Jump to content
huskerfan2000

UT to B1G? According to this talks have happened..

Recommended Posts

ScottyIce    1,836

Really hope UT and OU go to the Big10.

 

Really makes the West Division freaking awesome. Nebraska would get Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas on a yearly basis. Plus 2 new ones from the other side every two years.

 

Could you imagine a schedule where you get those 7 listed above, and then Michigan/OSU/PSU/MSU as one rotational. PLUS a marquee OOC game or even a couple?

First time I've ever agreed with you. That would be incredible. Been preaching that for a while now. Man, what a home schedule we would have every year.

Away: Wisconsin, Texas, Minnesota, Mich

Home: Iowa, Oklahoma, NW, Illinois, B10

 

Then flip it every year, plus our OOC game(s).

 

Hot diggity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HuskerNation1    905

Really hope UT and OU go to the Big10.

 

Really makes the West Division freaking awesome. Nebraska would get Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas on a yearly basis. Plus 2 new ones from the other side every two years.

 

Could you imagine a schedule where you get those 7 listed above, and then Michigan/OSU/PSU/MSU as one rotational. PLUS a marquee OOC game or even a couple?

 

Given our bad experience with UT in the past, I would not want them to follow us to the Big Ten no matter what they might bring to the table from a football perspective. I know Delaney would love to get the Texas market though. If I had to pick, I would take Kansas and Oklahoma as you would get the KC and OKC markets. You have to remember the BIG is a huge basketball conference too, so Kansas and Oklahoma would both add to that. Having Kansas in football would add a nice winnable game compared to a pretty stacked league. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach Power'T    1,327

 

Really hope UT and OU go to the Big10.

 

Really makes the West Division freaking awesome. Nebraska would get Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas on a yearly basis. Plus 2 new ones from the other side every two years.

 

Could you imagine a schedule where you get those 7 listed above, and then Michigan/OSU/PSU/MSU as one rotational. PLUS a marquee OOC game or even a couple?

 

Given our bad experience with UT in the past, I would not want them to follow us to the Big Ten no matter what they might bring to the table from a football perspective. I know Delaney would love to get the Texas market though. If I had to pick, I would take Kansas and Oklahoma as you would get the KC and OKC markets. You have to remember the BIG is a huge basketball conference too, so Kansas and Oklahoma would both add to that. Having Kansas in football would add a nice winnable game compared to a pretty stacked league. :)

 

I'm sorry but Kansas adds ZERO in anything except BBall. Texas adds in EVERYTHING. It's a no brainer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GBRFAN    422

Agree that FB is much bigger then BB, however either team with the addition of OU would put us more in the middle of the western division and would be great for recruiting - with that said there are more recruits in Texas then in Kansas. Something tells me if UT joins the Big10 we would see a shift from UT owning us in FB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,436

 

 

Really hope UT and OU go to the Big10.

 

Really makes the West Division freaking awesome. Nebraska would get Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas on a yearly basis. Plus 2 new ones from the other side every two years.

 

Could you imagine a schedule where you get those 7 listed above, and then Michigan/OSU/PSU/MSU as one rotational. PLUS a marquee OOC game or even a couple?

 

Given our bad experience with UT in the past, I would not want them to follow us to the Big Ten no matter what they might bring to the table from a football perspective. I know Delaney would love to get the Texas market though. If I had to pick, I would take Kansas and Oklahoma as you would get the KC and OKC markets. You have to remember the BIG is a huge basketball conference too, so Kansas and Oklahoma would both add to that. Having Kansas in football would add a nice winnable game compared to a pretty stacked league. :)

I'm sorry but Kansas adds ZERO in anything except BBall. Texas adds in EVERYTHING. It's a no brainer.

Kansas not only adds Basketball, it adds a PATSY for Nebraska and Wisconsin and sometimes Iowa on a yearly basis. Plus they don't come with the migraine that is trying to make Texas happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,483

With 16 teams I doubt that we stick with only two divisions. Pods make way more sense. A west pod with NU, OU, TX, and IA would be crazy. Crazy bad for Iowa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
husker98    100

When you look on the surface at all the bonuses you would think adding Texas would be a no brainer.

