Kansas to the Big Ten? I'd prefer Texas A&M and Missouri.

[zeek55]

The B1G’s response to the SEC’s grab of Texas and Oklahoma was fantastic…even if USC and UCLA initiated it. However, the “end-all” play would have been Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA to the B1G more than a year ago. It would have been checkmate.

Texas was likely never on the table for the Big Ten. Their big boosters steered them straight to the SEC.

Which is fine, just means the Big Ten will focus on the coasts and ignore Texas.

Can build a strong Big Ten with a Florida-based school (FSU and/or Miami) plus others on the coasts like Washington, Oregon, Virginia or Virginia Tech, UNC.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

…makes you wonder what “behind the scenes and outside of Twitter” conversations are taking place.
Given what happened in 2021 and 2022…you know they are!!

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

Texas was likely never on the table for the Big Ten. Their big boosters steered them straight to the SEC.

Which is fine, just means the Big Ten will focus on the coasts and ignore Texas.

Can build a strong Big Ten with a Florida-based school (FSU and/or Miami) plus others on the coasts like Washington, Oregon, Virginia or Virginia Tech, UNC.

How do you know Texas boosters steered them to the sec? If so these are the same boosters who mocked A&M for running away to the inbred Dixie conference full of racists and idiot schools.
What changed?

 

[rutgersguy1]

The B1G’s response to the SEC’s grab of Texas and Oklahoma was fantastic…even if USC and UCLA initiated it. However, the “end-all” play would have been Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA to the B1G more than a year ago. It would have been checkmate.

The Texas president said they internally explored the ACC, B10 in addition to the SEC.

I've said before if they wanted to come to the B10 they would've been welcomed with open arms. They chose the SEC and I don't see what changed. ND/Texas would catapult the B10 way out in front financially but if they stay in the SEC, they'd be fairly on par financially as well.

 

[RUNYGDVLSFAN]

Oregon might be like Nebraska... not abig market.. but a fair sized national interest.. makes all teh games in our good markets a bit more valuable.. ratings = money.

Missouri has a good sized market.. like Rutgers.. but like Rutgers doesn't bring any demand outside their market.

We just have to trust the experts and consultants for the B1G to figure out what's best finanically.. but OP was right re: TV markets.. ATM and Mizzou are no slouches. Mizzou is next to Illinois and below Iowa.. natural rivalry stuff possible, ATM a bit of a stretch.

Colorado is an interesting idea. AAU.. state school.. intermiate destination for USC/UCLA.. decent market.. if they can pull in Denver market... #17 .. if they have other pull in surrpounding small markets it could help. Colorado pop is only 21st ammong states.

B1G officials keeping it cool... the USC/UCLA was in the works for some time, and they kept it very quiet... sure a lot of research and negotiations went on over a long time.
so, I am sure that there are deep discussions on everyone mentioned in this thread and the plausibility of it happening and how it helps B1G.

 

[rutgersguy1]

…makes you wonder what “behind the scenes and outside of Twitter” conversations are taking place.
Given what happened in 2021 and 2022…you know they are!!

I'm sure there are and ND is topic #1. IMO B10 isn't done and it's just about time tables and there's no way to know that. ND will be in the B10 eventually imo but is it in the next few years or 14 years, who knows.

I just posted an article in the media thread about ND possibly expecting an increase in their deal from NBC to 60M. That falls short of the 75M mentioned in the Dodd article. Does that speed up the timetable of them joining the B10? Are these leaks purposeful and laying the groundwork for joining in a few years? We'll see. Sooner or later it will happen though.

 

[RUScrew85]

I'm sure there are and ND is topic #1. IMO B10 isn't done and it's just about time tables and there's no way to know that. ND will be in the B10 eventually imo but is it in the next few years or 14 years, who knows.

I just posted an article in the media thread about ND possibly expecting an increase in their deal from NBC to 60M. That falls short of the 75M mentioned in the Dodd article. Does that speed up the timetable of them joining the B10? Are these leaks purposeful and laying the groundwork for joining in a few years? We'll see. Sooner or later it will happen though.

15M reasons for ND to speed up. Nothing is more dear to ND than $$$$.

