I’ve seen the Big 10 characterized a predator in the realignment game. I assert that it’s quite the opposite:

Penn St (1989): This was a move that didn’t hurt any of the other major football conferences. They were an independent that spent more than a decade trying to form an eastern all sports league and were constantly rebuffed and rejected. They sought after the Big 10; Delaney got the presidents on board and the league acquired a blue blood that lacked a place to call home.

Nebraska (2010): The Big 10 gets a lot of flack for this, but the Big 10 was extremely disadvantaged without a CCG, both financially and in terms of making the BCS title game. The Big 10 used to end its season 2 weeks before the CCGs and while other teams had a chance to climb, Big 10 hopefuls had to sit back and hope that their resume spoke for itself. They also lacked that revenue from this lucrative competition. Secondly, you have to think of this in context. Nebraska was under the impression that half of their league, including the league’s 3 other tent poles, were PAC 16 bound. This was a survival move for both the Big 10 and the Huskers.

Maryland and Rutgers (2012): This was a clear rebuttal to the move by the SEC the year prior when they took TAMU and Missouri. TAMU was a huge move in terms of adding to the competitiveness and media value of the SEC. The Big 10 was concerned with being left behind. Lacking any giant blue bloods looking to change conference affiliations, the strongest financial move they could make was to boost tier 3 revenue with the new BTN by adding in market households. Rutgers was desperate to escape the sinking Big East and, after what the ACC did to the Big East, I don’t have much sympathy for the ACC.

USC and UCLA (2022): Again, this was a rebuttal to the SEC’s move to 16 the year prior with Texas and Oklahoma. USC and UCLA were stuck in a predicament—stay where they were and fall further and further behind, or make the only move they could to try and keep themselves relevant.

Washington and Oregon (2023): Their league was crumbing. The Big 12 signed a tv deal before then and they had on the table was awful—Colorado saw it. Oregon saw it. Washington saw it. There wasn’t any room among the traditional carriers for an all-Western league and it was break up or be relegated to streaming. The PAC 12 was in trouble and the longer things went the worse they were going to get. The Big 10 helped out the ones they could.

And their next two moves will be seen as even more benevolent...

Cal and Stanford could be lonely west coast islands in a doomed ACC...or be overachievers in the MWC...and take massive hits to their finances and reputations.

Or...

They'll take a pittance from the Big Ten (more than the ACC or MWC could offer) and save their reputations and be 2 of 6 elite West Coast institutions in a P2 conference.

(08-25-2023 03:42 PM)micahandme Wrote:  And their next two moves will be seen as even more benevolent...

Cal and Stanford could be lonely west coast islands in a doomed ACC...or be overachievers in the MWC...and take massive hits to their finances and reputations.

Or...

They'll take a pittance from the Big Ten (more than the ACC or MWC could offer) and save their reputations and be 2 of 6 elite West Coast institutions in a P2 conference.

If BIG is an option, go with BIG even for no money for a few years.

(08-25-2023 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve seen the Big 10 characterized a predator in the realignment game. I assert that it’s quite the opposite:

Penn St (1989): This was a move that didn’t hurt any of the other major football conferences. They were an independent that spent more than a decade trying to form an eastern all sports league and were constantly rebuffed and rejected. They sought after the Big 10; Delaney got the presidents on board and the league acquired a blue blood that lacked a place to call home.

Nebraska (2010): The Big 10 gets a lot of flack for this, but the Big 10 was extremely disadvantaged without a CCG, both financially and in terms of making the BCS title game. The Big 10 used to end its season 2 weeks before the CCGs and while other teams had a chance to climb, Big 10 hopefuls had to sit back and hope that their resume spoke for itself. They also lacked that revenue from this lucrative competition. Secondly, you have to think of this in context. Nebraska was under the impression that half of their league, including the league’s 3 other tent poles, were PAC 16 bound. This was a survival move for both the Big 10 and the Huskers.