 

But when you dig deeper and uncover how much they have screwed UNL and every other school in the Big 12 you have to be brain dead to want them in the BIG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach Power'T    1,327

With 16 teams I doubt that we stick with only two divisions. Pods make way more sense. A west pod with NU, OU, TX, and IA would be crazy. Crazy bad for Iowa

Wrong. With the 9 game conf schedule it actually makes more sense to have 2 divisions because you get 7 game in division and 2 rotational games from the other side.

 

Pods are cool but don't make as much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,483

 

 

With 16 teams I doubt that we stick with only two divisions. Pods make way more sense. A west pod with NU, OU, TX, and IA would be crazy. Crazy bad for Iowa

Wrong. With the 9 game conf schedule it actually makes more sense to have 2 divisions because you get 7 game in division and 2 rotational games from the other side.

 

Pods are cool but don't make as much sense.

Wrong. With two 8-team divisions it takes four seasons to play everyone. With 4-team pods you can play everyone in two seasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottyIce    1,836

Starting to look more and more legit.

 

Source told ESPN that Big 12 "could be close to the end"

 

Man... How sweet would that be.

 

Adds:

B1G: Texas & OU

SEC: Baylor, TCU

ACC: Kansas, WV

PAC: Texas Tech?

 

I don't know about those others, just that I'd want OU and Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VectorVictor    1,830

MattyIce, I presume you're referring to these articles?:

 

http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/17612297/where-do-things-stand-big-12-expansion-talks

 

http://247sports.com/Bolt/Source-tells-ESPN-Big-12-could-be-close-to-the-end-47692920

 

Yeah, that's been the rub with Big XII expansion, that they need to get eight or more votes out of 10, and we already know that Oklahoma is most likely to vote no for the whole bunch, and Texass is going to turn their nose up at just about all of the candidates as well.

 

Also, as I mentioned before, the GOR isn't going to be extended. So even if they invited all 11 candidates, it doesn't matter, because the two principal actors in this whole thing (Oklahoma and Texass) aren't signing the GOR because they've got plans to leave as soon as it expires (or sooner, if they can get out of the GOR for cheap).

 

So far, neither Texas nor Oklahoma has indicated it would agree to a grant of rights extension under any scenario. Without the extension, the clock will continue to tick on the Big 12, regardless of whether it expands or not, as the Longhorns and Sooners will be free to leave for greener pastures when the rights expire.
"If the two parents don't commit [to signing the extension]," said one industry source, "what does that tell you?"

 

 

It tells us a lot, actually.

 

-----

 

As for conference additions, I'd say you could see the following realistically happen (with my personal percentage of likelihood they would be picked up by that conference):

 

  • B1G: Texass (75%), Oklahoma (85%), Kansas (25%)
  • Pac-12: Texass (25%), Oklahoma (15%), Texas Tech (15%), Okie Lite (10%)
  • SEC: TCU (65%), Kansas State (60%), Okie Lite (35%), Oklahoma (15%), Kansas (15%)
  • ACC: West Virginia (75%)
  • Mountain West: Baylor (75%), Texas Tech (75%), Okie Lite (75%), TCU (50%), Kansas State (50%), Iowa State (50%), Kansas (40%)
  • AAC: Iowa State (75%), Baylor (50%), Kansas State (50%), Okie Lite (25%), Texas Tech (25%), Kansas (15%), TCU (10%)

B1G: We know that if either Texass and/or Oklahoma show up, they're getting in. But if one of them decides to go elsewhere (Texass to Pac-12, Oklahoma to Pac-12/SEC), then Kansas would be next in the pecking order because of Basketball (it's what matters next after football is exhausted, and Delaney is a former NCAA Basketball player, has aspirations for B1G BBall dominance, etc.)

 

Pac-12: We know they've vetted Oklahoma, Okie Lite, Texas Tech, and Texass when they were going to go west all those years ago. Realistically, Texass may choose them over the B1G, which means they need a moving buddy (likely Tech) unless the Pac-12 decides to pick up one of their own (e.g. Nevada). Okie Lite really doesn't move the meter for anyone since they're a small school, small viewership, no pedigree, and no one gives a **** about them except when they're beating Texass and Oklahoma.