 

[rutgersguy1]

15M reasons for ND to speed up. Nothing is more dear to ND than $$$$.

Well it might be closer to 30M reasons if reports of B10 payouts in the range of 90-100M (includes NCAA credits, CFP etc..) pan out.

I think they might be actually okay with being 15M behind but you start pushing 30-40M behind and that might be the push necessary especially in the age of NIL etc..

 

[zeek55]

How do you know Texas boosters steered them to the sec? If so these are the same boosters who mocked A&M for running away to the inbred Dixie conference full of racists and idiot schools.
What changed?

What changed was they saw the impact the SEC branding was having for A&M vs Texas in terms of recruiting/fan intensity and the like.

Texas was never going to let A&M differentiate themselves in a way that could enable them to shine brighter in their state.

 

[Fighter of the Nightman]

FTR, Illinois already secured the St. Louis market for BTN, so Mizzou would only add Kansas City.

 

[fsg2]

Get the steers. Keeps them away from the sec and more money for the B1G. Win win.

PS no meth U

Well, Texas A&M will never allow them in, so no worries for you 🤣🤣

 

[rutgersguy1]

Well it might be closer to 30M reasons if reports of B10 payouts in the range of 90-100M (includes NCAA credits, CFP etc..) pan out.

I think they might be actually okay with being 15M behind but you start pushing 30-40M behind and that might be the push necessary especially in the age of NIL etc..

I should amend this. I forgot ND also gets 10ish million from the ACC for their other sports. If you add that in then maybe you get in the ballpark of that 75M threshold Dodd mentioned.

So they may be behind somewhat financially but I’ve thought they could be okay with that. It’s not a huge chasm for them. The Olympic sports home is the biggest pressure point and that’s not under any threat until 2036.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Well it might be closer to 30M reasons if reports of B10 payouts in the range of 90-100M (includes NCAA credits, CFP etc..) pan out.

I think they might be actually okay with being 15M behind but you start pushing 30-40M behind and that might be the push necessary especially in the age of NIL etc..

well.. we don't know what else Notre Dame gives up in joining a conference. Not sure what it could be.. licensing? But there has to be some reason other than "tradition" compared to that kind of money? Control? Contracts with the ACC? Being told they have to.. well.. HAVE TO ANYTHING.

I wonder if ESPN is chirping in their ear about a solo contract with them instead of NBC.. for more money. Might be strange.. might just be a tactic where ESPN would never execute the contract.. just delay until the B1G moves on. Motive, you ask? Keep em in the ACC for those 2 away games they often get plus all the other sports. All kinds of crazy possibilities.

 

[rutgersguy1]

well.. we don't know what else Notre Dame gives up in joining a conference. Not sure what it could be.. licensing? But there has to be some reason other than "tradition" compared to that kind of money? Control? Contracts with the ACC? Being told they have to.. well.. HAVE TO ANYTHING.

I wonder if ESPN is chirping in their ear about a solo contract with them instead of NBC.. for more money. Might be strange.. might just be a tactic where ESPN would never execute the contract.. just delay until the B1G moves on. Motive, you ask? Keep em in the ACC for those 2 away games they often get plus all the other sports. All kinds of crazy possibilities.

I forgot to include the 10M+ they get from the ACC so that does get them in that 75M threshold area.

Scheduling, playoff access and money are issues but I’ve always thought were manageable or would be work out okay for them. So they could join the B10 but it wouldn’t be necessary. Olympics sports home is the real pressure point imo and that really doesn’t become a potential issue until we approach 2036. So other issues might not be ideal but could be good enough to stay indy if they want until 2036.

Going to ESPN has crossed my mind but they wouldn’t have that 3:30 exclusive window available to them on ABC with the SEC. The primetime window as well on some weeks. So the ESPN option would depend on how important those things are to ND.

 

[WhichReligionIsRight]

16 teams is enough. Beyond that, it gets clumsy with scheduling. If anyone goes after Kansas, it could well be the Pac12, whose expansion options are somewhat limited by geography.

A&M and Mizzou are in the SEC already so there is no real reason for them to jump ship at this point unless they are trying to avoid being stuck with TX again.

