Cracks in the B1G?

[CascadeClone]

'04 and '05 were the bad seasons for the Big 12 North and somehow that carried over to a narrative that it was always terrible.

I did the research a year or two ago and posted the numbers somewhere, but the Big12 North was by FAR superior to the South for the first 5 years of the Big12.

Colorado was good, KSU was peak vampire, and Nubs was winning championships in 94, 95 and 97 (Big12 started in 96). OU and Texas averaged 6 wins per year the first 4 years of the Big12. TAMU was the force down there averaging 8+ wins.

The next ~5 years Texas and OU got REAL good w Mack Brown & Bobby Stoops. Meanwhile CU and NU started sliding but were still OK. KSU had a couple 11 win seasons, but then slid too.

The last ~5 years CU went into the toilet and KSU tried the Ron Prince experiment. NU was peak Pellini winning ~10 games a year. Brown & Stoops were still rocking it.

So everyone remembers how it ended, and of course ESECPN pushed the UT/OU narrative a ton as well.

 

[Kinch]

Interesting take on the challenge in Austin.

With Arch Manning, Texas and Steve Sarkisian officially have a problem

Texas has a quarterback problem with Arch Manning. That’s not exaggeration. Steve Sarkisian says it 'could be worse.' Yikes. What an endorsement.

www.usatoday.com

 

[CascadeClone]

They still don't have the 'name'.

Texas was flat bad for most of the 2010s and early 2020s but still got to head to the bank (SEC).

Heck Nebraska got to move despite not being nationally relevant for a decade.

They were still pretty relevant.

Here are their wins by season for 10 years before jumping ship. Yes they were pretty average in the middle there (Callahan), but pretty strong thru it all. Include THREE national titles (debatable 97 I suppose) in the decade BEFORE what is below - that makes you relevant for a while.

No they weren't as good in the 00s as the 90s, but they still averaged 8+ in their "down" decade.

2010 10
2009 10
2008 9
2007 5
2006 9
2005 8
2004 5
2003 10
2002 7
2001 11

 

[Kinch]

I did the research a year or two ago and posted the numbers somewhere, but the Big12 North was by FAR superior to the South for the first 5 years of the Big12.

Colorado was good, KSU was peak vampire, and Nubs was winning championships in 94, 95 and 97 (Big12 started in 96). OU and Texas averaged 6 wins per year the first 4 years of the Big12. TAMU was the force down there averaging 8+ wins.

The next ~5 years Texas and OU got REAL good w Mack Brown & Bobby Stoops. Meanwhile CU and NU started sliding but were still OK. KSU had a couple 11 win seasons, but then slid too.

The last ~5 years CU went into the toilet and KSU tried the Ron Prince experiment. NU was peak Pellini winning ~10 games a year. Brown & Stoops were still rocking it.

So everyone remembers how it ended, and of course ESECPN pushed the UT/OU narrative a ton as well.

I am convinced if Vince Young doesn’t go to Texas, the Big 12 is still intact as it was. That Natty was not good for the Big 12.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

The question was are you positive Michigan favors Big 10 over money.

That’s actually not the question, that’s you rephrasing things a million different ways hoping for a got ya moment that isn’t going to happen.

A super league of 20 teams isn’t happening, Michigan isn’t leaving for the SEC, they also won’t be supporting OSU on unequal review sharing in any meaningful way.

I do see playoff teams getting a bigger cut of the playoff amount which is completely fair and allows for the results on the field to matter.

 

[madguy30]

They were still pretty relevant.

Here are their wins by season for 10 years before jumping ship. Yes they were pretty average in the middle there (Callahan), but pretty strong thru it all. Include THREE national titles (debatable 97 I suppose) in the decade BEFORE what is below - that makes you relevant for a while.

No they weren't as good in the 00s as the 90s, but they still averaged 8+ in their "down" decade.

2010 10
2009 10
2008 9
2007 5
2006 9
2005 8
2004 5
2003 10
2002 7
2001 11

Talking more on being in the national title conversation.

After '01 it wasn't even close.

Not to mention they had things like KU hanging 70 on them.

