After the likely Oklahoma/Texas to the SEC move, certainly Big Ten fans have to wonder how can we counter to make our conference stronger and more marketable to TV networks. If you assume the ACC (including Notre Dame) is off limits until their Grant of Rights expires (2036-37) season and most of the Big 12 outside of Oklahoma and Texas is worthless (Kansas is probably the only school that has some value), that leaves the Pac 12. All of the schools are in either the Mountain or Pacific Time Zones and all will stretch the western geographic boundary of the Big Ten, making travel more difficult, especially the Eastern most schools including the three biggest names in the conference, Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State. But you also have some large states available and big markets that the Big 12 just doesn't have (or are private schools or Texas Tech). California is a nightmare for travel but a gold mine for Big Ten eyeballs. Could adding two California schools to the Big 10 be enough to allow the Big 10 to maintain the same revenue/member as they do now? Could the Big 10 get more revenue/member if they add two California schools? Would two California schools by themselves bolt the Pac 12 or would you have to admit all four? Would you have to admit more West Coast schools to get California schools to join? Colorado is a closer alternative to California but fewer people live there. Will FOX/ESPN/ABC/CBS pay anywhere near as much for Colorado as they would for USC, UCLA, Cal, and/or Stanford, especially since Colorado has had the worst record in the Pac 12 in football since they joined it (2011-2019, 20-61, .247)?

I of course am philosophically against West Coast teams in the Big Ten but if the networks pay enough you might be able to twist my arm. I certainly would be much happier if the West Coast schools were football only and if they had to be all sports members then East-West travel be minimized. I would much rather add ACC members than Pac-12 members. But assuming the GOR prevents adding ACC members and the Big 10 doesn't want to wait until 2037, I rank my order of Pac 12 teams in wanting them in the Big 10. Feel free to rank them yourselves.

1. Colorado - Would be the closest Pac 12 member to the Big 10. I've heard a few proposals of Kansas/Colorado. I don't think networks will pay that much more for Kansas/Colorado than they are paying now so I wouldn't do it. They do add two AAU schools and Colorado adds the Denver market to the Big Ten and Kansas the Kansas City market although both aren't earth shattering. Kansas men's basketball in the Big 10 would be awesome but who knows if they will be hit with the Adidas violations soon? Also, both schools are at the bottom of their conferences in football. Illinois would be hurt by Colorado and Kansas coming in assuming they keep East/West as they'll get stuck with two more Western trips and fewer games vs. the Big 3. Penn State won't be hurt as much and Purdue would probably love the move as they get to move to the East Division. The Pac 12 would become the Pac 11 and have no obvious candidate to backfill that fits their geographical, academic, and cultural membership (in other words, no Boise State or BYU) but would hardly be hurt.

2. UCLA - I would choose them over USC because they are a public school, made the Final Four in men's basketball, and who wouldn't want to play in the Rose Bowl on a regular basis? Los Angeles is the preferred destination over San Francisco/the Bay Area. I guess the argument is whether UCLA or USC is the #1 school has more fans in LA? I would say when in doubt go with the public school. If USC were as good today as they were back in the Reggie Bush era you go with them. But they're not. I've actually been to the UCLA campus and have family and friends in the Los Angeles area.

3. USC - Or the Big Ten can ask, UCLA or USC? Why not both? Also, maybe getting USC helps the Big Ten get Notre Dame???

4. Oregon - Well if you're looking for a Pac 12 school in terms of athletic performance, obviously it's Oregon. What they lack in population they gain in performance. They've won the last two Pac-12 football titles and beat Wisconsin in the 2020 Rose Bowl. In men's basketball, they were the only Pac-12 team to make the Final Four in the entire 2010's (2017) and have made the Sweet 16 in four of the last five tournaments. It also can't hurt to have Nike U in your conference. The negatives are the travel and the weather isn't Los Angeles weather nor are the attractions Los Angeles attractions. Who wants to travel to Eugene/Portland/whatever?

5. California - Considering the Pac 12 has been down in football and outside of 2021 down in men's basketball, when choosing Pac 12 schools you are probably looking more for market than performance. Ideally for the Big Ten to own California they'd get both of the UC Systems top two schools and have coverage in both the LA area and the Bay area. The fans don't like Cal much but academic presidents would absolutely love Berkeley and they do have a big say in this. Now they would also like Stanford but they're a private school and they're not USC in terms of athletics. I have an uncle, aunt, and cousin that graduated from Berkeley (they are husband, wife, and daughter), and I've been on the campus several times.