I like the symmetry of 16 team conference, but a serious question - does it really matter if the conference goes to 20 or 24 schools?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

I like those big numbers.. I think one thing that might happen is sportswriters in many different markets all helping the B1G.. like the SEC writers do.. coaches too. That's how, I think the SEC got so good.

As a conference and conference market reporters, they all got pissed when undefeated Auburn was denied a MNC shot in 2004 (what was the game? Texas-USC maybe? Or Oklahoma v someone?) Anyway.. we used to see coaches votes preseason.. one of the jokes was Spurrier at UF always putting Duke 25. But another trend was SEC rivals sticking it to eachother in coach poll votes. THAT ENDED after 2004. Collusion? You betcha... even if it was not actual collusion.. just self-interest as a conference. And it worked.

Then, with highly ranked teams year after year they got many shots and cased in often enough to claim the top conference.. they made was was imaginary.. real. Real enough for top recruits to list SEC teams first, often.

Maybe a bigger B1G can begin to reverse that.

 

[OldManRiver]

I like those big numbers.. I think one thing that might happen is sportswriters in many different markets all helping the B1G.. like the SEC writers do.. coaches too. That's how, I think the SEC got so good.

As a conference and conference market reporters, they all got pissed when undefeated Auburn was denied a MNC shot in 2004 (what was the game? Texas-USC maybe? Or Oklahoma v someone?) Anyway.. we used to see coaches votes preseason.. one of the jokes was Spurrier at UF always putting Duke 25. But another trend was SEC rivals sticking it to eachother in coach poll votes. THAT ENDED after 2004. Collusion? You betcha... even if it was not actual collusion.. just self-interest as a conference. And it worked.

Then, with highly ranked teams year after year they got many shots and cased in often enough to claim the top conference.. they made was was imaginary.. real. Real enough for top recruits to list SEC teams first, often.

Maybe a bigger B1G can begin to reverse that.

You mean all except NJ sportswriters right? 🙂

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

You mean all except NJ sportswriters right? 🙂

NJ sportswriters all want to be covering the PRO SPORTS beats... they don't really give a crap about college but will manage to know who is ranked at the top and fawn on the stars. And they authoritatively plagiarize opinions of the national college guys who do actually follow some college sports .

Are homers better? NO.. but they serve a purpose where these rankings and the CFP and NCAAs comes into play. The more homers a conference has the better the coverage they get as a whole in these nationwide polls etc.

Yes. New Jersey and Rutgers face a great HOMER deficit.

 

[brgRC90]

NJ sportswriters all want to be covering the PRO SPORTS beats... they don't really give a crap about college but will manage to know who is ranked at the top and fawn on the stars.

Are homers better? NO.. but they serve a purpose where these rankings and the CFP and NCAAs comes into play. The more homers a conference has the better the coverage they get as a whole in these nationwide polls etc.

Yes. New Jersey and Rutgers faces a great HOMER deficit.

I'm not convinced bias in polls makes much difference, though. If a team doesn't belong in the Top 25 it doesn't stay there long. It might help mostly at the end of a season where teams that are on the cusp of the Top 25 end up in or out due to bias.

 

[RUTGERS95]

The B1G’s response to the SEC’s grab of Texas and Oklahoma was fantastic…even if USC and UCLA initiated it. However, the “end-all” play would have been Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and UCLA to the B1G more than a year ago. It would have been checkmate.

Ok will never be invited

 

[RUTGERS95]

Texas was likely never on the table for the Big Ten. Their big boosters steered them straight to the SEC.

Which is fine, just means the Big Ten will focus on the coasts and ignore Texas.

Can build a strong Big Ten with a Florida-based school (FSU and/or Miami) plus others on the coasts like Washington, Oregon, Virginia or Virginia Tech, UNC.

Correct. I said it then and again, texas was never a serious candidate

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Correct. I said it then and again, texas was never a serious candidate

Depends on your definition.

Not serious because they wouldn't have said yes? Back when we came in that was clear. Texas was still in a Big XII that had not yet cracked. Well.. that's not quite right.

The Longhorn Network launched in August 2011. A month later, A&M announced the move to the SEC. Not sure Texas saw that coming. But they were invested in their new network deal and were probably counting chickens and when the Big Ten came calling.. BEFORE they offered Rutgers and Maryland.. Texas was still playing out their hand with teh Big XII.

