You see no benefit by adding 30 million people to the BTN footprint? Creating the premier football conference?
OU to Big Ten?
- Thread starter TheBoris
- Start date
Texas isn't going to the SEC even if they wanted to....
https://www.outkickthecoverage.com/...-to-block-texas-from-ever-joining-sec-072915/
I'm with Wolegib. Add Iowa State and Notre Dame. Getting real tired of money grabs turning conferences into cancerous tumors that expand and destroy college football. If the B1G feels like they need to be a super conference of 16 teams my choices would be ISU and ND.
I'll repeat. I see no benefit to Purdue by adding OK and Texas. I see a lot of benefit for the BIG 10 Network.. Even if Purdue receives more revenue from the BIG 10 network, the likelihood they spend the additional revenue on football is low. Adding OK and Texas doesn't make us a super conference. All we need to do is win a few more bowl games. I.e. if Penn St had beaten USC, the BIG 10 would have gained more respect. If Michigan and Ohio St didn't lose regular season games before they met, they would be considered super teams. and maybe both would have been in the championship series. All the BIG 10 needs to do to gain super status is WIN. We don't need to add more teams and revenue. At some point in time, you reach a point of diminishing returns. Adding OK and Texas and revenue to the entire conference isn't going to improve Purdue football. it just makes everybody in the conference richer, and gives Purdue two more opponents it will never beat. there is more to college football than revenue and network ratings.
We are the smallest, most cash deprived AD in the conference. Yes, I worship money for our athletics. We need it. Iowa State can go to the MVC. They aren't coming into our conference.
It's irrelevant because the decisions to expand and who to add aren't going to be made based solely on Purdue's wants and wishes.
You sound far more confident of this than the author himself who said, "...has Texas A&M joined these other four SEC schools in their pact to oppose the addition of any schools in their states? My guess is yes."
I was a faculty member at A&M at the time that they left the B12 for the SEC and the Aggies made sure that the Horns wouldn't be following them before they joined the SEC. That Gentlemen's Agreement is real and A&M is in it.
Another issue, the academic snobs at Texas would never consider joining the scholastic riff-raff of the SEC.
Never going to be able to compete with Texas or Ok????? I guess Purdue has never had any good teams according to some.
Wow - Just because I don't want to make more money, I'm stupid? Just because I disagree with your viewpoint, I'm clueless. Ok, fine. have it your way ! Add OK and Texas and add USC and Alabama too. if it's all about money, why stop with just OK ? Why stop at just 16 teams ? why not go for a 20 team conference? No, wait, how about 24 ? Why use geographical boundaries ? The BIG "Easy" doesn't, why should the BIG 10?
I know this is hard to accept, but at some point in time, somebody has to stand up and say NO to $$$$ and yes to integrity. at some point in time, somebody has to say NO to the alumni pressuring the ADs what to do. At some point in time College presidents need to step up and act like college presidents. College sports should NOT be the #1 priority on a college campus.
So fine, go after your $$$$ and add OK rather than adding a university that matches the other standards the BIG 10 stands for.
The BIG 10 currently splits up its revenue equally among all its teams. The BIG 12 does not. What happens when we add teams like OK and Texas that believe the revenue should be distributed based on winning and colleges like Nebraska, OSU, Mich, UW, MSU and Penn St agree with them? Isn't that exactly why ND didn't join the BIG 10? Because, they didn't want to share their Bowl game revenue? Texas isn't going to join the BIG 10 if it has to share its winnings or cable network earnings. So what happens when the BIG 10 decides to make the power schools happy and decides to divide up the revenue based on performance? What if Bowl money goes solely to the team that earned it? Or we allow Texas to keep their cable network? You actually believe that will never happen? and what if it does?
I can see great things for the BIG 10 conference and network. But what about poor Purdue? Adding OK does what for Purdue ? Tell me what it does !!! It would add more revenue !! For who? the conference and the BIG 10 cable network. What's Purdue's cut? I have to believe the BIG 10 would add two teams. So if divided equally, the conference would make more, but the pot would be divided 16 ways instead of 14 ways. Would Purdue actually get more money? Don't you want to see Purdue play OK for homecoming ? No. I don't. And what happens if OSU and Mich lose to OK in conference and don't get selected for that final 4 of football? Will OSU be happy finishing in 3rd place and going to the Outback bowl? or by that time will the final 4 become a final 8? or 16?
for some people, everything is about $$$$ . But for many of us it's not. That doesn't make us clueless or stupid. or dumber. We can see and understand the economics . To me, winning is more important than money. the more money you have, the more money you spend. Money can't take championships away.
