Cracks in the B1G?

[Al_4_State]

They didn't. But after it became clear that poaching schools from other conferences was an accepted thing it was inevitable for 'adapt-or-die' to become the MO for everyone else.

No it wasn’t.

Jim Delaney didn’t need to do ****, but he did anyway. The Big 10 and SEC were always going to be safe due to their premiere brands.

They were predatory because they could be. It was nothing more than greed, and now it’s forced the rest of the sport into a defensive posture.

 

[JM4CY]

Lol, whatever you say.

Good luck against Arizona. I know the rivalry and hatred runs deep in that regional brawl.

Lol aren't you guys playing in New Jersey?

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Nah. There weren't any roots-regional rivalries with the additions of WVU or UCF when they were added.

If the Big 12 could've added any of those blueblood brands like USC, Oregon, or even non-bluebloods UCLA and Washington, it would have, without any regard for regional rivalries with existing members.

West Virginia was added when the Big East collapsed and the addition of Cincy did give them a regional rival. They have played 21 times since 1969, is 4 hours away, and once were in the same conference. UCF is an outlier, as I already acknowledged.

Your second paragraph is a total strawman and not what the author is arguing in her piece or the passage you quoted.

 

[Gonzo]

Lol aren't you guys playing in New Jersey?

Yeah, we are. I'm not the one trying to claim the B1G is made up entirely of regional rivals. Check the article.

 

[Gonzo]

West Virginia was added when the Big East collapsed and the addition of Cincy did give them a regional rival. They have played 21 times since 1969, is 4 hours away, and once were in the same conference. UCF is an outlier, as I already acknowledged.

Your second paragraph is a total strawman and not what the author is arguing in her piece or the passage you quoted.

Cincy wasn't added until 10+ years after WVU.

 

[Statefan10]

Lol, whatever you say.

Good luck against Arizona. I know the rivalry and hatred runs deep in that regional brawl.

You play Rutgers in three days……….

 

[Gonzo]

You play Rutgers in three days……….

Scroll up.

 

[Statefan10]

Scroll up.

Gotcha.

 

[Gonzo]

West Virginia was added when the Big East collapsed and the addition of Cincy did give them a regional rival. They have played 21 times since 1969, is 4 hours away, and once were in the same conference. UCF is an outlier, as I already acknowledged.

Your second paragraph is a total strawman and not what the author is arguing in her piece or the passage you quoted.

If playing 21 times in 55 years makes you a rival, the B1G has way more than I listed.

 

[AuH2O]

This. Raiding another conference and poaching its member schools was an unprecedented move. The B1G had never done it. The SEC had never done it (I don't count Arkansas because the SWC was already on the verge of collapse). The ACC started all of this in the early 2000s.

Yes, they took a not so great power conference and took its two big dogs in football. It wasn't going to be a great league, but it was probably 5th out of 6, ahead of the ACC in football for the foreseeable future.

The poaching of Nebraska and A&M took it to another level for sure and accelerated this greatly. It took even bigger brands from a more stable conference. But the ACC poaching of Miami and VT absolutely happened first and was unprecedented as a move that took the top two brands and gave a power conference the death sentence. The Big East would've survived. It's problem was that the schools knew they were going to never be better than the 5th or 6th power conference, and the ACC, though not good in football at the time had a higher ceiling and the potential to at least compete with the rest.

 

[HFCS]

West Virginia was added when the Big East collapsed and the addition of Cincy did give them a regional rival. They have played 21 times since 1969, is 4 hours away, and once were in the same conference. UCF is an outlier, as I already acknowledged.

Your second paragraph is a total strawman and not what the author is arguing in her piece or the passage you quoted.

The SEC is the only major conference with a cohesive footprint. Big Ten expansion forced that.

 

[CascadeClone]

There's so many games that are played and this is such a small percentage. Also, to include a chunk of those games as "tradition" or whatever is pretty hilarious. No one gives a crap about some of those matchups.

Rivalry games are a big part of college football, but a small part of the schedule.

ISU has what, 2? Iowa has probably 3. I doubt anyone has more than 2-3 true historic rivalry games. Exception to that is probably Notre Dame.

The rest aren't necessarily junk games, but regionality and conference size matters and we've lost that. What's better? ISU vs Arizona 3 years out of 5, or ISU vs Minnesota every year? Which is more likely to turn into something that is appointment TV?

 

[AuH2O]

ESPN had one of their shows on the Big East and how strong they were at bb, and how it was a mistake to bring in the more football playing schools when they expanded. It shifted everything away from their bread and butter which was mbb. They also were talks to bring in Penn State, but the bb schools thought that would push them more to a football direction. The thought according to the program that by bringing in the football schools, they could isolate the ACC and surpass them as a conference in both football and bb. It backfired when the new schools they brought in jumped to the ACC because they did not like playing the smaller bb schools in the NE. The Big East had become the premier mbb league with Georgetown, Villanova and others winning titles, one year they had 3 of the final 4 teams in the final four. As strong as Duke and N. Carolina and even Maryland were they could not compete with what the Big East was throwing there top to bottom in conference play in bb.

