Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[jwinslow]

Columbus, Detroit, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Chicago all fly to Austin via Southwest.

Delta flies to PSU. I don't know about Iowa City.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

The Big Ten Expansion Index: A Different Shade of Orange ? FRANK THE TANK?S SLANT

hey, here is a very good summary of the situation. particularly interesting is the explanation of his points system and the weighting of the various factors.

also, for the skeptics here, you need to read why he says: 'the Longhorns are a whole lot more open to it than what the public seems to realize.'

this thing may happen.

Sounds like Frank the Tank just distilled (plagiarized?) two years of conversation in this thread into a blog pos.

Overall, it was very well done. Nailed the academic issue as it relates to Cincy, Louisville et al, the issue of how well the domers could ever play with others, Pitt's albatross of being in an existing Big Ten state. I was also intrigued by the domer alum's comment regarding Rome's hypothetical meddling into CIC research priorities, as most (if not all) CIC universities are engaged in some forms of stem cell research.

Personally, I think the academic issue should weigh equal to the football points and should be two staged (0 points, 15 points, 30 points) with a school getting 15 points each for AAU membership and ranking higher than in the USN&WR report rankings than the current lowest Big Ten schools (71). That would give ND, Nebraska and Mizzou 15 points instead of the full allotment. Everyone else would be at 0 or 30.

The only thing that I think he gets completely wrong is Nebraska. I've always thought they were a huge longshot. glenn's discussion of what Texas had to deal with when the B12 was formed tells me that they are a completely wrong fit from an academic/cultural angle with the Big Ten--from their perspective as well as our. I'd drop them between Pitt/Rutgers and Big East pretenders (Cincy/wvu/the ville).

 

[Jagdaddy]

At some point I'm going to add, I hope, serious value to this discussion with a new thread starter that looks at the entire state of college football and fixes just about everything. I'll explain why I like 12 team conferences for that. For now, I'll just say this:

1. I would love to see Texas in the Big 10: What a great combination of academics, athletics, and geographical expansion for the conference. I could see other Big ten teams getting Texas recruits in lots of sports if that happened. I have never viewed UT as a serious possibility before reading Glenn's posts, but if they have even cautious interest, the Big 10 should go after them hard.

2. I wonder if fans of UT's proud baseball program have enough clout to be a a stumbling block? Unfortunately, Northern baseball just can't quite hang these days.

3. I do generally hate the idea of raiding another conference for a team, but the Big 12 isn't old and if they really have been screwing over UT, then I don't feel so bad. Also, long-time SWC member TCU would likely be happy to upgrade its affiliation and fill in the gap in the Big 12 South.

Much more to come . . .

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

At some point I'm going to add, I hope, serious value to this discussion with a new thread starter that looks at the entire state of college football and fixes just about everything. I'll explain why I like 12 team conferences for that. For now, I'll just say this:

2. I wonder if fans of UT's proud baseball program have enough clout to be a a stumbling block? Unfortunately, Northern baseball just can't quite hang these days.

.

I think it's a consideration but not a stumbling block. What's interesting is to look at it from a different angle. B10 schools have been lobbying unsuccessfully for years to push the NCAA baseball season back into Summer semester. Could Texas joining that effort, instead of opposing it, be the catalyst to get the change implemented and get B10 schools on an equal footing?

 

[JCOSU86]

I think it's a consideration but not a stumbling block. What's interesting is to look at it from a different angle. B10 schools have been lobbying unsuccessfully for years to push the NCAA baseball season back into Summer semester. Could Texas joining that effort, instead of opposing it, be the catalyst to get the change implemented and get B10 schools on an equal footing?

From a Buckeye Baseball fan, I say "why not?" but in Texas it gets awfully hot in the summer. Spring is perfect for them.

 

[kn1f3party]

Travel expenses, especially for non-revenue sports, will be a consideration. But I think we exhausted that: it would not be an issue for Texas the same way it is not an issue for Notre Dame to criss-cross the country. The more I think about this the more inviting anyone other than Texas seems like a mistake to me. I could see a quid pro quo where we have to bring along teams like A&M and/or Mizzou to sort of force the Big 12 collapse and raise the temperature a little for Texas.