I'm not against change. I'm against change when the only reason for doing so is to make money. I'd rather save the planet than save Wall St . The problem I have with all this conference expansion is who actually benefits? Does the entire university benefit ? or just the athletic department? Where is the additional revenue going to go ? a new dorm for married students? for the cancer research center? or solely to the athletic department for greater athletic facilities? if all students benefit, I'd welcome more money. But if it's just to buy shinier helmets, or to pay for more marketing of our athletic teams, I say keep your money.
one last question. if OK was not admitted to the BIG 10, would you want Purdue to schedule them ? or would you rather play ND or a team we could beat? What's more important to you? Playing a perennial top 20 team and getting blown away? or playing a game we have a chance of winning? And I know there are some here who want to play OK because they represent a stronger opponent. . But there are many of us who are tired of losing and would welcome a winning season verses playing tougher opponents. and that doesn't make us clueless. That just means we have a different perspective and viewpoint. I want to go to a game and go home happy.
Good players maybe. good teams maybe. Great teams - NO ! Purdue went to the Rose Bowl twice. Name the next best bowl game Purdue has appeared in. The Outback Bowl? Name a year when Purdue would have been favored to beat either Texas or OK. It's different pulling an upset, but to compete means to have a reasonable chance of winning.
When Purdue went to the Rose Bowl with Bob Greise, they were actually a second place team behind MSU, but the BIG 10 had a rule against repeat appearances. A dumb rule, but a rule none the less. Without that rule, Purdue would have stayed home that year. how many great top 10 teams did Purdue with Drew Brees, Herrman, or Orton beat? Compete with, yes. Win? No. What great Bow l games did those three QBs lead Purdue to? and what great teams did they beat? Was Texas one of those teams? OK ? how many times has Purdue actually finished in the top 10?
a really bad Purdue team did beat Michigan in an upset. a really bad Purdue team beat Nebraska and their second string QB in an upset. a mediocre Purdue team did beat OSU.
but you're fooling yourself if you say Purdue could actually compete with Texas and Ok in football on a yearly basis. and no, competing with a team for 3 quarters doesn't count.
You actually believe Purdue could compete with OK and Texas ?? in the near future? I'm not saying Purdue has never had any good teams. What I'm saying is that Purdue, at its best, would still have a very hard time competing against Texas and/or OK.
That's easy....either the 1978 Peach Bowl or the Capital One Bowl in 2004.
Capital One bowl, at the time, was considered the best bowl game outside of the bowl games that rotated the national title game.
Saying Pu
I am pretty sure you said "never compete" with Texas or OK, I think you are dead wrong on that on, Purdue has had good teams, and could play with them those years , and Texas and OK don't win the National Championship every year. You are probably one of those you chalked up a loss for Purdue against Kansas St.
To reply to two posts.
Purdue has "HAD" good teams. Rather than talking in the past, I'm talking in the present. At present, Purdue can't compete against either Texas or Oklahoma. And the majority of the most optimistic posters here are predicting we will win 4-5 games this year. and we may reach .500 in 3 years. So how many years do you expect it will take before Purdue will be at a level to compete with Texas ? 3? 5? 10? 25?
We lost to an 11th ranked 9-3 Georgia team in overtime at the Capital One Bowl. We won the Peach bowl with QB Herrmann over a 19th ranked Georgia Tech team.
The mixed results from those two bowl games do not instill much confidence in me that Purdue could compete with either Texas or OK on an annual basis in the future.. Maybe once in a 50 year basis. and maybe like against Mich and OSU, we might win a game in an upset.. We have as much chance competing against OK and Texas as we do Mich and OSU.
if you're interested in the revenue, go ahead and add them both. But as far as competing, I would expect Purdue to go 1-9 at best in their next 10 meetings against both teams. That does not fit my definition of competing. my definition of competing includes victories, not coming close and fading.
For those that believe we could compete, what would you project our record against OK to be in our next 10 meetings? rather than looking at the past when Purdue had their best teams, let's talk about the future, and an a typical Purdue team.
Last edited:
I actually thought and predicted Purdue to win every bowl game they participated in. I also thought and predicted Purdue was going to beat Michigan at Michigan with Mark Hermann and go to the rose bowl that year. Needless to say, the many losses and disappointments have made me very skeptical about future success.
