FC: Big Ten targeting Texas and OU...

[Ranger Dan]

I didn’t see where this had been discussed. It certainly would shake things up.

https://247sports.com/college/oklah...g-Oklahoma-Sooners-Texas-Longhorns-125965141/

 

[2020 is Our Year]

No idea if it's true but Texas & Oklahoma are the two schools that make the most sense other than Notre Dame. I can't imagine Nebraska being happy about Texas joining though

 

[LionDeNittany]

I didn’t see where this had been discussed. It certainly would shake things up.

https://247sports.com/college/oklah...g-Oklahoma-Sooners-Texas-Longhorns-125965141/

More reason for PSU to leave to the ACC. Rutgers can come along... they are like our little rag doll we drag behind us.

LdN

 

[michnittlion]

I mean, I'm sure the B1G has been "targeting" them since the last realignment. They've never fallen off the conference's radar.

But as the article said, any movement wouldn't occur until the 2024-25 time frame. Still a ways to go.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

More reason for PSU to leave to the ACC. Rutgers can come along... they are like our little rag doll we drag behind us.

LdN

No one would ever leave the Big Ten for the ACC. If we left (along with Rutgers smh) the other teams in the ACC would be begging for our spot. Adding Texas/OU is just adding a lot more revenue

 

[NJLions]

Texas will never join the BIG.

 

[canuckhal]

No idea if it's true but Texas & Oklahoma are the two schools that make the most sense other than Notre Dame. I can't imagine Nebraska being happy about Texas joining though

Why would NB be unhappy? All I heard when they joined the B10 was that it hurt their recruiting in TX. Just more competition. Not like NB has done well in the B10 anyway.

 

[Ranger Dan]

No idea if it's true but Texas & Oklahoma are the two schools that make the most sense other than Notre Dame. I can't imagine Nebraska being happy about Texas joining though

Actually, Texas joining the big ten would open up a recruiting pipeline to Nebraska... and would help the rest of the big ten as well.

 

[LionDeNittany]

No one would ever leave the Big Ten for the ACC. If we left (along with Rutgers smh) the other teams in the ACC would be begging for our spot. Adding Texas/OU is just adding a lot more revenue

Yes, yes... I've heard the revenue argument. There will be more than three conferences going forward. There will be four majors... The Big Ten, The SEC, The Pac Infinity and the future ACC.

The future ACC (2024) will be incredible. Basketball and Football powerhouse.

L:dN

 

[fastlax16]

Pass. Too many mouths to feed. You can only have so many alpha dogs.

 

[BobPSU92]

So by taking texas and ou, they're kicking out Penn State and who else? rutgres?

 

[2020 is Our Year]

Actually, Texas joining the big ten would open up a recruiting pipeline to Nebraska... and would help the rest of the big ten as well.

Unless I'm misremembering, a large part of the reason Nebraska left the Big XII was to get away from Texas. I do agree it would help their recruiting.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

Yes, yes... I've heard the revenue argument. There will be more than three conferences going forward. There will be four majors... The Big Ten, The SEC, The Pac Infinity and the future ACC.

The future ACC (2024) will be incredible. Basketball and Football powerhouse.

L:dN

If the Big XII ceases to exist the ACC will still be, at best, a distant third and likely a distant fourth in football but we're never leaving the Big Ten unless the landscape of college football changes completely.

I can be convinced that someone would leave the ACC, Pac XII or Big XII but no one is leaving the SEC or Big Ten. There's no logic behind it. Just emotion.

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

I didn’t see where this had been discussed. It certainly would shake things up.

https://247sports.com/college/oklah...g-Oklahoma-Sooners-Texas-Longhorns-125965141/

This pipe dream resurfaces for discussion every few years.

Sounds great! Again.

 

[2020 is Our Year]

So by taking texas and ou, they're kicking out Penn State and who else? rutgres?

Kicking out? It would be expanding to 16

 

[GOLDBANGER]

I don't see Texas picking up wrestling and hockey to get in the B1G, besides, why would they want their ass kicked like that in those sports!

 

[NittPicker]

I don't see Texas picking up wrestling and hockey to get in the B1G, besides, why would they want their ass kicked like that in those sports!

