizzou like the love A&M. In fact I think most SEC fans would be open to the idea of losing Mizzou.

Colorado: I think that the shine of the Pac 12 especially the woeful underperformance thus far of the Pac 12 Networks leaves an opening that can be exploited along with historic and more proximate rivals from the old Big 8.

Oklahoma & Kansas: both have the same problem. The other university in the state. A&M was able to pull it off but will the politics of their state allow it. In many regards I would say these 2 are the most realistic of all candidates for the B1G and I think there is massive support for each of these schools for a B1G move.

What about Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State? Iowa plays Iowa State in everything every year and I think if Kansas and Oklahoma are able to politically make this move that the lawmakers will require annual competitions in all sponsored sports.

What about Texas? Texas will do whatever Texas wants to do. They are in a position financially, geographically, and prestigiously to go to any conference they want or go independent or try to hold the Big 12 together. The Big 12 would only lose 2 taking them to 8 and the Big 12 would probably add the UCF/USF duo and some combination of the Best available in Texas, Mountain states and/or Mid-South to get back to a number Texas would be comfortable with. Because it is ALL ABOUT TEXAS!

It would have made a lot of sense had it not been for the market footprint model beckoning the SEC to take Missouri and the Big 10 to take Maryland and Rutgers.

If the Big 10 had taken the old Big 8 schools the SEC might have finished out with the old SWC schools, well at least Texas & Texas Tech. And if Missouri wanted the Big 10 then perhaps we could again turn our attention to a 2nd Florida school which in a streaming world make a ton of sense instead of adding another school without SEC cachet just to get a market.

I'll submit that this might have made the most sense for all three of the Big 10, SEC and ACC:

Big 10 West:

Colorado, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma

Big 10 East:

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St., Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin


SEC East:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech


ACC North:

Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

ACC South:

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest


Now I ask you wouldn't those 3 conferences made a helluva lot more sense than what we have now?
08-18-2018 05:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #4
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
I think the only Big 8 schools that make sense are Oklahoma and maybe Colorado. Kansas has basketball but nothing else. Colorado bridges to the west if an opportunity presents itself and is located near a heavily populated Big 10 alumni area (Denver). I don't see value for the Big 10 with Missouri; I think they bring more value to the SEC, especially if the SEC were to add Kansas.

Everyone would find room for Oklahoma. The rest (OSU, ISU, KSU) don't move the needle. The priority should be the biggest football brands and expanding the recruiting footprint for a more diverse portfolio. Lesser priorities should include strengthening the western division (or going pods), adding schools with strong non-revenue sports (especially baseball), and strong academics.
08-18-2018 06:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-18-2018 06:58 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I think the only Big 8 schools that make sense are Oklahoma and maybe Colorado. Kansas has basketball but nothing else. Colorado bridges to the west if an opportunity presents itself and is located near a heavily populated Big 10 alumni area (Denver). I don't see value for the Big 10 with Missouri; I think they bring more value to the SEC, especially if the SEC were to add Kansas.

Everyone would find room for Oklahoma. The rest (OSU, ISU, KSU) don't move the needle. The priority should be the biggest football brands and expanding the recruiting footprint for a more diverse portfolio. Lesser priorities should include strengthening the western division (or going pods), adding schools with strong non-revenue sports (especially baseball), and strong academics.

What you suggest is much more likely. It won't happen but if the Big 10 landed Oklahoma IMO they should double down on trying to get N.D. before they go for Colorado but the Buffs would add a nice demographic.
08-18-2018 08:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dayooper Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 45
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Michigan
Location:
Post: #6
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-18-2018 08:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-18-2018 06:58 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  I think the only Big 8 schools that make sense are Oklahoma and maybe Colorado. Kansas has basketball but nothing else. Colorado bridges to the west if an opportunity presents itself and is located near a heavily populated Big 10 alumni area (Denver). I don't see value for the Big 10 with Missouri; I think they bring more value to the SEC, especially if the SEC were to add Kansas.

Everyone would find room for Oklahoma. The rest (OSU, ISU, KSU) don't move the needle. The priority should be the biggest football brands and expanding the recruiting footprint for a more diverse portfolio. Lesser priorities should include strengthening the western division (or going pods), adding schools with strong non-revenue sports (especially baseball), and strong academics.

