Time to consider B1G expansion again?

[Purdue85]

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.

Appreciate your post.

I've not stated (or argued) that it was all about academics, and you were somewhat accurate to then qualify the point, and state that academics "would have pushed Mizz over the top". For accuracy, the context of your point wasn't really my position. I stated that if Mizzou would have been of the same academic level as Texas, UM, Illinois, Purdue, et al, it would have been a no brainer. They're not. Neither is Nebraska.

I do not believe, nor have I ever made the argument, that being AAU alone is what it takes, nor have I stated or argued that they should have (or would have) been admitted because they had equivalent/similar academics to Nebraska. With respect, I've been very clear on all that. I've also been clear that the admission of Nebraska has (rightfully) been deliberated on this forum, when you compare their academics to the rest of the B1G.

Hope that helps.

 

[Kern County]

Appreciate your post.

I've not stated (or argued) that it was all about academics, and you were somewhat accurate to then qualify the point, and state that academics "would have pushed Mizz over the top". For accuracy, the context of your point wasn't really my position. I stated that if Mizzou would have been of the same academic level as Texas, UM, Illinois, Purdue, et al, it would have been a no brainer. They're not. Neither is Nebraska.

I do not believe, nor have I ever made the argument, that being AAU alone is what it takes, nor have I stated or argued that they should have (or would have) been admitted because they had equivalent/similar academics to Nebraska. With respect, I've been very clear on all that. I've also been clear that the admission of Nebraska has (rightfully) been deliberated on this forum, when you compare their academics to the rest of the B1G.

Hope that helps.

That wouldn’t have altered The Big 10’s decision to pass on the Tigers, however. It was about media spread, not academics. The Pitt example I provided you is further proof of that.

 

[Purdue85]

That wouldn’t have altered The Big 10’s decision to pass on the Tigers, however. It was about media spread, not academics. The Pitt example I provided you is further proof of that.

What was the "media spread"?

Pitt is not "proof".

 

[Kern County]

What was the "media spread"?

Pitt is not "proof".

More eyeballs via new markets is what is meant by “media spread”. It’s why the Big 10 wasn’t interested in either Pitt or Mizzou. Delany’s track on this was unmistakable, unambiguous., and singular in focus.

 

[Purdue85]

More eyeballs via new markets is what is meant by “media spread”. It’s why the Big 10 wasn’t interested in either Pitt or Mizzou. Delany’s track on this was unmistakable, unambiguous., and singular in focus.

I understand the definition. You brought it up, and I'm asking what that unambiguous, unmistakable value was.

We already know the academics, and how they don't measure up to the rest of the B1G as a whole. We also know the B1G emphasis on academics, and that Mizzou would have been taken in a heartbeat if they had the academics of Texas, UM, Illinois, Purdue. that much is unmistakable and unambiguous.

 

[Kern County]

I understand the definition. You brought it up, and I'm asking what that unambiguous, unmistakable value was.

We already know the academics, and how they don't measure up to the rest of the B1G as a whole. We also know the B1G emphasis on academics, and that Mizzou would have been taken in a heartbeat if they had the academics of Texas, UM, Illinois, Purdue. that much is unmistakable and unambiguous.

What you’re trying to advance runs completely counter to what Delany did, which is why its so easily dismissed as incorrect. Mizzou didn’t deliver eyeballs, which is why they never got anything close to an invitation. The STL and KC markets were already in the Big 10 bag, which was what Delany cared about. He was always clear and unambiguous about this, even if you weren’t aware of it. Their academic standing wasn’t the issue, as the Pitt example proves.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

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 not the plan of the big boys and anyone rooting any of this on is kidding themselves. They want a 20-24 team super conference, maybe as low as 16, with schools like Purdue on the outside looking in.

 

[FirstDownB]

Let's play alternate reality, starting from the premise that nothing is "off the table". What if the top 20 big dogs in CFB decide to pull up stakes from their current conference affiliations and create a new super league apart from the NCAA? Who would they be, who gets left out, and how would the remaining members of their old conferences react?

Super-league teams:
Big Ten: OSU, UM, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin
SEC: Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee
Big12: Oklahoma, Texas
Pac12: USC, Oregon
ACC: Clemson, Florida St, Miami
Ind: Notre Dame

What would remain of the Big Ten?
Iowa
Northwestern
Minnesota
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St
Indiana
Maryland
Rutgers

Big Ten raids 3 teams from Big12/SEC: let's say Kansas, Iowa St, Missouri

SEC and Big12 merge: South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Arkansas, Vandy, TTU, TCU, Baylor, Kansas St, W. Virginia, OK St.