If UT and OU join the B1G, we'd play them about every 6 years. We don't have to compete with them. But we would have to compete with our new division, the East. And we won't compete with PSU, UM, and OSU without a lot more revenue, which UT and OU would conveniently provide. We will never be on par with those programs but we should at least compete.
And no school will ever join the conference without agreeing to complete revenue sharing. It's the very foundation of our alliance.
I just don't see this vast amount of new revenue coming to Purdue created by the additions of OK and UT. Do you believe UT would give up or share the revenue from their Longhorn Network and the ESPN deals they made? I don't. Even without adding Texas, all schools would receive an equal share of any increase in revenue. That means schools like PSU, OSU and Mich would have even more money to spend. How does this improve Purdue's chances of becoming competitive? To be honest, I like Purdue's chances in the East against OSU, PSU and MICH a lot more than I like our chances against OK, TEXAS, NEB, and UW. I also didn't see a ton of revenue coming to Purdue as the result of adding Rutgers and Maryland and their markets and viewing audiences.
I can see where the conference would be stronger, but I don't see where all this addition revenue is going to come from. The BIG 10 is already almost assured of having a team in the final championship series. Adding Ok and/or Texas isn't going to change that. And because of politics, it's doubtful the BIG 10 would have 2 teams selected. What Bowl game would we add? Very few bowl games would want 2 Big 10 teams. Do you truly believe by expanding the BIG 10 to Oklahoma and Texas, the markets are going to generate an abundance of money that split 16 ways will be significantly more than Purdue currently receives?
If Purdue can't compete now with OSU, I can't see how they can expect to compete against Texas. And I don't see when divided 16 ways, a real significant increase in revenue. The Rutgers and Maryland markets were bigger than OK and Austin. How much of a revenue increase did they create for Purdue? I can see the conference benefiting, but not Purdue.
help me understand. Provide me the insight. tell me how much revenue Purdue added by the addition of Maryland and Rutgers. And tell me the anticipated revenue Purdue will receive with the addition of OK. Sure, ok is an exciting football team. But try to convince me as a Purdue stockholder why adding Ok is a sound investment. What's the financial growth opportunity for Purdue. If neglible, then why do it?
There are currently 14 different flavors of Girl Scout cookies. Will adding two more flavors really generate that much more sales and profits? Or will adding those two new flavors take away from existing sales? I personally see no benefit from adding two additional flavors. The same is true about Boy Scouts popcorn. Adding new flavors didn't increase the profit. It just made certain flavors less popular..
I can see the media going. Oooooo aaaaaaaah, the aBig 10 is now all powerful . But from a business perspective, I see little benefit. And from a competitive viewpoint, I just see Purdue dropping two more steps from being a champion. Maybe Texas would be able to compete for a BIG 10 championship, but not Purdue. In the East or West, we'd be lucky to finish at .500 !
I can see where the conference would be stronger, but I don't see where all this addition revenue is going to come from. The BIG 10 is already almost assured of having a team in the final championship series. Adding Ok and/or Texas isn't going to change that. And because of politics, it's doubtful the BIG 10 would have 2 teams selected. What Bowl game would we add? Very few bowl games would want 2 Big 10 teams. Do you truly believe by expanding the BIG 10 to Oklahoma and Texas, the markets are going to generate an abundance of money that split 16 ways will be significantly more than Purdue currently receives?
If Purdue can't compete now with OSU, I can't see how they can expect to compete against Texas. And I don't see when divided 16 ways, a real significant increase in revenue. The Rutgers and Maryland markets were bigger than OK and Austin. How much of a revenue increase did they create for Purdue? I can see the conference benefiting, but not Purdue.
help me understand. Provide me the insight. tell me how much revenue Purdue added by the addition of Maryland and Rutgers. And tell me the anticipated revenue Purdue will receive with the addition of OK. Sure, ok is an exciting football team. But try to convince me as a Purdue stockholder why adding Ok is a sound investment. What's the financial growth opportunity for Purdue. If neglible, then why do it?
There are currently 14 different flavors of Girl Scout cookies. Will adding two more flavors really generate that much more sales and profits? Or will adding those two new flavors take away from existing sales? I personally see no benefit from adding two additional flavors. The same is true about Boy Scouts popcorn. Adding new flavors didn't increase the profit. It just made certain flavors less popular..
I can see the media going. Oooooo aaaaaaaah, the aBig 10 is now all powerful . But from a business perspective, I see little benefit. And from a competitive viewpoint, I just see Purdue dropping two more steps from being a champion. Maybe Texas would be able to compete for a BIG 10 championship, but not Purdue. In the East or West, we'd be lucky to finish at .500 !