What you suggest is much more likely. It won't happen but if the Big 10 landed Oklahoma IMO they should double down on trying to get N.D. before they go for Colorado but the Buffs would add a nice demographic.

I just don’t think the Buffs would move. They have always recruited their student population from the West Coast and now they have a presence there. Could they change their model? Sure, but why? They already associate with who they want to.

It would be my preference to add Colorado (or ND) over Kansas to the Big 10 as a second with Oklahoma, it just isn’t going to happen. Kansas and Oklahoma seem to be in this process together and are logical partners. While basketball doesn’t get the ratings football does, there has to be watchable content in the winter months and Kansas has a national following in basketball. With Indiana basketball being the toilet it’s been the past decade, Big 10 basketball has lost the shine off of its blue blood. MSU has carried the torch, but aren’t the blue blood Kansas is.

Getting Oklahoma is important to the Big10 Athletics. Obviously, a school like ND, Alabama, Florida, USC, UNC, etc. would be great, but those will never happen, at least not in the next 20 years. Texas would be the big fish, but that isn’t happening either. That leaves Oklahoma. They are football king with a national following. There aren’t that many kings out there and adding one is always a great get. If the price for Oklahoma is adding a blue blood basketball school like Kansas, it’s a no brainer.
(This post was last modified: 08-21-2018 07:54 AM by dayooper.)
08-21-2018 07:53 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,727
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #7
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-21-2018 07:53 AM)dayooper Wrote:  ...Kansas and Oklahoma seem to be in this process together and are logical partners. While basketball doesn’t get the ratings football does, there has to be watchable content in the winter months and Kansas has a national following in basketball. With Indiana basketball being the toilet it’s been the past decade, Big 10 basketball has lost the shine off of its blue blood. MSU has carried the torch, but aren’t the blue blood Kansas is.

Getting Oklahoma is important to the Big10 Athletics. Obviously, a school like ND, Alabama, Florida, USC, UNC, etc. would be great, but those will never happen, at least not in the next 20 years. Texas would be the big fish, but that isn’t happening either. That leaves Oklahoma. They are football king with a national following. There aren’t that many kings out there and adding one is always a great get. If the price for Oklahoma is adding a blue blood basketball school like Kansas, it’s a no brainer.

While I haven't heard anything that says they are definitely going to jump to the Big Ten (nor would I expect to), I do get the "feeling" that Oklahoma and Kansas are B1G bound at some point...

That could mean Texas to the SEC and Notre Dame all-in with the ACC. Likely 16ths for those conferences (IMO) are Texas Tech (SEC) and WVU (ACC).
08-21-2018 01:43 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #8
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-21-2018 01:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 07:53 AM)dayooper Wrote:  ...Kansas and Oklahoma seem to be in this process together and are logical partners. While basketball doesn’t get the ratings football does, there has to be watchable content in the winter months and Kansas has a national following in basketball. With Indiana basketball being the toilet it’s been the past decade, Big 10 basketball has lost the shine off of its blue blood. MSU has carried the torch, but aren’t the blue blood Kansas is.

Getting Oklahoma is important to the Big10 Athletics. Obviously, a school like ND, Alabama, Florida, USC, UNC, etc. would be great, but those will never happen, at least not in the next 20 years. Texas would be the big fish, but that isn’t happening either. That leaves Oklahoma. They are football king with a national following. There aren’t that many kings out there and adding one is always a great get. If the price for Oklahoma is adding a blue blood basketball school like Kansas, it’s a no brainer.

While I haven't heard anything that says they are definitely going to jump to the Big Ten (nor would I expect to), I do get the "feeling" that Oklahoma and Kansas are B1G bound at some point...

That could mean Texas to the SEC and Notre Dame all-in with the ACC. Likely 16ths for those conferences (IMO) are Texas Tech (SEC) and WVU (ACC).

I think that's likely.
08-21-2018 03:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dayooper Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 45
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 8
I Root For: Michigan
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-21-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 01:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 07:53 AM)dayooper Wrote:  ...Kansas and Oklahoma seem to be in this process together and are logical partners. While basketball doesn’t get the ratings football does, there has to be watchable content in the winter months and Kansas has a national following in basketball. With Indiana basketball being the toilet it’s been the past decade, Big 10 basketball has lost the shine off of its blue blood. MSU has carried the torch, but aren’t the blue blood Kansas is.