On the flip side, Texas has a strong baseball program and moving into the B1G would likely make their program less attractive to top college bound players. If they did manage to maintain their recruiting, they'd win the conference title 19 out of every 20 years.

 

[SUPERTODD]

I don't see Texas picking up wrestling and hockey to get in the B1G, besides, why would they want their ass kicked like that in those sports!

Texas is in the top 20 in the Capital One Cup race. They have the revenue, and national reputation, to be good in any sport. They are usually great in baseball, softball and volleyball.

 

[Victor E. Bell]

Targeting is illegal.

 

[Chickenman Testa]

On the flip side, Texas has a strong baseball program and moving into the B1G would likely make their program less attractive to top college bound players. If they did manage to maintain their recruiting, they'd win the conference title 19 out of every 20 years.

College baseball is brutal. A boring product made even more boring by lesser players competing

 

[fastlax16]

If the Big XII ceases to exist the ACC will still be, at best, a distant third and likely a distant fourth in football but we're never leaving the Big Ten unless the landscape of college football changes completely.

I can be convinced that someone would leave the ACC, Pac XII or Big XII but no one is leaving the SEC or Big Ten. There's no logic behind it. Just emotion.

And Clemson is basically written into the playoff every year even with the acc being as bad as you say it is. Put penn state in place of Pitt and it’s penn state Clemson in the acc champ game more often than not.

 

[Kiber]

IMO, going to 15 is the best number. If you added 1 team and went to 15 then you could go to three 5-team pods. You'd play each team in your own pod every year, and then alternate years vs. the other pods. This would give you the 9-game schedule, and you'd never go more than 2 years without seeing every team in the league.

For example:
"New" Pod: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska, Oklahoma
"Central" Pod: Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
"West" Pod: Wiscy, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern

These 3 pods are "fairly" balanced... I know the "West" is the easiest". But you can never get perfect balance.

Take Penn St for example: Every year we'd play Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska & Oklahoma. Year #1 we'd play the "Central" pod, year #2 we'd play the "West" pod, year #3 Central pod ..... and so on.

We'd still see great teams every year (Nebraska & Oklahoma) and we'd see Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St on alternating years.

This would also keep pretty much all of the big time rivalries played EVERY year.... Mich/MSU, Mich/OSU, Wiscy/Iowa, IU/Purdue, PSU/UMD, PSU/Rutgers, Illinois/NW, Minn/Wiscy.... all would be kept as yearly games.

The only problem would be the conference Champ game. How would you pick the teams ???

 

[Crusher1950]

Not happening

 

[LMTLION]

As much as I would love this to happen, it will never happen. Climate , culture, and the mere mileage itself will preclude this from happening. And I’m pretty sure that Texas will not want to play Maryland every year considering that they can’t beat them now.

 

[Pardlion]

IMO, going to 15 is the best number. If you added 1 team and went to 15 then you could go to three 5-team pods. You'd play each team in your own pod every year, and then alternate years vs. the other pods. This would give you the 9-game schedule, and you'd never go more than 2 years without seeing every team in the league.

For example:
"New" Pod: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska, Oklahoma
"Central" Pod: Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
"West" Pod: Wiscy, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern

These 3 pods are "fairly" balanced... I know the "West" is the easiest". But you can never get perfect balance.

Take Penn St for example: Every year we'd play Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska & Oklahoma. Year #1 we'd play the "Central" pod, year #2 we'd play the "West" pod, year #3 Central pod ..... and so on.

We'd still see great teams every year (Nebraska & Oklahoma) and we'd see Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St on alternating years.

This would also keep pretty much all of the big time rivalries played EVERY year.... Mich/MSU, Mich/OSU, Wiscy/Iowa, IU/Purdue, PSU/UMD, PSU/Rutgers, Illinois/NW, Minn/Wiscy.... all would be kept as yearly games.

The only problem would be the conference Champ game. How would you pick the teams ???

Stop playing with your pod.

 

[BlueBand]

Unless I'm misremembering, a large part of the reason Nebraska left the Big XII was to get away from Texas. I do agree it would help their recruiting.