Again, the only way UT comes to our conference is if they're willing to share all tier 3 revenue. It's a non-starter otherwise.
As far as Rutgers and Maryland, go look at our BTN revenue streams before and after they joined. Cablevision in NYC going to in market rates for BTN by itself covered the addition of both schools. The remainder of NJ and D.C. were just gravy. As long as our BTN revenue still goes up even when slicing it with two new hands to feed, it was a net positive addition. Rutgers is actually an exceptional school in the largest TV market in the nation. Their sports just happen to suck. Doesn't mean they will always but you one on hand complain that we'd never compete with UT but then also complain we let Rutgers and UMD in? I'm struggling with your logic.
We don't just add Norman and Austin TV markets. We add all of OK and TX (the big fish). So more money per school and more exposure to the preeminent football conference and thought of more highly compared to other conferences. So if the assessment were true that PU does not move up in the B1G, you could argue we'd move up relative to many of the rest of the 100 plus other non B1G teams, thus improving our recruiting. Assuming all other B1G teams not already getting top tier talent start to recruit better, then we'd close the gap with the conf powers and more noticeably improve against non-conf and bowl foes. Of course my amateur analysis could be fatally flawed, what do I know.
I could see where the BIG 10 conference would improve, and therefore the talent level in the BIG 10 would increase verses its outside of conference teams. But if the overall BIG 10 talent level increases, that means every BIG 10 team increases. and there would be no easy Big 10 game. Given that scenario, our talent level could increase, but our record could remain the same or worse. .
if the BIG 10 added Texas and Ok and moved Purdue to the east, Purdue would play 7 games in the East, and 2 games against the West. I could see Purdue beating Rutgers, Maryland and IU and maybe Minn and Ill and maybe winning 2 non conference games to finish 6-6. But could Purdue ever go 10-2 or 11-1 in the East ? I guess it's possible. But probably not on a consistent basis.
The team I would feel sad for would be Minn. they would remain in the West with Ok and Texas added to their schedule.
.
if the BIG 10 added Texas and Ok and moved Purdue to the east, Purdue would play 7 games in the East, and 2 games against the West. I could see Purdue beating Rutgers, Maryland and IU and maybe Minn and Ill and maybe winning 2 non conference games to finish 6-6. But could Purdue ever go 10-2 or 11-1 in the East ? I guess it's possible. But probably not on a consistent basis.
The team I would feel sad for would be Minn. they would remain in the West with Ok and Texas added to their schedule.
.
If B1G schools improve vs. non-B1G schools then non-conf and bowl records would improve. If the B1G becomes the go-to conf for top talent, then the current powers gain less than the Purdues of the conf (top teams already get top talent and scholarships are limited). Basically, more talent to the B1G helps close the conf gap. Or at least that is one theory on what would happen by adding more powers to the conference.
I'll throw this out there. Forget about the money
which option provides Purdue the best chance at winning a BIG 10 title? Which option provides Purdue the best chance at a winning season and a significant bowl game? if you 've read my previous posts, you know that's all I really care about. To me, winning far outweighs the money. To me, going 10-3 and winning a Bowl game far outweighs saying we brought in $30 million as part of being a member of the BIG 10.
1. Staying the way we are ?
2. Adding OK and Texas and moving Purdue to the East ?
3. Adding OK and some other BIG 12 school like West Virginia or maybe Georgia tech and keeping Purdue in the West ?
4. adding two lesser teams like Kansas and K State or ISU, BYU, Boise St, Colorado, or Colorado St.
When talking TV markets, the Denver and Salt Lake City markets are much bigger than the Oklahoma market. the BYU following is tremendous. And Kansas City is just as big. Given a choice, I'd target Denver, because they are more likely to purchase the BIG 10 cable network over people in OK City.
as for winning, if Purdue left the BIG 10 and joined the MAC, our recruiting base would remain the same, we could be a consistent winner and challenge for the MAC title, and probably go to a better Bowl game. Admittedly, our "athletic" revenue would be lower. But as money goes, the more you make, the more you spend. if we were a MAC team, we wouldn't have to invest all that money in facilities and coaches' salaries. The MAC sent teams to 6 bowl games last year including the Cotton Bowl , and bowl games in Miami, the Bahamas, St Pete, and San Diego. And the games are mostly before Christmas and New Years Day giving players a chance to party during the holiday break. it doesn't get much better than that.
which option provides Purdue the best chance at winning a BIG 10 title? Which option provides Purdue the best chance at a winning season and a significant bowl game? if you 've read my previous posts, you know that's all I really care about. To me, winning far outweighs the money. To me, going 10-3 and winning a Bowl game far outweighs saying we brought in $30 million as part of being a member of the BIG 10.