Maryland and Rutgers (2012): This was a clear rebuttal to the move by the SEC the year prior when they took TAMU and Missouri. TAMU was a huge move in terms of adding to the competitiveness and media value of the SEC. The Big 10 was concerned with being left behind. Lacking any giant blue bloods looking to change conference affiliations, the strongest financial move they could make was to boost tier 3 revenue with the new BTN by adding in market households. Rutgers was desperate to escape the sinking Big East and, after what the ACC did to the Big East, I don’t have much sympathy for the ACC.

USC and UCLA (2022): Again, this was a rebuttal to the SEC’s move to 16 the year prior with Texas and Oklahoma. USC and UCLA were stuck in a predicament—stay where they were and fall further and further behind, or make the only move they could to try and keep themselves relevant.

Washington and Oregon (2023): Their league was crumbing. The Big 12 signed a tv deal before then and they had on the table was awful—Colorado saw it. Oregon saw it. Washington saw it. There wasn’t any room among the traditional carriers for an all-Western league and it was break up or be relegated to streaming. The PAC 12 was in trouble and the longer things went the worse they were going to get. The Big 10 helped out the ones they could.

Penn St. lead to the end of independents. FSU went to the ACC. The Big East formed.

In the late 90s the Big 10 had a deal with Notre Dame. Notre Dame's faculty approved. But the board rejected it. Then the Big 10 publicly advertised their intentions to expand. Kansas, Missouri and Rutgers were mentioned as they intended to expand to 12 or 14. For whatever reason they didn't expand then.

In 2010, the whole Pac 16 was triggered by the Big 10 having an open audition. Missouri lifted their skirts and their governor bad mouthed the rest of the Big 12 leading to a lot of distrust and bad blood. At that point Texas and others started looking at the Pac. Eventually the Big 10 took Nebraska which was in the long run, a mortal wound to the Big 12 as a P2/3/4/5 conference. Colorado could have been replaced. Nebraska really couldn't. It also lead to A&M leaving the next year.

Taking Maryland and Rutgers lead to the ACC finishing off the Big East.

Taking USC and UCLA was the mortal wound to the Pac 12. Washington and Oregon just involved slaying the wounded.

The conference championship game actually did a lot more to hurt team's chance of getting into the national championship game than it did to help. Nebraska 1996, Kansas State 1998, Texas 2001, Tennessee 2001, Oklahoma 2003 in the human polls (albeit not the BCS), Missouri 2007, Alabama 2008, Florida 2009, almost Texas 2009. The only counter-example to this is Florida 2008, who got into the national title game by knocking another SEC team (Alabama) out of the national title game.

(08-25-2023 03:58 PM)Poster Wrote:  The conference championship game actually did a lot more to hurt team's chance of getting into the national championship game than it did to help. Nebraska 1996, Kansas State 1998, Texas 2001, Tennessee 2001, Oklahoma 2003 in the human polls (albeit not the BCS), Missouri 2007, Alabama 2008, Florida 2009, almost Texas 2009. The only counter-example to this is Florida 2008, who got into the national title game by knocking another SEC team (Alabama) out of the national title game.

In 1996 Nebraska needed a big win at #3, right? Instead they lost, but at least they had a chance for an impressive win.

(08-25-2023 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve seen the Big 10 characterized a predator in the realignment game. I assert that it’s quite the opposite:

Penn St (1989): This was a move that didn’t hurt any of the other major football conferences. They were an independent that spent more than a decade trying to form an eastern all sports league and were constantly rebuffed and rejected. They sought after the Big 10; Delaney got the presidents on board and the league acquired a blue blood that lacked a place to call home.

Nebraska (2010): The Big 10 gets a lot of flack for this, but the Big 10 was extremely disadvantaged without a CCG, both financially and in terms of making the BCS title game. The Big 10 used to end its season 2 weeks before the CCGs and while other teams had a chance to climb, Big 10 hopefuls had to sit back and hope that their resume spoke for itself. They also lacked that revenue from this lucrative competition. Secondly, you have to think of this in context. Nebraska was under the impression that half of their league, including the league’s 3 other tent poles, were PAC 16 bound. This was a survival move for both the Big 10 and the Huskers.

