Quick question: why do people think the ACC is going to lose teams to the B1G when the time comes? I think it’s a dangerous game to play the “wait and hope” game.
Conference Realignment
- Status
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
Look at every single time the conference has expanded. Each time it's gone after a new market. First came Pennsylvania. Then came Nebraska (despite academics). Then came Maryland and New Jersey. History indicates you're wrong.
I actually almost included them in my analysis earlier. I just don’t see any current ACC school leaving to join the B1G. I see no real advantage for them or the B1G unless it’s way more academically accredited than Syracuse (thinking Duke/UNC; although I don’t see the advantage for them to join a different conference unless the ACC collapses).
Just my thoughts though.
It was pretty clear the Big passed on Mizzou & I'm not sure the landscape has changed in such a way they would have a chance now. But with Texas potentially on the move again, ACC GOR & likely firmly conference #4 with the fall apart of the B12, maybe that moves the bar for MO. I hope it doesn't happen, but if this stabilizes the ACC and takes them off the table, the big thinks they need to get to 16, I could see the big settling for MO/KAN.
There were also rumors that OK inquired with OSU, then when the big said no, OK asked by themselves...less sure this is true, I think if OK came with Texas or A&M they would be in...but after I called A&M, I would call OK way before MO. The SEC makes more sense to me for OK, but I don't want to underestimate UT's ability to piss people off.
I also would bet that if Texas/OK are courting the SEC, due diligence is they would have had conversations with Big, P12, ACC as well as SEC.
At the end of the day, I think/hope the B1G doesn't settle & doesn't move unless a big fish becomes available, which I'm not expecting.
But does it? Think long and hard about the schools that were added… Then look at the list I provided.
Rutgers and Maryland check off highly academically accredited schools and a new market. So which was the priority?
The kicker is Nebraska over Mizzou. That’s the one that would discredit me more than the examples you mentioned.
Regardless, at some point the B1G won’t have a new market into which to reach viably. Texas being an example. Adding a Baylor or TCU wouldn’t add the gains we’d hope for, and would come at a an academic loss.
My question for you is what’s your better solution than KU and ISU… that’s reasonable?
EDIT: I see your list included Nebraska. But, it also included Penn St (another AAU school). Long story short, it’s hard to tell if market is the biggest push (it is definitely a push, but to what end?).
my 2 cents, I think half of the B12 would have joined the big 10 last time around if the big would have invited them: Kansas, ISU, MO, OK, OSU, Neb, I think most of the ACC adds as well. Money wise Big10 >> than ACC, so all the schools without history I think the big could easily pick off at end of GOR. Market wise you don't need Pitt if you have PSU, the Big thought Rutgers was a better play to NYC market than Syracuse. I think VA/UNC/GT/Clemson could have a ticket if they wanted, but I hope we are getting/staying picky.
I
Buck Turgidson
- Massachusetts
Flipping A&M would be a big win.
Remember that one of the draws of A&M going to the SEC was to be the only SEC school in Texas - hence a recruiting advantage over the Big 12 schools. What if A&M were the only Texas School in the Big Ten - there is some advantage to that. The TV money in the B1G is still about 10% higher than in the SEC (UT and OK as members notwithstanding). Not sure what the buy-out is for leaving the SEC, but an interesting thought.
KU and Texas A&M would be a nice add for the B1G
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
I said this in a previous post:
Iowa State isn't adding money to the conference. You don't just add a school to add it because it will take away money from every other institution. And while I have been convinced to some extent that KU might be viable, they don't bring enough money to the table to justify adding another institution that would be a net negative.
As for who, if anyone, we add. We're the second richest conference in the land. If Delaney were still the commissioner, I'd have faith that he'd find a way to utilize that fact to destabilize the ACC and/or the Pac-12. With Warren as the commissioner, if I were betting on the outcome, I'd say we either standpat or only add KU.
Epsilon
M tipping over
- Pdx
Interesting. How on earth does Kansas State pull in more money than Cal?