Yeah, but Texas has always been the 900# gorilla in the conference, getting a larger share of the revenue, dictating how things are run. They’re the Notre Dame of the Big12/SW Conference. Special treatment. They’d have to give all of that up to come to the B1G, and be a team player, which they probably would do. Which would get rid of much of Nebraska’s problem with them. They are getting new, younger leadership and the $$$ to be made in the B1G would probably be too good to pass up. Especially if they were risking losing Oklahoma as a rival. They’ve lost aTm and Nebraska already.

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

IMO, going to 15 is the best number. If you added 1 team and went to 15 then you could go to three 5-team pods. You'd play each team in your own pod every year, and then alternate years vs. the other pods. This would give you the 9-game schedule, and you'd never go more than 2 years without seeing every team in the league.

For example:
"New" Pod: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska, Oklahoma
"Central" Pod: Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
"West" Pod: Wiscy, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern

These 3 pods are "fairly" balanced... I know the "West" is the easiest". But you can never get perfect balance.

Take Penn St for example: Every year we'd play Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska & Oklahoma. Year #1 we'd play the "Central" pod, year #2 we'd play the "West" pod, year #3 Central pod ..... and so on.

We'd still see great teams every year (Nebraska & Oklahoma) and we'd see Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St on alternating years.

This would also keep pretty much all of the big time rivalries played EVERY year.... Mich/MSU, Mich/OSU, Wiscy/Iowa, IU/Purdue, PSU/UMD, PSU/Rutgers, Illinois/NW, Minn/Wiscy.... all would be kept as yearly games.

The only problem would be the conference Champ game. How would you pick the teams ???

Maybe they'd be called the Leaders, Legends and Losers. Your Central pod wouldn't have to worry about Losing out on every benefit to which they're entitled by their Age-Old stature and prominence in the conference.

 

[NittPicker]

IMO, going to 15 is the best number. If you added 1 team and went to 15 then you could go to three 5-team pods. You'd play each team in your own pod every year, and then alternate years vs. the other pods. This would give you the 9-game schedule, and you'd never go more than 2 years without seeing every team in the league.

For example:
"New" Pod: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska, Oklahoma
"Central" Pod: Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
"West" Pod: Wiscy, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern

These 3 pods are "fairly" balanced... I know the "West" is the easiest". But you can never get perfect balance.

Take Penn St for example: Every year we'd play Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska & Oklahoma. Year #1 we'd play the "Central" pod, year #2 we'd play the "West" pod, year #3 Central pod ..... and so on.

We'd still see great teams every year (Nebraska & Oklahoma) and we'd see Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St on alternating years.

This would also keep pretty much all of the big time rivalries played EVERY year.... Mich/MSU, Mich/OSU, Wiscy/Iowa, IU/Purdue, PSU/UMD, PSU/Rutgers, Illinois/NW, Minn/Wiscy.... all would be kept as yearly games.

The only problem would be the conference Champ game. How would you pick the teams ???

That's not a bad scheduling idea for a theoretical 15 team conference with no divisions. The problems begin when real teams are place within. There's no good way to do it with the current B1G plus Oklahoma.

Why not go to 16 and do something similar with 4 "pods"? A team would play three games against their own pod every year and two games against the other three pods for a total of nine. The other teams would still cycle on and off the schedule at the same rate as your 15 team idea. From a PSU centric point of view, another team in the east would be preferable to make our pod geographically more convenient. Screw the other 12 teams.

 

[Kiber]

Maybe they'd be called the Leaders, Legends and Losers. Your Central pod wouldn't have to worry about Losing out on every benefit to which they're entitled by their Age-Old stature and prominence in the conference.

I wouldn't care how they broke it up. Just saying that adding 1 more team and getting to 15, to get three 5 team "divisions" is actually better math for a 9-game conference schedule than adding 2 more teams, expanding to 16.

If you expanded to 16, then you'd really have just 2 options. One option would be two 8-team divisions. And the other option would be four 4-team divisions.

If you were at 16 total and you went with two 8-team divisions, then you'd play the 7 other teams in your division every year and just 2 teams from the other division. Under this system, you'd only see a team from the other division every 4thyear. For example, if Penn St & Ohio St were in different divisions, we'd see Ohio St in say 2020 then not see them again until 2024.

