I could see a super basketball conference like the big east did. Indiana, Purdue, North Carolina, duke, Indiana, Kansas...
Time to consider B1G expansion again?
- Thread starter YouSayPotato
- Start date
Oklahoma state is reportedly desiring to exit now and the big ten had been “receptive”. They are just as close to here as Rutgers.
That’s why it’s so weird to watch people here cheer it on and delude themselves into thinking we will be a part of things
Outside the box B1G expansion suggestion: Colorado + Air Force + Army + Navy.
In addition to the national TV audience it would bring, all three academies would have a 'civilian' rival in close proximity: Army-Rutgers; Navy-Maryland and Air Force-Colorado.
In addition to the national TV audience it would bring, all three academies would have a 'civilian' rival in close proximity: Army-Rutgers; Navy-Maryland and Air Force-Colorado.
Last edited:
No one is cheering on Florida state, clemson, Michigan, and Ohio state joining the sec. we are cheering on the 16 team super conferences which has been discussed and desired for years. No one expected the big12 to stay at 10 and flourish with bottom feeders or bring in a meaningful team(a). The writing has been on the wall for 4 - 16 team super conferences.
But why? We won’t be in that super conference and it relegates us to a lower level of football than we already are
Never said it ”had absolutely nothing to do with it”, but it was extremely minor compared to the issue of what they would deliver to the BTN. And Mizzou really wanted an invitation and would’ve accepted on the spot. They just couldn’t deliver. In the SEC, where STL and KC markets had not been penetrated, they could. It’s why the Big 10 passed and the SEC didn’t.
LOL, they're not going to compete well on a regular basis. You do remember Oklahoma getting spanked in almost every playoff, right?
Nonsense.
It was not "an extremely minor". It was always a significant part of the equation. Had they been more in line with the rest of the B1G it would have been done in a heartbeat.
You have part of it right, and for the wrong reason. (The SEC doesn't give a rip about academics.)
The B1G will always look at the entire package, from market(yes, the $ matters) to athletics to academics. If you're weak in one area, you d@mn sure better be strong in another. The market would have been a plus, but it wasn't enough to overcome the poor academics (relative to the rest of the B1G).
No one is saying Oklahoma is going to become the new king of college football. They aren’t on Bama, Clemson, OSU level, but they are the best of the rest year in and year out. Moving to a better conference only enhances their profile. In an 8 team or god forbid a 12 team expanded playoff, Oklahoma gets in more years than not even if they don’t win the SEC. This is a no-brainer move for them.
Some of these teams better be careful about a 16 team super conference .. the teams that end up 13-16 will end up being permanently exposed and they’ll become the Purdue of that conference.. and it will be “be careful what you wish for.”
What you don't seem to understand is that Oklahoma won't be in the playoffs nearly every year like they are now. So how is going from being there because of a weak conference to not being there because of a strong conference enhance their profile? Instead of getting the accolades as one of the few who get there every year, they'll fall into one of many who don't.
Oklahoma is the fourth best college football program in the country right now. The SEC gets two teams in a 4 team playoff at times, Oklahoma will be in an 8 or 12 man playoff more years than not. Moving to the SEC only makes their recruiting profile more attractive.
The market had already been penetrated, which is why the Buyer g 10 rebuffed their interest immediately. It wasn’t based on academic deficiencies. It never went that far, because Delany was focused on new revenue, not existing.
LMAO. There's no way Oklahoma will get the appearances they get now. It'll be a much tougher regular season. Delusional...
Exactly. Instead of being the monsters of the Big XII, the Sooners will now be the bitches of the SEC West.
What’s delusional about it? How would Oklahoma not make a 12 team playoff as the 2nd or 3rd best SEC team in most years? Make no mistake, the CFP is expanding.
You can continue to beat that drum as much as you like.
Mizzou kept making their case, and the big hurdle was academics. The B1G would have taken them in a heartbeat, had Mizzou's academics been on par with a school like, say, Texas (or Purdue/Mich/Illinois).
I keep seeing where "it's all about the money". Well, revenue is going to be a driver, no doubt. But, there's a list of schools who can provide new eyes (lots of $$), and they're not being considered. Mizzou is on that list (as are a few in the eastern US).
I beat the drum because it’s accurate. The Big 10 never considered taking them, and it wasn’t due to academics. Pitt tried to get in at one point, too, and they were summarily rejected, as well. It wasn’t academics, which are solid. It wasn’t geography, as their natural rivalry with PSU would’ve been enhanced, and they would’ve provided a natural balance in the East. It was because JD wanted revenue growth, and Pitt couldn’t add anything to that equation that moved the needle much. Neither could Mizzou, which is why they never made it past their request to have a conversation. In both cases, JD said “Don’t call us, we’ll call you . . . But we’re not calling”. But it was about revenue growth, not academics. The history of expansion makes that clear.
