The problem with MSU going to the West Div is that Mich-MSU is a huge rivalry going back at least to the 50's. Mich wants to play MSU and OSU every year. I guess if MSU was put in the West Div they could still be a permanent crossover game rival with Mich.
Future Big Ten Realignment
- Thread starter AreWeThereYet
- Start date
The problem with MSU going to the West Div is that Mich-MSU is a huge rivalry going back at least to the 50's. Mich wants to play MSU and OSU every year. I guess if MSU was put in the West Div they could still be a permanent crossover game rival with Mich.
guffus
Well-Known Member
Moving MSU to the west creates a minor problem of who plays who on last game of season.
MSU-Mich would have a permanent cross-over every year, but Mich wants to play OSU in the last game every year. This probably means MSU's opponent on the last game would need to rotate between PSU, Rut & MD.
MSU-Mich would have a permanent cross-over every year, but Mich wants to play OSU in the last game every year. This probably means MSU's opponent on the last game would need to rotate between PSU, Rut & MD.
BILLBUCKNER
Well-Known Member
Neither Mary or Rutgers made any sense to me why they were added. But why would they want to leave the BIG? They are making big $$. They won't suck forever. The divisions are fine the way they are.
Fryowa
Administrator
They don’t want to leave the Big Ten. They want the divisions reshuffled to make their schedules easier.
It's the only leverage they think they have in trying to get schedules tweaked or divisions changed for their benefit. They know they can't get to 3rd place in the east let alone win it as is. So threatening to leave is all they got. Not that they'd flex with that too hard cause frankly if I'm the BIG at this point I'd call their bluff if they did. Remember there's a new comish on the job now. Hard telling how he might be willing to shake things up to put his own stamp on things...
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I doubt they are threatening to leave, that would be a dumb move on their part.
MelroseHawkins
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't hate this but our schedule gets tougher by letting Nebraska go.
I often wondered, what if Oklahoma joined the BIG over Nebby. OK had to get tired of putting up with Texas's shit as well. Too bad the BIG couldn't have swayed OK to join. Now OK is stuck in a crappy ass conference with no direction.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
I think both Oklahoma and Kansas are states where the legislature would dictate that if one school leaves, both have to go. If you're the legislature in one of those places and OU or KU gets poached, you're gonna be worried about the remaining land grant school when the Big 12 inevitably is relegated to AAC level.
While Oklahoma would have been a nice add, if we had to take both OSU and Oklahoma, I think it actually would have been dilutive to short term TV revenues rather than accretive due to the small population area with Oklahoma and the huge population in Maryland and NJ. Of course, my opinion is that Delany made a huge mistake with Rutgers and Maryland because the cable model will eventually collapse, and when it does, you're better off in a position where you have marquis content to sell. Games like OU-Nebraska, OU-OSU, OU-Michigan, etc. would provide top tier national content.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I always thought Oklahoma was not a good fit academically. But they've got the football prestige that would help the BTN much like Nebraska did.
They were added for several reasons. Everyone understands the tv carriage of the BTN in those huge markets but there were a few other strategic reasons. To make the B1G a better home for PSU (Alvarez has said as much). Also, New Jersey and the Maryland/DC areas are usually going to be the 2nd and 3rd best recruiting state in the league(second only to Ohio) and what people forget/don't realize is the B1G footprint is very poor in number of recruits compared to other leagues. Sometimes the OSU/Mich & PSU brands were strong enough to pull people in from some other states but its a huge disadvantage. if you don't realize or believe this go look at the Rivals recruiting rankings by states and compare the south with the B1G states.
Its no coincidence PSU has had a rise the last 5-6 years since adding them and the B1G has had monster ratings games involving PSU and OSU & Mich. Its also had some solid games with other teams. Two years ago the night game in Kinnick had over 5M viewers. Tv ratings is the bottom line for tv revenue contracts.
Its also why the B1G shouldn't take OU without Texas. If the B1G expands it needs more recruiting grounds. I think there are 3 options:
1. Texas & OU, but you can't take OU & KS alone. OU is a great program but if you don't add the recruits of Texas you don't satisfy the need for expanded recruiting grounds. I think Texas will require 2 more teams and if the B1G was smart they would let UT bring whoever they wanted to have them come. Even though from a CFB as a whole perspective I don't think its good for the sport in general if UT & OU join either the SEC or B1G because the sport becomes too top heavy to those leagues and will decrease overall national viewership.
2. A PAC split in some fashion between the B1G & Big 12 where the B1G gets access to California. Arizona also has been growing and producing more recruits and the 2 instate schools have a hard time keeping the top players home.
3. 4-6 teams from NC, Va., Duke, Ga. Tech, ND, FSU. Although, I don't think the SEC would make it easy for the B1G to get FSU.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
Most of the "big" 12 were/are bad fits academically...including Nebraska. Mizzou was probably the closest thing to a B1G school but they finally decided they were confederate and not union.
D
DDThompson
Guest
Ohio State and Michigan deserve to keep the last game of the season. The first time divisions were discussed I did some research that showed OSU and Michigan rarely finished 1-2 (like 2x in 14 seasons) so rematch was highly unlikely. Nothing has changed.
MSU wanted to ensure that they kept their annual rivalry with Michigan. Makes sense; in-state rivals should play every year (unless you’re “that” Hawkeye fan.
Too tough for them if they have to play Michigan and OSU every year. Penn State didn’t want to be in the West division. So those four programs CHOSE to be in the same division.
And they were given a very weak bottom feeders since they were playing each other — plus MD and Rut are east. The only ones complaining are the bottom feeder basketball schools.
MSU wanted to ensure that they kept their annual rivalry with Michigan. Makes sense; in-state rivals should play every year (unless you’re “that” Hawkeye fan.
Too tough for them if they have to play Michigan and OSU every year. Penn State didn’t want to be in the West division. So those four programs CHOSE to be in the same division.
And they were given a very weak bottom feeders since they were playing each other — plus MD and Rut are east. The only ones complaining are the bottom feeder basketball schools.
okeefe4prez
Well-Known Member
PSU's rise is the release of the sanctions and JoePa being out. JoePa had no business coaching a team of that caliber near the end. O'Brien was a massive upgrade and Franklin is better than JoePa was at the end.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
Nebraska was a AAU member at the time they were brought into the Big Ten. Kansas and Texas would also fit the mold academically.
IIRC Mizzou tried to get into the Big Ten and was rejected, that's why the wound up in the SEC.
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
I don't recall Mizzou "trying to get into the Big Ten". They've often been thrown out as an "add" option but I'm not aware of any application. Kansas is better academically and Texas of course. Nebraska...not impressed. Maybe they were, but they're not now a member of the AAU.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
I don't think they officially applied. I found this article on a search: https://www.espn.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/34960/missouri-wants-big-ten-but-isnt-wanted
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
As the saying goes, timing is everything...or maybe location ($). That piece is from 2011, the B1G didn't add Maryland and Rutgers (hack) til 2014. Delaney must have had his eye on that East Coast TV market and waved them off.
ssckelley
Well-Known Member
For sure, at the time I thought Missouri would be a good fit for the BTN bringing in the St Louis and Kansas City markets but I wasn't thinking of the east coast. IIRC didn't Penn State push for eastern teams being added as well?
hawkdrummer1
Well-Known Member
That would make sense. But it's kinda hard to believe that PSU was in position to make any demands considering where they were as a University during the build out.
