Big 10 Question

[mouser]

I have literally no idea what the B1G has been up to in recent years. Of all the schools they could have added, Maryland, Nebraska and Rutgers would all have been at the absolute bottom of my list.

Connecticut, though unlikely imo, does at least make some sense both geographically and B1G wise.

It's more about expanding their marketing footprint, and less about trying to cherry pick the most prominent university sporting programs. Nebraska kind of fell into the B1G's lap. And while it's not the biggest market, they dominate the entire state and have a lot of faithful expats around the country. Rutgers and Maryland are in two of the biggest media markets in the country.

Also the B1G seems to be pretty keen on only getting AAU schools--an association of leading research universities. 13 of the 14 members are in the AAU, and the one member that isn't, Nebraska, was a member at the time they joined the B1G.

List of current AAU schools:
https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5474

 

[mouser]

Don't underestimate how much money that the Big Ten can toss around when enticing programs to join.

Texas is an interesting option, and there's no denying that they fit academically and open up a huge market for the Big Ten, but Texas is more or less used to running their own show in their conferences and the Big Ten wouldn't nearly kowtow to them as much as Texas is accustomed to. Plus, the Big Ten would want to kill the Longhorn Network to get the BTN in that state, and I doubt that Texas would go for that. If the Big Twelve collapses at any point, Texas is actually an institution that I'd anticipate going independent more than anything else, to be quite honest. I'd almost say that Oklahoma was a more intriguing option for the Big Ten than Texas.

As for other Big Twelve schools, it's all about what they bring in market wise. Kansas basketball might be enough for them to be an attractive option for the conference, but Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State would either be marginal double-dipping in a state that they already control or second pickle in a state they may or may not want to go into in the first place.

One of the challenges with Oklahoma, besides not being an AAU school, is a belief that the state legislature would not let Oklahoma go to another conference unless Oklahoma State went with them. B1G would definitely not want both schools.

 

[No Fun Shogun]

Very solid point, but they might get around that by contractually obligating that, say, Big Ten Oklahoma has to play Pac Googolplex Oklahoma State every year in all sports. I think that the worry that either would drop to a lesser conference and/or not playing each other every year is the bigger concern, not whether or not they're in the same conference.

I think that Nebraska losing AAU status after joining the Big Ten lowers the requirement for that, but they'll still want at least good academic schools, and Oklahoma is at least that.

The bigger question is if the Big Ten views Oklahoma as a worthwhile expansion option from a TV market standpoint.

 

[member 51464]

Don't underestimate how much money that the Big Ten can toss around when enticing programs to join.

Texas is an interesting option, and there's no denying that they fit academically and open up a huge market for the Big Ten, but Texas is more or less used to running their own show in their conferences and the Big Ten wouldn't nearly kowtow to them as much as Texas is accustomed to. Plus, the Big Ten would want to kill the Longhorn Network to get the BTN in that state, and I doubt that Texas would go for that. If the Big Twelve collapses at any point, Texas is actually an institution that I'd anticipate going independent more than anything else, to be quite honest. I'd almost say that Oklahoma was a more intriguing option for the Big Ten than Texas.

As for other Big Twelve schools, it's all about what they bring in market wise. Kansas basketball might be enough for them to be an attractive option for the conference, but Iowa State, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State would either be marginal double-dipping in a state that they already control or second pickle in a state they may or may not want to go into in the first place.

Hmm. What about Kansas and Oklahoma? They'd get a historic basketball and football school, and both are the flagship schools of their respective states. Have some nice midwestern stuff going on and get to have Nebraska/Oklahoma football every year to go with Ohio State Michigan. Though, when what would the divisions look like? Which school would get pushed West to East?

I really don't think those two schools are ideal, though. KU has a bit better academics than OU, but how important is Kansas City? I know KU has a huge alumni base in Chicago, but that seems like already well-covered ground. Hmm. Maybe the Big is big enough.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

I have literally no idea what the B1G has been up to in recent years. Of all the schools they could have added, Maryland, Nebraska and Rutgers would all have been at the absolute bottom of my list.

Connecticut, though unlikely imo, does at least make some sense both geographically and B1G wise.

The Big Ten didn't add those schools (except Nebraska) for athletics. They added them for academics (people need to realize that schools need to be in the AAU to join the Big Ten but an even bigger reason is because of the market footprint for the Big Ten Network. There's no reason for NYC or Washington DC to put BTN on a lower tier package. That changed once teams from those areas joined the Big Ten and it's created a massive amount of revenue for the conference.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

The Big Ten didn't add those schools (except Nebraska) for athletics. They added them for academics (people need to realize that schools need to be in the AAU to join the Big Ten but an even bigger reason is because of the market footprint for the Big Ten Network. There's no reason for NYC or Washington DC to put BTN on a lower tier package. That changed once teams from those areas joined the Big Ten and it's created a massive amount of revenue for the conference.

