Not 100% sure but isn't Nebraska the only BIG school not a AAU member? I know USC and UCLA are members so I wonder if that's still a unspoken requirement for schools to be admitted to the BIG? Many say it doesn't matter anymore but I wouldn't bet on it.
Yeah it'll be interesting to see what Mike Elko does as a first-time head coach. I think he's put a pretty good staff together. I like Trooper Taylor a LOT. That was a great hire for his RB spot. Robb Smith (DC), Jess Simpson (DL), Adam Cushing (OL) and Lyle Hemphill (Safeties) in particular were good hires IMPO.
I agree on BYUThe B1G is stupid if they are even lightly considering BYU. there is ZERO upside to adding them. Horrible for scheduling, insular fan base, small market, zero appeal to anyone outside of their footprint/religion. Apart from an undeserved title 4 decades ago, they have been completely irrelevant.
I wish the rest of CFB would just freeze out Notre Dame and let them die a quick painful death in obscurity.
USC is all about buying prestige. They definitely do it on the academic side by hiring (stealing) teams of research faculty from other universities.
That said, I've read some commentators who said that one major reason that USC initiated the move was because the PAC and ACC shot down an expanded college football playoff, which meant much less money for teams in the league. Even for rich schools, having more money is never a bad thing.
I really can't see teams like Washington, Oregon and Stanford not eventually being invited.
The Big Ten and Pac-12 have been linked to each other since 1947. I think they want to keep an affiliation with the best of that conference and they can do that - AND - corner some major TV markets. Those three teams would/will allow the B1G to own not just California, but the entire west coast, encompassing the entire pacific northwest. Heck, those five schools basically give you ownership of the US west of the Rockies.
It also allows USC and UCLA to have a pod of teams they can play on an annual basis. Those five teams can play each other every year and then can schedule their 3 non-conference teams and have them be schools that are in Pacific time zones as well. That would leave only 4 games where they'd be playing current B1G teams and the conference could space those out so they're not hit too hard by the travel and timezone issues.
I think they're eventually going to go for 24, not 20. This could allow for the additions of Cal, Utah or BYU. Probably not all three, though, as I imagine they'll want to grab a few teams in the North Carolina/Virginia area.
I also don't get the suggestion that Kansas would/should be considered. They bring nothing to the table outside of basketball and these decisions are football driven. Sure they allow you a foothold into the KC metro, but IMPO that isn't enough to have them above other schools.
They'd be much better off going after Duke if basketball is part of the argument. The Blue Devils are the "Alabama" of hoops and they'd offer a much better TV market and recruiting pipeline for the conference. Their academic reputation is also a nice bonus. And unlike Kansas, their football team is actually respectable.
I think the ideal 8 additions to bring the B1G to 24 are Notre Dame, Stanford, Washington, Oregon, North Carolina, Duke, Virginia and Georgia Tech. The first 7 were pretty easy for me, I settled on Georgia Tech because it gives you Atlanta and a presence in the south for recruiting. They're also a strong academic school and competitive in several sports. Admittedly, I can see an argument for a few schools in their spot.
I wonder if the B1G will pay the cost of getting their desired ACC teams out of their GOR contracts, or wait and see if the SEC starts grabbing teams like Clemson, Miami and Florida State and watch the ACC simply crumble (which I think is inevitable anyways).
I would say no. The SEC is getting organic growth. People moving there in droves. The BIG areas are out migrating for the most part. CA, IL, MI, OH, NJ in a big way are seeing more people move out than in.Another question to ponder, does the SEC consider a need to expand greater than regionally?
In the context of the Civil War the border states were slave states that did not secede from the Union. They were Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, and after 1863, the new state of West Virginia. As I understand Kentucky and Missouri, they had legislatures in absentia that succeeded, but the legislatures physically in the states didn’t. ( It is largely these border states that gave truth to the statement the war had brother against brother.)This is true. I drove across the Mason-Dixon line hundreds of times when I lived outside of Philly.
Maryland was technically a part of the Union, as you say. Which has me wondering, is every SEC school from a Confederate state and every Big Ten school Union? I think so. Granted, Nebraska wasn't yet a state... but had enough Union presence.
Anyhow, if those end up being the two conference super powers (seems likely), just interesting to see how they build from here.
Conferences used to all about geography. Now they are about eyeballs. (BIG with LA, SEC with Oklahoma/Texas)
Used to be natural rivalries encouraged by the geographic closeness. Now there are natural rivalries only as determined by the network programmers. (USC/Maryland; South Carolina/Oklahoma)
You either grumble, like me, move on, or like me, do both.
Power Conference status .... even before USC/UCLA thing, IMO only one conference instead of five. SEC SEC SEC SEC SECGotta think if ND says yes that Oregon, Washington and Stanford follow. If ND stays away and the B1G doesn’t take OR and UW on their own, then those schools and Stanford almost have to regroup and be part of a PAC/Big12 merger of at least 16 schools. Since there are about 22 such schools, a few schools could lose Power Conference status. (Though I guess four of those schools don’t even have that status quite yet).