Talking heads saying this at the time from a pure basketball perspective and watering down the basketball a bit by bringing in football schools doesn't really mean anything. It was a weird league during the 90s for sure with a mix of football only, basketball only and a handful of full members with both sports.

But those schools were brought in 20 years before the ACC took its big brands. It was not a great league, but it was certainly not on the verge of collapse.

Agree that there is something to be said for the old and rebooted Big East as a basketball only league. It will be interesting to see how well they can compete in the future. Now that schools pay players, the big media dollars from football are going to matter in basketball too. There can be some individual schools in the Big East, ACC, and Big 12 that can bring in enough NIL to compete, but these leagues as a whole are probably going to start losing depth as a bunch of SEC and Big 10 teams can pay for more talent.

 

[flycy]

They didn't. But after it became clear that poaching schools from other conferences was an accepted thing it was inevitable for 'adapt-or-die' to become the MO for everyone else.

PAC 12 was actively trying to poach the BIG 12, how'd that end up for them? I'll guarantee you the fans and conference as a whole was quite confident they would come out on top. Conference of (ancient) champions and all.

 

[State2015]

Nothing says deep-rooted midwestern football integrity like Rutgers @ UCLA in front of 5,000 people at 11pm EST on peacock

 

[Statefan10]

Nothing says deep-rooted midwestern football integrity like Rutgers @ UCLA in front of 5,000 people at 11pm EST on peacock

Hell, they put Iowa’s game against a now top-20 team next week on Peacock.

 

[madguy30]

Rivalry games are a big part of college football, but a small part of the schedule.

ISU has what, 2? Iowa has probably 3. I doubt anyone has more than 2-3 true historic rivalry games. Exception to that is probably Notre Dame.

The rest aren't necessarily junk games, but regionality and conference size matters and we've lost that. What's better? ISU vs Arizona 3 years out of 5, or ISU vs Minnesota every year? Which is more likely to turn into something that is appointment TV?

Another vote for a perfect world with true regional conferences formed and the midwest one is basically the Big 12 North and B1G West Schools. Maybe drop the Indiana schools and like Colorado.

There's no 'headliners' in there (maybe Nebraska but they still haven't been GOOD for over two decades) but would be fun as hell from a fans/yearly intensity viewpoint.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

Cincy wasn't added until 10+ years after WVU.

I’m not sure what you’re arguing about anymore (at least with me). You cited the passage from the article and said it was ridiculous, while I said it was hyperbolic but relatively true.

That’s the growing divide between the Big Ten and the Big 12. One is chasing media markets and television ratings, expanding coast to coast in search of brand value. The other is holding tight to its roots-regional rivalries, local pride, and the kind of fan loyalty that doesn’t need a playoff bid to show up and show out.

By virtue of necessity (so you don’t bring up the weak argument “well the B12 would have done it!”) B12 has expanded with teams and fan bases that are generally smaller but passionate and, with exceptions, do have some regionality to it (I gave you several examples of this). The B10 has expanded for TV markets and media dollars and is more corporate with little regard to fan passion or regionality.

As a result the B12 in its entirety has better gameday atmospheres than the B10 (not absolutely but in relativity). She used the ISU atmosphere versus the Northwestern atmosphere as an apples to apples comparison (although I’ll grant ISU was playing an in-state rival). Both were placed on Fox’s prime slot with a national pregame show lead-in. Northwestern’s atmosphere was corporate and born out of realignment while ISU’s was more passionate and grassroots. That’s what she was saying.

 

[Statefan10]

I’m not sure what you’re arguing about anymore (at least with me). You cited the passage from the article and said it was ridiculous, while I said it was hyperbolic but relatively true.

That’s the growing divide between the Big Ten and the Big 12. One is chasing media markets and television ratings, expanding coast to coast in search of brand value. The other is holding tight to its roots-regional rivalries, local pride, and the kind of fan loyalty that doesn’t need a playoff bid to show up and show out.

By virtue of necessity (so you don’t bring up the weak argument “well the B12 would have done it!”) B12 has expanded with teams and fan bases that are generally smaller but passionate and, with exceptions, do have some regionality to it (I gave you several examples of this). The B10 has expanded for TV markets and media dollars and is more corporate with little regard to fan passion or regionality.

As a result the B12 in its entirety has better gameday atmospheres than the B10 (not absolutely but in relativity). She used the ISU atmosphere versus the Northwestern atmosphere as an apples to apples comparison (although I’ll grant ISU was playing an in-state rival). Both were placed on Fox’s prime slot with a national pregame show lead-in. Northwestern’s atmosphere was corporate and born out of realignment while ISU’s was more passionate and grassroots. That’s what she was saying.

Doesn’t help the Big 10 that there are some schools that either don’t care much about college football. They either suck, lack passion, or both.

 

[SolterraCyclone]

If playing 21 times in 55 years makes you a rival, the B1G has way more than I listed.

With who, outside of the conference? I’m not saying Cincy vs West Virginia is a huge rivalry or really even a rivalry. But it is a matchup with a history and regionality to it. What history does UCLA or Oregon or Rutgers have with any of the original Big 10 teams.