Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
OU & KU in B1G
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #181
RE: OU & KU in B1G
If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?
12-08-2018 09:44 AM
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: #182
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?

Well, I believe you can take TCU and Baylor off that list. I’m not sure that the Big10 would take two small, private, religious schools into the fold. Rice would struggle mightily athletically, but could hold its own academically with the Big10. TTU is in the middle of nowhere, but already has a current history with UT. Houston is in a great media market, but how well do they register there and does Texas really want them in a league with them?

I think Texas has backed themselves in corner, here. They don’t want the PAC travel issues, they don’t want to follow TA&M into the SEC and the ACC just doesn’t make any sense. That leaves staying in the Big12 and risk being lowballed in the next media contract, going independent and trying to find a home for its other sports or joining the Big10 with Oklahoma. I’m not sure they are in a position of strength.
12-08-2018 10:27 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,396
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #183
RE: OU & KU in B1G
if you are going to do the 18, and you have Texas select two tagalongs (TT, TCU, BU, SMU, Houston, Rice), the criteria would be that one of those Texas schools but at least one of them has to be a Houston school.
12-08-2018 02:19 PM
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: #184
RE: OU & KU in B1G
I think it would be TT & Houston, those schools would make the B1G the primary conference for the state of Texas and SEC secondary. Houston area has a ton of recruits in that area.
12-09-2018 10:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Hokie Mark Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 23,728
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 1392
I Root For: VT, ACC teams
Location: Greensboro, NC
Post: #185
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?

If you're going that route the logical foursome would be the "Texahoma Four" (replacing A&M with Tech):
- Texas
- Texas Tech
- Oklahoma
- Oklahoma State

That gets you 4 of the best pieces from the Big XII and effectively kills that conference as a power league all at the same time.
12-10-2018 07:12 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
DawgNBama Offline
the Rush Limbaugh of CSNBBS
*

Posts: 8,320
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation: 446
I Root For: conservativism/MAGA
Location: US
Post: #186
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(05-12-2016 10:19 AM)FriarTuck420 Wrote:  I'm not certain geography matters at this point. Multi market match ups could prove more valuable in the new media land scape then what was previously sought after.
The prior school of thought was quantity over quality.

A couple of really big deals are in play that need to be looked at to properly try and make any sense of the this round of realignment.

1) The PAC 12 is changing the course of the business model by making significant in roads in China. If viewers are the sought after gold mine, the Pac 12 is light years ahead of every other conference on this front. The digital distribution alone will overtake The SEC - ACC -and Big 12. Dont look now, but Texas is involved and this will give basketball schools a much better leverage over their football counter parts. China want basketball and baseball.
2) The FCC has just unlocked cable boxes, meaning you no longer need to rent the box your cable company wants you to use. The projected outcome is that internet will have the subscription base and cable will fade as is already happening, and this will cause a massive influx to set top streamers such as Google Chrome Cast - Roku - Apple TV ect... that will have al acart channels to pick from. Do you know anyone who dosnt have cable but has HBO Now - netflix - and Hulu? Currently constituted in order to watch streaming sports on these devices you need to have a cable subscription with a sports package (sports tax) included. That is going away.

The Pac -12 was sold a huge pile of crap a few years back and larry Scott is now fixing this. The argument was that content was king. The pac 12 went from showing 480 live events a year to 760. They where in 12 million house holds. The B1G on the other hand stayed it course showing about 475 events a year and getting into the right households (60 million of them) not just any house hold. The B1G made deals with the Big east and the ACC to make sure their programs are playing the biggest and the best from those conferences year in and year out, with out having to expand or realign. Make no mistake, that was a direct reaction to the data that showed quality was more in demand then the quantity. ESPN spoon fed sports fans what ever ESPN wanted. The model was flawed and digital ala cart distribution is the way all of the next round of deals are being negotiated.

In my modest opinion, the next round of realignment will be more to do with the out of countries digital contracts conferences (or even leagues ) can get in Japan - China - Iran - (yes, Iran. they want NCAA Wrestling, not kidding) and Russia
The B1G has positioned them self to be a one stop shop for China and Japan with the basketball/baseball market - Iran/Russia with the Wrestling - and Russia again with the newly formed Hockey. In non of these cases is football the world wide sought after product. Thats America. In America we want Michigan v Ohio or Texas or USC or Florida or Alabama ect.

The product has to evolve. That likely means contraction of top teams into a whole new league - and then expansion as allows. I see a football only "NCAA".

Actually, the SEC Network is in Mexico.
12-11-2018 11:02 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: #187
RE: OU & KU in B1G
The aggressive and homerun move by the B1G would be to offer UT, A&M, OU & Arkansas.
12-11-2018 08:22 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: #188
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(12-10-2018 07:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?

If you're going that route the logical foursome would be the "Texahoma Four" (replacing A&M with Tech):
- Texas
- Texas Tech
- Oklahoma
- Oklahoma State

That gets you 4 of the best pieces from the Big XII and effectively kills that conference as a power league all at the same time.

I don't think OSU is necessary to get OU, especially to the Big Ten where they can reunite with Nebraska (especially if OU comes with Texas). Texas is the one you'd have to convince to join the Big Ten, so they'd get their choice of partners. Since they'd have more leverage than any conference, they get to pick their partners and I don't think OSU would make the cut and I don't think Oklahoma would fight Texas to include them. Besides, OU would want to get games against Texas schools to uphold their recruiting in the state just like UT.
12-11-2018 10:23 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: #189
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?