 

SEC: Oklahoma fans want to go to the SEC (mainly because their fans are morons), but this runs against what their administration wants to do (read: improve OU's academic cache with a conference move), and the SEC is known more for groundbreaking paper mills than groundbreaking research papers. TCU would be welcome, though, as it gives aTm a rival, gives the SEC the DFW market, and they've been stable and competent. Okie Lite is only on there if Oklahoma goes to the SEC (read: moving buddy), and Kansas State/Kansas will both get looks because the SEC needs to throw Mizzery a bone at some point.

 

ACC: West Virginia is the only school they'll realistically look at unless they get some grand Napoleonic idea to poach SEC schools and move west, which won't happen. WVU could be paired up with a moving buddy (UConn, for example) that would work well.

 

Mountain West, AAC, C-USA, Sun Belt: The MWC will get first crack at the top teams, as they're the conference most likely to get the former Big XII's seat at the P5 table. Whatever they don't take (e.g. Baylor, who is more scandal-ridden than a bible-thumping Republican in Texas), will likely fall into the AAC's lap, then the C-USA, then the Sun Belt will pick up the rest. I really don't see the MAC coming into play here, to be honest, but stranger things have happened. :dunno

 

Of note: Iowa State will be the last picked, and will likely be a C-USA or Sun Belt team that we'll be able to schedule during non-con for a sure win. Okie Lite will probably be second-to-last picked if they aren't given a lifeline by another school, then Texas Tech. I doubt we'll see any of the other seven schools fall this far down and be available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,436

Gonna be so nice having Oklahoma in the Big Ten. The stupid part about it, even if UT ends up in the Big Ten they will still blame us for leaving the Big 12 and killing it because they are stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach Power'T    1,327

 

 

With 16 teams I doubt that we stick with only two divisions. Pods make way more sense. A west pod with NU, OU, TX, and IA would be crazy. Crazy bad for Iowa

Wrong. With the 9 game conf schedule it actually makes more sense to have 2 divisions because you get 7 game in division and 2 rotational games from the other side.

 

Pods are cool but don't make as much sense.

Wrong. With two 8-team divisions it takes four seasons to play everyone. With 4-team pods you can play everyone in two seasons.

 

Yes, but it doesn't need to be that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottyIce    1,836

Legends Pod

Nebraska

Oklahoma

Texas

Iowa

 

Leaders Pod

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan State

Illinois

 

Pod C

Northwestern

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Indiana

 

Pod D

Purdue

Maryland

Rutgers

Penn State

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoradoHusk    3,840

Legends Pod

Nebraska

Oklahoma

Texas

Iowa

 

Leaders Pod

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan State

Illinois

 

Pod C

Northwestern

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Indiana

 

Pod D

Purdue

Maryland

Rutgers

Penn State

The imbalance among pods is ridiculous. Can't have it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Husker2019    426

How do you decide who goes to the championship game?

2 pods match up with each other to form a division. Then every 2 or so years the pods rotate so different divisions are formed, but your core 4 are still together.

 

Or at least that's how I understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottyIce    1,836

I actually hate the pods idea.

 

Nebraska

Oklahoma

Texas

Iowa

Wisconsin

Illinois

Minnesota

Purdue

 

Ohio State

Michigan

Penn State

Michigan State

Maryland

Rutgers

Indiana

Northwestern

 

Every 4 years you play everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach Power'T    1,327

I actually hate the pods idea.

 

Nebraska

Oklahoma

Texas

Iowa

Wisconsin

Illinois

Minnesota

Purdue

 

Ohio State

Michigan

Penn State

Michigan State

Maryland

Rutgers

Indiana

Northwestern

 

Every 4 years you play everyone.

It wouldn't be every 4 would it? You have to play 2 from the other side twice (home and away), so I think it would be 8 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VectorVictor    1,830

 

I actually hate the pods idea.

