Conference Re-Alignments

[Elwood von Kiowa]

On the bright side, there is NOTHING wrong with their cheerleaders....

"Like a golden jewel in a swine's snout, such is a fair woman who wears burnt orange and makes the 'hook em' sign."

- Proverbs 34:17

 

[manawahusker]

The thing that the B1G could (probably WOULD) do that the Big 12 didn't do is to NOT add any other Texas schools with them. Texas by themselves can't outvote anybody and doesn't have the weight to throw around. Historically, B1G has been dominated by Michigan and Ohio State, and those two schools have no desire to see that change. Possibly the biggest concern with adding both Texas and Oklahoma together is that they could form a western bloc that has more sway than Texas by themselves, and Oklahoma has tended to go along to get along with Texas in recent years. I don't see any of the traditional Big 10 schools (plus Penn State) giving anything away to Texas.

I'd still think that Texas is more likely to go to the Pac 12, who would love to have them because Texas would rather be a big fish in a small pond than one of a few big fish in a bigger pond. This is also why they won't join the SEC.

I think the last 2 additions to the conference show that the Big 10 is more interested in getting a footprint in large markets rather then picking dominant schools. Expanding its footprint to Texas makes sense in terms of revenue and recruiting. Rather then UT that comes with all the baggage I would think looking at adding a school like Houston would be a better fit. Huge school in a huge city that would bring all the benefits and little of the downside adding UT would. I have little doubt that the BIG looked at UT back in 2010 when the future of the Big 12 looked bleak. I also have little doubt that after kicking the tires Jim Delaney wanted nothing to do with them.

 

[huskerman1]

There are really two questions to answer in the bigger realignment discussion; the Pac-12 and the Big 12.

The B1G and SEC own the expansion/TV fight, hands down. The ACC isn't in the same league in terms of money, but they've been able to stay competitive (Clemson?) and round out the top 3 for supremacy.

If the Pac-12 wants to expand to 14 -- or eventually 16 -- teams, the only place they can go is eastward. There are precisely two teams within the current Pac-12 footprint that actually move the needle (kinda): Boise State and BYU. Hawaii, Fresno, Nevada, etc., are solid mid-majors, but the Pac-12 gains nothing from them. They already dominate the fertile California/Arizona recruiting ground with six teams in the region. Boise State is a bit of a has-been in college football. We've a long way away from Kellen Moore and the miracle bowl win over Oklahoma. BYU doesn't add anything to the recruiting ground that Utah and Colorado don't already touch, but they are a national brand and have some prestige. This ignores the LDS scheduling issues with BYU refusing to play Sunday games. That's not a deal breaker for football, but it is for basketball, baseball and pretty much any other sport.

Back when rumors were swirling about Missouri or Nebraska joining the Big Ten, Larry Scott could have dealt the death blow to the Big 12 and instead he crapped the bed. He had a chance to take the Pac-10 and scoop up the entire Big 12 South. With TAMU no longer an SEC target, you have to wonder if the Big Ten (11 teams) would have made an offer to Nebraska, Mizzou and Colorado. That move would have protected the PAC's geography by extending east and absolutely owning all the fertile recruiting ground west of the Mississippi. Imagine 90% of the CA-AZ-TX pipeline getting spread between Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and USC.

Instead, Larry Scott retreated and made one of the stupidest moves in conference TV rights. They created the Pac-12 Network as a series of six, independent mini networks that were broadcast regionally. The Pac 8/10/12 has always gone with this "matched pairs" concept (WA/WSU, OR/OSU, Cal/Stan, USC/UCLA, AZ/ASU, CO/UT) and they continued it right into their shoddy networks that only generated a fraction of the revenue the B1G and SEC gained.

Fast forward to today and Larry Scott has the opportunity to blow up the NCAA again. The Big 12 has been circling the drain, and now that the Pac is up to 12 teams, they only need four to round off to 16. TAMU is gone, but there's a potential for an all-Texas play with UT, TCU, Baylor and Tech. Or a split decision that includes UT, Oklahoma, Ok.State and either TCU or Baylor. Should that happen, except the SEC to make an offer to the remaining two.

That leaves the old Big 12 North remnants, plus West Virginia. The Mountaineers are a lock for the ACC, and they'd probably offer Notre Dame as well since the Irish compete in every other sport with the ACC. That leaves the Big Ten to scoop up two teams from Kansas, KSU and Iowa State.