I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
IMHO, we've long been headed for 4 (maybe 5?) super conferences (PAC, B1G, SEC, ACC, ....), with the playoffs being a hybrid of what they are now along with the super conference champions. For P.R. purposes, they'll have to include some of the teams from other conferences who simply run the table, along with ND. It would make sense (that might be why it doesn't happen) to use those conference championship games as a part of the BCS tournament.
Oklahoma has had some tremendous teams in the past. As has Nebraska. And Miami. And Florida.
Alabama won't always be what they are now, nor will Clempson, just like FSU had their day in the sun, with a very, very long run.
That’s fair.
Oklahoma unfairly gets the reputation that it’s the best team in a weak conference. And while it’s fair to say the Big 12 isn’t that great, it’s more than fair to say Oklahoma has a great program, they do. Not sure where this stigma comes from some people.
But yes, I think we’re inevitably heading to the super conference era of things. I see 4 conferences for football surviving all this and then one day branching away from the NCAA to do their own thing.
There's a difference between being accurate and being precise.
Over the years the B1G has made it clear: we are an academic conference. Mizzou wasn't summarily rejected. They had every chance to make their case. Mizzou would have been an very good addition, but they just couldn't have overcome their main weakness: academics. They did nothing to elevate the conference, and everything in making it more pedestrian, academically speaking.
Again, if they were along the lines (academically) of TX, UM, Illinois, Purdue, they'd be in. They're not, so they're on the outside looking in.
Weird comment since nebraska got in. A wet paper could graduate from there
Before you post you defense, they got dropped from the aau and Missouri is still in
Post a defense? What an odd statement.
They were in AAU when they were admitted. I'm assuming nobody had a crystal ball on that development. Maybe you could have helped the B1G with that part of the process.
I've already stated that people (including myself in this) have discussed the "stretch" with Nebraska.
Not seeing much value in your 'weird comment' follow up, but glad you chimed in.
Post a defense? What an odd statement.
They were in AAU when they were admitted. I'm assuming nobody had a crystal ball on that development. Maybe you could have helped the B1G with that part of the process.
I've already stated that people (including myself in this) have discussed the "stretch" with Nebraska.
Not seeing much value in your 'weird comment' follow up, but glad you chimed in.
Hard to claim you’re an academic conference when everyone knew nebraska was a stretch.Post a defense? What an odd statement.
They were in AAU when they were admitted. I'm assuming nobody had a crystal ball on that development. Maybe you could have helped the B1G with that part of the process.
I've already stated that people (including myself in this) have discussed the "stretch" with Nebraska.
Not seeing much value in your 'weird comment' follow up, but glad you chimed in.
the fact you fail to grasp that is hilarious
Grasp it? I did the work for you and noted it.
"Hilarious."
Now lets look at the other conferences...
Other conferences are irrelevant. How many have something close to the academic grant pool the big ten has?
Try again?
Irrelevant?? LOL! No, they're ALL perfectly relevant. It's a very good measure as to the focus on academics vs athletics.
it's only "irrelevant" if it destroys your narrative.
I haven't researched it in quite some time, but the only other conference with a better focus on academics is, not surprisingly, the ACC. The B1G has long stated a focus and goal of being the home for top research and academic institutions.
If you ever find yourself in a moment of intellectual curiosity, look into the mission and purpose of the Big Ten Academic Alliance.
You're trying too hard for the "gotcha". This conversation ain't about me. Or you.
"Try again?"
Oh, my. My bad.
I should have read that before posting about intellectual curiosity. It would have saved some keystrokes.
The Big Ten Academic Alliance (www.btaa.org) is the academic configuration of the conference. Not doing your research undermines the attempted hilarity.
Back to the point, big ten let a borderline aau school in (nebraska) yet Missouri, which is still in the aau, is an academic risk?
Well, if that's your point, I'm not sure what point you're making, or what you're arguing, or what you think you're accomplishing.
Where did you see they're an "academic risk"?
Link?
The B1G does look at the overall package, but Mizzou and NEB were both members of the AAU, the main academic marker the B1G looks at, when NEB was chosen. Then, NEB got booted bc of some Medical School stuff that no longer qualified (UM & WIS were two schools that voted for their removal), and Mizzou is still a member of the AAU. The only SEC schools currently AAU - FL, VAN, A&M, Mizz (TX). All the B1G is AAU except for NEB.
You claim it was all about academics, or that academics would have pushed Mizz over the top, yet Mizz is still AAU whereas NEB is not. So let's assume they were pretty even in 2012 when the decision was made (which they were) - why did the B1G choose NEB??
NEB was chosen over Mizz bc of their blueblood Football status, national brand, and rabid (national) fanbase. The two markets Mizz inhabit, STL (ILL) and KC (NEB), were already in the B1G footprint or were brought by NEB. The deciding factor in 2012 was their athletic success and historical fanbase = markets & brand. The academics were a wash bc they were pretty much equal.
