Next Expansion requires 2 teams

briankaldenberg

briankaldenberg

Well-Known Member
With A&M joining the SEC they'll have to add another team to balance out each division.

The Big 10 will have to do the same in their next round of expansion.

I think by 2015 Missouri joins the Legends and then becomes Illinois' cross-divisional rival.

That breaks NW from Illinois and their current cross-divisional relationship.

Or I could adding both Missouri and Kansas... which would sort of coincide with Delaney's comments about adding Sun Belt states. Kansas goes to Legends w/ Missouri to the Leaders and they both become each others cross-divisional rivals.

Who does the Big 10 add to balance out the Leaders division and how will that effect the cross-divisional matchups? Or does the Big 10 add 2 teams and Missouri or Kansas isn't one of them?
 
ssckelley said:
Why not?

You're a basketball junkie, Kansas would be a huge get for basketball.
Click to expand...

It's all about money, and football. Kansas would not bring enough money. Missouri might, although some would argue they don't either. I really don't know. There is nothing saying the Big 1G has to respond to the SEC growing, but if rumors of Pac 12 and co. expanding start to surface, than I'm sure the Big 1G will be proactive.
 
DJL said:
It's all about money, and football. Kansas would not bring enough money. Missouri might, although some would argue they don't either. I really don't know. There is nothing saying the Big 1G has to respond to the SEC growing, but if rumors of Pac 12 and co. expanding start to surface, than I'm sure the Big 1G will be proactive.
Click to expand...

Kansas would do for basketball what Nebraska does for football, provide national appeal. You cannot tell me there would not be national interests in Kansas vs Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, or Ohio State. Imagine how differently the ACC/Big10 challenge would look with Kansas was in the mix.
 
For the sake of argument, let's say the BCS bowl structure stays the same in the future. Under that environment, I hope the conference stays at 12 rather than increasing to 14 or 16.
 
ssckelley said:
Kansas would do for basketball what Nebraska does for football, provide national appeal. You cannot tell me there would not be national interests in Kansas vs Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, or Ohio State. Imagine how differently the ACC/Big10 challenge would look with Kansas was in the mix.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying it wouldn't generate national interest. I'm saying, Kansas would not bring enough money to the conference. Basketball does not bring in enough money on it's own. It's about big time football and eyeballs on tv sets. A lot of people may watch KU basketball, but not nearly enough.
 
I would prefer 12. But if they do add teams put Missouri in the Leaders and Pitt/Maryland in the Legends. Then break the Iowa/Purdue game and have Iowa play Missouri every year and Purdue play Pitt/Maryland.
 
ssckelley said:
Kansas would do for basketball what Nebraska does for football, provide national appeal. You cannot tell me there would not be national interests in Kansas vs Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, or Ohio State. Imagine how differently the ACC/Big10 challenge would look with Kansas was in the mix.
Click to expand...
National interest in a Kansas vs Iowa BB game? What alternate universe do you live in?
 
I would gladly have Missouri join the Big 10. IMO they are a natural fit because they border Big 10 states and already have a rivalry with Illinois; Iowa/Missouri would heat up fairly quickly also.

Plus taking another team from the Big 12 would pretty much seal it for that conference, that is unless Notre Dame, Pitt, and BYU join the conference.

East Coast I would enjoy seeing either Maryland or one of the Virginia teams join. Unless the Big east begins to go away, Notre Dame has no reason to join the Big 10. If the Big east begins to fall, ND wouldn't have a conference for its other men's and women's teams. They then join the Big 10 and then the conference only needs one more team to round out to 16.

Not sure I want to see a 16-team conference but I think it is headed there regardless of what I want.
 
You guys do realize that in order to add ANYONE they would need to generate $288M/yr just to keep the other 12 members where they are financially, correct?

There are 2 schools that can do that...
Texas
ND

That's the list
 
treychase said:
You guys do realize that in order to add ANYONE they would need to generate $288M/yr just to keep the other 12 members where they are financially, correct?

There are 2 schools that can do that...
Texas
ND

That's the list
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this number from? Each school does not collect 288M/yr but ~20 million per year if you are calculating revenue from BTN.
 
The Big 10 does NOT want Texas. Texas has destroyed one conference and is bent on destroying another.

Do you actually think Texas would be anther member and have equal rights like all other teams? Or do you think they would want to try and run the conference (which they are used to). They wouldn't want to give up their share of the Longhorn Network, in which other Big 10 members would share equally. In other words, they would want special benefits and the big 10 is not about to do that. We've seen what special benefits have done to the Big 12. That should be all the lesson that the Big 10 needs.

Same with Notre Dame. If the Big 10 lets one team form its own network and keep all the proceeds, it will destroy the conference. Pretty soon Michigan and Ohio State and maybe even Penn St have their own networks and no one is sharing anymore.

Those teams either have to join as an equal member or the Big 10 had better not let them join the conference.
 
The Big 10 doesn't need to expand.

Texas will never get an invite...period.

Notre Dame? The heck with them. They had their chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top