Face it, Texas could have moved into ANY conference ANY time it chose to. If they wanted the SEC they would have been there.

I think a string of years where Texas A&M was substantially better than Texas has forced their hand. Either move to the SEC to level the recruiting playing field with A&M or be forever relegated to "little brother" status.

That is why they are in the SEC and why the big Ten could not offer them anything to get them to change their minds. The Big Ten would have had to offer Okalhoma and Texas A&M too and gotten both to say YES.... heck.. toss in Arkansas too while we are at it.

Hmm.. I wonder if there were any talks with Texas A&M and the Big Ten before they moved to the SEC. I wonder who instigated that.. A&M or the SEC? A&M to the SEC decided where Texas would end up.. you know.. the "Little Brother" thing. Not that you can argue against the move.. good move for them. Big Ten might have been just as good... but they'd have to play a lot of cold-weather games and not playing in the Big Ten championship game each season would be viewed as worse than not playing in the SEC Championship game every season... not that they were playing for the Big XII title routinely.

I mean.. look where Texas really is right now... they have a Rutgers fan pitying the situation that EARL CAMPBELL's mighty Texas has gotten itself into. Tsk Tsk. They have invested heavily in this move... I honestly do not know if I should root for them to upset the SEC stalwarts or to see their NIL shenanigans fail. It is a lose/lose for me.

 

[RUTGERS95]

Depends on your definition.

Not serious because they wouldn't have said yes? Back when we came in that was clear. Texas was still in a Big XII that had not yet cracked. Well.. that's not quite right.

The Longhorn Network launched in August 2011. A month later, A&M announced the move to the SEC. Not sure Texas saw that coming. But they were invested in their new network deal and were probably counting chickens and when the Big Ten came calling.. BEFORE they offered Rutgers and Maryland.. Texas was still playing out their hand with teh Big XII.

Face it, Texas could have moved into ANY conference ANY time it chose to. If they wanted the SEC they would have been there.

I think a string of years where Texas A&M was substantially better than Texas has forced their hand. Either move to the SEC to level the recruiting playing field with A&M or be forever relegated to "little brother" status.

That is why they are in the SEC and why the big Ten could not offer them anything to get them to change their minds. The Big Ten would have had to offer Okalhoma and Texas A&M too and gotten both to say YES.... heck.. toss in Arkansas too while we are at it.

Hmm.. I wonder if there were any talks with Texas A&M and the Big Ten before they moved to the SEC. I wonder who instigated that.. A&M or the SEC? A&M to the SEC decided where Texas would end up.. you know.. the "Little Brother" thing. Not that you can argue against the move.. good move for them. Big Ten might have been just as good... but they'd have to play a lot of cold-weather games and not playing in the Big Ten championship game each season would be viewed as worse than not playing in the SEC Championship game every season... not that they were playing for the Big XII title routinely.

I mean.. look where Texas really is right now... they have a Rutgers fan pitying the situation that EARL CAMPBELL's mighty Texas has gotten itself into. Tsk Tsk. They have invested heavily in this move... I honestly do not know if I should root for them to upset the SEC stalwarts or to see theirNIL shenanigans fail. It is a lose/lose for me.

nothing to do with my view or interpretation of 'definition'. If you recall, I called the first one, dropped the story on Nebraska and how it unfolded, first alerted anyone anywhere about md and was the only one saying acc wasn't happening. My source was golden as in right in the room.

they never even had a legit straw vote, there were no weekend calls to Presidents and no scenarios that Delaney had cultivated that include a realistic view of them in his 'book'. Under Delaney, contiguious expansion was key, UCLA/USC would not have happened under Delaney.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

What changed was they saw the impact the SEC branding was having for A&M vs Texas in terms of recruiting/fan intensity and the like.

Texas was never going to let A&M differentiate themselves in a way that could enable them to shine brighter in their state.