1. Staying the way we are ?
2. Adding OK and Texas and moving Purdue to the East ?
3. Adding OK and some other BIG 12 school like West Virginia or maybe Georgia tech and keeping Purdue in the West ?
4. adding two lesser teams like Kansas and K State or ISU, BYU, Boise St, Colorado, or Colorado St.
When talking TV markets, the Denver and Salt Lake City markets are much bigger than the Oklahoma market. the BYU following is tremendous. And Kansas City is just as big. Given a choice, I'd target Denver, because they are more likely to purchase the BIG 10 cable network over people in OK City.
as for winning, if Purdue left the BIG 10 and joined the MAC, our recruiting base would remain the same, we could be a consistent winner and challenge for the MAC title, and probably go to a better Bowl game. Admittedly, our "athletic" revenue would be lower. But as money goes, the more you make, the more you spend. if we were a MAC team, we wouldn't have to invest all that money in facilities and coaches' salaries. The MAC sent teams to 6 bowl games last year including the Cotton Bowl , and bowl games in Miami, the Bahamas, St Pete, and San Diego. And the games are mostly before Christmas and New Years Day giving players a chance to party during the holiday break. it doesn't get much better than that.
But think of the void he left that Purdue could fill. Their coach left to pursue more money. But if you're a western Michigan alum/fan, you're probably saying good riddens and take your boat with you. But the reality as many have already pointed out is if Brohm is successful, he'll also leave for more money. Many already fear he'll leave for Louisville. So what's the difference? At any school, if a coach is successful, a bigger offer will be dangled in front of him. And if a player becomes a superstar, he'll turn pro at the first opportunity.
Admittedly Purdue fans would be very unhappy about moving down to the MAC, And I realize it would never happen. But if Purdue had started out as a member of the MAC, and was a current member of the MAC, I think we as fans would be a lot happier. And based on our lowly market size, I doubt the greedy admins of the BIG 10 would invite us to join their exclusive power hungry conference.
Think about it. If we were not already in the BIG 10, would we be on their list to add? Or would they treat us like Miami of Ohio, and Ohio and Western Mich?
Admittedly Purdue fans would be very unhappy about moving down to the MAC, And I realize it would never happen. But if Purdue had started out as a member of the MAC, and was a current member of the MAC, I think we as fans would be a lot happier. And based on our lowly market size, I doubt the greedy admins of the BIG 10 would invite us to join their exclusive power hungry conference.
Think about it. If we were not already in the BIG 10, would we be on their list to add? Or would they treat us like Miami of Ohio, and Ohio and Western Mich?
actually, I have a very active imagination; a very open mind, and a lot of analytical research experience. I like to explore and examine an issue from all sides before making a final conclusion. And I do not rely on just one source for that information. And I can differentiate facts from BS. Typically those that argue with me would rather belittle me, than use facts to support their own beliefs/opinions.
A poster said he was dumber for reading my posts. And he proved HIMSELF correct. He actually did become dumber. He had no idea who Boogie was.
I like to speculate. Many others don't because it requires them to think. I put your thoughts back to you and asked a simple question. And in so doing, rather than answering the question, you call me names. That shows your maturity and IQ. But, I'll give you a second chance. And maybe you can wipe that blood off your friend's face and make it a clean face once more.
using your vast knowledge and expertise and research, here is the question:
if Purdue was not in the BIG 10, would the BIG 10 consider it as a target as part of their expansion to 16 schools? Or would they treat Purdue as if it were ISU, Missouri, Miami of Ohio, and the two Kansas universities? and then target schools like Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia tech instead to increase their revenue and market share? The BIG 10 already has IU which would give them the Indianapolis market. the Lafayette market is relatively small.
or would the BIG 10 put greed and cable revenue aside and target Purdue for inclusion solely on our academic record and achievements?
Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm of the opinion the BIG 10 would benefit far greater with the inclusion of the University of Chicago than they would from the University of Oklahoma. A college conference should not be composed of just sports teams, or have the purpose of generating wealth and market share.
I look forward to seeing your answer. Using your knowledge and data, if Purdue was not currently a member of the BIG 10 do you believe the BIG 10 would target them for inclusion among the 16 ? Why or why not? and then apply that same reasoning to Texas and OK.
