Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[CincyInterloper]

I'm beginning to think that the Big 10 will add ND or Texas if they can get them, but otherwise, they stop at 12. The other teams being talked about just dilute the gene pool. Big East schools not named Notre Dame? Big 12 schools not named Texas? What do they add? Not to pick on Rutgers, but does anyone in NYC actually watch them now? What game does OSU drop to pick up Rutgers on the schedule?

 

[Woody1968]

I'm beginning to think that the Big 10 will add ND or Texas if they can get them, but otherwise, they stop at 12. The other teams being talked about just dilute the gene pool. Big East schools not named Notre Dame? Big 12 schools not named Texas? What do they add? Not to pick on Rutgers, but does anyone in NYC actually watch them now? What game does OSU drop to pick up Rutgers on the schedule?

If the Big 12 stays with 10 teams, I doubt any more expansion will occur at this time, except for the Pac-10 taking a MWC team to get to 12.

 

[jwinslow]

If the Big 12 stays with 10 teams, I doubt any more expansion will occur at this time, except for the Pac-10 taking a MWC team to get to 12.

The big 12 is not going to stay at 10 teams or they have no CCG. Texas will sooner bolt to the pac-10 then deal with the lousy revenue of an even weaker b12minus2

 

[Oh8ch]

We are watching the decline of the industrial base of the Midwest and the migration of population to the south.

And yet until OSU & UM stumbled in Jan 2007, no one argued this was a big problem.

They are bulldozing neighborhoods in the Detroit area.

Detroit has been a mess for a long time.

If you are making the case that the Midwest and Big Ten are doing just fine relative to the sunbelt we will have to agree to disagree.

The only school that I have seen referenced consistently as a target of Big Ten growth that gets us to the sunbelt is Texas.

I hear there are a few people in NYC.

You lost me. Did you just move New York City to the sunbelt?

This guy says 'hi'.

(You made me work for this one) In 2010 Scout rated 409 players from the state of Texas. The Big Ten signed nine of those.

The highest rated player who went to the Big Ten was Stephen Hopkins - the 101st ranked player (who went to Michigan).

Premier programs aside (Bama, LSU, etc), higher rated players went to schools like West Virginia, Stanford, Utah, Cal, Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas and La Tech (Not to mention in-state schools like North Texas, Houston and TCU) .

The #400 rated player went to Minnesota.

 

[Woody1968]

The big 12 is not going to stay at 10 teams or they have no CCG. Texas will sooner bolt to the pac-10 then deal with the lousy revenue of an even weaker b12minus2

Texas is going to get offered a big chunk of change to stay in the 10 team Big 12. Hell, the other schools may end up paying them not to go. Mack Brown doesn't like a CCG. Bob Stoops doesn't like a CCG. I don't forsee it as being a problem. Texas will get their own network. Of course, 10 years from now, Oklahoma will bolt for the SEC.

Not to mention that it will be easier to get both Oklahoma and Texas into the BCS without a conference title game.

 

[Diego-Bucks]

If you are making the case that the Midwest and Big Ten are doing just fine relative to the sunbelt we will have to agree to disagree.




You lost me. Did you just move New York City to the sunbelt?



(You made me work for this one) In 2010 Scout rated 409 players from the state of Texas. The Big Ten signed nine of those.

The highest rated player who went to the Big Ten was Stephen Hopkins - the 101st ranked player (who went to Michigan).

Premier programs aside (Bama, LSU, etc), higher rated players went to schools like West Virginia, Stanford, Utah, Cal, Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas and La Tech (Not to mention in-state schools like North Texas, Houston and TCU) .

The #400 rated player went to Minnesota.

I don't think that college conference memberships are going to be able to avoid the demographic shifts of this country. But I will add that, like conference strengths, these thing are quite cyclical over time. Maybe over a much longer time-frame, but I am sure that the populations have shifted quite a bit over the last 100 years of the Big Ten. Additionally, I argue that right now, the Rust Belt is doing superior to the Sun Belt population-wise. The Mid-West has more people currently. I presume you mean that the shifts are clearly not in favor of the Mid-West for the foreseeable future.