The other option -- and most laughably silly one -- is that the Big 12 tries to grow a pair and expand themselves back up. You again could make a case for BYU, but who else? They're not going to double down again on the State of Texas, so say goodbye to Houston, SMU or Rice. But who else is left? Memphis? UCF? Cincinnati? There are a couple of random teams out there who add nothing more than painful travel accommodations and little-to-no revenue. Believe me, nobody is getting excited about that annual Marshall-Oklahoma showdown.

This is why I say the Big Ten needs to strike first and offer Oklahoma and Texas. Yes, I hate Texas. We all do. Like, a lot. But this is about protecting a footprint, along with increasing the luster of the brand. A Sooner-Horn deal castrates whatever nutsack is left on the Big 12 and leaves the rest of the Power 5 scrambling for sloppy seconds. I really want to watch the ACC and SEC fight over Iowa State. Imagine the Pac-12 fighting with the SEC over Texas Christian. It'll be hilarious. It also sets up the Big Ten very nicely in terms of divisional balance, both in terms of current success as well as traditional blue bloods.

West: Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Illinois
East: Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland

So we wait for the Pac 12 to inevitably strike, or we preempt them and make the Big Ten the undisputed top conference in the NCAA. I can only hope that Delany's successor is as shrewd a chess player as he.

.


Now that makes sense!

 

[Middle-aged_Ball_Coach]

I also have little doubt that after kicking the tires Jim Delaney wanted nothing to do with them.

That isn't what was said or reported or whispered about at the time. Texas had the choice of joining the B1G or the Pac 10, but they thought that they could make more on their own with the Longhorn Network. Keep in mind that that was a year after they'd played for the NC against Alabama, and ESPN was promoting them the way that they promote the SEC now. The Longhorn Network hasn't been as profitable as expected, but the B1G Network has been more profitable than expected. The Pac 12 Network has been a flop.

Just because WE hate Texas doesn't mean that everybody else does.

I would think looking at adding a school like Houston would be a better fit.

This is definitely true of some conference, but it's not yet clear which one. Houston is one of best places in America for recruiting, but they don't have a team in a P-5 conference. It is a large school, but the B1G doesn't seem to want to add private schools that are not named "Notre Dame." Whatever the future of college football will look like, having the Houston urban area in your conference's footprint is going to be good for that conference's future. Houston might be a good grab for the SEC as it would shore up pretty much all of eastern Texas for them.

Huge school in a huge city that would bring all the benefits and little of the downside adding UT would.

Nobody looks at the academics of Houston and Texas and thinks that Houston is the better draw. Also, as large as Houston is, Texas is 3x larger as far as student size. UT grads come from everywhere and go everywhere; not so much with Houston. Finally, Texas is one of the all-time winningest NCAA football programs in football and baseball, and they've been great in almost every other sport at some point in time. Other than the entitled attitude of the Texas boosters and admin, they really don't have a lot of negatives.

 

[manawahusker]

That isn't what was said or reported or whispered about at the time. Texas had the choice of joining the B1G or the Pac 10, but they thought that they could make more on their own with the Longhorn Network. Keep in mind that that was a year after they'd played for the NC against Alabama, and ESPN was promoting them the way that they promote the SEC now. The Longhorn Network hasn't been as profitable as expected, but the B1G Network has been more profitable than expected. The Pac 12 Network has been a flop.

Just because WE hate Texas doesn't mean that everybody else does.



This is definitely true of some conference, but it's not yet clear which one. Houston is one of best places in America for recruiting, but they don't have a team in a P-5 conference. It is a large school, but the B1G doesn't seem to want to add private schools that are not named "Notre Dame." Whatever the future of college football will look like, having the Houston urban area in your conference's footprint is going to be good for that conference's future. Houston might be a good grab for the SEC as it would shore up pretty much all of eastern Texas for them.



Nobody looks at the academics of Houston and Texas and thinks that Houston is the better draw. Also, as large as Houston is, Texas is 3x larger as far as student size. UT grads come from everywhere and go everywhere; not so much with Houston. Finally, Texas is one of the all-time winningest NCAA football programs in football and baseball, and they've been great in almost every other sport at some point in time. Other than the entitled attitude of the Texas boosters and admin, they really don't have a lot of negatives.

