(05-23-2023 03:42 PM)YNot Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:08 PM)CougarRed Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 02:34 PM)BeepBeepJeep Wrote:  More Western teams cannot possibly mean less travel overall...

Assuming 9 conference games and that all Western teams play each other every year . . .

2 Western teams = 8 Western trips for the OG B1G.

4 Western teams = 12 Western football trips for the OG B1G

6 Western teams = 12 Western football trips for the OG B1G.

8 Western teams = 8 Western football trips for the OG B1G.

10 Western teams = 0 Western football trips for the OG B1G

==========
Increasing the number of Western Teams to 4 or 6 really helps USC and UCLA more than the OG B1G.

The bigger travel concerns are for Olympic sports. What do the number of western trips for the original Big Ten women's basketball and volleyball teams look like with the different western expansion scenarios?

With just USCLA the only travel issues are on the western side. The eastern teams would only have to make one trip to the west coast, and adding more western teams can't make the eastern teams have fewer than that.

(05-24-2023 12:07 PM)ken d Wrote:  With just USCLA the only travel issues are on the western side. The eastern teams would only have to make one trip to the west coast, and adding more western teams can't make the eastern teams have fewer than that.

It's a valid point. If the incumbent B1G schools are steadfast in their commitment to mental health for their players, they will not have additional expansion out west. Leave it USCLA to deal with.

In that case, the PAC10 should be relatively secure with SDSU and another, and the Big 12 will likely look east. If I'm the 4C schools, I am on the phone with B1G people not trying to lobby for an invite, but to have a frank discussion on where they stand on the logistics and how adding more western schools would affect their athletic programs top to bottom.

(05-24-2023 09:56 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 08:46 AM)esayem Wrote:  I think the Big Ten made the LA move to make a quick buck and everyone was hyped up. It was a great response to the SEC and ESPN.

Now they are beginning to realize it might not be built for the long haul. You take on more West Coast schools, guess what? You can't get rid of them. They are now Big Ten schools forever and you have to somehow come up with enough money so the Ohio States and Michigans of the world are not seeing their future paychecks reduced. The pie will be sliced more ways and the pie is in danger of getting smaller in the 30's.

Meanwhile people here are predicting 24-team conferences? 24 slices of a potentially smaller pie? Yikes. Can you say Mountain West Airport Meeting?

By 2040 the Big Ten might look like:

Penn State
Ohio State
Michigan
Wisconsin
Iowa
Nebraska
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA

Be careful what you wish for.

Also plausible.

The B1G reach into LA does have a hasty look--as if a sudden desire to look 'proactive' got exploited after the shock move of Texas and Oklahoma to the SEC.

The LA move made a hash of the B1G's long-time insistence on a contiguous footprint, and that in turn makes future B1G expansion problematic.

There might be a way to salvage it, but the B1G OG are going to be more willing to make some compromises. Right now, it doesn't seem like they are.
In retrospect, the B1G should have hired a commish that didn't really have ND as a key component of their strategy. Getting ND is like winning the lottery-something that you don't really plan for, IMO. That's why the SEC expansion is working out, and the B1G's isn't so far, IMO. The SEC never planned on getting ND to begin with.

Also, as crazy as it may sound, even if a super league is created, if ND has the option to stay.indy, they will take it!!!!!

I got some data I want to share from an Ohio St. perspective when considering travel. The # year average is based the number of years a scheduling format rotation takes to complete that format playing everyone H&H in football or playing teams twice in basketball. This data is for traveling one way and includes home games (0 miles). The numbers may be slightly off, but should give everyone an idea.