ACC pulls in somebody from the American: Cincinnati/Memphis

Pac12 pulls in 2 teams from American: Houston, Tulsa

FBS would split into 3 tiers:
(1) Semi-pro association of 20
(2) 4 Traditional power conferences of 12 teams (Big10, SEC, ACC, Pac12)
(3) Everyone else (American, C-USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt)

Big Ten new East/West divisions:

West:
Illinois
Iowa
Iowa St
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri

East:
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan St
Purdue
Northwestern
Rutgers

As a Purdue fan, I could not only get on board with this alternate reality, I think I would rather enjoy it. You'd get a competitive game every week against a quality opponent. Parity would rule and coaching would matter. The top recruits and media attention would go to the big leagues, and you'd lose the BTN revenue. That's the price. And for that price, a team like Purdue would have a realistic opportunity to compete for championships. For fans of amateur sports, this would be a loosening from the grips of the almighty dollar, an independence from the whims of those at the top.

 

[Purdue85]

What you’re trying to advance runs completely counter to what Delany did, which is why its so easily dismissed as incorrect. Mizzou didn’t deliver eyeballs, which is why they never got anything close to an invitation. The STL and KC markets were already in the Big 10 bag, which was what Delany cared about. He was always clear and unambiguous about this, even if you weren’t aware of it. Their academic standing wasn’t the issue, as the Pitt example proves.

No, what you're trying to advance you cannot substantiate.
you can continue to repeat the same line, but it's a non-starter. Try again.

there's no doubt the entire package is essential ... revenue, athletics, and academics.

Given where they were in the other areas, the only way they get in is with outstanding academics like TX, UM, Illinois, Purdue, et al. It's no more difficult than that. Their academics were/are entirely too pedestrian to admit them.

 

[Cleanface]

Moving on...

This map is the only thing that matters RE expansion.

Welcome to the B1G, Jayhawks...(and hey, maybe UConn)

 

[MisterBlack7]

Kern is correct.

Mizzou did not deliver a new market. That's what kept them out. B1G already had that territory covered. Their academics and sports were fine.

Nebraska was a football Blue Blood that delivered its own market (albeit relatively small) and was AAU at the time.

Rutgers delivered the NJ market (11th most populous state), plus excellent recruiting grounds. They also showed the potential to be a good program, having already had a nice run under Schiano.

Maryland delivered the DMV market (Maryland 18th most populous state), plus excellent recruiting grounds. They also have Under Armor backing, successful basketball, and a football program with potential.

Modern expansion has always been about expansion of viewership. You get that with one of, or a combination of: Blue Bloods, established success, large alumni base, or large state population.

Viewers drive the market for TV contacts, playoff/bowl tie ins, etc. If/when the B1G expands again, viewers will 100% be one of the most important factors.

 

[indyogb]

Let's play alternate reality, starting from the premise that nothing is "off the table". What if the top 20 big dogs in CFB decide to pull up stakes from their current conference affiliations and create a new super league apart from the NCAA? Who would they be, who gets left out, and how would the remaining members of their old conferences react?

Super-league teams:
Big Ten: OSU, UM, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin
SEC: Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee
Big12: Oklahoma, Texas
Pac12: USC, Oregon
ACC: Clemson, Florida St, Miami
Ind: Notre Dame

What would remain of the Big Ten?
Iowa
Northwestern
Minnesota
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St
Indiana
Maryland
Rutgers

Big Ten raids 3 teams from Big12/SEC: let's say Kansas, Iowa St, Missouri

SEC and Big12 merge: South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Arkansas, Vandy, TTU, TCU, Baylor, Kansas St, W. Virginia, OK St.

ACC pulls in somebody from the American: Cincinnati/Memphis

Pac12 pulls in 2 teams from American: Houston, Tulsa

FBS would split into 3 tiers:
(1) Semi-pro association of 20
(2) 4 Traditional power conferences of 12 teams (Big10, SEC, ACC, Pac12)
(3) Everyone else (American, C-USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt)

Big Ten new East/West divisions:

West:
Illinois
Iowa
Iowa St
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri

East:
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan St
Purdue
Northwestern
Rutgers

As a Purdue fan, I could not only get on board with this alternate reality, I think I would rather enjoy it. You'd get a competitive game every week against a quality opponent. Parity would rule and coaching would matter. The top recruits and media attention would go to the big leagues, and you'd lose the BTN revenue. That's the price. And for that price, a team like Purdue would have a realistic opportunity to compete for championships. For fans of amateur sports, this would be a loosening from the grips of the almighty dollar, an independence from the whims of those at the top.