I don't know if the Big Ten would be flexible enough to give in to such a demand but if they did at least they're going to give UT some parameters on what the two tagalongs would be:

1) It would have to be a P5 school
2) Preferably AAU but at worst Carnegie Classification R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity
3) Preferably a state flagship school

Given those parameters I would think the two tagalongs would be: Texas Tech and Kansas

UT and KU are both academically-minded and both have a history in the Big XII.

Texas Tech due to state politics.

Also, UT might benefit by having less Texas programs in the power group, as well as OU and TT.

Speaking of Carnegie Classification, they're going to update their lists later this month. Should Texas Tech keep their place in the highest research activity category then maybe they have some staying power and should be more closely watched, regardless of Lubbock.
12-12-2018 10:47 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: #190
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(12-12-2018 10:47 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?

I don't know if the Big Ten would be flexible enough to give in to such a demand but if they did at least they're going to give UT some parameters on what the two tagalongs would be:

1) It would have to be a P5 school
2) Preferably AAU but at worst Carnegie Classification R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity
3) Preferably a state flagship school

Given those parameters I would think the two tagalongs would be: Texas Tech and Kansas

UT and KU are both academically-minded and both have a history in the Big XII.

Texas Tech due to state politics.

Also, UT might benefit by having less Texas programs in the power group, as well as OU and TT.

Speaking of Carnegie Classification, they're going to update their lists later this month. Should Texas Tech keep their place in the highest research activity category then maybe they have some staying power and should be more closely watched, regardless of Lubbock.

Kansas does nothing to bring UT to the B1G. How does KU fill UT's stadium when they come to town? Or help Texas recruit against A&M as an SEC conference member? here is a clue it doesn't.
12-13-2018 03:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #191
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(12-13-2018 03:43 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-12-2018 10:47 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?

I don't know if the Big Ten would be flexible enough to give in to such a demand but if they did at least they're going to give UT some parameters on what the two tagalongs would be:

1) It would have to be a P5 school
2) Preferably AAU but at worst Carnegie Classification R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity
3) Preferably a state flagship school

Given those parameters I would think the two tagalongs would be: Texas Tech and Kansas

UT and KU are both academically-minded and both have a history in the Big XII.

Texas Tech due to state politics.

Also, UT might benefit by having less Texas programs in the power group, as well as OU and TT.

Speaking of Carnegie Classification, they're going to update their lists later this month. Should Texas Tech keep their place in the highest research activity category then maybe they have some staying power and should be more closely watched, regardless of Lubbock.

Kansas does nothing to bring UT to the B1G. How does KU fill UT's stadium when they come to town? Or help Texas recruit against A&M as an SEC conference member? here is a clue it doesn't.

The Big 10 faces the same issue the SEC does with this. Texas and Oklahoma are the safest and most profitable additions period. Both are national brands so the disappearing cable subscription fee pay model won't have to be considered since both of these are national brands with large followings. Oklahoma is more than covered by UT's academics, and the issue for the Big 10 is maximizing content value and profit. Taking two tag-a-longs bleeds that profit down to a minimum amount.

Yes the SEC could offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and make a profit. Yes we could offer Texas and Tech and make a profit. We could offer all 4 and make a profit. But, does a small increase in profit form an acceptable risk on two lesser schools? What happens if OU and UT decide to bolt the SEC or Big 10 at the end of their first contracted period? The answer is then the SEC or Big 10 would be stuck with the little brothers but without the profitable schools. Is it worth that risk? Probably not. At least not for all 4. I agree that Texas Tech is the lesser risk between TTU and OSU.

I don't think Texas will ever be a member of the Big 10. Their whole business model, the best in the NCAA by far, is predicated upon playing as many home and away games within the state of Texas as is possible and practical. They have a built in devotion of 28 million people who either watch to cheer them on, or watch hoping for their demise. No other school in the nation has that kind of in state draw. Their fans who love beating other in state schools travel in throngs to away games and donate heavily to get away tickets.

There is no way in hell Texas moves to the Big 10, unless the Alston case totally rearranges and alters how the upper tier of college football operates. Then they could go anywhere. Until something like that happens Texas will never join another conference that alters their current business model.

Oklahoma is a much more viable candidate for the SEC and Big 10. Speculation about OU is warranted. The 6 million dollar question is are they, or are they not, politically bound to OSU. There are bold arguments by those arguing either side of this query. We probably won't know for sure until they actually move.

But oddly Kansas has little real value to the Big 10. They don't add to your football content value, in fact in a very Rutgers like way they actually will detract from it. Unlike Rutgers they don't offer much of a new market, especially considering the Big 10 has broad carriage in the major cities in Kansas already. And worse for Kansas, they actually multiply the content value of a solid basketball conference, but then that only increases the Big 10's hoops value incrementally for a sport that only accounts for 20% of sports revenue. So in other words adding Kansas basketball doesn't pay for their 50.1 million dollar share plus what ever the raises between now and when they join would represent.

It's more likely, but still questionable, as to whether they would add enough in value to enhance SEC payouts. But they at least would add markets to the SEC and enhance the quality of basketball and its content value for the conference more demonstrably than it would the Big 10. But it might still not be enough for inclusion, but might be good enough to be a #2 with a Texas or Oklahoma.

IMO, the optimum play for the Big 10 would be Texas and Colorado for markets and academics. But OU earns you more for their football content value.