Maybe that is what they have been thinking all along with the talk of expanding beyond 12. Frank hits a lot of points right on the nose though--the Big Ten probably won't seriously consider teams that A: don't provide new markets and B: do not meet the current academic profile of the Big Ten. That virtually eliminates most of the "favorites" being reported right now.

 

[matcar]

Perfectly stated why Texas is a prototypical Big Ten University.

Agreed. Texas is one of the few universities out there that actually improves the Big Ten is almost all categories. I'm sure you can ORD, but I cannot think of another university that can say this.

 

[BuckTwenty]

I find the talk about the ramifications on Texas's football recruiting interesting. I honestly don't think a potential change in conferences would really hinder their recruiting in-state.

1) I can't think of a single player that the Big Ten has signed from a Texas high school that had an offer from Texas. That may change if Texas were to join the Big Ten, but I have a hard time believing that Texas won't get who it wants from in-state, especially concerning the upper echeleon players. I don't think there's much doubt the Big Ten schools would recruit Texas a bit harder than they do currently if Texas were to join, but they'd continue to be more of the less hearalded/late bloomer variety players (ex-Iowa QB Drew Tate immediately comes to mind) that Texas doesn't offer that end up signing with the other Big Ten schools.

2) I won't be surprised if UT's in-state recruiting actually gets BETTER if they leave the Big 12, because they won't be vying with Oklahoma (and others) anymore in-conference, and especially if a UT/OU rivalry isn't continued yearly in football. Oklahoma will always recruit Texas hard, but I bet UT will be able to keep more of "the cream of the crop" from in-state if they were to join the B10 than they do right now.

3A) Even if they're forced to recruit a little more nationally and have to look out-of-state (which I honestly don't see happening), they'll be a major player for every guy they offer (Jordan Hicks comes to mind, though he might not be a perfect example of an out-of-state recruit since he lived in Texas for a time). UT should never have a hard time recruiting out-of-state, though it might be a little change of pace for the coaches if they had to do that that might take time getting used to.

3B) Texas will get a lot more looks/interest from high school players in the Big Ten states. Whether or not they had to recruit more nationally, I'm sure they'd factor into decisions with a lot of guys in the midwest, and not just the unhearalded recruits either (heck, they factored into Terelle Pryor's decision a few years ago despite being in the Big 12 AND not needing out-of-state recruits!).

Correct me if you think I'm off-kilter in my mindset there, glenn!

 

[glenn]

lots of good observations. this is a good board. i spend a fair amount of time checking out the sooners, the ags, and others of interest, and you can really tell a difference when you check up on a legitimate biggie.

jwinslow, i see what you mean. i'm going to guess that nothing official forms until something notable happens. regarding ooc, i'm guessing that one of ou/ag goes away. my suspicion is ou since a&m is in-state. i think regarding difficulty of ooc opponents, i'm betting that will is running the show by then, and i haven't a clue as to his preference. if i had to guess i'd say he would want a mix. i personally believe you guys had a great deal to do with our 2005 title. playing you guys early galvanized that team in a way that would never have happened had we not played you. an equal-strength in-conference opponent would not have been the same since we would have familiarity with the regular opponent and wouldn't have to grow quite the same way during the game. i'm hoping will thinks that way.

i have read that two middleweights begged off our schedule this season. first utah and then arkansas to play the ags in jonestown, i mean, jerryworld. story is we were scratching just to fill the schedule.

good observation, piney. both sides know this is not the time to talk about that. we fans, though, keep on chattering, and there is a good deal of talk about it.

i agree, 86. i think we may be shocked to see how much money they are talking about once this thing gets rolling.

agree with everything you said, ord. well stated. i'm glad you mentioned the potential problem with notre dame getting involved in the cic. that was an angle i had not considered. i wonder if that is part of why they have never considered joining any conference.

jagdaddy, it's one thing to snare some guy's happy wife, and another entirely to take in an abuse victim who seems worth it.

absolutely agree, knife and matcar. dead right on, both of you. you guys are seeing exactly what i am seeing.

one thing i need to say. there is a lot of insider chatter, some of it actually meaningful, among the fan intelligentsia at every school, and i am not privy to the first whisper among the texas group. i'm talking from a curious bystander viewpoint. i'm sure that is important. i'm here because i didn't see anyone else. if somebody more connected shows up, i'll hang up and listen.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Should we take Texas, I definitely see the Pac 10 taking Colorado (paired with either CSU or Utah), that leaves the Big 12 looking for 2 schools (assuming aggie doesn't get an offer from the SEC)

I think you'd see a Big 12 picking up TCU and Utah/BYU and undoing the academic requirements that Texas put into place. You'd have a B12 dominated by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Aggie: the illiterates, the crooks and the crazies.

