Author
Topic: Likely expansion targets for the B1G
(Read 25560 times)

medinabuckeye1 · « **on:** July 26, 2021, 11:06:54 AM »

It appears to be a done deal that OU and TX are heading to the SEC thus creating a 16-team SEC super-league. We've already heard that the B1G is talking to Kansas.

I really don't want this to be a discussion of "should the B1G expand to 16 teams?" because I think that is a separate issue. The question I am posing here is this:

Assuming that expanding to 16 (or more) teams is necessary/beneficial, what teams should the B1G consider?

FearlessF · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:10:55 AM »

Notre Dame, Mizzou, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #2 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:24:47 AM »

My thoughts:

First, I think that taking any team in the league's existing footprint would be a bad idea. Thus, I am against Pitt, Cincy, and ISU. They may have the academics and even pretty good athletics but I think we want more states, not better penetration in existing states. Besides, I think that taking Pitt, Cincy, or ISU would be harmful for PSU, tOSU, or Iowa respectively. It would not surprise me if the AD's/Presidents of PSU, tOSU, and Iowa form a block by all agreeing to oppose the addition of any school in a current B1G State (or possibly any school not named ND).

Second, Notre Dame:
We all know that the Big Ten approached them decades ago. I don't like it NOW for several reasons. First, I think their brand is weakening rather than strengthening. Second, see above, same footprint. Granted, this is different for ND because their fandom is more national than regional but still, Indiana. Third, they aren't even close academically. They have great undergrad academics but the CIC and the academics that the B1G cares about aren't undergrad rankings they are Graduate Programs and Research MONEY and Notre Dame is a non-factor there.

After ruling out schools in current B1G States not named Notre Dame and ruling out Notre Dame, I would be looking for State Flagship Universities in nearby states and my preference would be for high-end academics, quality athletics, and fast-growing states. Thus, my list is:

North Carolina: The state is #9 in pop with 10.5M and growing rapidly, the academics are great, and the athletics are pretty good.
Virginia: The state is #12 in pop with 8.5M and growing faster than any current B1G state, the academics are great, and the athletics are decent. These first two I basically see as a package and I'd be willing to swap UVA for VaTech.
Mizzou: The state is #18 in pop with 6.1M but slow growth. The academics and athletics are decent. I see this as a BIG drop from the top two.
Colorado: The state is #21 in pop (just passed MN) and growing FAST. The academics and athletics are good.
Kansas: The state is small and slow growing, #36 in pop and I honestly don't know much about the academics. The athletics are a mixed bag. They obviously have a great BB tradition (possibly #1 nationally) but the rest of their athletics are pretty weak.

Those are the only semi-local ones I would even consider.

Texas would be great as the state is #2 in pop with 29M and growing FAST and their academics and athletics are great. I'd be willing to take Oklahoma as a package with Texas particularly if we could get a commitment from them to improve their academics (which would probably just happen anyway with them in the B1G/CIC).

I've seen some chatter about West Coast schools and I just don't like the idea of raiding or effectively "merging" with the PAC. Apart from the possibility of a border raid (Colorado) I just think that the West Coast schools are too far away and that fan support out there is dubious at best.

TamrielsKeeper · « **Reply #3 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:27:14 AM »

Quote from: FearlessF on July 26, 2021, 11:10:55 AM

Notre Dame, Mizzou, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma

Wrong direction, IMHO.

If CFB morphs into a true AFC/NFC mini-NFL style league, the B1G can't compete in the SEC's back yard, so don't try. Give them the southern portion of the country and dominate everything else.

The SEC will eventually kill the ACC to continue growing its membership IMO, that will include UNC/UVA/FSU/Clemson IMO. If I were the B1G commissioner, my first step would be to grab:

USC
UCLA
Oregon
Washington

Secure those four first, then go to Notre Dame and make the following pitch: the SEC is likely to demo the ACC at some point and that they better either join the B1G/PAC now or plan to join and compete in the SEC later. Let us know if you think that your a better fit in a conference that brands itself as being truly national - from the Atlantic to the Pacific, or if you fit better with a bunch of schools from just the south? If the latter, good luck to you, and the B1G's only play is to add two more from the PAC12.

