OU to B1G? Media Friend Says There Are Talks

[Redux]

There is no doubt if the B1G chooses to expand that it will look East. Especially at UConn. Hartford is the 30th largest TV market in the country. That's bigger than K.C., I believe.

I don't doubt for a second that JD has a finger on the pulse of UConn, adding them would be a smart move. But again that isn't what this is about. I highly doubt that if given the opportunity first to poach OU he wouldn't try to take KU as well citing UConn as a smarter choice. He would take them all.

[VectorVictor]

 

There is no doubt if the B1G chooses to expand that it will look East. Especially at UConn. Hartford is the 30th largest TV market in the country. That's bigger than K.C., I believe.

 

I bet we'd see some record setting ratings when Rutgers plays UConn.

 

 

TV Market isn't the only thing in play here, though--look at what's happened to ESPN as of late and their dependence on carrier fees to help the bottom line. People are cutting the cord, and ESPN is dropping talent as soon as their contracts are up (or sooner, if they can swing it) and Fox Sports 1 is doing gymnastics with their programming trying to reinvigorate the brand. The one thing that rises above that are national programs and brands. This is having an impact on the B1G contract discussions, and likely why we haven't had any sort of announcement already on the matter.

 

Programs like Kansas (for Basketball, anyway) or Nebraska transcend individual markets--they're a national power, a historical power, one of *THE* top programs in their respective sports. They draw ratings from across the nation, and most importantly, from outside of their major metropolitan areas. These are all things that UConn isn't, and that's why UConn is content to desperately whore itself out via a full page Dallas Morning News ad when they come to town to play SMU--they're desperately grasping for a Big XII invite because even they know an ACC or B1G invite isn't happening.

 

 

Cincy is the first domino to fall. I heard their AD speak at a conference in February (great guy, amazing speaker - was not shy about sharing what the state of his program is). Stated multiple times that it's his job to make sure he gets out in front of conference realignment and that they're actively looking to better their situation.

 

Wouldn't be shocked if the ACC makes a play for Cincy. Makes more sense than Cincy going to the Big XII in the long term, and it would throw a bone to Notre Dame *and* ruffle Delaney's feathers a bit.

[funhusker]

 

Well that's the beauty of the 16-18 team conference. It looks bigger, but really it is smaller.

 

By having two 9 team divisions you have the same 8 conference oponents every season. It's more like the old Big 8 champion taking on the old Big Ten champion in a post season showdown.

I've thought this for a long time. If you have 9 team divisions, you basically will end up with two 9 team conferences that are tied together to have their champions play each other at the end of the year. I like it.

Then, those championship games are basically the first round of the playoffs.

 

I just want to put this question out for everyone then: Would it be okay if Nebraska hung BigTen West Championship banners next to the Big8 and BigXII banners then?

 

I've been thinking of the same scenarios, and my opinion is, yes. Hang the divisional banners (of an 8 or 9 team division) right next to the old ones.

[Redux]

But do we go back and add all of the divisional titles we have won then?

[funhusker]

^^^My opinion is "no", they were won in divisions made up of 6 teams. But it can make for interesting conversation.

 

 

Winning a 12 team league is harder than winning an 8 team (Big8 vs BigXII/B1G). Which is why I can understand where people are coming from when they try to rationalize Nebraska's lack of Conference Championships in the last 16 years. Those people are usually faced with the argument that the "old Big8 was much harder than the BIG West or BigXII North" and I understand that also.

 

But an 8 team division, especially one containing Oklahoma, would blow that argument out of the water.

[Redux]

Well to that point, we won those divisional titles by winning X amount of conference games. Same as winning a conference via round robin style.

[VectorVictor]

Well to that point, we won those divisional titles by winning X amount of conference games. Same as winning a conference via round robin style.

 

Perhaps we could start another section denoting all of the divisional titles we won so they won't be 'side by side', if you will, with the conference championships. That, or redo all of our accomplishments and segregate by conference, so the accomplishment is taken in context of the conference it occurred within?

[Redux]

 

Well to that point, we won those divisional titles by winning X amount of conference games. Same as winning a conference via round robin style.

 

Perhaps we could start another section denoting all of the divisional titles we won so they won't be 'side by side', if you will, with the conference championships. That, or redo all of our accomplishments and segregate by conference, so the accomplishment is taken in context of the conference it occurred within?

I like that idea. Prestige and ciscumstance shouldn't prevent us from showcasing our accomplishments.

[HuskerNBigD]

But do we go back and add all of the divisional titles we have won then?

 

This is only allowed if our name starts with Texas, and ends with A&M.

[Redux]

 

But do we go back and add all of the divisional titles we have won then?

 

This is only allowed if our name starts with Texas, and ends with A&M.

I don't want to claim titles that never existed

[VectorVictor]

 

 

But do we go back and add all of the divisional titles we have won then?

This is only allowed if our name starts with Texas, and ends with A&M.

I don't want to claim titles that never existed

 

 

Divisional titles were real and even had trophies--hell, wasn't there a kerfuffle about Beebe not coming to Lincoln to hand us our last Divisional trophy in person like he did for the other Big XII schools at the time?

[Redux]

 

 

 

But do we go back and add all of the divisional titles we have won then?

 

This is only allowed if our name starts with Texas, and ends with A&M.

I don't want to claim titles that never existed

Divisional titles were real and even had trophies--hell, wasn't there a kerfuffle about Beebe not coming to Lincoln to hand us our last Divisional trophy in person like he did for the other Big XII schools at the time?

Beebe was "afraid for his safety", may have been a legit concern.

 

A&M claims at least one or two conference titles that are totally bogus, one from like a season or two ago.

[VectorVictor]

 

 

 

 

But do we go back and add all of the divisional titles we have won then?

This is only allowed if our name starts with Texas, and ends with A&M.

I don't want to claim titles that never existed

Divisional titles were real and even had trophies--hell, wasn't there a kerfuffle about Beebe not coming to Lincoln to hand us our last Divisional trophy in person like he did for the other Big XII schools at the time?

Beebe was "afraid for his safety", may have been a legit concern.

 

A&M claims at least one or two conference titles that are totally bogus, one from like a season or two ago.

 

 

That's right. And yeah, that would be legitimate, since I doubt Beebe will ever able to come within the borders of this state within his lifetime without being drawn and quartered...

 

...and I still think that we should claim ourselves 2009 Big XII Regulation Time Football Champions...

[Redux]

I would honestly have no problem with that had we not completely sh#t the bed against ISU in 09.

[VectorVictor]

I would honestly have no problem with that had we not completely sh#t the bed against ISU in 09.

 

Though said bed s******g was better than what Texass did versus 'Bama that year.