Getting Oklahoma is important to the Big10 Athletics. Obviously, a school like ND, Alabama, Florida, USC, UNC, etc. would be great, but those will never happen, at least not in the next 20 years. Texas would be the big fish, but that isn’t happening either. That leaves Oklahoma. They are football king with a national following. There aren’t that many kings out there and adding one is always a great get. If the price for Oklahoma is adding a blue blood basketball school like Kansas, it’s a no brainer.

While I haven't heard anything that says they are definitely going to jump to the Big Ten (nor would I expect to), I do get the "feeling" that Oklahoma and Kansas are B1G bound at some point...

That could mean Texas to the SEC and Notre Dame all-in with the ACC. Likely 16ths for those conferences (IMO) are Texas Tech (SEC) and WVU (ACC).

I think that's likely.

I think it’s a good possibility, but I’m not sold on Texas to the SEC. I have heard from many Bevo alumni that Texas to the SEC isn’t happening, ever. They aren’t following A&M anywhere. They also don’t want to associate with the SEC and their shenanigans. (Not my words and I am not saying the SEC plays those dirty recruiting games). I think that the PAC is a viable option too as long as it’s just one other Big12 team with them.
08-21-2018 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #10
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States
(08-21-2018 05:22 PM)dayooper Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 01:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 07:53 AM)dayooper Wrote:  ...Kansas and Oklahoma seem to be in this process together and are logical partners. While basketball doesn’t get the ratings football does, there has to be watchable content in the winter months and Kansas has a national following in basketball. With Indiana basketball being the toilet it’s been the past decade, Big 10 basketball has lost the shine off of its blue blood. MSU has carried the torch, but aren’t the blue blood Kansas is.

Getting Oklahoma is important to the Big10 Athletics. Obviously, a school like ND, Alabama, Florida, USC, UNC, etc. would be great, but those will never happen, at least not in the next 20 years. Texas would be the big fish, but that isn’t happening either. That leaves Oklahoma. They are football king with a national following. There aren’t that many kings out there and adding one is always a great get. If the price for Oklahoma is adding a blue blood basketball school like Kansas, it’s a no brainer.

While I haven't heard anything that says they are definitely going to jump to the Big Ten (nor would I expect to), I do get the "feeling" that Oklahoma and Kansas are B1G bound at some point...

That could mean Texas to the SEC and Notre Dame all-in with the ACC. Likely 16ths for those conferences (IMO) are Texas Tech (SEC) and WVU (ACC).

I think that's likely.

I think it’s a good possibility, but I’m not sold on Texas to the SEC. I have heard from many Bevo alumni that Texas to the SEC isn’t happening, ever. They aren’t following A&M anywhere. They also don’t want to associate with the SEC and their shenanigans. (Not my words and I am not saying the SEC plays those dirty recruiting games). I think that the PAC is a viable option too as long as it’s just one other Big12 team with them.

What I could see happening is that UT and TT offer themselves up as a package for whichever suitor is left once OU and KU leave the Big 12. Between the PAC and the SEC (and maybe even the ACC) there would be some competition over who can offer the best deal. I don't think Texsa will discount any conference if they want to get the best deal possible. Unlike what happened in the 90s and 2010s there won't be many other choices for the remaining conferences if they want to grow bigger.

How the PAC would integrate both UT and TT into the conference would be interesting. I could see a zipper format being used. The California schools would be in one division and the Texas schools in the other division so that the other schools can travel to fertile states regularly.

One example:

UW - WSU
UO - OSU
AZ - ASU
Stanford - UU
Cal - TT
USC - UT
UCLA - CU

Each team gets a crossover opponent so that the in-state rivalries can be played yearly.
08-22-2018 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #11
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-22-2018 01:07 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 05:22 PM)dayooper Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 03:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 01:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(08-21-2018 07:53 AM)dayooper Wrote:  ...Kansas and Oklahoma seem to be in this process together and are logical partners. While basketball doesn’t get the ratings football does, there has to be watchable content in the winter months and Kansas has a national following in basketball. With Indiana basketball being the toilet it’s been the past decade, Big 10 basketball has lost the shine off of its blue blood. MSU has carried the torch, but aren’t the blue blood Kansas is.