Maryland and Rutgers (2012): This was a clear rebuttal to the move by the SEC the year prior when they took TAMU and Missouri. TAMU was a huge move in terms of adding to the competitiveness and media value of the SEC. The Big 10 was concerned with being left behind. Lacking any giant blue bloods looking to change conference affiliations, the strongest financial move they could make was to boost tier 3 revenue with the new BTN by adding in market households. Rutgers was desperate to escape the sinking Big East and, after what the ACC did to the Big East, I don’t have much sympathy for the ACC.

USC and UCLA (2022): Again, this was a rebuttal to the SEC’s move to 16 the year prior with Texas and Oklahoma. USC and UCLA were stuck in a predicament—stay where they were and fall further and further behind, or make the only move they could to try and keep themselves relevant.

Washington and Oregon (2023): Their league was crumbing. The Big 12 signed a tv deal before then and they had on the table was awful—Colorado saw it. Oregon saw it. Washington saw it. There wasn’t any room among the traditional carriers for an all-Western league and it was break up or be relegated to streaming. The PAC 12 was in trouble and the longer things went the worse they were going to get. The Big 10 helped out the ones they could.

The B1G has nothing to apologize for. They strengthened themselves with PSU, then they were opportunistic once the modern frenzy began in 2010. If the Pac and Big 12 had taken care of business, then Nebraska and the Pac schools wouldn't have been an option for the B1G. As I've said many times, if the B1G had missed out on PSU, and Stanford hadn't wavered on Texas around that same time, then the B1G/Pac 12 roles could very much be reversed today.

(08-25-2023 04:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve seen the Big 10 characterized a predator in the realignment game. I assert that it’s quite the opposite:

Penn St (1989): This was a move that didn’t hurt any of the other major football conferences. They were an independent that spent more than a decade trying to form an eastern all sports league and were constantly rebuffed and rejected. They sought after the Big 10; Delaney got the presidents on board and the league acquired a blue blood that lacked a place to call home.

Nebraska (2010): The Big 10 gets a lot of flack for this, but the Big 10 was extremely disadvantaged without a CCG, both financially and in terms of making the BCS title game. The Big 10 used to end its season 2 weeks before the CCGs and while other teams had a chance to climb, Big 10 hopefuls had to sit back and hope that their resume spoke for itself. They also lacked that revenue from this lucrative competition. Secondly, you have to think of this in context. Nebraska was under the impression that half of their league, including the league’s 3 other tent poles, were PAC 16 bound. This was a survival move for both the Big 10 and the Huskers.

Maryland and Rutgers (2012): This was a clear rebuttal to the move by the SEC the year prior when they took TAMU and Missouri. TAMU was a huge move in terms of adding to the competitiveness and media value of the SEC. The Big 10 was concerned with being left behind. Lacking any giant blue bloods looking to change conference affiliations, the strongest financial move they could make was to boost tier 3 revenue with the new BTN by adding in market households. Rutgers was desperate to escape the sinking Big East and, after what the ACC did to the Big East, I don’t have much sympathy for the ACC.

USC and UCLA (2022): Again, this was a rebuttal to the SEC’s move to 16 the year prior with Texas and Oklahoma. USC and UCLA were stuck in a predicament—stay where they were and fall further and further behind, or make the only move they could to try and keep themselves relevant.

Washington and Oregon (2023): Their league was crumbing. The Big 12 signed a tv deal before then and they had on the table was awful—Colorado saw it. Oregon saw it. Washington saw it. There wasn’t any room among the traditional carriers for an all-Western league and it was break up or be relegated to streaming. The PAC 12 was in trouble and the longer things went the worse they were going to get. The Big 10 helped out the ones they could.

The B1G has nothing to apologize for. They strengthened themselves with PSU, then they were opportunistic once the modern frenzy began in 2010. If the Pac and Big 12 had taken care of business, then Nebraska and the Pac schools wouldn't have been an option for the B1G. As I've said many times, if the B1G had missed out on PSU, and Stanford hadn't wavered on Texas around that same time, then the B1G/Pac 12 roles could very much be reversed today.