Remembering we don't have to do anything. I think KU because of basketball could make sense, but I'm ok to pass on KU. I think for ISU the better option is to pass. In my mind, you expand to increase per team revenues...inherently adding more teams generates more revenue, but it doesn't inherently increase teams revenue share after you divide it by more teams and it will increase traveling expenses and put additional travel time on your student athletes, Size wise I like the old big ten pre-Penn State, so the starter to be on the table is you need to increase revenue for existing members, market size is certainly tied to that, as well as football brand, ... I don't know the end size of all this, but I think we are approaching that limit, & despite the SEC being the better Football conference the B1G is still winning the money game...team 15/16 need to further that mission or there is no need to add more teams.
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
Also note, when we were adding Rutgers and Maryland, we could have easily opted for Iowa State and/or Pitt instead. Why didn't we? Because the priority was finding schools that fit in new markets. The goal was to add viewers to the BTN and give us better footing when negotiating our tv rights. We don't have to guess what the priority will be in the future, history has made it extremely obvious.
Frank the Tank made this argument when Texas was flirting with the Big Ten. That's when I realized he doesn't really know what he's talking about. Research grants aren't given to athletic conferences and researchers don't collaborate because their schools play each other. The CIC or whatever they call it is a nice way to share equipment, but it's not doling out research dollars.
I do agree that the presidents want and will require similar schools, but at the end of day, I believe any increase in membership will be based on what the school can deliver financially to the conference members in terms of television rights, whether that is watched on TV or a streaming device. And I do believe that a growing market will be the preferred target.
It is about the same, & the bulk is TV money and the PAC12 deal vs Big12...but there are also abnormalities where schools (Oregon) signs a deal with NIke and gets a big one year bump, add in appearance money for bowls/NCAA, but I suspect it is largely this
Cal attendance
Thanks god for Rutgers, singlehandly keeping us as the 2nd worst football team in the big for a number of years...someone has to be the doormat of the big, just hope they bring a big TV market and are good enough to keep the that market interested.
Because you had teams available with TWO priorities (market and academics - Rutgers and Maryland) vs ONE (academics - ISU and Pitt). That’s a no brainer every time.
The question will come when it’s academic money vs. market money. So far, the only example we have of that is Nebraska over Missouri. Very small sample size.
Okay, that’s actually a great explanation. I can buy that.
altenberger22
- South Carolina
Which brings us back to the original Big 10 concept -- a MIDWESTERN-based power conference.
However, expanding the Big 10 brand across new/large markets coast to coast is the real driver. $$$$$
I definitely think Delany was hoping to break up the ACC, at least somewhat. If I recall, wasn't Florida State close to bolting, or at least making noise about it?
mattcoldagelli
- The Transfer Portal
A jayhawk in the hand is worth two in the bush. The Big XII implosion is imminent, and there is one school there that's a cultural fit, brings a new media market, and a bona fide national brand in their basketball program - I hope the B1G doesn't overthink this.
I agree. Unless there's something we are not aware of, this should be a done deal as soon as it's ready to happen.
The Galloping Ghost
- Washington, DC
I can see the ACC seriously contemplating KU if we turn them down. While they'd be a geographical outlier for the conference, that basketball program fits in perfectly. That scares me.
Colorado would be a good addition, but I still think taking teams from the remaining P5 (P4? 
) conferences is more difficult if we’re looking to do this within the next two years. KU and Colorado would actually be my first two choices (again, within reason).
) conferences is more difficult if we’re looking to do this within the next two years. KU and Colorado would actually be my first two choices (again, within reason).Central IL Illini
- Springfield, IL
I think KU and then we hold off for ND, North Carolina, or Virginia. I know a lot keep referencing the Maryland and Rutgers additions, and thinking it is all about new tv markets. On the Yahoo CFB Podcast with Dan Wetzel and Pat Forde they mentioned the landscape has changed drastically and is more about number of streams, than adding a new cable market. This would line up with the thinking of the big "brands" over big/new "markets". That is why I think Kansas is a lock because of their brand (even though it is mainly basketball), and why Notre Dame and North Carolina are the other obvious choices. The ACC agreement is probably going to make that a bit of a problem, which is why I think Kansas comes first because they will need a home.
- Status