Ohio State Football Travel (One Way):
Ohio St. - 0 Miles
Michigan - 183 Miles
Indiana - 224 Miles
Purdue - 238 Miles
Michigan St. - 247 Miles
Illinois - 295 Miles
Penn St. - 327 Miles
Northwestern - 341 Miles
Maryland - 401 Miles
Wisconsin - 467 Miles
Rutgers - 528 Miles
Iowa - 537 Miles
Minnesota - 726 Miles
Nebraska - 814 Miles
USC - 2248 Miles
UCLA - 2258 Miles
Washington - 2390 Miles
Oregon - 2437 Miles

14 Teams
Divisions:
6 Year Aver. - 186.70 Mi/Gm
Wisconsin Protected (2022-Present)
6 Year Aver. - 199.55 Mi/Gm
Nebraska Protected (2016-2021)
Divisionless:
3 Rivals annually, rotate 6 teams
5 year Aver.: 194.42 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual
5 year Aver.: 197.83 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual

16 Teams
9 games: 3-6/6
4 year Aver.: 351.78 Mi/Gm
TTUN, PSU, USC annual
4 year Aver.: 296.19 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual
4 year Aver.: 311.61 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual
*Didn't try to calculate numbers for a flex scheduling format due to wide range of variables, but should be similar to the numbers above

18 Teams
9 games: 3 Rivals annual, 1 team 4 of 5 years, 13 teams H&H every 5 years:
5 Year Aver.: 356.61 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual, ILL 4 of 5
5 Year Aver.: 362.74 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual, ILL 4 of 5
5 Year Aver.: 400.99 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual, USC 4 of 5
5 Year Aver.: 406.12 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual, USC 4 of 5

18 Teams
10 games: 3-7/7
4 Year Aver.: 387.25 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual
4 Year Aver.: 391.10 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual


Ohio State Men's Basketball Travel (One Way):
Ohio St. - 0 Miles
Michigan - 183 Miles
Indiana - 224 Miles
Purdue - 238 Miles
Michigan St. - 247 Miles
Illinois - 295 Miles
Penn St. - 327 Miles
Northwestern - 341 Miles
Maryland - 401 Miles
Wisconsin - 467 Miles
Rutgers - 528 Miles
Iowa - 537 Miles
Minnesota - 726 Miles
Nebraska - 814 Miles
USC - 2248 Miles
UCLA - 2258 Miles
Washington - 2390 Miles
Oregon - 2437 Miles
Distance between UO-UW - 288 Miles
Distance between USC-UCLA - 13 Miles

14 Teams
Rotate 7 Teams Twice, 6 Teams Once
(No protected Rivals, except in-state):
13 Year Aver. - 204.92 Mi/Gm
3 Rivals Twice Annually, Rotate 4 Teams 2x, 6 Teams Once:
5 Year Aver. - 174.98 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual
5 Year Aver. - 178.06 Mi/GM
TTUN, MD, PSU annual

16 Teams
Rotate 5 Teams Twice, 10 Teams Once
(No protected Rivals, except in-state):
3 Year Aver. - 327.80 Mi/Gm
3 Year Aver. (Calis played in 1 Trip) - 253.10 Mi/Gm

18 Teams
3 Rivals Twice, everyone else once:
2 Year Aver. - 385.45 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual
2 Year Aver. - 389.30 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual
2 Year Aver. (West Coast Pairs in 1 Trip each) - 276.28 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MSU, PSU annual
2 Year Aver. (West Coast Pairs in 1 Trip each) - 280.13 Mi/Gm
TTUN, MD, PSU annual


So would OSU travel increase adding Oregon and Washington? Yes, but not nearly as much as it did adding USC and UCLA. Football travel increases from 185-200 miles per game to 300-350 miles per game. While adding Oregon and Washington increases the chances of traveling west in a season, it would still be limited to up to 1 trip per season based on the scheduling format and traveling only increases from 350-400 miles per game.

Basketball is fascinating. Basketball goes from 175-205 miles per game to 325-330 miles per game with USC and UCLA and 385-390 miles per game with Oregon and Washington also included, but obviously, B1G teams aren't gonna fly out to LA for a game on a Wednesday and then fly back just to fly back there separately at another date. If we take into account that trips to the west coast will likely be 2 games within 3 days, travel reduces significantly to 250-255 miles per game with USC and UCLA and 275-280 miles per game when Oregon and Washington are added. Again, travel would only increased, but limited to 1 trip to the West Coast each season with 18 teams and travel wouldn't be that much larger.