Yep, I'm grateful to the Big 10 for taking Penn State. It woke the slumbering SEC up! The only thing I would add is that shot should have been fired at Lexington and Concord, because the Revolution of the sport has been ongoing since.

The B1G additions of Nebraska and Penn State made sense. The same could be said about the SEC adding Texas A&M. Things went completely off their rocker though when the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. Neither school culturally fit the conference and it ushered in a new era where dollar signs become more important than tradition. Greed will eventually kill the golden goose.

(08-25-2023 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Nebraska (2010): The Big 10 gets a lot of flack for this, but the Big 10 was extremely disadvantaged without a CCG, both financially and in terms of making the BCS title game.

...

after what the ACC did to the Big East, I don’t have much sympathy for the ACC.

I detect some hypocrisy here...

There are great G5 programs out there that could have taken place instead of raiding other P5 conferences. Buffalo could have fitted in well with the Big 10, but would they the worst team than Rutgers and Maryland? Nope. They might have improved with more money, and their men's basketball is something would benefit if they moved to the ACC or the Big 10. Stuck in a 1 bid league is not helpful to them.

(08-25-2023 06:04 PM)Shox Wrote:  The B1G additions of Nebraska and Penn State made sense. The same could be said about the SEC adding Texas A&M. Things went completely off their rocker though when the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. Neither school culturally fit the conference and it ushered in a new era where dollar signs become more important than tradition. Greed will eventually kill the golden goose.

ESPN killed the golden goose, and they are now paying a big pharma lab to try to extract DNA from the corpse and inject it into a duck egg, so they can resurrect a precious metal laying fowl of some kind!

(08-25-2023 06:04 PM)Shox Wrote:  The B1G additions of Nebraska and Penn State made sense. The same could be said about the SEC adding Texas A&M. Things went completely off their rocker though when the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. Neither school culturally fit the conference and it ushered in a new era where dollar signs become more important than tradition. Greed will eventually kill the golden goose.

I have said from the beginning that when Maryland was added. The B1G wanted on the East Coast and Maryland was a willing partner because they desperately needed the money and they was an ends to a means(See Missouri). IMHO the only reason why Reuters is even in the B1G has nothing to due to market(even if the needed NYC for the Big Ten Network), but for the massive Alumli Base in that part of the Country and that is one of the few Schools that checked all of the boxes and had Football that they did not have to wait to move from FCS....

(08-25-2023 03:42 PM)micahandme Wrote:  And their next two moves will be seen as even more benevolent...

Cal and Stanford could be lonely west coast islands in a doomed ACC...or be overachievers in the MWC...and take massive hits to their finances and reputations.

Or...

They'll take a pittance from the Big Ten (more than the ACC or MWC could offer) and save their reputations and be 2 of 6 elite West Coast institutions in a P2 conference.

If Cal and Stanford are willing to take a 25% offer from the ACC, that seems to indicate they’ll never get into the Big Ten. If they’re willing to take a 25% offer from the ACC, that means they’d probably be willing to take a 0% offer to get into the Big Ten, and there’s no evidence that the Big 10 is even considering accepting their offer.

(08-25-2023 03:58 PM)bullet Wrote:  Penn St. lead to the end of independents. FSU went to the ACC. The Big East formed.

In 2010, the whole Pac 16 was triggered by the Big 10 having an open audition. Missouri lifted their skirts and their governor bad mouthed the rest of the Big 12 leading to a lot of distrust and bad blood. At that point Texas and others started looking at the Pac. Eventually the Big 10 took Nebraska which was in the long run, a mortal wound to the Big 12 as a P2/3/4/5 conference. Colorado could have been replaced. Nebraska really couldn't. It also lead to A&M leaving the next year.

Missouri made a public spectacle of the process. So the "transparency" experiment failed, and thus Nebraska was a complete surprise. However, the Big 10 going from 11 to 12 was no surprise at all at that point. The jitters that ensued in the Big 12 were unfortunate, but Texas certainly could have calmed those waters had they wanted to.