 

Nebraska

Oklahoma

Texas

Iowa

Wisconsin

Illinois

Minnesota

Purdue

 

Ohio State

Michigan

Penn State

Michigan State

Maryland

Rutgers

Indiana

Northwestern

 

Every 4 years you play everyone.

It wouldn't be every 4 would it? You have to play 2 from the other side twice (home and away), so I think it would be 8 years?

 

 

You could either set it up to run through the other schools in four years (best option), with Home-and-home completed in eight years, or set it up for four schools to get home-and-home over four years, then the next four schools the next four years, so on and so forth.

 

Also, if you want a laugh, go read the zombie-like thread on Shaggy Bevo about realignment, and how Texass fans are trying to justify away not signing the GOR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoradoHusk    3,840

 

I actually hate the pods idea.

 

Nebraska

Oklahoma

Texas

Iowa

Wisconsin

Illinois

Minnesota

Purdue

 

Ohio State

Michigan

Penn State

Michigan State

Maryland

Rutgers

Indiana

Northwestern

 

Every 4 years you play everyone.

It wouldn't be every 4 would it? You have to play 2 from the other side twice (home and away), so I think it would be 8 years?

 

You could set it up like the NFL, where the teams rotate through the opposite conference divisions. They don't do the home and home thing for 2 straight years, they will play an opposite conference team at home in year 1, and then play that team on the road in year 5.

 

So, you rotate through the entire conference once every 4 years, but only see them at home every 8 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach Power'T    1,327

Well, couldn't you formulate it so you went through everyone and then back through again? Switching home and away every 4. Years?

Yea. You could just make sure each team has a home and away within the 8 year window without being in back to back years. Would take some time getting used to but I'm sure not a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
austinhusker    16

Texas to the Big 10 would be awful. Their lust for total control of their conference and its members makes it all the more unlikely. Let them waste away in the terrible Big12.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kernal    680

With 16 teams, pods make the most sense:

 

Within your own pod you play 3 games.

Against each of the other three 4-team pods: you play two teams each year, (so half of the other teams).

 

That's 9 conference games. And the best part is players play every team in the conference, home and away, every four years (a student-athlete's career). It's unbelievable to me that with only 14 teams now some of our players will never play against Michigan. They'll play a bunch of non-conference teams twice but not one of the most historic teams in their own conference. It's stupid.

 

You can group the pods to make divisions however you want, so you then have a CCG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,483

With pods you could also have the pod champs play a 4-team B1G playoff followed by a national 4-team playoff. Assuming 4 16-team conferences provides a pretty seamless postseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottyIce    1,836

With pods you could also have the pod champs play a 4-team B1G playoff followed by a national 4-team playoff. Assuming 4 16-team conferences provides a pretty seamless postseason.

This would be lot-o-fun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VectorVictor    1,830

Adding more logs to the bonfire...

 

http://www.campusrush.com/big-12-expansion-oklahoma-sooners-texas-longhorns-david-boren-2018459914.html

 

We know that Boren and Oklahoma was not in favor of expansion before unless they were quality additions (read: no one available save for Notre Dame or some SEC schools), and yet somehow got talked into chairing the committee for Big XII expansion. The fact that they're now coming back to their original position shouldn't be a surprise for anyone here.

 

Also, it appears that Boren is laying the groundwork for Oklahoma's eventual exit from the Big XII, from his comments on the current state of the Big XII. Of note from the article:

 

There's an increasing concern that Boren could end up as a so-called double-agent, speaking for the league but working for a school that ultimately desires to speak with other leagues. There's also an increasing level of distrust around the league, especially since Oklahoma and Texas have no intention of extending their grant of right past 2025 anytime soon.

 

 

Boren isn't a double agent, per se, but he is acting in the best interests of his school. And we know there's been communication between current Big XII schools and the B1G (thought to be Oklahoma, especially last year when Oklahoma shill and backdoor mouthpiece Barry Trammel was pimping the greatness both on and off the field of the B1G in comparison to the Big XII).

 

The article also brings up the point of there being an umbilical cord to Okie Lite, Oklahoma's mentally unstable, but rich due to luck, brother. But faced with the prospect of either propping Oklahoma up or killing both programs by forcing them to go together...the choice is obvious. The conferences hold the power in this discussion, and as much as Okie Lite wants to think they're worth anything...they're not.

