Confrence Re-Alignement Ideas?

[Redux]

1 hour ago, Crazyhole said:

 

Yep.  And I asked the question of why didn't Oklahoma jump when they were supposedly given the opportunity, but haven't seen a response that addresses it.  I also haven't seen anything that shows the B1G has changed their mind about AAU accreditation when history shows that they only take schools that are either already accredited or close to it.  It's clearly important to the conference based on empirical evidence.     So yes I've read the posts and none of them provide any proof that the B1G would take Oklahoma when everything points to the opposite other than speculation based on a 3rd party account of talks that happened but ultimately led to Oklahoma not joining the conference for apparently no reason.  

 

Oklahoma didn't jump because Texas didn't get their way and decided to stay in the big 12.  Oklahoma, still feeling dependent on their rivalry with Texas, opted to stay put.   And because the original idea was a grouping of schools to enter thr Big Ten, since Nebraska was the only one to receive the formal offer they were the only one to join.  This had all been covered and you keep ignoring it because you think AAU status actually still matters, it doesn't.   Jim Delaney is not an idiot.

 

I linked a thread before, I'll do it again.

 

Please, try to understand, it's not about academics anymore.  It's about content and markets.  The AAU thing was a pretty banner when the Big Ten was solely courting Notre Dame.  As mentioned several timed, Nebraska's AAU status was expiring as they were joining the league.  Why you refuse to accept this is beyond me.

[Crazyhole]

32 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

Oklahoma didn't jump because Texas didn't get their way and decided to stay in the big 12.  Oklahoma, still feeling dependent on their rivalry with Texas, opted to stay put.   And because the original idea was a grouping of schools to enter thr Big Ten, since Nebraska was the only one to receive the formal offer they were the only one to join.  This had all been covered and you keep ignoring it because you think AAU status actually still matters, it doesn't.   Jim Delaney is not an idiot.

 

I linked a thread before, I'll do it again.

 

Please, try to understand, it's not about academics anymore.  It's about content and markets.  The AAU thing was a pretty banner when the Big Ten was solely courting Notre Dame.  As mentioned several timed, Nebraska's AAU status was expiring as they were joining the league.  Why you refuse to accept this is beyond me.

I don't.   But  thank you for a direct response.   

Edited February 12, 2018 by Crazyhole

[Crazyhole]

I still find it questionable that Oklahoma would feel beholden to Texas when they could see that the financial benefits are obvious.  I also don't know where the idea comes from that the B1G doesn't care about AAU accreditation.   Do you think Maryland and Rutgers would have been added if they had the same academic prowess as Oklahoma?  

[Crazyhole]

In 2014, Delaney said that AAU membership was a requirement for admission into the big 10 in a public statement.  Was he mistaken ot just lying?

[Redux]

33 minutes ago, Crazyhole said:

In 2014, Delaney said that AAU membership was a requirement for admission into the big 10 in a public statement.  Was he mistaken ot just lying?

 

It would be a white lie.  AAU status is ideal but not a deal breaker.  He can say that because NU HAD AAU status upon entering, but he was fully aware that it was being revoked.

 

38 minutes ago, Crazyhole said:

I still find it questionable that Oklahoma would feel beholden to Texas when they could see that the financial benefits are obvious.  I also don't know where the idea comes from that the B1G doesn't care about AAU accreditation.   Do you think Maryland and Rutgers would have been added if they had the same academic prowess as Oklahoma?  

 

Well it was mostly a survival thing and the decision was made for them.  Like i said, their move originally depended on 3 or 4 other teams moving with them and Texas bailing on them for the PAC 12.  When Texas opted to stay because they wouldn't immediatsly be given power, OU was content and any talks of only them moving died off.  After a couple years, and the LHN debacle, Oklahoma and other schools have seen through the deceit and see the writing on the wall.  If OU can get out, they will.  They don't want an SEC invite or to move West and the ACC makes little sense.  And the other obstacle is leaving without Oklahoma State which the B1G absolutely does not want.  They would prefer to move WITH Texas but Texas will get on their own way with wanting immediate power, treatment and the LHN.  So, Kansas makes a logical replacement.

 

As for Maryland and Rutgers, they got in because of their AAU tags AND the East Coast/New Jersey TV market footprint.  They weren't looking to beef up the East division from a competition standpoint, just eyeballs.

Edited February 12, 2018 by Redux

[Crazyhole]

13 minutes ago, Redux said:

 

It would be a white lie.  AAU status is ideal but not a deal breaker.  He can say that because NU HAD AAU status upon entering, but he was fully aware that it was being revoked.

 

 

Well it was mostly a survival thing and the decision was made for them.  Like i said, their move originally depended on 3 or 4 other teams moving with them and Texas bailing on them for the PAC 12.  When Texas opted to stay because they wouldn't immediatsly be given power, OU was content and any talks of only them moving died off.  After a couple years, and the LHN debacle, Oklahoma and other schools have seen through the deceit and see the writing on the wall.  If OU can get out, they will.  They don't want an SEC invite or to move West and the ACC makes little sense.  And the other obstacle is leaving without Oklahoma State which the B1G absolutely does not want.  They would prefer to move WITH Texas but Texas will get on their own way with wanting immediate power, treatment and the LHN.  So, Kansas makes a logical replacement.

 

As for Maryland and Rutgers, they got in because of their AAU tags AND the East Coast/New Jersey TV market footprint.  They weren't looking to beef up the East division from a competition standpoint, just eyeballs.