 

[State2015]

It’s also a classic format on this thread to throw something completely off the current topic. Legit talking about unequal review sharing and then just get hit with a “so they won’t join a super league if x,y, and z happen?”. It’s just so out of left field for the comments up until that point.

It’s like people talking about the best pizza toppings and then someone comes in and goes “ugh anchovies are disgusting on a burger I would never want to eat that”. Umm ok, that’s fine and while yes we were talking about toppings but no one mentioned a burger anywhere…

A fan from a school ISU hasn’t played in a major sport in 40 years criticizing our message board ADHD is weirder than our ADHD

40 years is correct, 2000 didn’t happen

 

[Kinch]

That’s actually not the question, that’s you rephrasing things a million different ways hoping for a got ya moment that isn’t going to happen.

A super league of 20 teams isn’t happening, Michigan isn’t leaving for the SEC, they also won’t be supporting OSU on unequal review sharing in any meaningful way.

I do see playoff teams getting a bigger cut of the playoff amount which is completely fair and allows for the results on the field to matter.

Do you think they will apply that to non playoff bowl revenue and ncaa men’s basketball distribution?

 

[Kinch]

That’s actually not the question, that’s you rephrasing things a million different ways hoping for a got ya moment that isn’t going to happen.

A super league of 20 teams isn’t happening, Michigan isn’t leaving for the SEC, they also won’t be supporting OSU on unequal review sharing in any meaningful way.

I do see playoff teams getting a bigger cut of the playoff amount which is completely fair and allows for the results on the field to matter.

I don’t see a majority voting for that. Why would they?

 

[JUKEBOX]

I did the research a year or two ago and posted the numbers somewhere, but the Big12 North was by FAR superior to the South for the first 5 years of the Big12.

Colorado was good, KSU was peak vampire, and Nubs was winning championships in 94, 95 and 97 (Big12 started in 96). OU and Texas averaged 6 wins per year the first 4 years of the Big12. TAMU was the force down there averaging 8+ wins.

The next ~5 years Texas and OU got REAL good w Mack Brown & Bobby Stoops. Meanwhile CU and NU started sliding but were still OK. KSU had a couple 11 win seasons, but then slid too.

The last ~5 years CU went into the toilet and KSU tried the Ron Prince experiment. NU was peak Pellini winning ~10 games a year. Brown & Stoops were still rocking it.

So everyone remembers how it ended, and of course ESECPN pushed the UT/OU narrative a ton as well.

The spread and air raid offenses emerged in the Big 12 faster than everyone else around that ~'07-'11 timeframe. Even Missouri and Kansas were pretty legit back then (along with Texas Tech, Oklahoma State, etc.)

Before the whole ESPN + SEC propaganda campaign, I really believe the Big 12 was the strongest conference.

 

[Die4Cy]

I'll never understand why these Big Ten homers spend all their time here daily.

 

[Cyhig]

I'll never understand why these Big Ten homers spend all their time here daily.

Two reasons that I can think of

1) Trying to flex, even if their logic is flawed
2) Cyclone fans here have very good discussions on various topics on a free college sports site. CF is quite unique and other fan bases are just envious of this site.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Two reasons that I can think of

1) Trying to flex, even if their logic is flawed
2) Cyclone fans here have very good discussions on various topics on a free college sports site. CF is quite unique and other fan bases are just envious of this site.

Mostly #2 for me. No one really talks realignment like CF does which is what brought me over in the first place. The majority of fans are both very welcoming and also quite knowledgeable so it makes for good back and forth discussion.

The main Sparty page I used to follow got pretty much destroyed by sports nation and the version of MSU “CF” is an absolute cesspool that I avoid at all costs.

Mgoblog for my Michigan side has some of the best writing out there but on the forum side anything that causes any real argument gets shut down immediately. So it’s great for game posting and general news but a bad place for differing viewpoints on anything else but very specific team activities.

 

[1SEIACLONE]

That’s actually not the question, that’s you rephrasing things a million different ways hoping for a got ya moment that isn’t going to happen.

A super league of 20 teams isn’t happening, Michigan isn’t leaving for the SEC, they also won’t be supporting OSU on unequal review sharing in any meaningful way.