 

However, the article does incorrectly rule out the B1G as a potential landing point for Oklahoma later on in the article. We know via the OWH that the B1G was already willing to take Oklahoma as part of that five-team package proposal that aTm killed because they're greedy, myopic, and ignorant (read: perfect SEC material). And Oklahoma has a desire to boost it's academic cache in the same manner Nebraska has since joining the B1G--something that won't happen with a move to any other conference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ColoNoCoHusker    396

I think a lot of folks are underestimating how pervasive politics are for the states/schools involved. There is a reason Texas bankrupted the SWC and destroyed the Big XII.

 

Texas politics are the worst-version of Southern-politics. It's patient, pervasive, persistent, and completely selfish. While the people individually are not bad people, the organization is horribly myopic and self-centered. Athletically UT seems like a great addition but there is no containing UT's politics, damage, and greed. Getting in bed with UT requires sleeping with literally every person in TX.

 

I think the B1G will last longer and be happier w/o UT, honestly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach Power'T    1,327

With 16 teams, pods make the most sense:

 

Within your own pod you play 3 games.

Against each of the other three 4-team pods: you play two teams each year, (so half of the other teams).

 

That's 9 conference games. And the best part is players play every team in the conference, home and away, every four years (a student-athlete's career). It's unbelievable to me that with only 14 teams now some of our players will never play against Michigan. They'll play a bunch of non-conference teams twice but not one of the most historic teams in their own conference. It's stupid.

 

You can group the pods to make divisions however you want, so you then have a CCG.

What you proposed wouldn't work.

 

If you go the pods route and group them up so you can have a ccg. you have to play a FULL other pod. Not just half.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Coach Power'T    1,327

With pods you could also have the pod champs play a 4-team B1G playoff followed by a national 4-team playoff. Assuming 4 16-team conferences provides a pretty seamless postseason.

That's getting to complex in my opinion.

 

I think the POD's idea is just so we see more opponents more often rather than being more efficient. I like the 8 team divisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,483

 

With 16 teams, pods make the most sense:

 

Within your own pod you play 3 games.

Against each of the other three 4-team pods: you play two teams each year, (so half of the other teams).

 

That's 9 conference games. And the best part is players play every team in the conference, home and away, every four years (a student-athlete's career). It's unbelievable to me that with only 14 teams now some of our players will never play against Michigan. They'll play a bunch of non-conference teams twice but not one of the most historic teams in their own conference. It's stupid.

 

You can group the pods to make divisions however you want, so you then have a CCG.

What you proposed wouldn't work.

 

If you go the pods route and group them up so you can have a ccg. you have to play a FULL other pod. Not just half.

 

 

Not to answer for Kernal, but yes, it would work. with 9 conference games you would always play the other 3 teams in your pod. That leaves 6 conference games against the other 12 teams in the conference. Half. You would play everyone in 2 seasons. You would play everyone home-and-away in 4 seasons.

 

Why is that more complex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottyIce    1,836

 

With pods you could also have the pod champs play a 4-team B1G playoff followed by a national 4-team playoff. Assuming 4 16-team conferences provides a pretty seamless postseason.

That's getting to complex in my opinion.

 

I think the POD's idea is just so we see more opponents more often rather than being more efficient. I like the 8 team divisions.

 

 

I disagree... I LOVE the idea of that.... Quite honestly, I LOVE the idea of adding another football game. If you were to go all the way....

3 Out of Conference Games

9 Conference Games

1 Pod Championships

1 Conference Championships

1 Semi-Final Playoffs

1 National Championship Game

 

16 games sounds great to me!

 

Play the pod championships on the same day in 2 neutral site stadiums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ScottyIce    1,836

How about this:

 

We add Oklahoma and Houston? Is Houston on the academic list we are looking at?

 

Would be funny to leave Texas out in the cold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,483

How about this:

 

We add Oklahoma and Houston? Is Houston on the academic list we are looking at?

 

Would be funny to leave Texas out in the cold.