6. Washington - Good academic school, good football, Seattle is better than Portland but isn't California.

7. Arizona State - Not AAU but in a decent sized market. But who wants to go to Phoenix most of the year (although in the winter it will at least be bearable for basketball season).

8. Arizona - AAU but in a smaller market. Better basketball history but same with Kansas, waiting for the Adidas shoe (no pun intended) to drop. Same heat problems.

9. Utah - Just became an AAU member. Second closest school to the Big Ten and in the Mountain Time Zone which would be better TV wise for the B1G. Salt Lake City is a smaller market than Phoenix, Seattle, Portland, San Fran, Denver, or LA but not insignificant.

10. Stanford - Does the Big 10 need another Northwestern? If we want the Bay Area, take Cal. There is some value in taking both schools though to get the "Big Game" as a conference battle.

11. Washington State - Only thing cool is the flag flying on College Game Day each week. Otherwise, over my dead body.

12. Oregon State - Umm, there's only room for one OSU in the Big Ten. That message goes out to that school in Stillwater too.

The PAC 12 is not my preferred method of expansion but I'll give my two cents.

1. Southern Cal - They have the brand, history, and power. They bring the recruiting territory. They have everything a conference would want in a member.
2. Oregon - They are the lite version of USC. They will always be nationally relevant as long as Nike throws their money and influence around the campus.
3. Washington - UW is pretty comparable to Oregon and may be slightly better but doesn't have the same national draw that Oregon does (in my opinion).

-----This is the line in which I think the Big Ten should accept. The next group is the acceptable tag-alongs.-----

4. UCLA - There isn't a no-brainer California school to pair with USC which is very unfortunate. I would argue that UCLA and Cal are both underachievers. The sheer population of the state produces so much talent but nobody capitalizes on it; I imagine this is due to the schools only admitting the super rich and/or out of state and international students so the locals don't cheer due to no connections. UCLA may double up the Los Angeles market but they have shown the best pulse of the remaining PAC California schools. At least their men's basketball is arguably the best of all time.
5. Cal - They are never good at football or men's basketball but as a public California school, they should have a bunch of eyeballs watching and bring a different audience than USC.
6. Arizona State - ASU, much like UCLA and Cal, feels like a huge underachiever. But they have a great market and could dominate the state/region if they elevated themselves above Arizona. A ton of retired Big Ten fans/alumni in the area should help.
7. Colorado - This would strictly be a bone to throw Nebraska. There are a lot of Big Ten graduates in the Denver area so this would benefit the conference better than, say, Utah. Colorado just doesn't have the brand to make them worthwhile. I thought they would make a great #16 with Oklahoma if that ever came to fruition but not anymore.

-----I don't really think anyone below is worth it.-----

8. Arizona - They have a great basketball program that may soon get the hammer. Football is good every now and then. But I don't think they have the potential that ASU does and I think ASU will be better for the conference with the Big Ten retirees more likely to travel there.
9. Utah - I look at Utah like I do Iowa State. I really like what they've accomplished as they overachieve compared to how they should perform. But their following is local and their local isn't very big (and in Iowa State's case, already dominated by a Big Ten school). If only UCLA, Cal, or Arizona schools had their results on the field and court. Maybe they can keep growing their brand and get out into better regions.
10. Stanford - Private, elite, and selective. Even at their best under Harbaugh and Shaw, they won the conference three times in four years but have faded from that high.
11. Washington State - I guess they are slightly better than Oregon State but both are unacceptable. They are closer to a G5 than a P5.
12. Oregon State - Same as above.

I think a four team expansion of USC, Oregon, Washington, and UCLA/Cal would be best. I imagine USC wouldn't come without the other California schools. I don't know if it is worth it to get all of them or if they bring the Big Ten down together. I don't know how you take one Arizona school without the other for travel purposes so I'd rather not either. If you take Utah, you need Colorado for the same reasons. The PAC is messy and it isn't worth it in my opinion. Maybe you could add USC, Oregon, and Washington and that's enough to get Notre Dame on board. Get rid of divisions and now you don't need the same schools getting stuck traveling to the west coast annually.

The problem with the PAC-12 is USC is really the only blue blood. Washington was great in the 1980s-1990s, but that was under Don James. And Oregon has only recently risen to the top. Both Stanford and UCLA are ok from time to time. Finally, Colorado won under McCartney, but that was 2 decades ago.