Getting Oklahoma is important to the Big10 Athletics. Obviously, a school like ND, Alabama, Florida, USC, UNC, etc. would be great, but those will never happen, at least not in the next 20 years. Texas would be the big fish, but that isn’t happening either. That leaves Oklahoma. They are football king with a national following. There aren’t that many kings out there and adding one is always a great get. If the price for Oklahoma is adding a blue blood basketball school like Kansas, it’s a no brainer.

While I haven't heard anything that says they are definitely going to jump to the Big Ten (nor would I expect to), I do get the "feeling" that Oklahoma and Kansas are B1G bound at some point...

That could mean Texas to the SEC and Notre Dame all-in with the ACC. Likely 16ths for those conferences (IMO) are Texas Tech (SEC) and WVU (ACC).

I think that's likely.

I think it’s a good possibility, but I’m not sold on Texas to the SEC. I have heard from many Bevo alumni that Texas to the SEC isn’t happening, ever. They aren’t following A&M anywhere. They also don’t want to associate with the SEC and their shenanigans. (Not my words and I am not saying the SEC plays those dirty recruiting games). I think that the PAC is a viable option too as long as it’s just one other Big12 team with them.

What I could see happening is that UT and TT offer themselves up as a package for whichever suitor is left once OU and KU leave the Big 12. Between the PAC and the SEC (and maybe even the ACC) there would be some competition over who can offer the best deal. I don't think Texsa will discount any conference if they want to get the best deal possible. Unlike what happened in the 90s and 2010s there won't be many other choices for the remaining conferences if they want to grow bigger.

How the PAC would integrate both UT and TT into the conference would be interesting. I could see a zipper format being used. The California schools would be in one division and the Texas schools in the other division so that the other schools can travel to fertile states regularly.

One example:

UW - WSU
UO - OSU
AZ - ASU
Stanford - UU
Cal - TT
USC - UT
UCLA - CU

Each team gets a crossover opponent so that the in-state rivalries can be played yearly.

To Dayooper, Texas has been in conversations with the SEC since before 1990. They've always badmouthed us and have always stayed current in their talks with us. That's just Texas ego at work. Look at their business decisions if you want to know what they are or aren't likely to do. They will choose the option that allows their current business model (the best in college sports) to continue to follow its current format (as many games in state as possible) and key brands on rotation for OOC games. What helps the SEC is that if we took Texas Tech they would have two other Texas schools in conference, which is all they would likely get in a move to the PAC where they would earn much less revenue than in the SEC. They like to keep the travel of their fans limited. The SEC with Arkansas, Texas A&M and L.S.U. offer the best package there.

So what their alums and what their talking points say won't affect their decision an iota's worth.

To Transic, The PAC's inability to capitalize itself and their inferior payouts pretty much negates them even before you get to the issues of distance and travel overhead for minor sports. I don't see them as a legitimate possibility.

The ACC could offer Texas a partial deal, but that doesn't solve their minor sports travel issues either.
08-22-2018 01:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Transic_nyc Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,401
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation: 194
I Root For: Return To Stability
Location:
Post: #12
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-22-2018 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To Transic, The PAC's inability to capitalize itself and their inferior payouts pretty much negates them even before you get to the issues of distance and travel overhead for minor sports. I don't see them as a legitimate possibility.

The ACC could offer Texas a partial deal, but that doesn't solve their minor sports travel issues either.

Don't you think that A&M's reluctance to schedule the Horns is an attempt to influence their decision-making, by using the concerns of the Horn donors and season ticket holders as a lever against the Horn brass?
08-24-2018 08:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,901
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-24-2018 08:48 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(08-22-2018 01:57 PM)JRsec Wrote:  To Transic, The PAC's inability to capitalize itself and their inferior payouts pretty much negates them even before you get to the issues of distance and travel overhead for minor sports. I don't see them as a legitimate possibility.

The ACC could offer Texas a partial deal, but that doesn't solve their minor sports travel issues either.

Don't you think that A&M's reluctance to schedule the Horns is an attempt to influence their decision-making, by using the concerns of the Horn donors and season ticket holders as a lever against the Horn brass?

Yes.
08-24-2018 10:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #14
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-18-2018 03:59 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  With 4 of the "original" Big 12 schools having left the Big12 (A&M, Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska) I've had the lingering thought that perhaps the B1G could get part of the old Big 8 band back together again in the B1G West. We already have Nebraska and Iowa, we could add the namesake Universities in the remainder of the states (Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, & Missouri) to take us to 18. We obviously can't double down in sparsely populated states and by only taking the Flagships in each state the lack of population per school is somewhat mitigated.