We'll see what happens but I'm doubting more and more these days a to whether either conference really wants to risk taking little brothers with OU and UT. Really only the PAC might be able to justify it.
12-14-2018 03:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HulaHawk Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 28
Joined: Nov 2018
Reputation: 3
I Root For: Kansas
Location:
Post: #192
RE: OU & KU in B1G
KU Brings in Kansas City and vicinity.Big 10 has precious little support there. KU has no academic problems. You would get the Kansas City Metro with KU. You want St. Louis? Try Mizzou. If you think in any way KC is a BIG10 city think again. The way to bring them in is KU.
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2018 03:43 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-12-2018 10:47 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?

I don't know if the Big Ten would be flexible enough to give in to such a demand but if they did at least they're going to give UT some parameters on what the two tagalongs would be:

1) It would have to be a P5 school
2) Preferably AAU but at worst Carnegie Classification R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity
3) Preferably a state flagship school

Given those parameters I would think the two tagalongs would be: Texas Tech and Kansas

UT and KU are both academically-minded and both have a history in the Big XII.

Texas Tech due to state politics.

Also, UT might benefit by having less Texas programs in the power group, as well as OU and TT.

Speaking of Carnegie Classification, they're going to update their lists later this month. Should Texas Tech keep their place in the highest research activity category then maybe they have some staying power and should be more closely watched, regardless of Lubbock.

Kansas does nothing to bring UT to the B1G. How does KU fill UT's stadium when they come to town? Or help Texas recruit against A&M as an SEC conference member? here is a clue it doesn't.

The Big 10 faces the same issue the SEC does with this. Texas and Oklahoma are the safest and most profitable additions period. Both are national brands so the disappearing cable subscription fee pay model won't have to be considered since both of these are national brands with large followings. Oklahoma is more than covered by UT's academics, and the issue for the Big 10 is maximizing content value and profit. Taking two tag-a-longs bleeds that profit down to a minimum amount.

Yes the SEC could offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and make a profit. Yes we could offer Texas and Tech and make a profit. We could offer all 4 and make a profit. But, does a small increase in profit form an acceptable risk on two lesser schools? What happens if OU and UT decide to bolt the SEC or Big 10 at the end of their first contracted period? The answer is then the SEC or Big 10 would be stuck with the little brothers but without the profitable schools. Is it worth that risk? Probably not. At least not for all 4. I agree that Texas Tech is the lesser risk between TTU and OSU.

I don't think Texas will ever be a member of the Big 10. Their whole business model, the best in the NCAA by far, is predicated upon playing as many home and away games within the state of Texas as is possible and practical. They have a built in devotion of 28 million people who either watch to cheer them on, or watch hoping for their demise. No other school in the nation has that kind of in state draw. Their fans who love beating other in state schools travel in throngs to away games and donate heavily to get away tickets.

There is no way in hell Texas moves to the Big 10, unless the Alston case totally rearranges and alters how the upper tier of college football operates. Then they could go anywhere. Until something like that happens Texas will never join another conference that alters their current business model.

Oklahoma is a much more viable candidate for the SEC and Big 10. Speculation about OU is warranted. The 6 million dollar question is are they, or are they not, politically bound to OSU. There are bold arguments by those arguing either side of this query. We probably won't know for sure until they actually move.

But oddly Kansas has little real value to the Big 10. They don't add to your football content value, in fact in a very Rutgers like way they actually will detract from it. Unlike Rutgers they don't offer much of a new market, especially considering the Big 10 has broad carriage in the major cities in Kansas already. And worse for Kansas, they actually multiply the content value of a solid basketball conference, but then that only increases the Big 10's hoops value incrementally for a sport that only accounts for 20% of sports revenue. So in other words adding Kansas basketball doesn't pay for their 50.1 million dollar share plus what ever the raises between now and when they join would represent.

It's more likely, but still questionable, as to whether they would add enough in value to enhance SEC payouts. But they at least would add markets to the SEC and enhance the quality of basketball and its content value for the conference more demonstrably than it would the Big 10. But it might still not be enough for inclusion, but might be good enough to be a #2 with a Texas or Oklahoma.

IMO, the optimum play for the Big 10 would be Texas and Colorado for markets and academics. But OU earns you more for their football content value.

We'll see what happens but I'm doubting more and more these days a to whether either conference really wants to risk taking little brothers with OU and UT. Really only the PAC might be able to justify it.
(This post was last modified: 01-04-2019 02:35 PM by HulaHawk.)
01-04-2019 02:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Airspace Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 10
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 6
I Root For: Ohio State
Location:
Post: #193
RE: OU & KU in B1G
If we have 3 locked in games. Being an Ohio State alum/fan, we know that we are going to get Michigan and Penn State.

Michigan being the RIVAL, and Penn State being guaranteed a rivalry game with Ohio State when they joined the conference. Penn State made sense being both states are very similar in football from grade school to pros. They are also neighbors with some family across state lines.

The third game SHOULD be Illinois. Reason being that they were the oldest continuous series prior to Penn State being added. That series was our second rival after scum, plus it has the Illi-Buck, the only trophy game Ohio State plays (between fraternities).
01-04-2019 05:29 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: #194
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(01-04-2019 02:33 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  KU Brings in Kansas City and vicinity.Big 10 has precious little support there. KU has no academic problems. You would get the Kansas City Metro with KU. You want St. Louis? Try Mizzou. If you think in any way KC is a BIG10 city think again. The way to bring them in is KU.
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2018 03:43 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-12-2018 10:47 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(12-08-2018 09:44 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  If the Big Ten wants Texas, I think the conference will have to go to 18. Oklahoma would have to be one of the schools, leaving two vacancies for Texas to choose tagalongs. Who do you think would be acceptable partners?