I do see playoff teams getting a bigger cut of the playoff amount which is completely fair and allows for the results on the field to matter.

A super league of 20 teams is never going to happen you would need at least twice that number to make it viable, if not more like 60. But unequal revenue sharing is coming to the B10, which is something you guys have been saying would never occur. How they frame it, playoff teams make more our whatever really does not matter, because once it starts, then its easy to take the next step which will be the teams that drive the conference money wagon, will get more than those that do not. So the Ohio States, Michigans will get a bigger slice of the pie than the MSU and EIU get. The last part is what scares the hell out of you guys, because a lot of the schools have committed large shares of money to projects and would be up a **** creek if that media money is not there down the road in the amount they believed would be.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Good News! The House Settlement is going great just like we all knew it would!!

Arkansas AD Hunter Yurachek frustrated with state of recruiting, suggests breaking rules might be needed

Confusion over NIL rules and the House Settlement could force schools to travel in a lane they don't want to be in, Yurachek said

www.cbssports.com

The money quote from that column:

But, more than that, it's a point that illustrates that the House Settlement was never going to work the way the people who believed in it said it would. After having non-collectively bargained rules for decades that put limits on what athletes could earn only to watch coaches break those rules every year, it's hilarious that anybody thought implementing new non-collectively bargained rules that put limits on what athletes can earn would lead to anything other than coaches attempting to break these rules just the same.

 

[Kinch]

A super league of 20 teams is never going to happen you would need at least twice that number to make it viable, if not more like 60. But unequal revenue sharing is coming to the B10, which is something you guys have been saying would never occur. How they frame it, playoff teams make more our whatever really does not matter, because once it starts, then its easy to take the next step which will be the teams that drive the conference money wagon, will get more than those that do not. So the Ohio States, Michigans will get a bigger slice of the pie than the MSU and EIU get. The last part is what scares the hell out of you guys, because a lot of the schools have committed large shares of money to projects and would be up a **** creek if that media money is not there down the road in the amount they believed would be.

Can you imagine the headline in the star tribune: “UM, which slapped a $300 athletic department fee on students, votes to give $5 million to Ohio State.”
Also if EIU votes for unequal sharing, you can kiss any chance the state would vote to give any extra money to the university (as if the chance was very much to begin with).

 

[1UNI2ISU]

Can you imagine the headline in the star tribune: “UM, which slapped a $300 athletic department fee on students, votes to give $5 million to Ohio State.”
Also if EIU votes for unequal sharing, you can kiss any chance the state would vote to give any extra money to the university (as if the chance was very much to begin with).

That's just it.

Let's assume that Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon, Penn State and SC are 'Yes' votes on unequal sharing. It takes 11 votes in the room to get it done (super majority). There aren't another 6 votes out there.

 

[Kinch]

That's just it.

Let's assume that Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon, Penn State and SC are 'Yes' votes on unequal sharing. It takes 11 votes in the room to get it done (super majority). There aren't another 6 votes out there.

So then the million dollar question, what do those four schools do. They just drop it? Maybe. Maybe not. The big thing I’ll be watching for is the language Ohio State uses to convince EIU why it should vote for it.

 

[1UNI2ISU]

So then the million dollar question, what do those four schools do. They just drop it? Maybe. Maybe not. The big thing I’ll be watching for is the language Ohio State uses to convince EIU why it should vote for it.

Iowa is honestly in that mid-tier that they would need to get to switch. Probably looking at needing six of Nebraska, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Iowa, Indiana, UCLA and Washington.

I would assume that Purdue, Rutgers, Maryland, Minnesota, Illinois and Northwestern are hard 'No' votes

 

[Cyclonsin]

Good News! The House Settlement is going great just like we all knew it would!!

Arkansas AD Hunter Yurachek frustrated with state of recruiting, suggests breaking rules might be needed

Confusion over NIL rules and the House Settlement could force schools to travel in a lane they don't want to be in, Yurachek said

www.cbssports.com

The money quote from that column:

The most incredibly predictable outcome in all of realignment. That quote you cherry picked is exactly what anyone capable of even a skosh of critical thinking has been saying since it was proposed.