Based on the data above, if Oregon and Washington increase payout for everyone with only a slight increase in travel costs for the current B1G teams when comparing 16 teams to 18 teams, I say we should add them. Football travel does sees a decent jump, but also a big jump in revenue while olympic sports won't jump much larger travel-wise than it is going to be with 16 teams. Additionally, from a competitive standpoint, scheduling would be much more balanced for all teams involved only playing your 3 rivals twice and then everyone else once in basketball and potentially 3 rivals annually and everyone else every other year. Also, the B1G conference tournament gets an extra day of basketball, and this could open up the opportunity for a 4 team conference playoff in football if the logistics can be figured out (more opportunities for more money).

The travel is overstated and using averages with outliers doesn't provide the most accurate picture. Most of Ohio State's travel remains THE SAME. They will still play most of their conference neighbors. The median doesn't change. One road trip per sport per season will be longer. The legacy Big Ten schools replace one usual 2-hour flight road trip with a 5-hour flight to the West Coast. Travel logistics are overplayed.

The real travel issue is where USC and UCLA replace their entire travel lineup of 2-hour flights with several 4-6 hour long-haul flights in all sports, every season. But, that's what they signed up for...and frankly, means they perhaps consider to leave a little earlier in the day on travel days and arrive home later on Sunday night.

I just don’t see how you add USCLA with perhaps hints of adding more left coast friends in good faith (we may never know the truth), only to leave them hanging until 2030. It’s evident that many people in either camp are relatively upset with this move given these recent statements. Not the money so much, but the hypocrisy and the blowback.

USCLA gets what it signed up for, but yeah, I can see a Boston College to the ACC scenario as the years go by and Lincoln Riley can’t produce anywhere near the success he had at OU. Is that worst case scenario? Perhaps. But I just don’t think it’s going to work out long term. If the PAC is still around in ten years in tact, it could very well be an option to return, much like how CU is considering a return to the Big 12. Obviously, that’s the least likely scenario today, but this could be a killer for USCLA when all is said and done.

(05-24-2023 05:37 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  I just don’t see how you add USCLA with perhaps hints of adding more left coast friends in good faith (we may never know the truth), only to leave them hanging until 2030. It’s evident that many people in either camp are relatively upset with this move given these recent statements. Not the money so much, but the hypocrisy and the blowback.

USCLA gets what it signed up for, but yeah, I can see a Boston College to the ACC scenario as the years go by and Lincoln Riley can’t produce anywhere near the success he had at OU. Is that worst case scenario? Perhaps. But I just don’t think it’s going to work out long term. If the PAC is still around in ten years in tact, it could very well be an option to return, much like how CU is considering a return to the Big 12. Obviously, that’s the least likely scenario today, but this could be a killer for USCLA when all is said and done.

The reports in 2022 were that USC *wanted* to be the only West Coast Big Ten member with UCLA. So, the hints of adding more West Coast teams are just conjecture and rumors. Have we heard anything out of USC or UCLA about being upset? I may have missed it.

USC's football move is going to be a success. There is no way that a western-focused college football conference will be able to compete with the Big Ten money, prestige, and competition. If it doesn't work out, I believe it is more likely scenario that we see USC independence. I could see UCLA retreat back to the PAC 10, though.

If football is working but there are Olympic-sport pain points long term, I see USC and UCLA placing more sports in the MPSF and perhaps even the Big West or WCC - or the PAC 10 - as affiliated sports.

(05-24-2023 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 01:49 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

ND's value would have covered and "paid for" additional West Coast expansion.

When ND said no, that killed that idea

This seems very clearly to be the case. I do think that adding only USCLA was meant to further push ND, but when ND balked, the B1G presidents decided to take the money and say goodbye to Warren and his NFL-lite plans.

It’s also telling that the NBC portion of the deal is the part that wasn’t fully hashed out. Because Warren’s initial plan likely would have promised the world to NBC with the expectation that the B1G deal with NBC would undercut ND’s upcoming contract and push them to the B1G. Without ND, the B1G is no longer particularly inclined to cater to NBC.

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/164...0614857728

The BIG may have “screwed up” so badly that presidents agree to any concessions NBC has on bringing in ND

(05-24-2023 05:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 01:49 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

ND's value would have covered and "paid for" additional West Coast expansion.