If you were at 16 total and you went with four 4-team divisions, then you'd have just 3 games every year against your own division, leaving 6 games against teams from the other 3 divisions. And IMO, this would get overly complicated and confusing when trying to go with a fair rotation.

........... Just saying, that if I were Jim Delaney, I would be focused on adding just 1 more school to get to 15. Oklahoma, Texas, VaTech, ND .... any of those would be good.

 

[lionroar88]

somehow The BiG will find a way to have PSU be the only member to play tO$U, scUM, MSU, OU, and TX every year.

 

[lionroar88]

I wouldn't care how they broke it up. Just saying that adding 1 more team and getting to 15, to get three 5 team "divisions" is actually better math for a 9-game conference schedule than adding 2 more teams, expanding to 16.

If you expanded to 16, then you'd really have just 2 options. One option would be two 8-team divisions. And the other option would be four 4-team divisions.

If you were at 16 total and you went with two 8-team divisions, then you'd play the 7 other teams in your division every year and just 2 teams from the other division. Under this system, you'd only see a team from the other division every 4thyear. For example, if Penn St & Ohio St were in different divisions, we'd see Ohio St in say 2020 then not see them again until 2024.

If you were at 16 total and you went with four 4-team divisions, then you'd have just 3 games every year against your own division, leaving 6 games against teams from the other 3 divisions. And IMO, this would get overly complicated and confusing when trying to go with a fair rotation.

........... Just saying, that if I were Jim Delaney, I would be focused on adding just 1 more school to get to 15. Oklahoma, Texas, VaTech, ND .... any of those would be good.

IF TX and OU come to The BIG, would it not be possible they could take 4 more Big XII teams and go to 20... that would be 4 5-team divisions.

 

[Art]

IF TX and OU come to The BIG, would it not be possible they could take 4 more Big XII teams and go to 20... that would be 4 5-team divisions.

Sure and kill revenue sharing in the process but what's another $200+mm among friends?

 

[Nitt1300]

 

[lionroar88]

Sure and kill revenue sharing in the process but what's another $200+mm among friends?

I was being sarcastic...

 

[anon_1eeb2b426hv3y]

I wouldn't care how they broke it up. Just saying that adding 1 more team and getting to 15, to get three 5 team "divisions" is actually better math for a 9-game conference schedule than adding 2 more teams, expanding to 16.

If you expanded to 16, then you'd really have just 2 options. One option would be two 8-team divisions. And the other option would be four 4-team divisions.

If you were at 16 total and you went with two 8-team divisions, then you'd play the 7 other teams in your division every year and just 2 teams from the other division. Under this system, you'd only see a team from the other division every 4thyear. For example, if Penn St & Ohio St were in different divisions, we'd see Ohio St in say 2020 then not see them again until 2024.

If you were at 16 total and you went with four 4-team divisions, then you'd have just 3 games every year against your own division, leaving 6 games against teams from the other 3 divisions. And IMO, this would get overly complicated and confusing when trying to go with a fair rotation.

........... Just saying, that if I were Jim Delaney, I would be focused on adding just 1 more school to get to 15. Oklahoma, Texas, VaTech, ND .... any of those would be good.

If we're spitballing, how about segregating the top performing programs in east-west divisions, have the 4 most successful programs in each division play each other and maybe 2 of the top 4 in the other division in non-consecutive weeks and have the relegated/lower programs fill in the others' schedules but not have an opportunity to play in the CCG until they move up. That way, the top teams get to play each other and the in-conference patsies can be used to fill in for the OOC patsies the top teams would want to fill their schedules in with? Could probably even make room for several protected/preferred rivalry-type games when spreading the patsies around. Haven't really thought it through but it's a start. And the point is really to establish stronger competition for the stronger programs while also creating flexibility for re-balancing of power programs.

But boy would we be upset if we have a down year and become one of those patsies...

 

[PSUinSTL]

IF TX and OU come to The BIG, would it not be possible they could take 4 more Big XII teams and go to 20... that would be 4 5-team divisions.