The politicians and businessmen from the Rust Belt are going to be dealing with their own issues to address that front.

Also, 2010 recruiting does not a trend make. In 2010 all Big Ten recruiting was down (or mostly). The classes were smaller and seemed like filler classes anyways. I think that the Big Ten does mostly fine with recruiting Texas but obviously would love to do better... so would the entire nation.

 

[jwinslow]

You lost me. Did you just move New York City to the sunbelt?

I'm saying we don't need the Sunbelt to survive this population trend.

Premier programs aside (Bama, LSU, etc), higher rated players went to schools like West Virginia, Stanford, Utah, Cal, Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas and La Tech (Not to mention in-state schools like North Texas, Houston and TCU) .

And in 08, the big two landed Shugarts, McGuffie, Stonum, Robinson. PSU snagged Lynn.
Michigan signed 2 other top Texans the year before.

Still, recruiting has always been local.

Number of 4 or 5 stars who left the region

2010 - 6 out of 46 | 3 unchallenged
2009 - 2 out of 42 | 1 unchallenged by regional powers
2008 - 9 out of 44 | 5 unchallenged by regional powers (2 others uncounted but only "challenged' by A&M)
2007 - 6 out of 50 | 2 unchallenged

23 of 182 left the region. 13%
15 of 182 left unchecked. 8%

 

[jlb1705]

(You made me work for this one) In 2010 Scout rated 409 players from the state of Texas. The Big Ten signed nine of those.

The highest rated player who went to the Big Ten was Stephen Hopkins - the 101st ranked player (who went to Michigan).

Premier programs aside (Bama, LSU, etc), higher rated players went to schools like West Virginia, Stanford, Utah, Cal, Virginia, New Mexico, Arkansas and La Tech (Not to mention in-state schools like North Texas, Houston and TCU) .

The #400 rated player went to Minnesota.

It would be nice to get more of those Drew Brees-type guys.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Big 12 schools not named Texas?

Oklahoma would be as great an addition as was Nebraska. If we could get Oklahoma, Texas, and Notre Dame, and then pick any team just make 16, we'd have the seven all-time top winningest teams in terms of total wins, and seven of the top 11 in terms of winning percentage.

 

[bigdog3300]

Texas is going to get offered a big chunk of change to stay in the 10 team Big 12. Hell, the other schools may end up paying them not to go. Mack Brown doesn't like a CCG. Bob Stoops doesn't like a CCG. I don't forsee it as being a problem. Texas will get their own network. Of course, 10 years from now, Oklahoma will bolt for the SEC.

Not to mention that it will be easier to get both Oklahoma and Texas into the BCS without a conference title game.

What Brown and Stoops like and don't like is irrelevant because they have no pull on that issue.

The Big 12 is not going to go on with 10 teams and leave the CCG which is a cash cow in a league that is strapped for cash. If that was ever even a legit though, schools that could jump elsewhere (A&M, OSU, Tech) would jump to the SEC and Pac 10.

Vanderbilt already almost doubled the TV contract $ that Texas made last year when they had 12 teams and a CCG.....with only 10 and without one, it'd be even more separated.

In a day and age where football essentially supports all other programs (note A&M's comments), cutting teams and games and expecting those schools to be okay with it just isn't a reality to me.

 

[BuckTwenty]

I don't get the whole "holding their nose" phrase with regards to Nebraska's academia. Is there something I'm missing there?

Whatever it is, it didn't stop Delany and the presidents/chancellors from voting unanimously 11-0 to admit them.

 

[Oh8ch]

But I will add that, like conference strengths, these thing are quite cyclical over time.

It may be inexorable.

Generally, settlement of the US moved from the East Coast to the Midwest. Big cities grew around rivers and canals. Those cities were then the primary targets of the development of railroads. When industrialization hit that was where the labor and resources and transportation systems were.

Fewer and fewer folks now rely on industry for jobs. They can live where they like, and they like to be warm. (But not too warm - which is why A/C was important.)

Immigration issues, overpopulation, and budget crisis might cause a push back - but in general the folks who moved South (and West) like it there. I winter in Florida myself and if it weren't for the grand kids might consider a permanent move.