In no particular order:
- Texas Tech
- TCU
- Baylor
- Houston
- Rice

UT likes playing games in the state of Texas. Assuming 9 conference games, they would have 5 annual conference games (4 home, 1 in Dallas against OU) in the state plus at least 2 non-conference for 7 total. Could the Big Ten swallow some pride and accept some small fish in order to land the biggest of them all?

I don't know if the Big Ten would be flexible enough to give in to such a demand but if they did at least they're going to give UT some parameters on what the two tagalongs would be:

1) It would have to be a P5 school
2) Preferably AAU but at worst Carnegie Classification R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity
3) Preferably a state flagship school

Given those parameters I would think the two tagalongs would be: Texas Tech and Kansas

UT and KU are both academically-minded and both have a history in the Big XII.

Texas Tech due to state politics.

Also, UT might benefit by having less Texas programs in the power group, as well as OU and TT.

Speaking of Carnegie Classification, they're going to update their lists later this month. Should Texas Tech keep their place in the highest research activity category then maybe they have some staying power and should be more closely watched, regardless of Lubbock.

Kansas does nothing to bring UT to the B1G. How does KU fill UT's stadium when they come to town? Or help Texas recruit against A&M as an SEC conference member? here is a clue it doesn't.

The Big 10 faces the same issue the SEC does with this. Texas and Oklahoma are the safest and most profitable additions period. Both are national brands so the disappearing cable subscription fee pay model won't have to be considered since both of these are national brands with large followings. Oklahoma is more than covered by UT's academics, and the issue for the Big 10 is maximizing content value and profit. Taking two tag-a-longs bleeds that profit down to a minimum amount.

Yes the SEC could offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and make a profit. Yes we could offer Texas and Tech and make a profit. We could offer all 4 and make a profit. But, does a small increase in profit form an acceptable risk on two lesser schools? What happens if OU and UT decide to bolt the SEC or Big 10 at the end of their first contracted period? The answer is then the SEC or Big 10 would be stuck with the little brothers but without the profitable schools. Is it worth that risk? Probably not. At least not for all 4. I agree that Texas Tech is the lesser risk between TTU and OSU.

I don't think Texas will ever be a member of the Big 10. Their whole business model, the best in the NCAA by far, is predicated upon playing as many home and away games within the state of Texas as is possible and practical. They have a built in devotion of 28 million people who either watch to cheer them on, or watch hoping for their demise. No other school in the nation has that kind of in state draw. Their fans who love beating other in state schools travel in throngs to away games and donate heavily to get away tickets.

There is no way in hell Texas moves to the Big 10, unless the Alston case totally rearranges and alters how the upper tier of college football operates. Then they could go anywhere. Until something like that happens Texas will never join another conference that alters their current business model.

Oklahoma is a much more viable candidate for the SEC and Big 10. Speculation about OU is warranted. The 6 million dollar question is are they, or are they not, politically bound to OSU. There are bold arguments by those arguing either side of this query. We probably won't know for sure until they actually move.

But oddly Kansas has little real value to the Big 10. They don't add to your football content value, in fact in a very Rutgers like way they actually will detract from it. Unlike Rutgers they don't offer much of a new market, especially considering the Big 10 has broad carriage in the major cities in Kansas already. And worse for Kansas, they actually multiply the content value of a solid basketball conference, but then that only increases the Big 10's hoops value incrementally for a sport that only accounts for 20% of sports revenue. So in other words adding Kansas basketball doesn't pay for their 50.1 million dollar share plus what ever the raises between now and when they join would represent.

It's more likely, but still questionable, as to whether they would add enough in value to enhance SEC payouts. But they at least would add markets to the SEC and enhance the quality of basketball and its content value for the conference more demonstrably than it would the Big 10. But it might still not be enough for inclusion, but might be good enough to be a #2 with a Texas or Oklahoma.

IMO, the optimum play for the Big 10 would be Texas and Colorado for markets and academics. But OU earns you more for their football content value.

We'll see what happens but I'm doubting more and more these days a to whether either conference really wants to risk taking little brothers with OU and UT. Really only the PAC might be able to justify it.

I imagine Kansas City and St. Louis have a ton of Big Ten alumni and fans and do just fine there. Other than those two markets, the rest of Kansas doesn't add anything so I don't see any particular benefit to adding KU to the Big Ten. I think KU adds much more to the SEC but that has its own issues as well. If Kansas could be a positive for football and provide value, they could pay their way into a conference but currently risk being left behind when around 80% of a school's value is their football program.
01-04-2019 10:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #195
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(01-04-2019 10:07 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 02:33 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  KU Brings in Kansas City and vicinity.Big 10 has precious little support there. KU has no academic problems. You would get the Kansas City Metro with KU. You want St. Louis? Try Mizzou. If you think in any way KC is a BIG10 city think again. The way to bring them in is KU.
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2018 03:43 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-12-2018 10:47 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I don't know if the Big Ten would be flexible enough to give in to such a demand but if they did at least they're going to give UT some parameters on what the two tagalongs would be:

1) It would have to be a P5 school
2) Preferably AAU but at worst Carnegie Classification R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity
3) Preferably a state flagship school

Given those parameters I would think the two tagalongs would be: Texas Tech and Kansas

UT and KU are both academically-minded and both have a history in the Big XII.

Texas Tech due to state politics.

Also, UT might benefit by having less Texas programs in the power group, as well as OU and TT.

Speaking of Carnegie Classification, they're going to update their lists later this month. Should Texas Tech keep their place in the highest research activity category then maybe they have some staying power and should be more closely watched, regardless of Lubbock.