When ND said no, that killed that idea

This seems very clearly to be the case. I do think that adding only USCLA was meant to further push ND, but when ND balked, the B1G presidents decided to take the money and say goodbye to Warren and his NFL-lite plans.

It’s also telling that the NBC portion of the deal is the part that wasn’t fully hashed out. Because Warren’s initial plan likely would have promised the world to NBC with the expectation that the B1G deal with NBC would undercut ND’s upcoming contract and push them to the B1G. Without ND, the B1G is no longer particularly inclined to cater to NBC.

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/164...0614857728

So maybe the ND clause or addendum of having them or not having them wasn’t completely hashed out. When the answer was a clear “no” from South Bend, NBC may have negotiated less favorable terms for the B1G and this is the part that isn’t completely hashed out. Now NBC has to try and lowball ND’s contract while they hash out the terms of a USCLA only primetime B1G package.

The 24 school package could have been worth a lot more, but why that all fell apart (aside from no ND) is anyone’s guess.

(05-24-2023 07:07 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 05:52 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 01:49 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

ND's value would have covered and "paid for" additional West Coast expansion.

When ND said no, that killed that idea

This seems very clearly to be the case. I do think that adding only USCLA was meant to further push ND, but when ND balked, the B1G presidents decided to take the money and say goodbye to Warren and his NFL-lite plans.

It’s also telling that the NBC portion of the deal is the part that wasn’t fully hashed out. Because Warren’s initial plan likely would have promised the world to NBC with the expectation that the B1G deal with NBC would undercut ND’s upcoming contract and push them to the B1G. Without ND, the B1G is no longer particularly inclined to cater to NBC.

https://twitter.com/JWMediaDC/status/164...0614857728

So maybe the ND clause or addendum of having them or not having them wasn’t completely hashed out. When the answer was a clear “no” from South Bend, NBC may have negotiated less favorable terms for the B1G and this is the part that isn’t completely hashed out. Now NBC has to try and lowball ND’s contract while they hash out the terms of a USCLA only primetime B1G package.

The 24 school package could have been worth a lot more, but why that all fell apart (aside from no ND) is anyone’s guess.

If ACC teams were part of the plan…there’s the whole GoR problem for starters.

(05-24-2023 07:11 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 07:06 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 01:49 AM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(05-23-2023 03:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I tell you what's so damned funny. These issues should have been hashed and rehashed before the additions were made. The initial plan should have included to the total possible schools that the Big 10 was willing to commit to out West. If it was only ever two they should have dropped the concept.

So, we have an addition with no clue as to final assimilation and the perpetual cost of travel.

We have a contract the details of which were never fully ironed out.

We have money lost from the failure to start during the COVID season.

There was the put to sell another 10% of the BTN to cover those losses and the resultant revenue losses which would come from holding less of the BTN than before.

Likely the move for USC and UCLA was more in response to the loss of value in the BTN than to keep up with the SEC. L.A. specifically and California in general was probably the only move that could restore lost BTN revenue.

This has been a massive foul up since the get go for Warren and he didn't act in a vacuum. This means presidents weren't on the same page either.

There needs to be a summit meeting in Chicago to get everyone on the same page before you do anything else.

Poor Petitti, what a mess!

Does the whale spit Jonah and his bud back up on the Pacific beach?

I was always skeptical of the ND angle last summer, but I'm now starting to think that Warren really was going for a home run that included ND. When they didn't bite, it killed most of the deal, but USCLA decided to join anyway.

ND's value would have covered and "paid for" additional West Coast expansion.

When ND said no, that killed that idea

It's not wise to put the cart before the horse.

Well, its a year later.

Kevin Warren is gone and neither ND nor the other West Coast schools joined the Big Ten in the summer of 2022 (as was Warren's plan).

So, Warren's expansion dreams were halted, as was his Big Ten career.

If the Big10 does expand more out West I remember Warren mentioning wanting a presence in the Mountain Time Zone. Utah would be a great pick to be a "bridge" between the Costal schools (assuming they also add Oregon and Washington).

