Why Kansas? Why? Can someone explain this to me?
Location, location location
Aside from being smack in the middle of the country what about Kansas' location is good? As a market, who lives there? I think from a media market point of view Virginia and North Carolina are the best bets. They're not Texas and Oklahoma but would probably be the best of the rest.
Lawrence is a half hour from Kansas City (though I don't think media market has much to do with this).
Media market has everything to do with it. Rutgers was supposed to be about getting a toe into the New York media market. Tho' nobody in New York and most people in New Jersey could give a shit about Rutgers. Texas is the top dog in a huge media market. Oklahoma is sneaky big. Both Virginia and North Carolina are big and getting bigger.
Why do we need to take a Big 12 school at all? My guess is we could have had Kansas anytime we wanted. The Big 12 imploding doesn't mean we have to take in mouths to feed.
We screwed up not pulling in Tex/OK ourselves.
That was largely about getting BTN on the huge number of subscribers in those local cable networks. With the significant drop off in cable subscriptions/cord cutting, I think that part of the equation has dropped off significantly.
Media markets were big because of cable. Streaming has kinda eliminated that as a critical component of expansion. Not that it won’t play a part, but you won’t see conferences adding teams specifically for markets anymore.
Rutgers is the true biggest winner of the past decade of realignment. Got into a premier conference at about the only moment they could have.
you won’t see conferences adding teams specifically for markets anymore.
Sure, they won't scoop up BC under the assumption that it'll get them into the Boston cable market but it's still all about "market" in terms of bigger fan bases / more interest = more attractive addition to the conference.
Kansas is probably a mediocre add in that respect. The Virginia schools a bit better. The NC schools better still.
Right, so like I said it’ll still be part of it, just not as much as before. There’s still a benefit to adding a Kansas and getting the Wichita/KC markets. But you’re not going to add them for that sole purpose (a la Rutgers).
You’re probably going to look at athletic prestige, academics, media market, brand name and any school you add has to check at least two of those boxes.
Media markets are completely irrelevant today. Everyone watches everything via streaming services, not cable. BigTen network is available on most (all?) of them. That’s what matters, not their location.
As far as adding new teams to increase conference value, their location is irrelevant, it’s their “brand power” that matters. Kansas basketball is one of the largest basketball brands out there, but how does it compare to football rand power? That’s worth figuring out. There’s really no major players in football available anymore except Notre Dame. So the question becomes “does adding a basketball power increase the Big Ten’s value?”
Also, money money money.
https://twitter.com/M_Vernon/status/1418609665244499970?s=19
Basketball I assume
That is an interesting thought.
Maybe many of the Big 10 officials feel that the league should be focusing on being a "basketball" league as opposed to being a "football" league. The March Madness tournament is the biggest money maker, so they could be trying to set themselves up for the future.
For the last 2 - 3 decades, the SEC has been dominate in football. The Big 10 has only 3 - 5 consistent "strong" teams in football, however, their basketball teams have been shown a steady and persistent growth.
The Big 10 may want to be like that, albeit in basketball.
JMO.
SEC has been dominant for roughly 15 years. 2-3 decades is quite the revisionist history.
Football-related brain damage will be increasingly easier to quantify with each passing year. I can imagine a future where it's played only in certain kinds of areas (like ones where more people currently aren't getting "that GD vaccine"). Maybe basketball will be the only countrywide revenue sport?
Possibly a ridiculous take ... I'm open to that suggestion.
Careful, your politics are showing...
We have a 100 years of real world data on brain injuries, in terms of observing ex-football players and their difficulties in later life. And you know what we've seen? Some players have difficulty later in life, and a hell of a lot, the overwhelming majority, haven't.
Big Ten has over the past few decades become a more basketball-centric league so I would say this is the case as well. Plus with the death spiral of the Big 12, the pieces gotta land somewhere, get the best programs. That said, we might have some strong basketball programs but could someone please just win the tourney?!
All that said, how long before Ohio State decides being in the Big Ten isn't worth it and makes a move to the SEC?
At this point, I wouldn't even mind it. It's not like this is much of a rivalry anymore...it's just demoralizing.
I will happily pack their bags for them if they decide that.
Woooo.... B1G champs!
we're a basketball league now
AAU university. Basketball team strong. Geographically near. Extends Great Plains footprint.
This is a great move for Kansas and for B1G basketball.
Question becomes, who gets the 16th spot?
Iowa State obviously
Why? I can think of probably a dozen or so schools I’d rather add than Iowa St
For the sake of discussion, I'm interested in some of the 12 you may be considering other than ISU.
i'd like to see the full dozen.
wait, never mind, i don't give even a tiny little shit.
Not in any particular order and just off the top of my head:
Notre Dame, Cincy, Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia, UNC, Mizzou, Vandy, BC, Georgia Tech, Duke, Tennessee, Miami (FL), Kentucky. You could throw some west coast teams in there too but I wanted to avoid crazy travel in this exercise.