Quote:Taking Maryland and Rutgers lead to the ACC finishing off the Big East.

Well, shucks. I don't think we started the fire there. It was powerhouses Rutgers and Maryland. Rutgers... And Maryland.

Quote:Taking USC and UCLA was the mortal wound to the Pac 12. Washington and Oregon just involved slaying the wounded.

I don't suppose we want to talk about Texas and Oklahoma. No, I'm sure we don't.

USC fired some warning shots but the needle just wasn't moving on the network front. It's really unfortunate what went down after that. I think most people have moved beyond seeing it as "Mortal" and "Slaying" at this point.

(08-25-2023 06:08 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Nebraska (2010): The Big 10 gets a lot of flack for this, but the Big 10 was extremely disadvantaged without a CCG, both financially and in terms of making the BCS title game.

...

after what the ACC did to the Big East, I don’t have much sympathy for the ACC.

I detect some hypocrisy here...

The whole idea that any Conference has done anything wrong is ludicrous. Money has been in sports since the first Rowing Stud became the big man on campus at Harvard 120 years ago. Sure, it's gotten bigger, but the biggest schools have generally congregated with the other big schools within their region for nearly a century. It changed a bit when PSU joined the B1G, and it's changed a lot more in the past 15 years as the rate of change has accelerated, but everything we see today is a logical extension from the confluence of American Culture, human nature, and the OU/Georgia lawsuit. It would be fitting if those 2 played each other in the first game of 2024.

(08-25-2023 07:02 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:08 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  Nebraska (2010): The Big 10 gets a lot of flack for this, but the Big 10 was extremely disadvantaged without a CCG, both financially and in terms of making the BCS title game.

...

after what the ACC did to the Big East, I don’t have much sympathy for the ACC.

I detect some hypocrisy here...

The whole idea that any Conference has done anything wrong is ludicrous. Money has been in sports since the first Rowing Stud became the big man on campus at Harvard 120 years ago. Sure, it's gotten bigger, but the biggest schools have generally congregated with the other big schools within their region for nearly a century. It changed a bit when PSU joined the B1G, and it's changed a lot more in the past 15 years as the rate of change has accelerated, but everything we see today is a logical extension from the confluence of American Culture, human nature, and the OU/Georgia lawsuit. It would be fitting if those 2 played each other in the first game of 2024.

Everything has been driven by changes in media.
OU/UGA ending the NCAA's monopoly along with the rise of ESPN.
Conference networks generated expansion by the Big 10, SEC and ACC. Schools learned how to monetize Tier II and III content. See Rutgers, Maryland, Pitt, SU, Missouri and to a lesser extent Texas A&M (who didn't just bring TVs).
Streaming, decline of cable and the rise in value of mega-events have driven what is going on now. See brands moving-OUT, USCLA, UWUO.

(08-25-2023 06:23 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:04 PM)Shox Wrote:  The B1G additions of Nebraska and Penn State made sense. The same could be said about the SEC adding Texas A&M. Things went completely off their rocker though when the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. Neither school culturally fit the conference and it ushered in a new era where dollar signs become more important than tradition. Greed will eventually kill the golden goose.

I have said from the beginning that when Maryland was added. The B1G wanted on the East Coast and Maryland was a willing partner because they desperately needed the money and they was an ends to a means(See Missouri). IMHO the only reason why Reuters is even in the B1G has nothing to due to market(even if the needed NYC for the Big Ten Network), but for the massive Alumli Base in that part of the Country and that is one of the few Schools that checked all of the boxes and had Football that they did not have to wait to move from FCS....

Fox Corp bought the YES Network from the Yankees about a year prior to that particular B1G expansion. It helped justify the league expanding. By doing so, it helped get the B1G Network in the Big Apple.

(08-25-2023 04:47 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 03:37 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  I’ve seen the Big 10 characterized a predator in the realignment game. I assert that it’s quite the opposite:

Penn St (1989): This was a move that didn’t hurt any of the other major football conferences. They were an independent that spent more than a decade trying to form an eastern all sports league and were constantly rebuffed and rejected. They sought after the Big 10; Delaney got the presidents on board and the league acquired a blue blood that lacked a place to call home.