Can UCLA move independent of UC Berkeley? I think those 2 are a package deal.

West Coast football is dying a slow death but taking their best could salvage things. Maybe something like this:

Pacific: Washington, Oregon, California, USC, UCLA

Central: Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Metro: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St

East: Indiana, Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland

Interesting. If the Big Ten adds six Pac 12 teams and stays with two "divisions", Illinois will get to move to the East Division. If the Big Ten can have Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin bite the bullet for the rest of us, I'll go with it. Better yet, the East keeps Wisconsin and make Northwestern go to the West (they fit in with Stanford as private schools).

Or better yet, if the Big Ten adds ten Pac 12 (all but Oregon State and Wazzu), only Nebraska and Iowa have to get shipped out West (which is where they belong anyway) and the Big Ten for all practical purposes could be run as two conferences, "Big Ten East" (current Big Ten East of the Mississippi) and "Big Ten West" (Pac 12 without Ore St and WSU plus Nebraska and Iowa) in not only football but all other sports. Penn State would never have to go west of Minnesota for "conference games" anymore. The Rose Bowl could be the Big Ten East and Big Ten West champions (or the top teams not to make the Playoff, which if the CFP remains four teams would be the Big Ten West champion and the team in the Big Ten East that finishes 2nd to Ohio State).

(07-25-2021 04:48 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Interesting. If the Big Ten adds six Pac 12 teams and stays with two "divisions", Illinois will get to move to the East Division. If the Big Ten can have Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin bite the bullet for the rest of us, I'll go with it. Better yet, the East keeps Wisconsin and make Northwestern go to the West (they fit in with Stanford as private schools).

Or better yet, if the Big Ten adds ten Pac 12 (all but Oregon State and Wazzu), only Nebraska and Iowa have to get shipped out West (which is where they belong anyway) and the Big Ten for all practical purposes could be run as two conferences, "Big Ten East" (current Big Ten East of the Mississippi) and "Big Ten West" (Pac 12 without Ore St and WSU plus Nebraska and Iowa) in not only football but all other sports. Penn State would never have to go west of Minnesota for "conference games" anymore. The Rose Bowl could be the Big Ten East and Big Ten West champions (or the top teams not to make the Playoff, which if the CFP remains four teams would be the Big Ten West champion and the team in the Big Ten East that finishes 2nd to Ohio State).

Divisions will not be needed nor are desired for tv matchups. You want to lock in 3-4 rivals and some type of a rotation around the league. The rotation won't have to be equal either, and teams could play each other at different frequencies.

Well with UCLA and USC coming, this thread has new relevance.

I doubt the Big Ten needs to add anyone but chances are many of these Pac 12 schools will be calling. Should multiple Pac 12 schools call the Big 10 office, who should be their priorities?

(06-30-2022 06:02 PM)schmolik Wrote:  Well with UCLA and USC coming, this thread has new relevance.

I doubt the Big Ten needs to add anyone but chances are many of these Pac 12 schools will be calling. Should multiple Pac 12 schools call the Big 10 office, who should be their priorities?

Notre Dame. Therefore, Stanford. Plus Oregon and Washington.

Central: Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Wisconsin
East: Maryland, Michigan St, Notre Dame, Penn St, Rutgers
North: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio St, Purdue
West: Oregon, Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington

What if Stanford and UCLA want California? Would you drop Oregon or Washington?

(06-30-2022 09:37 PM)schmolik Wrote:  What if Stanford and UCLA want California? Would you drop Oregon or Washington?

This is where I'm stuck. I could see the B1G going to 21 with all 6 PAC schools plus Notre Dame. It's doable.

(07-25-2021 03:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Can UCLA move independent of UC Berkeley? I think those 2 are a package deal.

West Coast football is dying a slow death but taking their best could salvage things. Maybe something like this:

Pacific: Washington, Oregon, California, USC, UCLA

Central: Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Metro: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St

East: Indiana, Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland

Thought I’d dig up this old post.

(07-01-2022 03:39 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(07-25-2021 03:51 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Can UCLA move independent of UC Berkeley? I think those 2 are a package deal.

West Coast football is dying a slow death but taking their best could salvage things. Maybe something like this:

Pacific: Washington, Oregon, California, USC, UCLA

Central: Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska

Metro: Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Michigan, Michigan St

East: Indiana, Ohio St, Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland

Thought I’d dig up this old post.

Well the answer to can UCLA move without Berkeley is yes ... for now at least (see my thread on the realignment board).