I thought for sure it was going to be:

Stanford Cal UW UO (obvious)

CU Utah (22 schools)

Then you can go KU/ND…. Or KU/UA.

ASU was also a possibility probably with ND because of the Warren connection.

I don’t think ACC schools were realistically considered last year. By 2030, they are going to grab the aforementioned top 4, and make a run at UNC Duke UVa GaTech/Miami. ND still not necessary, but they will have nationalized and cornered the SEC.

For this reason, I see CU as a slight favorite to bolt now, followed by BOTH Zonas, but Utah may hold out a little bit at least until BY flirts with SDSU.

What I’m hoping for is that they reach a TV deal and add SDSU and Navy/AFA/Hawaii with Zaga. 14 schools with Rice/Tulane/Navy is also a good schedule, all at reduced shares.

(05-24-2023 08:49 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 08:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  That's the play, I think.

Like most everyone here, I hope it happens soon. I'm eager to get the conference shuffling over with so everyone can move on.

I know everyone has their own scenarios (and we even had threads on what you personally think should happen), but the cleanest way out of this mess is:

Wave 1 (24-25'): Furd, Cal, UO, UW to B1G, 4C to Big 12, Wazzou OreSt to MWC
Wave 2 (27'-30'): FSU Clemson to SEC
Wave 3 (30-36'): UNC, UVa, GaTech, Duke to B1G, Miami VaTech to SEC
Wave 4 (30-36'): UL Pitt WF NCSU to Big 12, Cuse' BC to Big East

We could go from a P2 M2 setup to the P3 scenario with a full breakaway by 36'.

I think P4 is more likely than P3. And even that is not certain. There seems to be a lot of stubborn pride in PAC-land, plus maybe some hesitancy on the part of the Big Ten. Otherwise, we would be planning for 20 teams by now.

(05-25-2023 10:57 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 08:49 AM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(05-24-2023 08:38 AM)Gitanole Wrote:  That's the play, I think.

Like most everyone here, I hope it happens soon. I'm eager to get the conference shuffling over with so everyone can move on.

I know everyone has their own scenarios (and we even had threads on what you personally think should happen), but the cleanest way out of this mess is:

Wave 1 (24-25'): Furd, Cal, UO, UW to B1G, 4C to Big 12, Wazzou OreSt to MWC
Wave 2 (27'-30'): FSU Clemson to SEC
Wave 3 (30-36'): UNC, UVa, GaTech, Duke to B1G, Miami VaTech to SEC
Wave 4 (30-36'): UL Pitt WF NCSU to Big 12, Cuse' BC to Big East

We could go from a P2 M2 setup to the P3 scenario with a full breakaway by 36'.

I think P4 is more likely than P3. And even that is not certain. There seems to be a lot of stubborn pride in PAC-land, plus maybe some hesitancy on the part of the Big Ten. Otherwise, we would be planning for 20 teams by now.

1. A dramatic pause by the Big Ten would slow realignment, as the SEC would be quite content to remain at 16 if not having to keep up with the Joneses, so to speak with regard to the amount of inventory to sell.

2. It does not however end the potential for more movement. All it would take is a continuation of the lowballing of the PAC's media value and should PAC schools defect anywhere the ball starts rolling again.

3. I'm also not sure that any plan that pushes waiting until 2030 or beyond is going to deter the urgency to change one's status now.

So we'll see. But the Big 10 has plenty of time between now and 2025 to fix the current kerfuffle inherited from Warren and get back up to speed. Petitti will have a year under his belt this time next year, most of the wrinkles will be worked out for USC and UCLA, Texas and Oklahoma will be moving, and the PAC may be willing to make some concessions by then. We'll see.

(05-25-2023 05:42 AM)Utgrizfan Wrote:  If the Big10 does expand more out West I remember Warren mentioning wanting a presence in the Mountain Time Zone. Utah would be a great pick to be a "bridge" between the Costal schools (assuming they also add Oregon and Washington).

Colorado would seem to fit the bill better, especially if Deion revitalizes the program. More people live in Colorado and Denver and they'd have a better rivalry with Nebraska.