I'm fine if you disagree with my stated posts. I'm just throwing them out there to promote discussion.
BUT DON'T CALL PEOPLE NAMES OR HARASS THEM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR VIEWPOINTS ! IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY FROM PURDUE, ACT LIKE IT, AND SHOW RESPECT TO OTHERS WHETHER YO U AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT !
A poster said he was dumber for reading my posts. And he proved HIMSELF correct. He actually did become dumber. He had no idea who Boogie was.
I like to speculate. Many others don't because it requires them to think. I put your thoughts back to you and asked a simple question. And in so doing, rather than answering the question, you call me names. That shows your maturity and IQ. But, I'll give you a second chance. And maybe you can wipe that blood off your friend's face and make it a clean face once more.
using your vast knowledge and expertise and research, here is the question:
if Purdue was not in the BIG 10, would the BIG 10 consider it as a target as part of their expansion to 16 schools? Or would they treat Purdue as if it were ISU, Missouri, Miami of Ohio, and the two Kansas universities? and then target schools like Texas, Oklahoma, and Georgia tech instead to increase their revenue and market share? The BIG 10 already has IU which would give them the Indianapolis market. the Lafayette market is relatively small.
or would the BIG 10 put greed and cable revenue aside and target Purdue for inclusion solely on our academic record and achievements?
Do you see where I'm going with this? I'm of the opinion the BIG 10 would benefit far greater with the inclusion of the University of Chicago than they would from the University of Oklahoma. A college conference should not be composed of just sports teams, or have the purpose of generating wealth and market share.
I look forward to seeing your answer. Using your knowledge and data, if Purdue was not currently a member of the BIG 10 do you believe the BIG 10 would target them for inclusion among the 16 ? Why or why not? and then apply that same reasoning to Texas and OK.
I'm fine if you disagree with my stated posts. I'm just throwing them out there to promote discussion.
BUT DON'T CALL PEOPLE NAMES OR HARASS THEM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR VIEWPOINTS ! IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY FROM PURDUE, ACT LIKE IT, AND SHOW RESPECT TO OTHERS WHETHER YO U AGREE WITH THEM OR NOT !
Last edited:
If Purdue, in football, returns to the level they had in the early years of the Tiller era playing UT, OK would be no more of a challenge then the teams he played and did compete and often beat like ND, Kansas St and USC. I truly believe Purdue finally realized, too late under Burke, that they let the program die during the last years of Tiller up to the hiring of Brohm.
Too many people forget that once you leave the Big 12 and play a more physical style of football in cold weather week after week, would teams not be so dominate. Now that ND has upgraded there FB schedule they also are not what they used to be! People forget that both PSU and Nebraska were suppose to dominate the B1G in football when they joined and haven't!
Wolegib - take a week off and read frank the tank's slant. Every single post. Then come back here and post again.
Agree it wouldn't be gawd awful results against UT or OK. As bad as we think the ND beatings were, here are the results.
Purdue is (26-58-2) against Notre Dame
Average score: Purdue 16.3 - Notre Dame 24.3
Compared to our winning record in men's basketball against Northwestern.
124-46
Or how about what Rutgers head to head will look like in 50 years.
350-40
I believe we have beaten Notre Dame more than anyone but USC or at least I believe I heard/read that in the recent past.
Frankly I'm not that concerned about our football if we were to add Texas/OU. That would shift us from the West to the East in football which means we wouldn't face either team most seasons and we'd go back to playing the same traditional powers that we always have like OSU, Michigan and Penn State. We'd also have Rutgers, Maryland, and IU in the East which would be fine. It would be tougher than the West is now but I don't think it would be much tougher than what the West would look like with Texas and Oklahoma in it. The biggest loss, in my opinion, would be not playing Illinois and Northwestern every year since those are two of the shortest commutes in the entire Big Ten.
Frankly I'm not that concerned about our football if we were to add Texas/OU. That would shift us from the West to the East in football which means we wouldn't face either team most seasons and we'd go back to playing the same traditional powers that we always have like OSU, Michigan and Penn State. We'd also have Rutgers, Maryland, and IU in the East which would be fine. It would be tougher than the West is now but I don't think it would be much tougher than what the West would look like with Texas and Oklahoma in it. The biggest loss, in my opinion, would be not playing Illinois and Northwestern every year since those are two of the shortest commutes in the entire Big Ten.
Yep, I agree. Another interesting thing about ND, Purdue is their most frequently played opponent, all sports considered.
Similar threads