Yeah, I'd kind of dig that. Maybe we could give Maryland and Rutgers to the ACC and just add Missouri and Iowa State to get back to 10. For some reason, I always come back to Iowa State in the list of schools that I think should be in the Big Ten. I know they're not an athletic powerhouse and they don't dominate a large TV market (and they're the somewhat overshadowed in their own state, kind of like Purdue). Nonetheless, they just seem like they would 'belong'.

On a larger scale, college athletics has become too big and money driven and has lost sight of its original purpose. I used to fear what would happen to college sports if the NBA or NFL had effective minor leagues. I am to the point that I would embrace it and I'd probably still be here basking in the glory of a Purdue streak over IU.

 

[IUhaterade]

We aren’t adding Missouri

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Let's play alternate reality, starting from the premise that nothing is "off the table". What if the top 20 big dogs in CFB decide to pull up stakes from their current conference affiliations and create a new super league apart from the NCAA? Who would they be, who gets left out, and how would the remaining members of their old conferences react?

Super-league teams:
Big Ten: OSU, UM, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin
SEC: Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee
Big12: Oklahoma, Texas
Pac12: USC, Oregon
ACC: Clemson, Florida St, Miami
Ind: Notre Dame

What would remain of the Big Ten?
Iowa
Northwestern
Minnesota
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St
Indiana
Maryland
Rutgers

Big Ten raids 3 teams from Big12/SEC: let's say Kansas, Iowa St, Missouri

SEC and Big12 merge: South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Arkansas, Vandy, TTU, TCU, Baylor, Kansas St, W. Virginia, OK St.

ACC pulls in somebody from the American: Cincinnati/Memphis

Pac12 pulls in 2 teams from American: Houston, Tulsa

FBS would split into 3 tiers:
(1) Semi-pro association of 20
(2) 4 Traditional power conferences of 12 teams (Big10, SEC, ACC, Pac12)
(3) Everyone else (American, C-USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt)

Big Ten new East/West divisions:

West:
Illinois
Iowa
Iowa St
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri

East:
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan St
Purdue
Northwestern
Rutgers

As a Purdue fan, I could not only get on board with this alternate reality, I think I would rather enjoy it. You'd get a competitive game every week against a quality opponent. Parity would rule and coaching would matter. The top recruits and media attention would go to the big leagues, and you'd lose the BTN revenue. That's the price. And for that price, a team like Purdue would have a realistic opportunity to compete for championships. For fans of amateur sports, this would be a loosening from the grips of the almighty dollar, an independence from the whims of those at the top.

You think your semi pro teams would schedule us? Who do you think you’re recruiting at that point?

get on board with it so that I can wait for your “oh” moment.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Let's play alternate reality, starting from the premise that nothing is "off the table". What if the top 20 big dogs in CFB decide to pull up stakes from their current conference affiliations and create a new super league apart from the NCAA? Who would they be, who gets left out, and how would the remaining members of their old conferences react?

Super-league teams:
Big Ten: OSU, UM, PSU, Nebraska, Wisconsin
SEC: Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Tennessee
Big12: Oklahoma, Texas
Pac12: USC, Oregon
ACC: Clemson, Florida St, Miami
Ind: Notre Dame

What would remain of the Big Ten?
Iowa
Northwestern
Minnesota
Purdue
Illinois
Michigan St
Indiana
Maryland
Rutgers

Big Ten raids 3 teams from Big12/SEC: let's say Kansas, Iowa St, Missouri

SEC and Big12 merge: South Carolina, Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, Arkansas, Vandy, TTU, TCU, Baylor, Kansas St, W. Virginia, OK St.

ACC pulls in somebody from the American: Cincinnati/Memphis

Pac12 pulls in 2 teams from American: Houston, Tulsa

FBS would split into 3 tiers:
(1) Semi-pro association of 20
(2) 4 Traditional power conferences of 12 teams (Big10, SEC, ACC, Pac12)
(3) Everyone else (American, C-USA, MAC, Mountain West, Sun Belt)

Big Ten new East/West divisions:

West:
Illinois
Iowa
Iowa St
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri

East:
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan St
Purdue
Northwestern
Rutgers

As a Purdue fan, I could not only get on board with this alternate reality, I think I would rather enjoy it. You'd get a competitive game every week against a quality opponent. Parity would rule and coaching would matter. The top recruits and media attention would go to the big leagues, and you'd lose the BTN revenue. That's the price. And for that price, a team like Purdue would have a realistic opportunity to compete for championships. For fans of amateur sports, this would be a loosening from the grips of the almighty dollar, an independence from the whims of those at the top.