If ND gets on board, you have one spot left - I think you go to Texas and ask them if they've made their mind up for sure or not. They likely have, but I think you need to at least offer them spot #20. If they say no, then you ask the 19 members who they want as #20, probably from the P12.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #4 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:27:46 AM »

Quote from: FearlessF on July 26, 2021, 11:10:55 AM

Notre Dame, Mizzou, North Carolina, Virginia, Clemson, Texas, Oklahoma

Clemson is an interesting one that I hadn't really considered (the rest of your list is covered in my post that I was working on when you typed this).

South Carolina is the #23 state in pop with 5.1M and growing rapidly. I don't know much about Clemson's academics but their athletics are good. Obviously their football has been phenomenal lately but they are also usually competitive in other sports.

I think my biggest concern here would be that taking Clemson now would be an overreaction to their CURRENT success in football. Ie, how would we feel about that in 20 years if they revert to pre-Dabo Clemson football once Dabo leaves?

TamrielsKeeper · « **Reply #5 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:34:23 AM »

Quote from: medinabuckeye1 on July 26, 2021, 11:24:47 AM

My thoughts:

First, I think that taking any team in the league's existing footprint would be a bad idea. Thus, I am against Pitt, Cincy, and ISU. They may have the academics and even pretty good athletics but I think we want more states, not better penetration in existing states. Besides, I think that taking Pitt, Cincy, or ISU would be harmful for PSU, tOSU, or Iowa respectively. It would not surprise me if the AD's/Presidents of PSU, tOSU, and Iowa form a block by all agreeing to oppose the addition of any school in a current B1G State (or possibly any school not named ND).

Second, Notre Dame:
We all know that the Big Ten approached them decades ago. I don't like it NOW for several reasons. First, I think their brand is weakening rather than strengthening. Second, see above, same footprint. Granted, this is different for ND because their fandom is more national than regional but still, Indiana. Third, they aren't even close academically. They have great undergrad academics but the CIC and the academics that the B1G cares about aren't undergrad rankings they are Graduate Programs and Research MONEY and Notre Dame is a non-factor there.

After ruling out schools in current B1G States not named Notre Dame and ruling out Notre Dame, I would be looking for State Flagship Universities in nearby states and my preference would be for high-end academics, quality athletics, and fast-growing states. Thus, my list is:

North Carolina: The state is #9 in pop with 10.5M and growing rapidly, the academics are great, and the athletics are pretty good.
Virginia: The state is #12 in pop with 8.5M and growing faster than any current B1G state, the academics are great, and the athletics are decent. These first two I basically see as a package and I'd be willing to swap UVA for VaTech.
Mizzou: The state is #18 in pop with 6.1M but slow growth. The academics and athletics are decent. I see this as a BIG drop from the top two.
Colorado: The state is #21 in pop (just passed MN) and growing FAST. The academics and athletics are good.
Kansas: The state is small and slow growing, #36 in pop and I honestly don't know much about the academics. The athletics are a mixed bag. They obviously have a great BB tradition (possibly #1 nationally) but the rest of their athletics are pretty weak.

Those are the only semi-local ones I would even consider.

Texas would be great as the state is #2 in pop with 29M and growing FAST and their academics and athletics are great. I'd be willing to take Oklahoma as a package with Texas particularly if we could get a commitment from them to improve their academics (which would probably just happen anyway with them in the B1G/CIC).

I've seen some chatter about West Coast schools and I just don't like the idea of raiding or effectively "merging" with the PAC. Apart from the possibility of a border raid (Colorado) I just think that the West Coast schools are too far away and that fan support out there is dubious at best.