The question is the financial viability of such an arrangement and if the schools would be interest and/or able to leave their current alignment.

Missouri: long wanted the B1G before being left at the alter in 2010. I think the idea would still garner a lot of support from the academics. Major issue would be the Grant of rights with the SEC however I don't get the feeling that the SEC loves Mizzou like the love A&M. In fact I think most SEC fans would be open to the idea of losing Mizzou.

Colorado: I think that the shine of the Pac 12 especially the woeful underperformance thus far of the Pac 12 Networks leaves an opening that can be exploited along with historic and more proximate rivals from the old Big 8.

Oklahoma & Kansas: both have the same problem. The other university in the state. A&M was able to pull it off but will the politics of their state allow it. In many regards I would say these 2 are the most realistic of all candidates for the B1G and I think there is massive support for each of these schools for a B1G move.

What about Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State? Iowa plays Iowa State in everything every year and I think if Kansas and Oklahoma are able to politically make this move that the lawmakers will require annual competitions in all sponsored sports.

What about Texas? Texas will do whatever Texas wants to do. They are in a position financially, geographically, and prestigiously to go to any conference they want or go independent or try to hold the Big 12 together. The Big 12 would only lose 2 taking them to 8 and the Big 12 would probably add the UCF/USF duo and some combination of the Best available in Texas, Mountain states and/or Mid-South to get back to a number Texas would be comfortable with. Because it is ALL ABOUT TEXAS!

Its not bad content but the league needs added recruiting grounds as well. The B1G needs more natural recruiting areas. OSU is a little insulated from that because the state of Ohio has a lot of recruits but the rest of the schools definitely need to go out of state to fill their rosters. None of those old Big 8 states do that. If you can tie Texas into the old Big 8 states sure but Texas will need at least one more school from Texas and its not going to be Rice. The homerun would be to convince A&M to leave the SEC and come with Texas & OU but I doubt that happens, heck I would even give Arkansas along with OU if it helped it happen. Probably a UT, OU, TT & Arkansas would be more probable. You might ask why Arkansas? They were a traditional geographical partner of Texas and have never had that much success in the SEC. Any option with Texas/OU would be the best of the 3 options because its recruiting and content with intense viewership.

There is really only 3 areas to expand recruiting:

1. Texas

2. more mid-Atlantic states such as Virginia & North Carolina and possibly a Ga. Tech to build off the Maryland/DC area.

3. California
08-24-2018 10:39 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Win5002 Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 618
Joined: Oct 2015
Reputation: 31
I Root For: Big 12 & B1G
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Would it make sense for the B1G to subsume Big 8 States in the next round of realignm
(08-18-2018 05:28 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(08-18-2018 03:59 PM)Big Ron Buckeye Wrote:  With 4 of the "original" Big 12 schools having left the Big12 (A&M, Colorado, Missouri, and Nebraska) I've had the lingering thought that perhaps the B1G could get part of the old Big 8 band back together again in the B1G West. We already have Nebraska and Iowa, we could add the namesake Universities in the remainder of the states (Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, & Missouri) to take us to 18. We obviously can't double down in sparsely populated states and by only taking the Flagships in each state the lack of population per school is somewhat mitigated.

The question is the financial viability of such an arrangement and if the schools would be interest and/or able to leave their current alignment.

Missouri: long wanted the B1G before being left at the alter in 2010. I think the idea would still garner a lot of support from the academics. Major issue would be the Grant of rights with the SEC however I don't get the feeling that the SEC loves Mizzou like the love A&M. In fact I think most SEC fans would be open to the idea of losing Mizzou.

Colorado: I think that the shine of the Pac 12 especially the woeful underperformance thus far of the Pac 12 Networks leaves an opening that can be exploited along with historic and more proximate rivals from the old Big 8.

Oklahoma & Kansas: both have the same problem. The other university in the state. A&M was able to pull it off but will the politics of their state allow it. In many regards I would say these 2 are the most realistic of all candidates for the B1G and I think there is massive support for each of these schools for a B1G move.

What about Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State? Iowa plays Iowa State in everything every year and I think if Kansas and Oklahoma are able to politically make this move that the lawmakers will require annual competitions in all sponsored sports.