Nebraska (2010): The Big 10 gets a lot of flack for this, but the Big 10 was extremely disadvantaged without a CCG, both financially and in terms of making the BCS title game. The Big 10 used to end its season 2 weeks before the CCGs and while other teams had a chance to climb, Big 10 hopefuls had to sit back and hope that their resume spoke for itself. They also lacked that revenue from this lucrative competition. Secondly, you have to think of this in context. Nebraska was under the impression that half of their league, including the league’s 3 other tent poles, were PAC 16 bound. This was a survival move for both the Big 10 and the Huskers.

Maryland and Rutgers (2012): This was a clear rebuttal to the move by the SEC the year prior when they took TAMU and Missouri. TAMU was a huge move in terms of adding to the competitiveness and media value of the SEC. The Big 10 was concerned with being left behind. Lacking any giant blue bloods looking to change conference affiliations, the strongest financial move they could make was to boost tier 3 revenue with the new BTN by adding in market households. Rutgers was desperate to escape the sinking Big East and, after what the ACC did to the Big East, I don’t have much sympathy for the ACC.

USC and UCLA (2022): Again, this was a rebuttal to the SEC’s move to 16 the year prior with Texas and Oklahoma. USC and UCLA were stuck in a predicament—stay where they were and fall further and further behind, or make the only move they could to try and keep themselves relevant.

Washington and Oregon (2023): Their league was crumbing. The Big 12 signed a tv deal before then and they had on the table was awful—Colorado saw it. Oregon saw it. Washington saw it. There wasn’t any room among the traditional carriers for an all-Western league and it was break up or be relegated to streaming. The PAC 12 was in trouble and the longer things went the worse they were going to get. The Big 10 helped out the ones they could.

The B1G has nothing to apologize for. They strengthened themselves with PSU, then they were opportunistic once the modern frenzy began in 2010. If the Pac and Big 12 had taken care of business, then Nebraska and the Pac schools wouldn't have been an option for the B1G. As I've said many times, if the B1G had missed out on PSU, and Stanford hadn't wavered on Texas around that same time, then the B1G/Pac 12 roles could very much be reversed today.

No. They are just big hypocrites. They talk about others being greedy. They talk about being equal when nobody has abused new members financially like they did Rutgers, Maryland and Nebraska. They've destroyed other conferences and haven't offered to share with them. The Big 10 is the greediest of them all and have driven lots of disruption, more than anyone else. But everyone is seeking more dollars. They've just been more successful at that. Its kind of like blaming the Serbs for the horrors of the Yugoslav war. All sides were awful. Just that the Serbs were the most successful at it.

(08-25-2023 06:23 PM)lance99 Wrote:  

(08-25-2023 06:04 PM)Shox Wrote:  The B1G additions of Nebraska and Penn State made sense. The same could be said about the SEC adding Texas A&M. Things went completely off their rocker though when the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland. Neither school culturally fit the conference and it ushered in a new era where dollar signs become more important than tradition. Greed will eventually kill the golden goose.

I have said from the beginning that when Maryland was added. The B1G wanted on the East Coast and Maryland was a willing partner because they desperately needed the money and they was an ends to a means(See Missouri). IMHO the only reason why Reuters is even in the B1G has nothing to due to market(even if the needed NYC for the Big Ten Network), but for the massive Alumli Base in that part of the Country and that is one of the few Schools that checked all of the boxes and had Football that they did not have to wait to move from FCS....

Rutgers is a Realignment punching bag, but their long term potential is huge. They were just so far behind that it will take them nearly 15 years after all is said and done to start making the same yearly as the rest of the B1G. I'm not even sure that they'll be ahead of UW/UO for the next few years in actual cash flow as they pay back their loans. But once they're on even footing, they are the one and only Flagship in a large State plus they're only 50 miles from Manhattan. They're already doing well in basketball. Long term, I'd watch out for them.