I think, at this point, you have to plan on the SEC eventually getting bigger. If they will, where is there growth coming from? They're not in North Carolina, I have a really tough time believing UNC isn't really high on their list. As I previously mentioned, their next four targets almost have to be Clemson/FSU/UNC/UVA if it's about TV sets.

If you're any helmet school outside of the SEC, you have to ask if you'd rather join them or create something to compete with them. If tOSU wants to eventually join the SEC to compete at the highest level, then you do nothing here or you add a couple of weak additions like Kansas/ISU - that's a sure death knell long term to the B1G. If you want to create something that can compete w/ what the SEC is clearly trying to build here, you have no choice but to respond with massive force here IMO.

Yes, the bottom of the PAC has terrible fan support, and yes USC/UCLA have fair weather fan bases, but the media market is so large that doesn't completely matter. Additionally, with the amount of money in LA, I have a tough time believing one of USC/UCLA doesn't excel in the new pay to play era, and they have great fan support when they're winning. Oregon/Washington I would argue look a lot more like B1G fan bases.

I don't think the B1G will ever be able to compete with the SEC right in it's back yard, I get the desire to add UNC/UVA, but I think it would be a tactical mistake and you can't likely get UNC/UVA anyway because they're locked into a GOR through 2035. Hell, grab the best of the PAC now, then add UNC/UVA later if it works out, but the B1G has to make a counter punch here IMO.

FearlessF · « **Reply #6 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:36:12 AM »

I don't think the PAC programs have much to offer the B1G besides long travel requirements

the PAC doesn't value or promote football

Kansas doesn't add enough value. Just a hoops program.

as for Clemson, they are at the top now and this is all about grabbing the top football programs. I don't know if they can successfully replace Dabo some day, but that program is running well.

I'd rather bet on Clemson than the Gamecocks.

FearlessF · « **Reply #7 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:40:21 AM »

I don't think the B1G has to do anything right now.

They certainly don't need to add programs like ISU, KU that will only weaken the conference

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #8 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:41:29 AM »

I am geographically minded, and like that the Big Ten and SEC are divided along Civil War lines in the Eastern and Central Time Zones (yes, I know about Kentucky and Missouri), while the Pac 12 gets the Pacific and Mountain Time Zones. I would ideally like to maintain that geographic integrity.

If we HAVE to expand into the old Confederacy, then give me the helmets/near helmets that the SEC won't add; Florida St, Miami, and Clemson.

Personally I would prefer schools in the Northeast/Midwest, and don't really care if they are in a state that already has a big ten team. I'm not too bullish on Iowa St or Cincinnati. They are good "right now" but usually aren't.

Notre Dame and Oklahoma are my top two, but if we aren't allowed to use Oklahoma in this exercise, then the pool that I would consider fort the other team would be: BC, Syracuse, Pitt, **big gap** Kansas, KSU, **bigger gap** ISU, Cincy.

That said, my preference is to stand pat. I don't trust Karen Warren to do anything right. He'd probably add Georgia Tech and Louisville, or some such.

TamrielsKeeper · « **Reply #9 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:44:57 AM »

Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on July 26, 2021, 11:41:29 AM

If we HAVE to expand into the old Confederacy, then give me the helmets/near helmets that the SEC won't add; Florida St, Miami, and Clemson.

How do you know they won't? This is all about TV Ratings and inventory moving forward - the SEC just broke precedent by adding a school inside a state in their current footprint. I get it's Texas, but Clemson would definitely be the "Texas" of South Carolina - seems like a no brainer for them to add Clemson. I'd say the same with Florida State. I'd double or triple the likelihood if either of those schools were in the B1G.

The SEC won't let the B1G have any control over the south in my view.

FearlessF · « **Reply #10 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:45:34 AM »

Warren appears to be in WAY over his head after hearing him speak at media days

hopefully, Alvarez is there is help

TamrielsKeeper · « **Reply #11 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:47:43 AM »

Totally agree, hoping that Barry Alvarez and Jim Delaney are actually calling the shots behind the scene, lol.