Actually, I commend you. The world you created has likely already been decided.. something similar. It will be floated to a naive public as though it’s being mulled over.

at least you are past the super naive “you mean the big ten remains intact and we get to pick off 2-4 teams we want from the leftovers.”

you’ve at least calculated the endgame. But it won’t be good for Purdue.

now, if the public realizes that and there’s a vocal backlash.. okay, maybe it may end up being realignment and not a new world. But you have a bunch of people in here like “isn’t it great?” No.. not if you’re Purdue it isn’t

 

[FirstDownB]

You think your semi pro teams would schedule us? Who do you think you’re recruiting at that point?

get on board with it so that I can wait for your “oh” moment.

The point is, who cares if they would schedule us. At that point you have clear separation with the top 20 playing among themselves for their own trophy. It's basically a formal version of the sham that is already taking place. Instead of schools like Purdue qualifying a successful season as 7-5 and a Little Caesar's bowl game we play for a championship among peers. Or we can be a AAA team playing in the majors.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

The point is, who cares if they would schedule us. At that point you have clear separation with the top 20 playing among themselves for their own trophy. It's basically a formal version of the sham that is already taking place. Instead of schools like Purdue qualifying a successful season as 7-5 and a Little Caesar's bowl game we play for a championship among peers. Or we can be a AAA team playing in the majors.

How much money do you think we retain when we aren’t playing them? Imagine you’re the head of Comcast.. you paying a lot of money for that conference?

imagine you’re Ohio state and every big ten team gets 65 million from the conference now? They’re over there saying “we can get 150+ and leave the little 10 with 10-15 each.

then, while you’re over here cheering on constructively becoming Akron .. they’ll lift the 85 rule on the super teams and now you’ll be looking at marquee recruits at Purdue that would make you get a bitter beer face now.

but keep cheering it on lol

 

[Purdue80]

Moving on...

This map is the only thing that matters RE expansion.

Welcome to the B1G, Jayhawks...(and hey, maybe UConn)

Need to kick out Maryland.

 

[FirstDownB]

How much money do you think we retain when we aren’t playing them? Imagine you’re the head of Comcast.. you paying a lot of money for that conference?

imagine you’re Ohio state and every big ten team gets 65 million from the conference now? They’re over there saying “we can get 150+ and leave the little 10 with 10-15 each.

then, while you’re over here cheering on constructively becoming Akron .. they’ll lift the 85 rule on the super teams and now you’ll be looking at marquee recruits at Purdue that would make you get a bitter beer face now.

but keep cheering it on lol

There is something fundamental in my alternate reality I don't think you are grasping. Doesn't matter, it will never happen because there are enough P5 schools willing to play along with the big dogs.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

There is something fundamental in my alternate reality I don't think you are grasping. Doesn't matter, it will never happen because there are enough P5 schools willing to play along with the big dogs.

What does that mean? Play along in what regard?

 

[FirstDownB]

What does that mean? Play along in what regard?

Playing along by voting to let more big dogs in the conference because that’s what’s good for Ohio state instead of letting them go off and join their own super league.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Playing along by voting to let more big dogs in the conference because that’s what’s good for Ohio state instead of letting them go off and join their own super league.

What gets them more money and a bigger TV deal? A 20 team super conference or adding 6 powers to this one?

 

[FirstDownB]

What gets them more money and a bigger TV deal? A 20 team super conference or adding 6 powers to this one?

Probs the super conference

 

[BCfanatic2020]

Probs the super conference

There you go. Right now is the period where the powerful are testing the waters. “Hey a 20 team super conference! Woo!” If the public either has no reaction or says “hey that would be neat, that’s what it will be.” If there is outrage and people say they’ll dump their cable, MAYBE It will happen the way you’re saying it might

people who root for schools like Purdue need to be cynical now.. unless they wanna turn into Ohio

 

[FirstDownB]

There you go. Right now is the period where the powerful are testing the waters. “Hey a 20 team super conference! Woo!” If the public either has no reaction or says “hey that would be neat, that’s what it will be.” If there is outrage and people say they’ll dump their cable, MAYBE It will happen the way you’re saying it might

people who root for schools like Purdue need to be cynical now.. unless they wanna turn into Ohio

I was sort of advocating for a world with the 20 team super conference and Purdue’s of the world not trying to chase after OSU and Bama, but rather competing among peers. Thought that was clear.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

I was sort of advocating for a world with the 20 team super conference and Purdue’s of the world not trying to chase after OSU and Bama, but rather competing among peers. Thought that was clear.