A&M shines as bright or brighter than the steers down here…a faster growing alumni base, just as wealthy and that’s not changing any time soon. The era of them having all the advantages ended a while ago.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

nothing to do with my view or interpretation of 'definition'. If you recall, I called the first one, dropped the story on Nebraska and how it unfolded, first alerted anyone anywhere about md and was the only one saying acc wasn't happening. My source was golden as in right in the room.

they never even had a legit straw vote, there were no weekend calls to Presidents and no scenarios that Delaney had cultivated that include a realistic view of them in his 'book'. Under Delaney, contiguious expansion was key, UCLA/USC would not have happened under Delaney.

not every response is a counter-argument... but THIS post will be. Not the prior one.

(EDIT: I kept looking after writing this... found a story mentioning "a Chicago Tribune report that the firm of William Blair & Co. had presented the results of the commissioned study . " Then I followed a frew links withing those (NBC sports) that ended in a story where Alvarez.. the linker.. says Texas was NOT among the 15 schools that the Big Ten got reports on. Soooo... ignore the rest of this post that justifies me thinking that Texas was a target way back when? I know I read it somewhere. here is a link saying Delany HAD NOT BEEN in contact with Texas ..that's a little stronger than, say, when trying to hire a coach, that you never offered)

****************** original, ultimately wrong, response follows ***************
All I am saying is the Big Ten was interested in Texas. They paid a consulting firm to come up with a report evaluating all the candidates (used very loosely.. lets make that "possible targets"). And Texas was number 1 and Notre Dame was number 2. Then Rutgers.

While I cannot find a link to that newspaper story.. a Chicago paper, iirc.. that referenced that report. I could find a Frank-the-Tank blog post from 2010 (I know that sounds funny but hte dude obviously references a lot of sources and knows *something* ). It tries to value the added revenue of each.. prospective candidate.. and Texas if 1 and Rutgers 2. No Notre Dame was considered.. and since they are not even in a conference that seems reasonable.

Now clearly, the consulting firm, iirc, did not consider USC or UCLA as possible targets. Now while Delany (or his people) did not even consider those teams because of non-contiguous states... they did seem to ask texas to be included in that report. Otherwise, why would I remember the order was Texas-ND-Rutgers?

I do think Delany considered Texas a viable target.. just like Notre Dame.. but he got neither. ND wanted its independence.. tradition. Texas had its own plan and was the kind of the Big XII.. the Big Ten probably seemed risky to them and their travelling fan base / donors were likely not interested.

Texas decision to join the SEC is not a repudiation of the Big Ten's interest earlier. As I said, I think A&M forced the issue.

 

[Bamm Bamm Rubble]

not every response is a counter-argument... but THIS post will be. Not the prior one.

(EDIT: I kept looking after writing this... found a story mentioning "a Chicago Tribune report that the firm of William Blair & Co. had presented the results of the commissioned study . " Then I followed a frew links withing those (NBC sports) that ended in a story where Alvarez.. the linker.. says Texas was NOT among the 15 schools that the Big Ten got reports on. Soooo... ignore the rest of this post that justifies me thinking that Texas was a target way back when? I know I read it somewhere. here is a link saying Delany HAD NOT BEEN in contact with Texas ..that's a little stronger than, say, when trying to hire a coach, that you never offered)

****************** original, ultimately wrong, response follows ***************
All I am saying is the Big Ten was interested in Texas. They paid a consulting firm to come up with a report evaluating all the candidates (used very loosely.. lets make that "possible targets"). And Texas was number 1 and Notre Dame was number 2. Then Rutgers.

While I cannot find a link to that newspaper story.. a Chicago paper, iirc.. that referenced that report. I could find a Frank-the-Tank blog post from 2010 (I know that sounds funny but hte dude obviously references a lot of sources and knows *something* ). It tries to value the added revenue of each.. prospective candidate.. and Texas if 1 and Rutgers 2. No Notre Dame was considered.. and since they are not even in a conference that seems reasonable.

Now clearly, the consulting firm, iirc, did not consider USC or UCLA as possible targets. Now while Delany (or his people) did not even consider those teams because of non-contiguous states... they did seem to ask texas to be included in that report. Otherwise, why would I remember the order was Texas-ND-Rutgers?

I do think Delany considered Texas a viable target.. just like Notre Dame.. but he got neither. ND wanted its independence.. tradition. Texas had its own plan and was the kind of the Big XII.. the Big Ten probably seemed risky to them and their travelling fan base / donors were likely not interested.