Kansas does nothing to bring UT to the B1G. How does KU fill UT's stadium when they come to town? Or help Texas recruit against A&M as an SEC conference member? here is a clue it doesn't.

The Big 10 faces the same issue the SEC does with this. Texas and Oklahoma are the safest and most profitable additions period. Both are national brands so the disappearing cable subscription fee pay model won't have to be considered since both of these are national brands with large followings. Oklahoma is more than covered by UT's academics, and the issue for the Big 10 is maximizing content value and profit. Taking two tag-a-longs bleeds that profit down to a minimum amount.

Yes the SEC could offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and make a profit. Yes we could offer Texas and Tech and make a profit. We could offer all 4 and make a profit. But, does a small increase in profit form an acceptable risk on two lesser schools? What happens if OU and UT decide to bolt the SEC or Big 10 at the end of their first contracted period? The answer is then the SEC or Big 10 would be stuck with the little brothers but without the profitable schools. Is it worth that risk? Probably not. At least not for all 4. I agree that Texas Tech is the lesser risk between TTU and OSU.

I don't think Texas will ever be a member of the Big 10. Their whole business model, the best in the NCAA by far, is predicated upon playing as many home and away games within the state of Texas as is possible and practical. They have a built in devotion of 28 million people who either watch to cheer them on, or watch hoping for their demise. No other school in the nation has that kind of in state draw. Their fans who love beating other in state schools travel in throngs to away games and donate heavily to get away tickets.

There is no way in hell Texas moves to the Big 10, unless the Alston case totally rearranges and alters how the upper tier of college football operates. Then they could go anywhere. Until something like that happens Texas will never join another conference that alters their current business model.

Oklahoma is a much more viable candidate for the SEC and Big 10. Speculation about OU is warranted. The 6 million dollar question is are they, or are they not, politically bound to OSU. There are bold arguments by those arguing either side of this query. We probably won't know for sure until they actually move.

But oddly Kansas has little real value to the Big 10. They don't add to your football content value, in fact in a very Rutgers like way they actually will detract from it. Unlike Rutgers they don't offer much of a new market, especially considering the Big 10 has broad carriage in the major cities in Kansas already. And worse for Kansas, they actually multiply the content value of a solid basketball conference, but then that only increases the Big 10's hoops value incrementally for a sport that only accounts for 20% of sports revenue. So in other words adding Kansas basketball doesn't pay for their 50.1 million dollar share plus what ever the raises between now and when they join would represent.

It's more likely, but still questionable, as to whether they would add enough in value to enhance SEC payouts. But they at least would add markets to the SEC and enhance the quality of basketball and its content value for the conference more demonstrably than it would the Big 10. But it might still not be enough for inclusion, but might be good enough to be a #2 with a Texas or Oklahoma.

IMO, the optimum play for the Big 10 would be Texas and Colorado for markets and academics. But OU earns you more for their football content value.

We'll see what happens but I'm doubting more and more these days a to whether either conference really wants to risk taking little brothers with OU and UT. Really only the PAC might be able to justify it.

I imagine Kansas City and St. Louis have a ton of Big Ten alumni and fans and do just fine there. Other than those two markets, the rest of Kansas doesn't add anything so I don't see any particular benefit to adding KU to the Big Ten. I think KU adds much more to the SEC but that has its own issues as well. If Kansas could be a positive for football and provide value, they could pay their way into a conference but currently risk being left behind when around 80% of a school's value is their football program.

Considering the PAC's difficulties and the fact that their GOR expires a year after that of the Big 12, why not push for Texas via Colorado? Both are AAU and those two states are demographically superior to Oklahoma and Kansas.

To me if there is to be any cooperation between the SEC and Big 10 (and FOX and ESPN) it seems to me this is where to start. Colorado and Texas would add tremendously to the Big 10, and the SEC might be satisfied with OU and Kansas. I know A&M would be happy.

FOX and ESPN could then cooperate to place the rest. The ACC may turn their nose up at WVU but the Eers would meet more of their needs and reconnect their footprint.
01-05-2019 12:04 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #196
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(01-04-2019 10:07 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 02:33 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  KU Brings in Kansas City and vicinity.Big 10 has precious little support there. KU has no academic problems. You would get the Kansas City Metro with KU. You want St. Louis? Try Mizzou. If you think in any way KC is a BIG10 city think again. The way to bring them in is KU.
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2018 03:43 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  
(12-12-2018 10:47 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  I don't know if the Big Ten would be flexible enough to give in to such a demand but if they did at least they're going to give UT some parameters on what the two tagalongs would be:

1) It would have to be a P5 school
2) Preferably AAU but at worst Carnegie Classification R1: Doctoral Universities – Highest research activity
3) Preferably a state flagship school

Given those parameters I would think the two tagalongs would be: Texas Tech and Kansas

UT and KU are both academically-minded and both have a history in the Big XII.

Texas Tech due to state politics.

Also, UT might benefit by having less Texas programs in the power group, as well as OU and TT.

Speaking of Carnegie Classification, they're going to update their lists later this month. Should Texas Tech keep their place in the highest research activity category then maybe they have some staying power and should be more closely watched, regardless of Lubbock.

Kansas does nothing to bring UT to the B1G. How does KU fill UT's stadium when they come to town? Or help Texas recruit against A&M as an SEC conference member? here is a clue it doesn't.

The Big 10 faces the same issue the SEC does with this. Texas and Oklahoma are the safest and most profitable additions period. Both are national brands so the disappearing cable subscription fee pay model won't have to be considered since both of these are national brands with large followings. Oklahoma is more than covered by UT's academics, and the issue for the Big 10 is maximizing content value and profit. Taking two tag-a-longs bleeds that profit down to a minimum amount.