It's more about expanding their marketing footprint, and less about trying to cherry pick the most prominent university sporting programs. Nebraska kind of fell into the B1G's lap. And while it's not the biggest market, they dominate the entire state and have a lot of faithful expats around the country. Rutgers and Maryland are in two of the biggest media markets in the country.

Also the B1G seems to be pretty keen on only getting AAU schools--an association of leading research universities. 13 of the 14 members are in the AAU, and the one member that isn't, Nebraska, was a member at the time they joined the B1G.

List of current AAU schools:
https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5474

No, I get all that, I meant just more as in terms of when you physically say "Maryland", "Nebraska" or "Rutgers" out loud, the Big Ten is like the last thing you think of

 

[End of Line]

I have literally no idea what the B1G has been up to in recent years. Of all the schools they could have added, Maryland, Nebraska and Rutgers would all have been at the absolute bottom of my list.

Connecticut, though unlikely imo, does at least make some sense both geographically and B1G wise.

TV markets (and academics), outside of Nebraska. The pay off is going to be incredible money/tv wise. Each school is projected to get anywhere between 40-50mil a year in TV money.

 

[mouser]

Hmm. What about Kansas and Oklahoma? They'd get a historic basketball and football school, and both are the flagship schools of their respective states. Have some nice midwestern stuff going on and get to have Nebraska/Oklahoma football every year to go with Ohio State Michigan. Though, when what would the divisions look like? Which school would get pushed West to East?

I really don't think those two schools are ideal, though. KU has a bit better academics than OU, but how important is Kansas City? I know KU has a huge alumni base in Chicago, but that seems like already well-covered ground. Hmm. Maybe the Big is big enough.

Oddly college basketball isn't as big of a thing to the conferences as we'd normally think. In 2010 the Big 12 reorg was happening with Nebraska announcing a jump to the B1G and Colorado to the PAC. Rumors that the PAC also wanted Texas, A&M, Tech, Oklahoma and OSU, but that fell apart when the Big 12 worked out a deal to stabilize the conference. A&M would eventually go to the SEC a year later.

Missouri was supposedly in deep talks with the B1G for a while but lost out when Nebraska jumped to the B1G to make it 12 schools. The B1G also made a play at Texas that didn't work out. Maybe if Texas had joined then there would have been a larger B1G expansion. Missouri practically begged the B1G to take them, but the conference decided not to expand at the time and Missouri would get accepted in the SEC in 2011.

The notable aspect of this all is none of the other major conferences wanted the legendary basketball power Kansas. KSU, Iowa State and Baylor likewise could have been left out in the cold.

 

[ecemleafs]

I have literally no idea what the B1G has been up to in recent years. Of all the schools they could have added, Maryland, Nebraska and Rutgers would all have been at the absolute bottom of my list.

Connecticut, though unlikely imo, does at least make some sense both geographically and B1G wise.

rutgers and md were added because they are in the NYC and DC markets...

 

[BigMac1212]

Dear god. Conferences need to retract...not expand. Why have a conference of everyone doesn't play everyone?

I'm with you. No more than 12 per conference in the FBS. All other can have as many as they want.

 

[HisIceness]

Dear god. Conferences need to retract...not expand. Why have a conference of everyone doesn't play everyone?

Absolutely. 12 teams a conference should be the maximum. I still can't quite get over seeing Mizzou and Texas A&M in the SEC.

 

[BigMac1212]

If you guys think the Division I has it bad, Division II's Pennsylvania State Athletic Conference has 18 MEMBERS!

 

[SpookyTsuki]

Absolutely. 12 teams a conference should be the maximum. I still can't quite get over seeing Mizzou and Texas A&M in the SEC.

I dont know why South Carolina isnt in the ACC

Mizzou i can understand, still quite weird. Texas A and M should not be in the SEC at all.

 

[HisIceness]

I dont know why South Carolina isnt in the ACC

Mizzou i can understand, still quite weird. Texas A and M should not be in the SEC at all.

They were an ACC member when the conference began but left circa 1970. Don't quite remember why they left. I think the SEC picked them up in 1992.

A&M breaking up with Texas was a bad move IMO. They would probably be dominating the Longhorns today if they stayed.

 

[Carolinas Identity*]

iirc, wasn't Clemson supposed to leave to, but then trolled then at the last minute and didn't?

I'll ask Garnett to explain better hahaha