Then, you'd see the MWC taking Houston and the best of the WAC (Boise, Fresno and Nevada) to form a 12 team auto-bid conference.

 

[glenn]

I find the talk about the ramifications on Texas's football recruiting interesting. I honestly don't think a potential change in conferences would really hinder their recruiting in-state.

1) I can't think of a single player that the Big Ten has signed from a Texas high school that had an offer from Texas. That may change if Texas were to join the Big Ten, but I have a hard time believing that Texas won't get who it wants from in-state, especially concerning the upper echeleon players. I don't think there's much doubt the Big Ten schools would recruit Texas a bit harder than they do currently if Texas were to join, but they'd continue to be more of the less hearalded/late bloomer variety players (ex-Iowa QB Drew Tate immediately comes to mind) that Texas doesn't offer that end up signing with the other Big Ten schools.

2) I won't be surprised if UT's in-state recruiting actually gets BETTER if they leave the Big 12, because they won't be vying with Oklahoma (and others) anymore in-conference, and especially if a UT/OU rivalry isn't continued yearly in football. Oklahoma will always recruit Texas hard, but I bet UT will be able to keep more of "the cream of the crop" from in-state if they were to join the B10 than they do right now.

3A) Even if they're forced to recruit a little more nationally and have to look out-of-state (which I honestly don't see happening), they'll be a major player for every guy they offer (Jordan Hicks comes to mind, though he might not be a perfect example of an out-of-state recruit since he lived in Texas for a time). UT should never have a hard time recruiting out-of-state, though it might be a little change of pace for the coaches if they had to do that that might take time getting used to.

3B) Texas will get a lot more looks/interest from high school players in the Big Ten states. Whether or not they had to recruit more nationally, I'm sure they'd factor into decisions with a lot of guys in the midwest, and not just the unhearalded recruits either (heck, they factored into Terelle Pryor's decision a few years ago despite being in the Big 12 AND not needing out-of-state recruits!).

Correct me if you think I'm off-kilter in my mindset there, glenn!

no, i certainly don't think you are off-base, twenty. certainly the past few years mack has gotten most of who he wanted in texas. texas' success has a lot to do with that, of course, but mack is amazing. i don't think anybody expects will to be like mack in many ways, sometimes to the good and sometimes to the bad. i do like that will is sort of interning. hope he is a good learner, and hope mack sticks around in some sort of emeritus role.

nobody knows what to expect, but if the ags go to the sec, we can expect sec schools that have traditionally not wasted much resource on texas to change their ways. michigan, particularly, has worked texas hard for years, pretty much regardless of who is coaching there. if texas goes to the big ten, i bet virtually all the big ten teams will perk up their presence in this state. there are so many really good high school programs in texas that mack/will can get a fine class and numerous big ten and sec schools will get key people, too. think about this: the heisman and backup heisman qbs last year were three-star recruits. not both from texas, but unheralded recruits. think about that.

right now, other than a super bigtime biggie superstar recruit every year that usually doesn't pan out, ou is pretty much shut down on the kids the two schools really want (as opposed to the mega-star kids that aren't all that) in texas. that's why you see all this california stuff ou is bringing in. that said, though, i think you are right that shutting down tx/ou will hurt ou and help texas. we didn't even miss the longtime rivalry with the piggies of arkansas, and we won't miss the sooners.

 

[glenn]

Should we take Texas, I definitely see the Pac 10 taking Colorado (paired with either CSU or Utah), that leaves the Big 12 looking for 2 schools (assuming aggie doesn't get an offer from the SEC)

I think you'd see a Big 12 picking up TCU and Utah/BYU and undoing the academic requirements that Texas put into place. You'd have a B12 dominated by Nebraska, Oklahoma and Aggie: the illiterates, the crooks and the crazies.