Some would be harder than others to convince. But all bring something big to the table. Whether it’s comparable academics, quality football/basketball programs, introduction to a large market/recruiting grounds, or a combination of a few of those factors. I don’t see what ISU brings that trumps the package that the schools listed above bring. If ISU is added it seems like it would be more of a fall-back option than it would be the B1G looking for an actual good fit.
Iowa State is obvious for all the classic B1G reasons. It's an AAU member research institution. It has a rivalry game with a current member, and has periodic success in both basketball and football. It's a perceived available university (unlike Boston College, which checks similar boxes but adds a great TV market).
Iowa State brings nothing to the table. It's in a small market that we already are in. They would be a financial drain. Besides, they already play Iowa out of conference.
Not obviously at all. They make sense geographically/culturally/academically, sure; but they bring no money to the table and we'd have to split the pie with one more team, giving each team less money. If money is the motivator (and it is), Iowa State is one of the last teams we're looking at.
In which case, Purdue goes over to the Eastern Division.
If they want to continue poaching the Big 12, I’d go with Iowa st or Ok st (though they aren’t AAU). Missouri in the SEC would also make sense and maybe they’re tired of constantly getting beat up on by the rest of the SEC. I imagine they’d fare better in the Big Ten West.
Going a little farther, Colorado is another AAU school that would open the Denver market to the big ten.
I don't see the Big Ten veering from the AAU / academics template. It's bad enough that Nebraska slid out of membership* but to deliberately add a non-AAU school seems unlikely.
* As I understand it, AAU dropping Nebraska wasn't totally the school's fault, that it was something about its med school being in Omaha rather than in Lincoln.
Actually, Oklahoma has the same problem. The med school is in OKC not Norman.
Yes, I'd prefer Missouri or Colorado if they're gonna go West but I'd be surprised if B1G expands West. East is really where they should be going.
Two minds thinking alike on Mizzou to the B1G. They are a perfect regional fit as they border IA, IL and Nebraska. With the SEC likely adding OK & TX, Mizzou can seek another conference, ours, and get the Big Ten Network payouts.
Plus, Mizzou wouldn't have to travel so far to road games and always get beaten up as you mentioned.
Not really sure Missouri adds much. St. Louis TV market isn't big and the program is basically analogous to Maryland. Both programs are always mediocre and aren't national brands. Both amount to drags on the system.
CU would be a nice pickup but it's REALLY far away from everyone else. Like, Lincoln, Nebraska is the closest rival and they're 500 miles away from them. Everyone flies now so it's not a blocker, but it's still a hike for teams.
Do we throw the bank at Notre Dame? Outside of that you're looking at Oklahoma State, West Virginia, Cincinnati, or maybe you can pick off a full ACC member - Pitt, Syracuse, Virginia, or Louisville likely. I doubt Kansas State, Iowa State would be worth pursuing.
I just don’t see ND or cincy happening. ND because they don’t want to join a conference. Cincy because OSU doesn’t want them to join Big Ten. The rest of the teams you mentioned are fine but they don’t move the needle much like TX and OU do. All decent teams that would be in the middle of the big ten in football and make basketball conference schedule much more difficult
My completely rational hate of Ohio aside, why should we give two (2) shits what OSU thinks (or PSU) thinks about adding an in-state rival? Where was the concern for UM when the conference added Michigan Agricultural College? Moreover, OSU has never been on the bad end of a B1G administrative action. Like, ever.
I’m with you on that. I have no issue with adding Cincy or Pitt besides that it doesn’t bring any new TV markets. I don’t know how the process works in approving a new member but I imagine OSU being the top of the big ten will have a lot of say in this matter. Frankly if Cincy doesn’t get added to the big ten, I’d like them to join the ACC because OSU needs another power 5 team in their state
As a University of Cincinnati grad, I would love to see them join the B1G, if for no other reason than being able to go see Michigan play in Football and Basketball within an hour of my house. There are 2 main reasons that it won't happen though. 1) OSU has played cock-blocker every time the subject has come up, and 2) Nippert Stadium is tiny, even after their recent renovations only seating 40,000. That's even smaller than Ryan Field at Northwestern, by over 7,000 seats.
Since Nippert sits right in the center of the campus, and is lined by buildings on all sides, there is really no more room to expand. I suppose that they could eventually build a new, bigger stadium off campus, but because of the age of the stadium, combined with the recent renovations I don't see that happening.
That was the conference political fight in '48. Pitt was already a provisional/probationary/whatever member and the leading candidate to replace Chicago. But OSU was opposed to adding a team that could poach on their recruiting area in western PA and eastern Ohio, and was all in favor of adding MSU to do the same to UM. OSU prevailed in that battle.
Don’t they (OSU) always prevail in these situations?
Because if Ohio State leaves it probably takes someone with them from the Big Ten likely Penn State. Relegates Michigan to basically a group of 5 conference. Basically same thing the left overs in the Big 12 are worried about.