What about Texas? Texas will do whatever Texas wants to do. They are in a position financially, geographically, and prestigiously to go to any conference they want or go independent or try to hold the Big 12 together. The Big 12 would only lose 2 taking them to 8 and the Big 12 would probably add the UCF/USF duo and some combination of the Best available in Texas, Mountain states and/or Mid-South to get back to a number Texas would be comfortable with. Because it is ALL ABOUT TEXAS!

It would have made a lot of sense had it not been for the market footprint model beckoning the SEC to take Missouri and the Big 10 to take Maryland and Rutgers.

If the Big 10 had taken the old Big 8 schools the SEC might have finished out with the old SWC schools, well at least Texas & Texas Tech. And if Missouri wanted the Big 10 then perhaps we could again turn our attention to a 2nd Florida school which in a streaming world make a ton of sense instead of adding another school without SEC cachet just to get a market.

I'll submit that this might have made the most sense for all three of the Big 10, SEC and ACC:

Big 10 West:

Colorado, Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma

Big 10 East:

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St., Northwestern, Ohio State, Purdue, Wisconsin


SEC East:

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vanderbilt

SEC West:

Arkansas, Louisiana State, Miami, Mississippi, Mississippi State, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech


ACC North:

Boston College, Maryland, Notre Dame, Penn State, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Virginia Tech, West Virginia

ACC South:

Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, N.C. State, Virginia, Wake Forest


Now I ask you wouldn't those 3 conferences made a helluva lot more sense than what we have now?

While the content would seem appealing but the B1G gained more by adding PSU. Also, while some of the games in that revised ACC would be geographically appealing for PSU the one team they want to play each year more than anyone else is Ohio St.

The best way to restore every IMPORTANT CFB rivaly in the last 50 years would be go back to the leagues as they were in 2010. Slide Arkansas over to the B12, and also add AZ/ASU/Utah. Let the B1G add the 4 California schools plus Wash & Oregon. The ACC(with MD.) adds ND, WVU & UCONN or Cincy and loses Ga. Tech & Louisville to the SEC.
**After typing this it came to me Penn St. & Notre Dame should flip leagues. PSU has a lot of rivalry and geographical games in the ACC and ND would have 5 historic rivals in the B1G with Mich, MSU, Purdue, USC & Stanford and by the B1G getting the west coast it still gives ND a national feel. This is really the best way to slide ND into a conference. Maybe PSU & OSU could play non-conference.

It looks like this:

B1G (18 teams): OSU, Mich., Notre Dame, MSU, Ind., Purdue, Wisconsin, Ill, Northwestern, Mn. Iowa, USC, UCLA, Stanford, CAL, Wash., Oregon, BYU.
***BYU could slide to the B12 for Iowa St or Missouri(both fit geographically an are AAU). Missouri has a stronger geographical rivalry with KU & KSU due to location than Iowa St. and had more success in the old Big 8 than ISU did against OU & Neb. but Missouri has some history with Illinois and could build history with Iowa and play KSU & KU out of conference. Either way it isn't an important national rivalry in football its probably more about basketball, I don't even think the B12 would mind that much if Missouri stayed in the SEC lol.

Big 12 (16 teams): Texas, A&M, TT, Baylor, OU, OSU, Neb., Col., KS, KSU, Missouri, Iowa St., Arkansas, AZ, ASU, Utah

SEC (16 teams) Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, MSU, Fl, Ga., Tn., Vandy, KY, SC, Ga. Tech, Louisville (& 3 of UCF, Cincy, TCU, Houston)

ACC: (16 teams)Penn St., NC, Duke, NC St., Va., Va. Tech, Maryland, Miami, Pitt, FSU, Clemson, BC, Syracuse, WF, WVU, Rutgers


This would restore all the important rivalries that were at least once conference games. It would be 4 pretty equal leagues and might be close enough in value to negotiate as one entity. The only 2 left out are Oregon St & Wash. St.

The only team that is hard to fit that I really think needs to find a spot for based on the history of the sport and following is BYU. It would have to be the B1G or B12.

I know the SEC didn't add a lot of firepower but quite frankly they don't need to. Louisville vs KY in bball would be a big add for bball and Ga. Tech is solidly in the footprint. UCF could develop quite nicely in the SEC as a program with their enrollment.
(This post was last modified: 08-24-2018 01:33 PM by Win5002.)
08-24-2018 12:37 PM
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.