That would be ideal (20 teams) with 9 game schedules - though OSU/UM would have to be in the same grouping as woudl OU/TX to maintain the rivalry game. I guess you could do UW/Nebraska and PSU/MSU and all would be 'relatively' equal.

There are rumors that TT/OSU would have to come. I am sure if the BIG12 was imploding and the BIG took 6 teams ISU would have to be one. Who would be the last team? KU would be ideal (bball) but what about KSU.

The pairings would be
PSU/MSU/MD/RU/NW
OSU/UM/Indiana/Purdue/Illinois
Wisconsin/Minny/Iowa/Iowa St/Nebraska
Texas/TT/OU/OSU/Kansas

Each 'grouping' would have 2 good top programs, and atleast 1 good 3rd program.

 

[Connorpozlee]

I wouldn't care how they broke it up. Just saying that adding 1 more team and getting to 15, to get three 5 team "divisions" is actually better math for a 9-game conference schedule than adding 2 more teams, expanding to 16.

If you expanded to 16, then you'd really have just 2 options. One option would be two 8-team divisions. And the other option would be four 4-team divisions.

If you were at 16 total and you went with two 8-team divisions, then you'd play the 7 other teams in your division every year and just 2 teams from the other division. Under this system, you'd only see a team from the other division every 4thyear. For example, if Penn St & Ohio St were in different divisions, we'd see Ohio St in say 2020 then not see them again until 2024.

If you were at 16 total and you went with four 4-team divisions, then you'd have just 3 games every year against your own division, leaving 6 games against teams from the other 3 divisions. And IMO, this would get overly complicated and confusing when trying to go with a fair rotation.

........... Just saying, that if I were Jim Delaney, I would be focused on adding just 1 more school to get to 15. Oklahoma, Texas, VaTech, ND .... any of those would be good.

For 4, 4-team pods, home and home with each team in your pod, then one game against a team from from each pod rotating them yearly.
Why not?

 

[Woodpecker]

IMO, going to 15 is the best number. If you added 1 team and went to 15 then you could go to three 5-team pods. You'd play each team in your own pod every year, and then alternate years vs. the other pods. This would give you the 9-game schedule, and you'd never go more than 2 years without seeing every team in the league.

For example:
"New" Pod: Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska, Oklahoma
"Central" Pod: Ohio St, Michigan, Michigan St, Indiana, Purdue
"West" Pod: Wiscy, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern

These 3 pods are "fairly" balanced... I know the "West" is the easiest". But you can never get perfect balance.

Take Penn St for example: Every year we'd play Maryland, Rutgers, Nebraska & Oklahoma. Year #1 we'd play the "Central" pod, year #2 we'd play the "West" pod, year #3 Central pod ..... and so on.

We'd still see great teams every year (Nebraska & Oklahoma) and we'd see Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan St on alternating years.

This would also keep pretty much all of the big time rivalries played EVERY year.... Mich/MSU, Mich/OSU, Wiscy/Iowa, IU/Purdue, PSU/UMD, PSU/Rutgers, Illinois/NW, Minn/Wiscy.... all would be kept as yearly games.

The only problem would be the conference Champ game. How would you pick the teams ???

Wouldn't you need 2 year rotations to balance home-and-home?

 

[WDLion]

That would be ideal (20 teams) with 9 game schedules - though OSU/UM would have to be in the same grouping as woudl OU/TX to maintain the rivalry game. I guess you could do UW/Nebraska and PSU/MSU and all would be 'relatively' equal.

There are rumors that TT/OSU would have to come. I am sure if the BIG12 was imploding and the BIG took 6 teams ISU would have to be one. Who would be the last team? KU would be ideal (bball) but what about KSU.

The pairings would be
PSU/MSU/MD/RU/NW
OSU/UM/Indiana/Purdue/Illinois
Wisconsin/Minny/Iowa/Iowa St/Nebraska
Texas/TT/OU/OSU/Kansas

Each 'grouping' would have 2 good top programs, and atleast 1 good 3rd program.

Why not just have a 66 team B10.

 

[Woodpecker]

Why not just have a 66 team B10.

Oooooh, 66 1-team pods!