 

Fair enough.  So why was Rutgers added and not UCONN?   UCONN made their desire to join the B1G public and would have brought essentially the same media market and better athletics across the board.   The only meaningful difference is Rutgers is AAU accredited and UCONN isn't.  

[Crazyhole]

Also, AAU status wouldn't be a deal breaker for a school like Notre dame who is a top 20 university nationally.   They don't do research but there's no question that it's a highly regarded university as far as academics go.   Comparing Oklahoma to Notre dame is a rough day for the sooners in any area outside of football.  

[husker98]

22 minutes ago, Crazyhole said:

 

Fair enough.  So why was Rutgers added and not UCONN?   UCONN made their desire to join the B1G public and would have brought essentially the same media market and better athletics across the board.   The only meaningful difference is Rutgers is AAU accredited and UCONN isn't.  

 

Easy.

 

Rutgers is located in the fertile recruiting grounds of New Jersey. 

 

UCONN by contrast Is located in the barren recruiting wasteland of Connecticut.

 

Recruiting areas played an unheralded role in expansion decision making. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by husker98

[Redux]

26 minutes ago, Crazyhole said:

 

Fair enough.  So why was Rutgers added and not UCONN?   UCONN made their desire to join the B1G public and would have brought essentially the same media market and better athletics across the board.   The only meaningful difference is Rutgers is AAU accredited and UCONN isn't.  

 

Rutgers is a more established brand, UConn is more of an upstart.  And yes, the AAU status helped their case.  And I've seen numbers that insist UConn would have been a bigger market and vice versa.  In the end this is a game played by businessmen, the real reasons aren't usually revealed.  But again, the AAU thing, you're giving it too much weight in the fight here.  It's a trojan horse.  Michigan is direcrly responsible for aiding in Nebraska's removal from the AAU , so is at least abother Big Ten school that currently escapes me.  Delaney knew Nebraska was losing it and still got them in.  Why would he do that if it were as important as you say it is?

 

29 minutes ago, Crazyhole said:

Also, AAU status wouldn't be a deal breaker for a school like Notre dame who is a top 20 university nationally.   They don't do research but there's no question that it's a highly regarded university as far as academics go.   Comparing Oklahoma to Notre dame is a rough day for the sooners in any area outside of football.  

 

Notre Dame to the Big Ten is never happening.  It just isn't.  AAU or not has zero to do with it.  They didn't want to join because they value their independence.  If you believe that then I can understand why you believe in the AAU requirement.  Notre Dame didn't join because during the period they were being courted, Notre Dame had more name value than the entire Big Ten.  As the courtship continued and Notre Dame slipped, they knew that joining would mean not getting to hand pick their schedule anymore and it would be a much harder road to a national championship.  And equal revenue sharing in the Big Ten would be a huge change for an independent featured primarily on its own on NBC.

 

Comparing Oklahoma to Notre Dame is pointless because it's not even the same discussion.

[Kiyoat Husker]

On 2/9/2018 at 12:31 PM, Moiraine said:

I think you'd want 4 divisions if we go to 16 teams or more. Playing 7 division games is a lot. You'd hardly ever get games with the other division.

 

4-team pods/divisions is the way to go in a 16-team conference, without question.  It would take 4 years to cycle through the other 8-team division, or 8 years if you do a home-and-home right away (rotate every 2 years).

 

In a 4-team set-up you would play your 3 divisional opponents every year, plus one-and-a-half other divisions (6 teams).  Then immediately switch to the other 6 teams the next year, or do a home-and-home and then switch (just like the old Big XII scheduling).

 

Anything more than 16, and I'd call it a "confederation" rather than a conference.  It would be more like two separate conferences that happen to play each other a lot.

[Crazyhole]

1 minute ago, Redux said:

 

Rutgers is a more established brand, UConn is more of an upstart.  And yes, the AAU status helped their case.  And I've seen numbers that insist UConn would have been a bigger market and vice versa.  In the end this is a game played by businessmen, the real reasons aren't usually revealed.  But again, the AAU thing, you're giving it too much weight in the fight here.  It's a trojan horse.  Michigan is direcrly responsible for aiding in Nebraska's removal from the AAU , so is at least abother Big Ten school that currently escapes me.  Delaney knew Nebraska was losing it and still got them in.  Why would he do that if it were as important as you say it is?

 

 

Notre Dame to the Big Ten is never happening.  It just isn't.  AAU or not has zero to do with it.  They didn't want to join because they value their independence.  If you believe that then I can understand why you believe in the AAU requirement.  Notre Dame didn't join because during the period they were being courted, Notre Dame had more name value than the entire Big Ten.  As the courtship continued and Notre Dame slipped, they knew that joining would mean not getting to hand pick their schedule anymore and it would be a much harder road to a national championship.  And equal revenue sharing in the Big Ten would be a huge change for an independent featured primarily on its own on NBC.

 

Comparing Oklahoma to Notre Dame is pointless because it's not even the same discussion.

I only brought it up because there are people who say that since Notre dame was courted then Oklahoma gets the same consideration.  

[Redux]

11 minutes ago, Crazyhole said:

I only brought it up because there are people who say that since Notre dame was courted then Oklahoma gets the same consideration.  

 

Notre Dame will always have an open invitation,  they are a name brand and fit perfectly geographically.

 

Oklahoma is a target of the Big Ten because they have an interest in joining, are a football power, have deep roots in Texas recruiting, have a storied history with Nebraska, add a new TV market footprint, and create exctiting matchups for BTN and the conference as a whole to promote.

 

It's vastly different than Notre Dame.  But Oklahoma is a viable expansion target, leave no doubt about it.