NCAA Conference Realignment

[Magnetic Curses]

no iowa state stays in, wisconsin is less deserving, they're perfect for the mac.

[Butterscup1679666578]

East

-----

Penn State

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan St.

Indiana

Purdue

 

West

------

Illinois

Northwestern

Iowa

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Nebraska

 

???????????????????????

 

I'd grab Iowa St, Missouri, and Kansas. Iowa vs Iowa State gives you a natural rivalry game every year, and so does preserving Kansas and Missouri. Then I'd go

 

East:

Michigan

Michigan State

Indiana

Purdue

Northwestern

Penn State

Ohio State

 

West:

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Iowa

Nebraska

Missouri

Kansas

Iowa State

 

Notre Dame isn't going to give up their sweet gig, and Missouri, K-state, and I-State make a hell of a lot more sense than Texas does.

 

hmm, thinking of kicking the illini out of the [expletive] big ten?

 

Finally, someone is making some sense.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Iowa vs. Iowa St could quickly become a rivalry

My goodness, step away for a bit to do some actual work and miss a lot... There are so many things wrong with what you posted that I wouldn't know where to begin.

[Butterscup1679666578]

Big Ten should go after Army and Navy. Something about them makes me think they could have a decent rivalry.

[Guest]

Erik, my suggestion would be to skim some of the earlier pages of this thread, you don't seem to be aware of a lot of the assumptions that people are working under based on the last couple months.

 

Among them:

 

Texas won't wait on anyone to move, they're pretty much running things. They are apparently trying to bring other Texas B12 schools with them wherever they go.

 

Realignment is about money, primarily from TV contracts and media markets. Adding the Iowa St./Iowa game would be popular there, but it's not going to make the conference a huge payout.

[hawkeyecub]

Realignment is about money, primarily from TV contracts and media markets. Adding the Iowa St./Iowa game would be popular there, but it's not going to make the conference a huge payout.

 

Not only that but you could argue that ISU would actually take away money from the existing Big 10 schools. They add nothing really and would just take another piece of the pie.

[Jon]

Ron Zook is too valuable to the Big Ten. Don't leave us, Ron.

 

The Big 12 dissolving situation (why isn't dissolvement a word?) could potentially be interesting to watch. They need 9 votes to dissolve, which has major implications financially and in terms of the timeline. Right now, Nebraska and the 5 going to the Pac-10 only make 6 schools.

[erik316wttn]

Realignment is about money, primarily from TV contracts and media markets. Adding the Iowa St./Iowa game would be popular there, but it's not going to make the conference a huge payout.

 

Of which I understand, seeing now as I need to state for the THIRD time that I am NOT OPPOSED TO TEXAS OR NOTRE DAME JOINING THE BIG 10 CONFERENCE!!!

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Adding the Iowa St./Iowa game would be popular there, but it's not going to make the conference a huge payout.

It's not even really that popular outside of Ames.

[Guest]

Realignment is about money, primarily from TV contracts and media markets. Adding the Iowa St./Iowa game would be popular there, but it's not going to make the conference a huge payout.

 

Of which I understand, seeing now as I need to state for the THIRD time that I am NOT OPPOSED TO TEXAS OR NOTRE DAME JOINING THE BIG 10 CONFERENCE!!!

 

Calm down, no one's yelling at you. The point is that you said that those other smaller schools make more sense than Texas or Notre Dame. They don't.

[erik316wttn]

Realignment is about money, primarily from TV contracts and media markets. Adding the Iowa St./Iowa game would be popular there, but it's not going to make the conference a huge payout.

 

Of which I understand, seeing now as I need to state for the THIRD time that I am NOT OPPOSED TO TEXAS OR NOTRE DAME JOINING THE BIG 10 CONFERENCE!!!

 

Calm down, no one's yelling at you. The point is that you said that those other smaller schools make more sense than Texas or Notre Dame. They don't.

 

Only because I also stated before (boy, there is really a lack of reading comprehension around here) that I don't think Notre Dame or Texas will join the Big 10 and those other schools would be viable alternatives.

[Magnetic Curses]

erik, why is it that you're so opposed to texas or notre dame joining the big ten?

[Ding Dong Johnson]

erik, why is it that you're so opposed to texas or notre dame joining the big ten?

the notre dame/notre dame state rivalry probably wouldn't catch on

[Guest]

Only because I also stated before (boy, there is really a lack of reading comprehension around here) that I don't think Notre Dame or Texas will join the Big 10 and those other schools would be viable alternatives.