However, there is one related silver lining vis-a-vis football and it is one of the reasons I have some confidence in our chances with Texas. That is the myth of the PAC 10 TV market.

Folks in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona have real lives. They hike, and bike and surf and do all kinds of other fun stuff - even on Saturday afternoons in the fall.

With the target PAC 10 Texas will play almost all of their games in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and Colorado. The chances that folks in San Francisco or LA are going to sit down to watch Texas play Oklahoma St just because they are now PAC 10 teams are pretty slim. And if they don't watch where is the extra revenue that makes it worthwhile for Texas to do a 16 way split? What will drive this hypothetical PAC-10 TV Network?

In the Midwest we circle the last Saturday in August and make sure all of our yearly chores are done. We sit down in our recliners and stare straight ahead waiting for some football. And those marginal fans who rake the leaves during Purdue-Minnie are going to let them pile up during Texas-Purdue and Nebraska-Minnie.

Until you marry her and she blackmails you with threats of divorce every year.

For the record, I intend to respond to this.

I just have to wait til my wife goes to bed.

 

[matcar]

Bull[censored]! The Big Ten model of equitable partnership is what has made this conference the model of stability and prosperity that it is today--while allowing us to maintain our academic standards. The Texas model of carving out special financial and other considerations for themselves has imploded two conferences in less than 20 years. If that's good long term business strategy, I want NO part of it.

Disagree. There are plenty of creative considerations that COULD be mutually beneficial. It doesn't HAVE to happen but the personal insult you seem to feel appears prideful and misplaced.

 

[jlb1705]

Disagree. There are plenty of creative considerations that COULD be mutually beneficial. It doesn't HAVE to happen but the personal insult you seem to feel appears prideful and misplaced.

Like?

Maybe it's part pride, but I think it's also a matter of principle. This is how the Big Ten does business. The conference is a collections of peer institutions. In my view it's no longer truly a collection of peers of one of them is being treated differently as a condition of membership. As has been said already, I believe these principles are big reasons why the Big Ten enjoys its current position.

 

[Diego-Bucks]

It may be inexorable.

Generally, settlement of the US moved from the East Coast to the Midwest. Big cities grew around rivers and canals. Those cities were then the primary targets of the development of railroads. When industrialization hit that was where the labor and resources and transportation systems were.

Fewer and fewer folks now rely on industry for jobs. They can live where they like, and they like to be warm. (But not too warm - which is why A/C was important.)

Immigration issues, overpopulation, and budget crisis might cause a push back - but in general the folks who moved South (and West) like it there. I winter in Florida myself and if it weren't for the grand kids might consider a permanent move.

However, there is one related silver lining vis-a-vis football and it is one of the reasons I have some confidence in our chances with Texas. That is the myth of the PAC 10 TV market.

Folks in California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona have real lives. They hike, and bike and surf and do all kinds of other fun stuff - even on Saturday afternoons in the fall.

With the target PAC 10 Texas will play almost all of their games in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and Colorado. The chances that folks in San Francisco or LA are going to sit down to watch Texas play Oklahoma St just because they are now PAC 10 teams are pretty slim. And if they don't watch where is the extra revenue that makes it worthwhile for Texas to do a 16 way split? What will drive this hypothetical PAC-10 TV Network?

In the Midwest we circle the last Saturday in August and make sure all of our yearly chores are done. We sit down in our recliners and stare straight ahead waiting for some football. And those marginal fans who rake the leaves during Purdue-Minnie are going to let them pile up during Texas-Purdue and Nebraska-Minnie.



For the record, I intend to respond to this.

I just have to wait til my wife goes to bed.

I see your point on the demographics, mostly I think that moving depends on business and job-markets. Obviously, many companies are based out of the Sun Belt and I anticipate that growing, but who knows what incentives the Mid-West may provide in the near or even long-term future...

I also completely agree on the West Coast antipathy for the football schedule. There is A LOT to do on the weekends in California that don't involve football. It could be the case that the Pac-10 commish has already anticipated that, or it could be that, as long as they are buying the cable package to his football network, then he doesn't care. It's certainly a problem that they need to address and a problem that isn't found in most of the rest of the country.