Yes the SEC could offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and make a profit. Yes we could offer Texas and Tech and make a profit. We could offer all 4 and make a profit. But, does a small increase in profit form an acceptable risk on two lesser schools? What happens if OU and UT decide to bolt the SEC or Big 10 at the end of their first contracted period? The answer is then the SEC or Big 10 would be stuck with the little brothers but without the profitable schools. Is it worth that risk? Probably not. At least not for all 4. I agree that Texas Tech is the lesser risk between TTU and OSU.

I don't think Texas will ever be a member of the Big 10. Their whole business model, the best in the NCAA by far, is predicated upon playing as many home and away games within the state of Texas as is possible and practical. They have a built in devotion of 28 million people who either watch to cheer them on, or watch hoping for their demise. No other school in the nation has that kind of in state draw. Their fans who love beating other in state schools travel in throngs to away games and donate heavily to get away tickets.

There is no way in hell Texas moves to the Big 10, unless the Alston case totally rearranges and alters how the upper tier of college football operates. Then they could go anywhere. Until something like that happens Texas will never join another conference that alters their current business model.

Oklahoma is a much more viable candidate for the SEC and Big 10. Speculation about OU is warranted. The 6 million dollar question is are they, or are they not, politically bound to OSU. There are bold arguments by those arguing either side of this query. We probably won't know for sure until they actually move.

But oddly Kansas has little real value to the Big 10. They don't add to your football content value, in fact in a very Rutgers like way they actually will detract from it. Unlike Rutgers they don't offer much of a new market, especially considering the Big 10 has broad carriage in the major cities in Kansas already. And worse for Kansas, they actually multiply the content value of a solid basketball conference, but then that only increases the Big 10's hoops value incrementally for a sport that only accounts for 20% of sports revenue. So in other words adding Kansas basketball doesn't pay for their 50.1 million dollar share plus what ever the raises between now and when they join would represent.

It's more likely, but still questionable, as to whether they would add enough in value to enhance SEC payouts. But they at least would add markets to the SEC and enhance the quality of basketball and its content value for the conference more demonstrably than it would the Big 10. But it might still not be enough for inclusion, but might be good enough to be a #2 with a Texas or Oklahoma.

IMO, the optimum play for the Big 10 would be Texas and Colorado for markets and academics. But OU earns you more for their football content value.

We'll see what happens but I'm doubting more and more these days a to whether either conference really wants to risk taking little brothers with OU and UT. Really only the PAC might be able to justify it.

I imagine Kansas City and St. Louis have a ton of Big Ten alumni and fans and do just fine there. Other than those two markets, the rest of Kansas doesn't add anything so I don't see any particular benefit to adding KU to the Big Ten. I think KU adds much more to the SEC but that has its own issues as well. If Kansas could be a positive for football and provide value, they could pay their way into a conference but currently risk being left behind when around 80% of a school's value is their football program.

Kansas City and St. Louis have little B1G alumni compared to other large cities. FranktheTank broke it down here: https://frankthetank.me. St. Louis only showed a slightly elevated number of alumni from Illinois and Kansas City showed a slightly elevated number of alumni from Nebraska and Iowa.
01-05-2019 12:31 AM
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: #197
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(01-05-2019 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 10:07 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 02:33 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  KU Brings in Kansas City and vicinity.Big 10 has precious little support there. KU has no academic problems. You would get the Kansas City Metro with KU. You want St. Louis? Try Mizzou. If you think in any way KC is a BIG10 city think again. The way to bring them in is KU.
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-13-2018 03:43 PM)Win5002 Wrote:  Kansas does nothing to bring UT to the B1G. How does KU fill UT's stadium when they come to town? Or help Texas recruit against A&M as an SEC conference member? here is a clue it doesn't.

The Big 10 faces the same issue the SEC does with this. Texas and Oklahoma are the safest and most profitable additions period. Both are national brands so the disappearing cable subscription fee pay model won't have to be considered since both of these are national brands with large followings. Oklahoma is more than covered by UT's academics, and the issue for the Big 10 is maximizing content value and profit. Taking two tag-a-longs bleeds that profit down to a minimum amount.

Yes the SEC could offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and make a profit. Yes we could offer Texas and Tech and make a profit. We could offer all 4 and make a profit. But, does a small increase in profit form an acceptable risk on two lesser schools? What happens if OU and UT decide to bolt the SEC or Big 10 at the end of their first contracted period? The answer is then the SEC or Big 10 would be stuck with the little brothers but without the profitable schools. Is it worth that risk? Probably not. At least not for all 4. I agree that Texas Tech is the lesser risk between TTU and OSU.

I don't think Texas will ever be a member of the Big 10. Their whole business model, the best in the NCAA by far, is predicated upon playing as many home and away games within the state of Texas as is possible and practical. They have a built in devotion of 28 million people who either watch to cheer them on, or watch hoping for their demise. No other school in the nation has that kind of in state draw. Their fans who love beating other in state schools travel in throngs to away games and donate heavily to get away tickets.

There is no way in hell Texas moves to the Big 10, unless the Alston case totally rearranges and alters how the upper tier of college football operates. Then they could go anywhere. Until something like that happens Texas will never join another conference that alters their current business model.

Oklahoma is a much more viable candidate for the SEC and Big 10. Speculation about OU is warranted. The 6 million dollar question is are they, or are they not, politically bound to OSU. There are bold arguments by those arguing either side of this query. We probably won't know for sure until they actually move.