 

You're going to have to go into more detail about why they wouldn't go then, because we're 30 pages in to debating that viability, and "they won't go" isn't going to be sufficient for a lot of people following the situation.

[jersey cubs fan]

Only because I also stated before (boy, there is really a lack of reading comprehension around here) that I don't think Notre Dame or Texas will join the Big 10 and those other schools would be viable alternatives.

 

You're going to have to go into more detail about why they wouldn't go then, because we're 30 pages in to debating that viability, and "they won't go" isn't going to be sufficient for a lot of people following the situation.

 

Because Texas is just going to follow where its big money rivals go.

[bukie]

There would essentially be no point to adding ISU or KSU. It adds nothing to the Big Ten in terms of research capability, academics, TV market, and athletic quality.

 

Appeasing an Iowa/ISU rivalry is not a good reason. They play each other every year anyway.

[treebird]

The Big 12 dissolving situation (why isn't dissolvement a word?) could potentially be interesting to watch.

 

dissolution

 

(illinois>northwestern)

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd grab Iowa St, Missouri, and Kansas. Iowa vs Iowa State gives you a natural rivalry game every year, and so does preserving Kansas and Missouri. Then I'd go

 

Notre Dame isn't going to give up their sweet gig, and Missouri, K-state, and I-State make a hell of a lot more sense than Texas does.

 

Might wanna sit this one out champ.

[Jon]

Some more interesting stuff from the same guy:

 

I do have somewhat of an update as of this morning. I say somewhat because it depends not on the Big Ten itself, but on a number of non-Big Ten schools. This whole process (the expansion strategies, not the message board banter) is absolutely fascinating.

 

So let me first say that the Big Ten is aware of the original message board thread and believes that it has played a role in bringing about the discussions to where they are now, for better or worse. My friend has kept me in the loop continuously, and as of this point there are some things, if disclosed, that can hurt the negotiation process for the Big Ten. There are others that can help. And I'm a low-risk outlet for information because I have no credibility (other than the 30,000 page views primarily from large southern and eastern states - to you I say thank you for giving Northwestern a moment to occupy the center of the college football world. I believe this will become more commonplace in the future as Pat Fitzgerald continues to build a program of excellence in Evanston.) (One other thing: Northwestern owns justIowa. Remember that.)

 

The "somewhat" update is two parts, as follows: First, some very interesting things are happening in the Big East right now. If I said anything more about that, it would jeopardize the position of the Big Ten, so suffice it to say that this depends on the status of that school in South Bend.

 

Second, after the hasty entry of Nebraska, the Big Ten presidents are less unified on letting schools of questionable academic merits into the conference. In fact, blocs of voting Big Ten members have emerged in support of and in opposition to certain schools becoming admitted into the conference. This relates to the first part in that disclosures of the schools in discussion would jeopardize the position of the Big Ten.

 

Sorry for the "somewhat" update, but things will become clear soon enough. For now, keep your eyes on South Bend and Austin.

 

- PBC

[SouthSideRyan]

I'd grab Iowa St, Missouri, and Kansas. Iowa vs Iowa State gives you a natural rivalry game every year, and so does preserving Kansas and Missouri. Then I'd go

 

Notre Dame isn't going to give up their sweet gig, and Missouri, K-state, and I-State make a hell of a lot more sense than Texas does.

 

Might wanna sit this one out champ.

 

I can't adequately state how annoyed I am that everyone else beat me to the punch.

[erik316wttn]

Only because I also stated before (boy, there is really a lack of reading comprehension around here) that I don't think Notre Dame or Texas will join the Big 10 and those other schools would be viable alternatives.

 

You're going to have to go into more detail about why they wouldn't go then, because we're 30 pages in to debating that viability, and "they won't go" isn't going to be sufficient for a lot of people following the situation.

 

Because Texas is just going to follow where its big money rivals go.

 

Exactly. I'm glad someone around here finally sees the light, even if he's just being a sarcastic jackass.

 

Football money isn't the only reason, but it's a huge moneymaker for the schools, and therefore must be a huge consideration. Texas is a very good academic and athletic school and would be a huge get for any conference. If they feel that aligning themselves with Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc over USC, UCLA, Cal, etc is best for them, they'll do it. They're ultimately sitting pretty right now and shouldn't be in any rush to make a decision. Both conferences would bend over backwards to accommodate Texas, and whichever one gives them more is where they'll go, I think.