Texas decision to join the SEC is not a repudiation of the Big Ten's interest earlier. As I said, I think A&M forced the issue.

Texas is also tied into a deal with ESPN until 2031. ESPN was losing money off the Longhorn Network so they forced the SEC to take them. The Longhorns would a rather been in the Big Ten.

 

[brgRC90]

I honestly do not know if I should root for them to upset the SEC stalwarts or to see their NIL shenanigans fail. It is a lose/lose for me.

Root for them to fail, root for Ohio State or someone else to upset the SEC stalwarts. If an (albeit new) SEC team beats the SEC stalwarts that won't take down SEC arrogance at all. If someone outside the conference humbles them and Texas fails then it's winners all around.

 

[RUTGERS95]

How do you know Texas boosters steered them to the sec? If so these are the same boosters who mocked A&M for running away to the inbred Dixie conference full of racists and idiot schools.
What changed?

c'mon, you're better than that. You are one poster that is above that

 

[RUTGERS95]

not every response is a counter-argument... but THIS post will be. Not the prior one.

(EDIT: I kept looking after writing this... found a story mentioning "a Chicago Tribune report that the firm of William Blair & Co. had presented the results of the commissioned study . " Then I followed a frew links withing those (NBC sports) that ended in a story where Alvarez.. the linker.. says Texas was NOT among the 15 schools that the Big Ten got reports on. Soooo... ignore the rest of this post that justifies me thinking that Texas was a target way back when? I know I read it somewhere. here is a link saying Delany HAD NOT BEEN in contact with Texas ..that's a little stronger than, say, when trying to hire a coach, that you never offered)

****************** original, ultimately wrong, response follows ***************
All I am saying is the Big Ten was interested in Texas. They paid a consulting firm to come up with a report evaluating all the candidates (used very loosely.. lets make that "possible targets"). And Texas was number 1 and Notre Dame was number 2. Then Rutgers.

While I cannot find a link to that newspaper story.. a Chicago paper, iirc.. that referenced that report. I could find a Frank-the-Tank blog post from 2010 (I know that sounds funny but hte dude obviously references a lot of sources and knows *something* ). It tries to value the added revenue of each.. prospective candidate.. and Texas if 1 and Rutgers 2. No Notre Dame was considered.. and since they are not even in a conference that seems reasonable.

Now clearly, the consulting firm, iirc, did not consider USC or UCLA as possible targets. Now while Delany (or his people) did not even consider those teams because of non-contiguous states... they did seem to ask texas to be included in that report. Otherwise, why would I remember the order was Texas-ND-Rutgers?

I do think Delany considered Texas a viable target.. just like Notre Dame.. but he got neither. ND wanted its independence.. tradition. Texas had its own plan and was the kind of the Big XII.. the Big Ten probably seemed risky to them and their travelling fan base / donors were likely not interested.

Texas decision to join the SEC is not a repudiation of the Big Ten's interest earlier. As I said, I think A&M forced the issue.

nope, what I said stands.

 

[RUTGERS95]

Root for them to fail, root for Ohio State or someone else to upset the SEC stalwarts. If an (albeit new) SEC team beats the SEC stalwarts that won't take down SEC arrogance at all. If someone outside the conference humbles them and Texas fails then it's winners all around.

agree

brg, when we talk football we're lock step. let's keep it to football:)

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

c'mon, you're better than that. You are one poster that is above that

Back in 2011-12 that is all Aggies heard from the steer mob…running away…can’t win…leaving your roots for the dixie conference, or the “confederacy”…far worse insults were levied. Of course texas was better and above it all…which, of course, was proven to be a GIANT and steaming pile of BS!! 🤭

 

[William J. Leggett]

TX will reverse course (now that the B1G deal and several expansion options have been negotiated) and shank the SEC… TX is NOT locked into that deal….

ND is paired with them. $$$$

 

[rutgersguy1]

TX will reverse course (now that the B1G deal and several expansion options have been negotiated) and shank the SEC… TX is NOT locked into that deal….

ND is paired with them. $$$$

If that happened, I think you forgot a few of these lol $$$$$$$$$$