Ok.. who do you think pays even as much as we get now for that? That’s not a viable Product for anything close to the money we get now..

 

[Kern County]

No, what you're trying to advance you cannot substantiate.
you can continue to repeat the same line, but it's a non-starter. Try again.

there's no doubt the entire package is essential ... revenue, athletics, and academics.

Given where they were in the other areas, the only way they get in is with outstanding academics like TX, UM, Illinois, Purdue, et al. It's no more difficult than that. Their academics were/are entirely too pedestrian to admit them.

Delany’s track record absolutely substantiates i and many others understand to be true while simultaneously discrediting your version. Once again, Nebraska was accepted, in spite of their academic standing. Pitt was rejected in spite of their academic standing. Maryland was accepted in spite of their athletic department being in a financial free fall. Rutgers had, at best, a modest athletic history and reputation.

What was and remains the differentiator in each of these instances? Those who were invited to join delivered an increased audience, while those who were rejected did not and could not. No matter how much you dismiss it, Delany’s track record on this unquestioned and perfectly clear, and it’s substantiated by each and every example I’ve provided. You're free to ignore these facts, as you’ve chosen to do, but that doesn’t change them.

 

[FirstDownB]

Ok.. who do you think pays even as much as we get now for that? That’s not a viable Product for anything close to the money we get now..

My scenario is pretty obviously not about schools like Purdue chasing the money and keeping up with the Joneses. We would take a haircut and compete with peers who get the same haircut.

 

[Purdue85]

Delany’s track record absolutely substantiates i and many others understand to be true while simultaneously discrediting your version. Once again, Nebraska was accepted, in spite of their academic standing. Pitt was rejected in spite of their academic standing. Maryland was accepted in spite of their athletic department being in a financial free fall. Rutgers had, at best, a modest athletic history and reputation.

What was and remains the differentiator in each of these instances? Those who were invited to join delivered an increased audience, while those who were rejected did not and could not. No matter how much you dismiss it, Delany’s track record on this unquestioned and perfectly clear, and it’s substantiated by each and every example I’ve provided. You're free to ignore these facts, as you’ve chosen to do, but that doesn’t change them.

*yawn" Same bs.

If Mizzou's academics had been a net gain for the B1G, they're in. Period.

that's not me making it up, that's a fact.

 

[BCfanatic2020]

My scenario is pretty obviously not about schools like Purdue chasing the money and keeping up with the Joneses. We would take a haircut and compete with peers who get the same haircut.

It would be a return to the resources we had back when Purdue, IU, northwestern etc took a lot of two stars

 

[Kern County]

*yawn" Same bs.

If Mizzou's academics had been a net gain for the B1G, they're in. Period.

that's not me making it up, that's a fact.

Lol. It’s not fact, and it ignores everything that Jim Delany did. Your take here is both uninformed and ironic.

 

[Purdue85]

Lol. It’s not fact, and it ignores everything that Jim Delany did. Your take here is both uninformed and ironic.

LOL
You cannot back up anything with facts.

You tried to claim "(it) was about media spread, not academics."

I asked you for the "media spread", and you don't know, so you avoided the answer.

At the time it was clear: there was nothing overly compelling about admitting them, and academics would have pushed them over, had they been like a Texas, UM, etc.

you can continue to grind this ax all you like, it still won't matter.

"Media spread". Okay, go....

 

[MisterBlack7]

LOL
You cannot back up anything with facts.

You tried to claim "(it) was about media spread, not academics."

I asked you for the "media spread", and you don't know, so you avoided the answer.

At the time it was clear: there was nothing overly compelling about admitting them, and academics would have pushed them over, had they been like a Texas, UM, etc.

you can continue to grind this ax all you like, it still won't matter.

"Media spread". Okay, go....

He explained to you what media spread is.

He gave you examples of how this came into play (Neb, Pitt, Maryland, Rutgers).

He is correct. It's about viewership.

Here's an article from when the B1G added Nebraska. Take a look at point 1.

