There are your keys. As pointed out above, NU gets them to KU, OU, UT. MD gets them down the east coast to FL.
Last edited:
***OFFICIAL BIG 12 EXPANSION THREAD 2.0***
- Thread starter Boxerdaddy
- Start date
- Status
There are your keys. As pointed out above, NU gets them to KU, OU, UT. MD gets them down the east coast to FL.
You are going to tell me that Mizzou got passed over by the B1G because of academics? Mizzou is an AAU school, and Nebraska was on the way out of the AAU at the time they were added. That was not a total surprise to anyone. If Mizzou was left out for academics, Nebby wouldn't be in the B1G today.
The map is correct. It depicts current membership in the Big 10. In 2014 it will be wrong.
I think he's saying that Mizzou, WVU, and L'ville would have been better "gets" due to geography, but the only one that the Big Ten was even remotely interested in was Mizzou, due to their higher academic standing.
You're forgetting that in order to get to 20, the Big 10 would have to add 6 teams.
If their goal is to get to 20 so that the schedules are more manageable plus a conference championship game, is that really much different than what the Big 12 is right now if the Big 12 were to just add a conference championship game? I don't really see what the advantage would be with 20 teams, other than more money. I also don't how 20 teams would get them more money unless it destroyed another conference in the process, which seems unlikely. Lastly, wouldn't a 20 team conference eventually break up into two, 10-team conferences anyway taking everyone back to square one?
Four five-team divisions, play every team in your division every year, and rotate the other divisions into your schedule every third year. There's eight conference games. The ninth conference game is to see who plays in the conference championship game. The winners of Division A and B play each other for one CCG berth, the winners of Division C and D play each other for the other CCG berth. The remaining teams all play similar games (A2 v. B2, C2 v. D2) etc.
Or you could simplify it and just have two divisions, each with a round robin. Each division winner gets a berth in the CCG. I don't see the point of a conference where half of the teams never play each other though.
This leaves KU, MU, UT, UVA, UNC, & GT to get to 20. UT won't go, which puts you back to 19. They'll add Colorado to get to 20.
That's the sticking point I feel. I know here on tobacco road, most people wish they could go back to when the ACC was just 8 teams. Most Iowa State and Nebraska fans I know wish they could go back to the days of the old Big 8. Ten teams definitely seems like it will help form long term rivalries, just like Malchow was saying in his blog a few weeks or months ago. More teams brings more money, but with consequences. Ten seems like a perfect balance for the Big 12 though, despite the contradictory name.
Tinfoil hat #1...since it kind of slow today...
The Big Ten cruises down the midwest raiding the Big 12. They grab KU, OU, UT. Next they grab Colorado, Arizona, USC, UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, and Washington to fulfill their geographically contiguous requirement. The SEC gobbles up FSU, Miami, Clemson, UNC, NC State, Virginia, and VT. There you have your play-for-pay league, or more likely, a new league that breaks away from the NCAA.
Tinfoil hat #2...
Why did the Big Ten take NU over MU? Both would serve the geographic link to marching down to Texas, and MU was the better academic school. Perhaps it was decided by certain colluding partners that the Big Ten would get NU, and the SEC would get MU. Probably an easier sell all around to get NU into the Big Ten than NU into the SEC.
Last edited:
No conference with their own network will be taking 2 new teams from the same state.
If the ultimate goal is to form a new division or break away from the NCAA, that doesn't matter. At that point, the TV arrangements are going to be completely redone.
A la carte isn't happening. Or at least not the way everyone thinks.
And "a la carte" won't destroy the Big 10 revenue. It's going to destroy everyone's revenue (read: ESPN), so it's a wash anyway.
And "a la carte" won't destroy the Big 10 revenue. It's going to destroy everyone's revenue (read: ESPN), so it's a wash anyway.
Last edited:
I've been hoping a la carte would happen, at least on the web, for along time, but it looks rather dead in the water at this point. ESPN drove the dagger when they moved most everything anybody would want to watch to WatchESPN and tied it to a cable TV subscription, and there was really no meaningful negative reaction to the move. There's just no monetary incentive for either the carriers or content providers to do it. The consumers certainly don't seem organized enough to force a la carte by dropping cable/satellite subscriptions.
Last edited:
- Status