But oddly Kansas has little real value to the Big 10. They don't add to your football content value, in fact in a very Rutgers like way they actually will detract from it. Unlike Rutgers they don't offer much of a new market, especially considering the Big 10 has broad carriage in the major cities in Kansas already. And worse for Kansas, they actually multiply the content value of a solid basketball conference, but then that only increases the Big 10's hoops value incrementally for a sport that only accounts for 20% of sports revenue. So in other words adding Kansas basketball doesn't pay for their 50.1 million dollar share plus what ever the raises between now and when they join would represent.

It's more likely, but still questionable, as to whether they would add enough in value to enhance SEC payouts. But they at least would add markets to the SEC and enhance the quality of basketball and its content value for the conference more demonstrably than it would the Big 10. But it might still not be enough for inclusion, but might be good enough to be a #2 with a Texas or Oklahoma.

IMO, the optimum play for the Big 10 would be Texas and Colorado for markets and academics. But OU earns you more for their football content value.

We'll see what happens but I'm doubting more and more these days a to whether either conference really wants to risk taking little brothers with OU and UT. Really only the PAC might be able to justify it.

I imagine Kansas City and St. Louis have a ton of Big Ten alumni and fans and do just fine there. Other than those two markets, the rest of Kansas doesn't add anything so I don't see any particular benefit to adding KU to the Big Ten. I think KU adds much more to the SEC but that has its own issues as well. If Kansas could be a positive for football and provide value, they could pay their way into a conference but currently risk being left behind when around 80% of a school's value is their football program.

Considering the PAC's difficulties and the fact that their GOR expires a year after that of the Big 12, why not push for Texas via Colorado? Both are AAU and those two states are demographically superior to Oklahoma and Kansas.

To me if there is to be any cooperation between the SEC and Big 10 (and FOX and ESPN) it seems to me this is where to start. Colorado and Texas would add tremendously to the Big 10, and the SEC might be satisfied with OU and Kansas. I know A&M would be happy.

FOX and ESPN could then cooperate to place the rest. The ACC may turn their nose up at WVU but the Eers would meet more of their needs and reconnect their footprint.

I think this is a successful arrangement. Texas may need some convincing but I think it's a win for everyone else. Nebraska and Missouri, in particular, would welcome old rivals to make their current conference a little more like home.
01-05-2019 08:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,913
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #198
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(01-05-2019 08:56 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-05-2019 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 10:07 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-04-2019 02:33 PM)HulaHawk Wrote:  KU Brings in Kansas City and vicinity.Big 10 has precious little support there. KU has no academic problems. You would get the Kansas City Metro with KU. You want St. Louis? Try Mizzou. If you think in any way KC is a BIG10 city think again. The way to bring them in is KU.
(12-14-2018 03:41 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The Big 10 faces the same issue the SEC does with this. Texas and Oklahoma are the safest and most profitable additions period. Both are national brands so the disappearing cable subscription fee pay model won't have to be considered since both of these are national brands with large followings. Oklahoma is more than covered by UT's academics, and the issue for the Big 10 is maximizing content value and profit. Taking two tag-a-longs bleeds that profit down to a minimum amount.

Yes the SEC could offer Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and make a profit. Yes we could offer Texas and Tech and make a profit. We could offer all 4 and make a profit. But, does a small increase in profit form an acceptable risk on two lesser schools? What happens if OU and UT decide to bolt the SEC or Big 10 at the end of their first contracted period? The answer is then the SEC or Big 10 would be stuck with the little brothers but without the profitable schools. Is it worth that risk? Probably not. At least not for all 4. I agree that Texas Tech is the lesser risk between TTU and OSU.

I don't think Texas will ever be a member of the Big 10. Their whole business model, the best in the NCAA by far, is predicated upon playing as many home and away games within the state of Texas as is possible and practical. They have a built in devotion of 28 million people who either watch to cheer them on, or watch hoping for their demise. No other school in the nation has that kind of in state draw. Their fans who love beating other in state schools travel in throngs to away games and donate heavily to get away tickets.

There is no way in hell Texas moves to the Big 10, unless the Alston case totally rearranges and alters how the upper tier of college football operates. Then they could go anywhere. Until something like that happens Texas will never join another conference that alters their current business model.

Oklahoma is a much more viable candidate for the SEC and Big 10. Speculation about OU is warranted. The 6 million dollar question is are they, or are they not, politically bound to OSU. There are bold arguments by those arguing either side of this query. We probably won't know for sure until they actually move.

But oddly Kansas has little real value to the Big 10. They don't add to your football content value, in fact in a very Rutgers like way they actually will detract from it. Unlike Rutgers they don't offer much of a new market, especially considering the Big 10 has broad carriage in the major cities in Kansas already. And worse for Kansas, they actually multiply the content value of a solid basketball conference, but then that only increases the Big 10's hoops value incrementally for a sport that only accounts for 20% of sports revenue. So in other words adding Kansas basketball doesn't pay for their 50.1 million dollar share plus what ever the raises between now and when they join would represent.

It's more likely, but still questionable, as to whether they would add enough in value to enhance SEC payouts. But they at least would add markets to the SEC and enhance the quality of basketball and its content value for the conference more demonstrably than it would the Big 10. But it might still not be enough for inclusion, but might be good enough to be a #2 with a Texas or Oklahoma.

IMO, the optimum play for the Big 10 would be Texas and Colorado for markets and academics. But OU earns you more for their football content value.