No, Houston is not an AAU institution. But neither are we as of 2011. I'm not sure that is a deciding factor anymore, but even if it weren't, I doubt the B1G would consider Houston.

 

There are a lot of factors that Delaney had mentioned in the past about schools that would fit the "profile" he was looking for. I remember geography being one of them, but then he softened on that, leading us to speculate about several ACC schools. I think our "National Brand" and history was enough to forget the AAU thing. (even before we were dropped, we had been ranked at the bottom of the group for decades) I don't think a school like Houston really checks off enough boxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VectorVictor    1,830

I think a lot of folks are underestimating how pervasive politics are for the states/schools involved. There is a reason Texas bankrupted the SWC and destroyed the Big XII.

 

Texas politics are the worst-version of Southern-politics. It's patient, pervasive, persistent, and completely selfish. While the people individually are not bad people, the organization is horribly myopic and self-centered. Athletically UT seems like a great addition but there is no containing UT's politics, damage, and greed. Getting in bed with UT requires sleeping with literally every person in TX.

 

I think the B1G will last longer and be happier w/o UT, honestly...

 

Yes, but understand the conferences are the ones holding the power this time, and not the states.

 

When the Big XII was formed, the SWC refugees and Big 8 were desperate for different reasons, though the SWC refugees' needs were more pressing and larger than the Big 8's needs. Because of that, the state of Texass was able to force Baylor on the conference and make those Texass schools a package deal.

 

Now, the conferences hold the cards, especially the B1G. They can walk away from the table if, for example, Oklahoma is saddled with propping up it's Special Needs brother in Stillwater. And it would be career suicide for anyone in the Oklahoma State Legislature to force Oklahoma to be tethered to (and eventually sink with) Okie Lite, as Oklahoma football is a money-maker for the state. Likewise for Texass, though they control Austin through their dirty oil money anyway.

 

This is *ALSO* another reason Kansas is an attractive pick-up for the B1G--less state legislature drama. We already know Kansas isn't tethered to KSU (see when Kansas was about to take a Big East invite before that conference collapsed), and the Kansas president even confirmed they're not tethered back in 2009/2010. Less drama, a great basketball pickup, and the KC market make Kansas more palatable.

 

Is Kansas a better pickup than Texass? F*** no, but if Texass tries to play hardball or the State Legislature of Texass tries to force more schools into the deal, the B1G is already making enough money and will already have an "IN" into North Texas via Oklahoma. They can pair Oklahoma with Kansas, and it will still be viewed as an excellent pickup by the B1G, and Texass can go back to wading around in its kiddie pool of a conference, or go out east to the Pac-12...where they'll probably allow Texass to keep Bevo TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VectorVictor    1,830

 

How about this:

 

We add Oklahoma and Houston? Is Houston on the academic list we are looking at?

 

Would be funny to leave Texas out in the cold.

No, Houston is not an AAU institution. But neither are we as of 2011. I'm not sure that is a deciding factor anymore, but even if it weren't, I doubt the B1G would consider Houston.

 

There are a lot of factors that Delaney had mentioned in the past about schools that would fit the "profile" he was looking for. I remember geography being one of them, but then he softened on that, leading us to speculate about several ACC schools. I think our "National Brand" and history was enough to forget the AAU thing. (even before we were dropped, we had been ranked at the bottom of the group for decades) I don't think a school like Houston really checks off enough boxes.

 

 

Guys--drop the AAU requirement. That got killed when the B1G brought us on, and remember--the B1G was already going to take Oklahoma as part of that five team deal way back when. Oklahoma isn't in the AAU. Nebraska isn't in the AAU. The AAU isn't a pre-requisite any longer.

 

As for Houston, it's a commuter school that's playing above it's station. As soon as Herman is gone, it will go back to being an also-ran. Additionally, other than the Houston TV market, there's nothing else appealing for Houston. It's not a realistic target for the B1G.

 

 

I would take OU-MU or OU-KU though.