Not sure where you’re coming up with your stats. UT is not 3x the size of Houston, 51,000 for UT vs 42,000 for Houston.
Houston is also not a private school, it is the 3rd largest public university in Texas behind Texas A&M and Texas. In the next 30 years Houston is projected to become the 3rd largest city in the United States, that’s a lot of potential subscriber fees to gain.
Again, as I said before I have little doubt there was a time the BIG was looking at UT but that time seems to have passed.UT is not a team player, they are out for UT and UT alone. Maybe they’ve become humbled a bit with the lack of success of the Longhorn network, maybe not. The way this conference seems to operate they are not going to get down on one knee, roll out the red carpet and beg a school to join.

 

[Husker Country Doc]

I'd take SMU and Houston before I'd take UT.

 

[Middle-aged_Ball_Coach]

Not sure where you’re coming up with your stats. UT is not 3x the size of Houston, 51,000 for UT vs 42,000 for Houston. Houston is also not a private school, it is the 3rd largest public university in Texas behind Texas A&M and Texas. In the next 30 years Houston is projected to become the 3rd largest city in the United States, that’s a lot of potential subscriber fees to gain.

My bad. I'm not sure why I thought that, but I was putting them in with Rice and SMU in my mind, for some reason.

But then you say this....

Again, as I said before I have little doubt there was a time the BIG was looking at UT but that time seems to have passed.UT is not a team player, they are out for UT and UT alone. Maybe they’ve become humbled a bit with the lack of success of the Longhorn network, maybe not. The way this conference seems to operate they are not going to get down on one knee, roll out the red carpet and beg a school to join.

I'm not sure how a conference goes down on one knee, but how would you describe the B1G's courting of Notre Dame over the past half-century or so? As for the critiques of Texas not being a team player, sure, fair enough, but is it possible for Nebraska fans to grasp that the schools that were not in the Big 12 won't see it the same way as we did? This seems to be the gist of a majority of people's arguments: "We hate Texas because they ruin conferences, so all of these conferences who have tried to add Texas probably think the same way that we do." They don't. They don't really care if Texas crapped all over the Big 12 and the Southwest Conference as long as they would add a lot to a new conference. These are the kinds of comments that people who aren't from Nebraska shake their heads at. Let me say it again, plainly: If the B1G could have had Texas instead of Nebraska in 2010, it would NOT have even been a close decision. WE were the afterthought, the table scraps. That hasn't changed. In fact, we're probably less attractive now except for the money that we've gotten from the B1G.

Ohio State and Michigan are NOT going to be intimidated by whatever Texas did in the past. In fairness, though, I also don't see them giving in and pampering Texas in any way. If Texas were to join the SEC or the B1G, they would have to be a partner, not a dictator. We don't know yet if Texas would want that. I think that the Pac 12 will look very attractive to them, but do not kid yourselves into thinking that the B1G or the SEC is so put off by Texas' arrogance that they no longer want them. That's ridiculous.

 

[Middle-aged_Ball_Coach]

I'd take SMU and Houston before I'd take UT.

And that's why you're a doctor and not a conference commissioner. SMU and Houston, combined, don't have the draw of Texas, even within the state of Texas. Texas is a national name. SMU is barely able to scrape together a winning program in a conference that even rabid college football fans would have a difficult time with identifying their teams. Houston IS an attractive school.

Also, the elephant in the room that hasn't been addressed with both of these schools is that they have almost no history of being good at football apart from those years that they were paying players semi-pro wages. These schools have a history of cheating, as in make-the-SEC-blush kinds of cheating.

 

[manawahusker]

My bad. I'm not sure why I thought that, but I was putting them in with Rice and SMU in my mind, for some reason.

But then you say this....



I'm not sure how a conference goes down on one knee, but how would you describe the B1G's courting of Notre Dame over the past half-century or so? As for the critiques of Texas not being a team player, sure, fair enough, but is it possible for Nebraska fans to grasp that the schools that were not in the Big 12 won't see it the same way as we did? This seems to be the gist of a majority of people's arguments: "We hate Texas because they ruin conferences, so all of these conferences who have tried to add Texas probably think the same way that we do." They don't. They don't really care if Texas crapped all over the Big 12 and the Southwest Conference as long as they would add a lot to a new conference. These are the kinds of comments that people who aren't from Nebraska shake their heads at. Let me say it again, plainly: If the B1G could have had Texas instead of Nebraska in 2010, it would NOT have even been a close decision. WE were the afterthought, the table scraps. That hasn't changed. In fact, we're probably less attractive now except for the money that we've gotten from the B1G.