We'll see what happens but I'm doubting more and more these days a to whether either conference really wants to risk taking little brothers with OU and UT. Really only the PAC might be able to justify it.

I imagine Kansas City and St. Louis have a ton of Big Ten alumni and fans and do just fine there. Other than those two markets, the rest of Kansas doesn't add anything so I don't see any particular benefit to adding KU to the Big Ten. I think KU adds much more to the SEC but that has its own issues as well. If Kansas could be a positive for football and provide value, they could pay their way into a conference but currently risk being left behind when around 80% of a school's value is their football program.

Considering the PAC's difficulties and the fact that their GOR expires a year after that of the Big 12, why not push for Texas via Colorado? Both are AAU and those two states are demographically superior to Oklahoma and Kansas.

To me if there is to be any cooperation between the SEC and Big 10 (and FOX and ESPN) it seems to me this is where to start. Colorado and Texas would add tremendously to the Big 10, and the SEC might be satisfied with OU and Kansas. I know A&M would be happy.

FOX and ESPN could then cooperate to place the rest. The ACC may turn their nose up at WVU but the Eers would meet more of their needs and reconnect their footprint.

I think this is a successful arrangement. Texas may need some convincing but I think it's a win for everyone else. Nebraska and Missouri, in particular, would welcome old rivals to make their current conference a little more like home.

In the world that lies ahead of us the Big 10 and SEC are going to need each other's support to keep enough leverage to benefit us both. IMO this would be a great start. With the Big 12 out of the way a scheduling agreement would benefit us both as well. Nothing draws attention and sells like North vs South. Plus we're pretty easy commuting distance from each other as well.
01-05-2019 05:24 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: #199
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(01-05-2019 05:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2019 08:56 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-05-2019 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Considering the PAC's difficulties and the fact that their GOR expires a year after that of the Big 12, why not push for Texas via Colorado? Both are AAU and those two states are demographically superior to Oklahoma and Kansas.

To me if there is to be any cooperation between the SEC and Big 10 (and FOX and ESPN) it seems to me this is where to start. Colorado and Texas would add tremendously to the Big 10, and the SEC might be satisfied with OU and Kansas. I know A&M would be happy.

FOX and ESPN could then cooperate to place the rest. The ACC may turn their nose up at WVU but the Eers would meet more of their needs and reconnect their footprint.

I think this is a successful arrangement. Texas may need some convincing but I think it's a win for everyone else. Nebraska and Missouri, in particular, would welcome old rivals to make their current conference a little more like home.

In the world that lies ahead of us the Big 10 and SEC are going to need each other's support to keep enough leverage to benefit us both. IMO this would be a great start. With the Big 12 out of the way a scheduling agreement would benefit us both as well. Nothing draws attention and sells like North vs South. Plus we're pretty easy commuting distance from each other as well.

I would like to know how the parsing out of UT and OU would be facilitated without difficulty. Both have a history of playing games against each since 1900. That's another old rivalry that would be put in jeopardy in case they split off. That game garners a lot of attention in the area.

Who goes first? I can make a case of either of them but UT has more of an interest in keeping the Big 12 intact as currently. How long would OU wait for an offer from the Big 10 if it is, indeed, expanding again?

As for Colorado, I've been trying to find any discussion on the idea of CU to the Big 10 and only found a thread at a Husker message board talking about it.
01-11-2019 10:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BePcr07 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,900
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 342
I Root For: Boise St & Zags
Location:
Post: #200
RE: OU & KU in B1G
(01-11-2019 10:22 AM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  
(01-05-2019 05:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-05-2019 08:56 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-05-2019 12:04 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Considering the PAC's difficulties and the fact that their GOR expires a year after that of the Big 12, why not push for Texas via Colorado? Both are AAU and those two states are demographically superior to Oklahoma and Kansas.

To me if there is to be any cooperation between the SEC and Big 10 (and FOX and ESPN) it seems to me this is where to start. Colorado and Texas would add tremendously to the Big 10, and the SEC might be satisfied with OU and Kansas. I know A&M would be happy.

FOX and ESPN could then cooperate to place the rest. The ACC may turn their nose up at WVU but the Eers would meet more of their needs and reconnect their footprint.

I think this is a successful arrangement. Texas may need some convincing but I think it's a win for everyone else. Nebraska and Missouri, in particular, would welcome old rivals to make their current conference a little more like home.

In the world that lies ahead of us the Big 10 and SEC are going to need each other's support to keep enough leverage to benefit us both. IMO this would be a great start. With the Big 12 out of the way a scheduling agreement would benefit us both as well. Nothing draws attention and sells like North vs South. Plus we're pretty easy commuting distance from each other as well.

I would like to know how the parsing out of UT and OU would be facilitated without difficulty. Both have a history of playing games against each since 1900. That's another old rivalry that would be put in jeopardy in case they split off. That game garners a lot of attention in the area.

Who goes first? I can make a case of either of them but UT has more of an interest in keeping the Big 12 intact as currently. How long would OU wait for an offer from the Big 10 if it is, indeed, expanding again?

As for Colorado, I've been trying to find any discussion on the idea of CU to the Big 10 and only found a thread at a Husker message board talking about it.

The only scenario that I can imagine Colorado leaving for the B1G would include bringing a few West Coast friends along. Maybe Washington, Oregon, California, UCLA, and Arizona? The XII could come in for Stanford, USC, Arizona St, and Utah. Washington St and Oregon St would be forced to either go independent or join the Mountain West...or perhaps the American as a Western leg with Boise St, BYU, San Diego St, and one or two others.
01-11-2019 11:21 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.