Conference Expansion: Why Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany Is an Evil Genius

Throughout the process of expansion in college sports, it's pretty clear who has been pulling all of the strings and beginning the wildest shift in decades...

www.google.com

 

[Purdue85]

He explained to you what media spread is.

He gave you examples of how this came into play (Neb, Pitt, Maryland, Rutgers).

He is correct. It's about viewership.

Here's an article from when the B1G added Nebraska. Take a look at point 1.

Conference Expansion: Why Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany Is an Evil Genius

Throughout the process of expansion in college sports, it's pretty clear who has been pulling all of the strings and beginning the wildest shift in decades...

www.google.com

And I responded, I know what the term means. I asked what the spread was. Still waiting.

Point 1? you mean, listed under "benefits" of expansion? That's correct, and that's never been debated.

It's clearly not solely about viewership. Otherwise we'd be all over the US.

EDIT: I have never argued that viewership isn't a part of the equation. In fact, the opposite. But, the Mizzou decision was beyond that singular variable.

I also found this an interesting point (from your article):

While the Big Ten may not look like the best conference on paper, they are no doubt a much better conference for having a quality growing program like Nebraska in the fold.

 

[cubuffsdoug]

Yeah, I'd kind of dig that. Maybe we could give Maryland and Rutgers to the ACC and just add Missouri and Iowa State to get back to 10. For some reason, I always come back to Iowa State in the list of schools that I think should be in the Big Ten. I know they're not an athletic powerhouse and they don't dominate a large TV market (and they're the somewhat overshadowed in their own state, kind of like Purdue). Nonetheless, they just seem like they would 'belong'.

On a larger scale, college athletics has become too big and money driven and has lost sight of its original purpose. I used to fear what would happen to college sports if the NBA or NFL had effective minor leagues. I am to the point that I would embrace it and I'd probably still be here basking in the glory of a Purdue streak over IU.

But you do realize TV markets are a major reason why the B1G revenue jumped by 10s of millions with the addition of Maryland and Rutgers. If this was 50 years ago, what you suggest makes sense, but we are long past that point.

 

[MisterBlack7]

And I responded, I know what the term means. I asked what the spread was. Still waiting.

Point 1? you mean, listed under "benefits" of expansion? That's correct, and that's never been debated.

It's clearly not solely about viewership. Otherwise we'd be all over the US.

EDIT: I have never argued that viewership isn't a part of the equation. In fact, the opposite. But, the Mizzou decision was beyond that singular variable.

I also found this an interesting point (from your article):

While the Big Ten may not look like the best conference on paper, they are no doubt a much better conference for having a quality growing program like Nebraska in the fold.

Viewership is the deciding factor.

Nebraska was admitted (despite their sub par academics).

Rutgers was admitted (despite their sub par sports).

 

[Purdue85]

Viewership is the deciding factor.

Nebraska was admitted (despite their sub par academics).

Rutgers was admitted (despite their sub par sports).

"deciding"

those two certainly opened new "markets" in new regions of the country, no doubt.

My point remains.

"Media spread...."

 

[Kern County]

LOL
You cannot back up anything with facts.

You tried to claim "(it) was about media spread, not academics."

I asked you for the "media spread", and you don't know, so you avoided the answer.

At the time it was clear: there was nothing overly compelling about admitting them, and academics would have pushed them over, had they been like a Texas, UM, etc.

you can continue to grind this ax all you like, it still won't matter.

"Media spread". Okay, go....

I’ve explained this to you several times but you refuse to accept the fact that Jim Delany was trying to expand the media footprint of the Big 10. Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers fulfilled that goal. Mizzou and Pitt did not. Academics, as has been shown, didn’t impact JD’s decision making. Not sure why you’re having trouble grasping these truths.

 

[Kern County]

"deciding"

those two certainly opened new "markets" in new regions of the country, no doubt.

My point remains.

"Media spread...."

Your point is to argue, even when you’ve been shown to be demonstrably wrong. Please take care so you don’t step off the edge of the Earth.

 

[Purdue85]

I’ve explained this to you several times but you refuse to accept the fact that Jim Delany was trying to expand the media footprint of the Big 10. Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers fulfilled that goal. Mizzou and Pitt did not. Academics, as has been shown, didn’t impact JD’s decision making. Not sure why you’re having trouble grasping these truths.

"the fact"

I have not disputed Delaney's goal. go back and re-read my posts.

you're trying to argue something you cannot substantiate, and using words like "fact", and "truths". It's uncompelling.

now... "Media spread"... how much was it?