Brutus Buckeye · « **Reply #12 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:52:48 AM »

Quote from: TamrielsKeeper on July 26, 2021, 11:44:57 AM

How do you know they won't? This is all about TV Ratings and inventory moving forward - the SEC just broke precedent by adding a school inside a state in their current footprint. I get it's Texas, but Clemson would definitely be the "Texas" of South Carolina - seems like a no brainer for them to add Clemson. I'd say the same with Florida State. I'd double or triple the likelihood if either of those schools were in the B1G.

The SEC won't let the B1G have any control over the south in my view.

Florida, S Carolina and Georgia have a pact to form a voting block designed to prevent any of those schools from joining.

Why aTm didn't join that pact, I don't know. But the only way around it would be to add enough teams that those three votes would be irrelevant.

Really this is all pretty dumb. What is the point of keeping the SEC also rans in the fold at this point? All they are is dead weight that create a scheduling nightmare. Why the Hell do they still need Kentucky, S Carolina, Vandy, etc? Just make a new southern conference with Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Bama, Auburn, LSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, Florida St, Texas A&M and Miami.

medinabuckeye1 · « **Reply #13 on:** July 26, 2021, 11:55:34 AM »

FWIW, the population and pop rank of current B1G states and the states of schools mentioned so far is:

#1 CA, 39.5M
#2 TX, 29.0M
#5 PA, 12.8M
#6 IL, 12.7M, two schools
#7 OH, 11.7M
#9 NC, 10.6M
#10 MI, 10.0M, two schools
#11 NJ, 8.9M
#12 VA, 8.5M
#13 WA, 7.6M
#17 IN, 6.7M, two schools
#18 MO, 6.1M
#19 MD, 6.0M
#20 WI, 5.8M
#21 CO, 5.8M
#22 MN, 5.6M
#23 SC, 5.1M
#27 OR, 4.2M
#28 OK, 4.0M
#32 IA, 3.2M
#36 KS, 2.9M
#38 NE, 1.9M

The B1G already has two schools each from IL, MI, and IN but each of those states have populations at least double that of either IA or KS which is why I think that ISU or KSU would be a net-negative addition.

In theory California is great because there are 40 Million people out there but I think it is too far (costly for non-revenue sports) and that fan support out on the West Coast is weak.

Texas is possibly the biggest prize in all of college football because the state has a large population and strong fan support. The only thing that makes me say "possibly" is that College Sports fandom in Texas is less monolithic than it is in places like Ohio and Georgia. Ohio and Georgia are a lot smaller in pop (under 1/3) but my perception is that college sports fandom in Ohio and Georgia is almost all tOSU/UGA while in Texas it is a LOT more divided between Texas, aTm, the other Texas schools, and some border schools such as LSU and OU.

The most populous states not listed here are:

#3 FL, 21.5M, I think we just all agree that they are solidly SEC. For us to take someone like UCF would be to take too obviously a junior position in the state.
#4 NY, 19.5M, what school would you take? Rutgers is arguably better than any school actually IN the state in terms of delivering fans.
#8 GA, 10.6M, GaTech should probably be discussed. They are in ATL and have solid academics and quality overall athletics.
#14 AZ, 7.3M, all the problems of CA without the 40M people.
#15 MA, 6.9M, what school would you take, BC? That is like ND lite.
#16 TN, 6.8M, not leaving the SEC.
#24 AL, 4.9M, not leaving the SEC.
#25 LA, 4.6M, not leaving the SEC.
#26 KY, 4.5M, probably not leaving the SEC but they are a border state . . .
#29 CT, 3.6M, UCONN?
#30 UT, 3.2M, would you take Utah or BYU?

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

medinabuckeye1

Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

medinabuckeye1

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

TamrielsKeeper

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

medinabuckeye1

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

TamrielsKeeper

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

TamrielsKeeper

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

FearlessF

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

TamrielsKeeper

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

Brutus Buckeye

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G

medinabuckeye1

Re: Likely expansion targets for the B1G