Mizzery is a legitimate third option here if the B1G doesn't like KU. Not sure if they'd bite, considering they've got a comfy gig going on in the SEC right now. But the SEC has no GOR, so Mizzery is fair game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,483

Southwest Division:

Iowa

Nebraska

Kansas

Oklahoma

final weekend games: NU-OU (Thanksgiving Game), Iowa-KU(Another new rivalry for iowa. screw them anyway.)

 

Northwest Division:

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Northwestern

Illinois

final weekend games: UM-UW (Paul Bunyon's Axe, oldest rivalry game) , NW-Ill (Land of Lincoln game)

 

Central Division:

Michigan State

Michigan

Indiana

Ohio State

final weekend: Mich-OSU (The Game), MSU-UI (Old Brass Spittoon game)

 

East Division:

Purdue

Penn State

Maryland

Rutgers

final weekend:?

 

I could see Iowa-Illinois getting flipped, or Purdue-Indiana, but It would be hard to break up Mich State-Mich-OSU due to the rivalries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VectorVictor    1,830

Delany says Big Ten not actively looking to expand. "We aren't in the drama business." #Huskers

 

That doesn't mean anything. Or have we already forgotten the denials about the B1G offices and Nebraska meeting? Or the B1G and other schools in the Big XII (since there was that five team plan per the OWH)?

 

Also, saw this piece from Dennis Dodd from the other day:

 

http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/big-12-expansion-losing-momentum-no-grant-of-rights-extension-ranking-candidates/

 

Of note was the confirmation that the GORs would not be extended. This is pretty much a tacit confirmation that Texass and/or OU are wanting out by the conference...and honestly, it may not be *THAT* bad for the Big XII if one or both left.

 

If anything, they could expand now by four schools, give Texass and/or OU their exit, then expand the GOR, lock in a favorable TV deal with the networks, and confirm P5 status as a conference.

 

Sure it won't have Texass, but a Big XII with Texas, Kansas (read: Kansas City), and depending on expansion, Colorado, would garner them a good deal--better than being relegated to the non-P5 table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Edison's Enemy    448

Colorado?

 

Right when they are getting better because of their west coast exposure?

 

I can't imagine Colorado leaving the Pac12. Its just such a good fit.

Footprint, not school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,483

If anything, they could expand now by four schools, give Texass and/or OU their exit, then expand the GOR, lock in a favorable TV deal with the networks, and confirm P5 status as a conference.

 

I think that in this scenario the P5 becomes the P4, and the Big XII becomes the strongest "Group of 6" Conference (assuming they can grab some decent teams to add from Mt West and CUSA). Ala the AAC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VectorVictor    1,830

 

Colorado?

 

Right when they are getting better because of their west coast exposure?

 

I can't imagine Colorado leaving the Pac12. Its just such a good fit.

Footprint, not school

 

 

Thank you. Should have elaborated we're talking markets here, not schools.

 

 

I think that in this scenario the P5 becomes the P4, and the Big XII becomes the strongest "Group of 6" Conference (assuming they can grab some decent teams to add from Mt West and CUSA). Ala the AAC.

 

 

Possibly, or they keep the Big XII and add another conference (Mountain West) when (not if) they expand the playoffs. Eight slots, six automatic and two wild card.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiyoat Husker    1,483

^^^ in that scenario it would be better to be in a weaker conference that still has a playoff automatic qualifier.

 

To paraphrase the late (not great) Al Davis: "Just get in, baby!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redux    5,436

TCU

Texas Tech

Baylor

Kansas State

Iowa State

Oklahoma State

Houston

SMU

 

Boise State

BYU

Nevada

Colorado State

Air Force

San Diego State

Fresno State

Wyoming

 

There ya go. That's the conference that needs to form if KU, UT and OU leave. West Virginia is out because they should seriosly make the jump to the ACC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
huKSer    1,358

Colorado?

 

Right when they are getting better because of their west coast exposure?

 

I can't imagine Colorado leaving the Pac12. Its just such a good fit.

Where the "c" in Pac12 stands for cannabus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely hate Texas. But if Oklahoma came with them to the Big Ten I would be excited. Real rivals every year! A respected one and a deep rooted hated one. Would also even out east v west perception.

 

I don't think Texas would be able to push around in the Big Ten

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×