 

If national exposure is what they're looking for, I think Texas/UCLA, Texas/USC, would be bigger draws for them than Texas/Michigan, Texas/Ohio State (although those two schools would also give them exposure, I just don't think it would be as much). However, I think either conference would be a good fit. Is that better?

[SouthSideRyan]

brb, I'm going to stop in the soccer thread and let everyone know how the US should setup their game plan against England.

[jersey cubs fan]

Only because I also stated before (boy, there is really a lack of reading comprehension around here) that I don't think Notre Dame or Texas will join the Big 10 and those other schools would be viable alternatives.

 

You're going to have to go into more detail about why they wouldn't go then, because we're 30 pages in to debating that viability, and "they won't go" isn't going to be sufficient for a lot of people following the situation.

 

Because Texas is just going to follow where its big money rivals go.

 

Exactly. I'm glad someone around here finally sees the light, even if he's just being a sarcastic jackass.

 

Football money isn't the only reason, but it's a huge moneymaker for the schools, and therefore must be a huge consideration. Texas is a very good academic and athletic school and would be a huge get for any conference. If they feel that aligning themselves with Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc over USC, UCLA, Cal, etc is best for them, they'll do it. They're ultimately sitting pretty right now and shouldn't be in any rush to make a decision. Both conferences would bend over backwards to accommodate Texas, and whichever one gives them more is where they'll go, I think.

 

If national exposure is what they're looking for, I think Texas/UCLA, Texas/USC, would be bigger draws for them than Texas/Michigan, Texas/Ohio State (although those two schools would also give them exposure, I just don't think it would be as much). However, I think either conference would be a good fit. Is that better?

 

I would like to make a formal complaint to the mods for erik calling me a jackass.

[shnsajax]

Only because I also stated before (boy, there is really a lack of reading comprehension around here) that I don't think Notre Dame or Texas will join the Big 10 and those other schools would be viable alternatives.

 

You're going to have to go into more detail about why they wouldn't go then, because we're 30 pages in to debating that viability, and "they won't go" isn't going to be sufficient for a lot of people following the situation.

 

Because Texas is just going to follow where its big money rivals go.

 

Exactly. I'm glad someone around here finally sees the light, even if he's just being a sarcastic jackass.

 

Football money isn't the only reason, but it's a huge moneymaker for the schools, and therefore must be a huge consideration. Texas is a very good academic and athletic school and would be a huge get for any conference. If they feel that aligning themselves with Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc over USC, UCLA, Cal, etc is best for them, they'll do it. They're ultimately sitting pretty right now and shouldn't be in any rush to make a decision. Both conferences would bend over backwards to accommodate Texas, and whichever one gives them more is where they'll go, I think.

 

If national exposure is what they're looking for, I think Texas/UCLA, Texas/USC, would be bigger draws for them than Texas/Michigan, Texas/Ohio State (although those two schools would also give them exposure, I just don't think it would be as much). However, I think either conference would be a good fit. Is that better?

 

I don't think this is going to be a factor at all in the decision process.

[erik316wttn]

Only because I also stated before (boy, there is really a lack of reading comprehension around here) that I don't think Notre Dame or Texas will join the Big 10 and those other schools would be viable alternatives.

 

You're going to have to go into more detail about why they wouldn't go then, because we're 30 pages in to debating that viability, and "they won't go" isn't going to be sufficient for a lot of people following the situation.

 

Because Texas is just going to follow where its big money rivals go.

 

Exactly. I'm glad someone around here finally sees the light, even if he's just being a sarcastic jackass.

 

Football money isn't the only reason, but it's a huge moneymaker for the schools, and therefore must be a huge consideration. Texas is a very good academic and athletic school and would be a huge get for any conference. If they feel that aligning themselves with Ohio State, Wisconsin, Michigan, etc over USC, UCLA, Cal, etc is best for them, they'll do it. They're ultimately sitting pretty right now and shouldn't be in any rush to make a decision. Both conferences would bend over backwards to accommodate Texas, and whichever one gives them more is where they'll go, I think.

 

If national exposure is what they're looking for, I think Texas/UCLA, Texas/USC, would be bigger draws for them than Texas/Michigan, Texas/Ohio State (although those two schools would also give them exposure, I just don't think it would be as much). However, I think either conference would be a good fit. Is that better?

 

I don't think this is going to be a factor at all in the decision process.

 

Ok. And I respect that opinion.