Ohio State and Michigan are NOT going to be intimidated by whatever Texas did in the past. In fairness, though, I also don't see them giving in and pampering Texas in any way. If Texas were to join the SEC or the B1G, they would have to be a partner, not a dictator. We don't know yet if Texas would want that. I think that the Pac 12 will look very attractive to them, but do not kid yourselves into thinking that the B1G or the SEC is so put off by Texas' arrogance that they no longer want them. That's ridiculous.

And maybe we’re both remembering our history wrong
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nb...me-five-big-12-schools-tried-join-big-ten?amp

 

[manawahusker]

Also, the elephant in the room that hasn't been addressed with both of these schools is that they have almost no history of being good at football apart from those years that they were paying players semi-pro wages. These schools have a history of cheating, as in make-the-SEC-blush kinds of cheating.

Prowess in football doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor in what teams to add as based by the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. It’s more about subscribers. Landing either UT or Houston gets you on the basic cable package for most of the central and eastern part of the state. SMU only gets you Dallas/Fort Worth. None of that probably matters as much though when the next round of media rights comes up in a few years and streaming services figure to play a big role in those negotiations

 

[manawahusker]

Here’s a good take from OSU AD Gene Smith that might clue us in a bit on which direction the conference my go in future expansion.

“Here’s one thing that people seem to forget about our move with Rutgers and Maryland," Smith told Blade columnist David Briggs. "At the time, the ACC was looking to expand. Part of our move was to protect Penn State.”

“Everyone forgets we had a teammate and partner institution that was on an [geographic] island, so what we did, beyond gaining exposure, is we further brought in a valued partner in Penn State. Had Penn State defected to the ACC, what would the conversation have been then?”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/2019/03/ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-says-part-of-big-ten-expansion-with-rutgers-maryland-was-to-protect-penn-state.html?outputType=amp



Every state that currently has a Big Ten School in it borders another state with a Big Ten school. Does the conference continue with the idea or jump over a bunch of states to grab a school where it has no nearby footprint?

 

[ShortSideOption]

Here’s a good take from OSU AD Gene Smith that might clue us in a bit on which direction the conference my go in future expansion.

“Here’s one thing that people seem to forget about our move with Rutgers and Maryland," Smith told Blade columnist David Briggs. "At the time, the ACC was looking to expand. Part of our move was to protect Penn State.”

“Everyone forgets we had a teammate and partner institution that was on an [geographic] island, so what we did, beyond gaining exposure, is we further brought in a valued partner in Penn State. Had Penn State defected to the ACC, what would the conversation have been then?”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pennlive.com/pennstatefootball/2019/03/ohio-state-ad-gene-smith-says-part-of-big-ten-expansion-with-rutgers-maryland-was-to-protect-penn-state.html?outputType=amp



Every state that currently has a Big Ten School in it borders another state with a Big Ten school. Does the conference continue with idea or jump over a bunch of states to grab a school where it has no nearby footprint?

Texas isn’t coming in.

 

[Huskerpilk]

Every state that currently has a Big Ten School in it borders another state with a Big Ten school. Does the conference continue with idea or jump over a bunch of states to grab a school where it has no nearby footprint?

No

 

[Middle-aged_Ball_Coach]

Texas isn’t coming in.

I agree. I don't think that they'll join the B1G without special terms, and I don't think that the B1G would give them that. Ditto for the SEC. That's not to say that those conferences wouldn't want them.

Regardless of what Texas wants, right now, I predict that by by 2030 they will at the very least be in the process of joining another conference.

 

[Huskerthom]

I agree. I don't think that they'll join the B1G without special terms, and I don't think that the B1G would give them that. Ditto for the SEC. That's not to say that those conferences wouldn't want them.

Regardless of what Texas wants, right now, I predict that by by 2030 they will at the very least be in the process of joining another conference.

Your last sentence is very true. The only thing keeping the Big 12 afloat is that Okie keeps finding a way to be relevant in the NC picture. If that stops...