Then, you'd see the MWC taking Houston and the best of the WAC (Boise, Fresno and Nevada) to form a 12 team auto-bid conference.

'illiterates, the crooks and the crazies'. i like that. dead right on, too.

i agree that the beg 12 will go back to being the big 8, stylistically. i don't know how the sec could bring in a&m, given that they already have 12, but i bet they give it a try. could be that arkie is sick of sucking hind tit and would swap with the ags. then the ags could see first-hand how the oinkers have managed to exist.

gotta go. see you buggers later.

 

[BuckTwenty]

no, i certainly don't think you are off-base, twenty. certainly the past few years mack has gotten most of who he wanted in texas. texas' success has a lot to do with that, of course, but mack is amazing. i don't think anybody expects will to be like mack in many ways, sometimes to the good and sometimes to the bad. i do like that will is sort of interning. hope he is a good learner, and hope mack sticks around in some sort of emeritus role.

nobody knows what to expect, but if the ags go to the sec, we can expect sec schools that have traditionally not wasted much resource on texas to change their ways. michigan, particularly, has worked texas hard for years, pretty much regardless of who is coaching there. if texas goes to the big ten, i bet virtually all the big ten teams will perk up their presence in this state. there are so many really good high school programs in texas that mack/will can get a fine class and numerous big ten and sec schools will get key people, too. think about this: the heisman and backup heisman qbs last year were three-star recruits. not both from texas, but unheralded recruits. think about that.

right now, other than a super bigtime biggie superstar recruit every year that usually doesn't pan out, ou is pretty much shut down on the kids the two schools really want (as opposed to the mega-star kids that aren't all that) in texas. that's why you see all this california stuff ou is bringing in. that said, though, i think you are right that shutting down tx/ou will hurt ou and help texas. we didn't even miss the longtime rivalry with the piggies of arkansas, and we won't miss the sooners.

Good stuff, glenn. Love your insight man.

Few teams know this (above, bolded) more than Ohio State. Some of the best players in recent memory for the Bucks were some of the unhearlded 3*, 2*, & 1* variety recruits. LBs James Laurinaitis (3*) and AJ Hawk (3*), C Nick Mangold (1*-2*), CBs Malcolm Jenkins (3*) & Chris Gamble (2*-3*), WRs Santonio Holmes (3*) & Brian Robiskie (3*) are a few of the bigger names you might know.

 

[CleveBucks]

Glenn, how would the Texas legislature view a potential UT to the Big Ten move? Would they insist on taking aTm and possibly others with them? That to me could be the biggest stumbling block of all. No telling what idiot politicians are capable of.

 

[glenn]

hey, thanks, twenty.

yes, i remember when hawk won the butkis, and he and our thorpe winner that year had both been 3-star recruits.

i think the really good coaches take the lists pretty much with a grain of salt. i remember one, some years ago, saying that if you go by recruiting lists that you won't be employed very long. i understand that played out at miami a few years ago. i don't remember the coach's name but he apparently made his target list off one of the site lists--or maybe some sort of compilation of the lists. he is no more.

actually, they may consider the lists in an unexpected way. i got to thinking one time what if i were a coach somewhere, and i had been following a number of youngsters for several years, and now they were seniors.

after hours and hours watching them on film over a number years and attending a few games . . . after talking with their coaches and guys who had coached against them, and kids who had played with them . . . after all that i saw two of those kids as virtual equals. and i only have room for one of them.

the lists come out and one of the two is accorded 5 stars and the other gets 3. i know a lot about them and if i was giving out stars, i'd consider them both good, solid 4-star players. the 5-star kid is overrated and is wined and dined and hounded at every step. the 3-star kid goes about his business and looks forward to when he can prove the experts wrong.

which kid is likely to be more coachable? which kid is more likely to be patient and learn the game at this level before he sees the field? remember, i know a lot more about these kids than the recruiting services have time to learn about them, and i see them as equals except what the recruiting bozos did to them.

which kid do i want?