- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Who will the Big Ten go after?
Posted on 9/7/11 at 10:52 am to Quidam65
Posted on 9/7/11 at 10:52 am to Quidam65
quote:
quote:
I could see the B10 picking up the northern scraps of the BE.
Or maybe the ACC. That group resembles people who look for deals at estate sales (I do it a lot myself).
Interesting, Big Ten adding Missouri, Rutgers, Virginia, and Virginia Tech?
Posted on 9/7/11 at 11:13 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
care to elaborate?
just as sprint said, adding another member means less revenue for everyone else UNLESS you can insure the new additions can maintain the current average revenue of the conference.
nebraska: great addition
notre dame: would be great addition
texas: would be great addition
missouri?
syracuse?
iowa state? (come the frick on)
uconn?
kansas?
kansas state?
those five or six are borderline; each could potentially generate more revenue, of course, but would it be enough to equal the current average the conference currently holds; highly debatable.
besides, didnt the big ten just announce they are satisfied with their current status? they dont plan on expansion in the near future.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 11:16 am to Muahahaha
Whoever they get, the Big Ten is going to get much weaker in football and probably much better in basketball.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 11:33 am to bigpapamac
I agree.
Also, I know the B1G wants ND, but I don't think ND wants them. Too many non-conference rivalries to make it work IMO.
Also, I know the B1G wants ND, but I don't think ND wants them. Too many non-conference rivalries to make it work IMO.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 11:34 am to Muahahaha
Small stake in this fight, but I hope it's KU, Mizzou, Syracuse and UConn. The hoops would be epic, UConn already has hockey and Syracuse would probably add to get the Big Ten Hockey Conference to eight teams.
Ya gotta sell ads on the Big Ten Network the other 8 months of the year.
Ya gotta sell ads on the Big Ten Network the other 8 months of the year.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 11:47 am to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
They will NOT get ND because I don't see Delaney making any monetary concessions to the Irish and their NBC deal, and other than that, I just don't see that many AAU schools that would fit.
Notre Dame will have to join a conference if the superconference model comes to fruition. Otherwise, there non-football sports would die. They couldn't get their special Big East deal if BE expands to 16 teams. I think the Big 10 is watching things carefully, but will wait to act. In addition to ND, I think they'll grab UNC from the ACC. Once UNC realizes that superconferences are inevitable, they'll leave the ACC before they stay around to see their country club ruined. No way to they stay in a conference w/ Syracuse and UConn. Another school like UVa could join them in the Big 10. And Texas may end up in the Big 10 once they realize that they can't do it alone w/o schools like A&M and OU to support them.
And BTW, Nebraska lost their AAU membership and the Big 10 schools knew it was coming when they let them in. Kansas would never make the Big 10 because basketball doesn't fuel the fire. Rutgers and Pitt are very possible expansion teams to the Big 10. However, if they could get UNC, ND & Texas, they'd be very happy. And Jim Delaney played basketball for Dean Smith at UNC and has his law degree from UNC too.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 11:52 am to winyahpercy
if this continues to unravel, id be satisfied if the big ten JUST added texas and notre dame and left it at that.
14 teams > 16 teams for a variety of reasons.
14 teams > 16 teams for a variety of reasons.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 11:58 am to winyahpercy
quote:
They couldn't get their special Big East deal if BE expands to 16 teams
big east already has 16 schools for their olympic sport teams...
This post was edited on 9/7/11 at 11:59 am
Posted on 9/7/11 at 6:33 pm to rocket31
If the B1G expands to 16 teams and gets Notre Dame, they dont need to bring any other "markets". Notre Dame would bring $$$ and the entire country into play. ND has a huge national following that would get them into California, Texas and the NE. IMO the B1G will add Notre Dame, Missouri, Pitt and Kansas.
EAST:
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Pittsburgh*
WEST:
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Notre Dame*
Nebraska*
Missouri*
Kansas*
EAST:
Ohio State
Penn State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Illinois
Pittsburgh*
WEST:
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Northwestern
Notre Dame*
Nebraska*
Missouri*
Kansas*
This post was edited on 9/7/11 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 9/7/11 at 6:34 pm to Buckeye Backer
Who bumped this crap. We dont have time for this
Posted on 9/7/11 at 6:34 pm to Muahahaha
They're going to get Pitt.
Who the frick cares what Paterno thinks.
Who the frick cares what Paterno thinks.
Posted on 9/7/11 at 6:37 pm to mre
quote:
Public:
University of Arizona (1985)
University at Buffalo, The State University of New York (1989)
University of California, Berkeley (1900)
University of California, Los Angeles (1974)
University of Colorado at Boulder (1966)
University of Florida (1985)
Georgia Institute of Technology (2010)
Iowa State University of Science and Technology (1958)
University of Kansas (1909)
University of Maryland, College Park (1969)
University of Missouri (1908)
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (1989)
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1922)
University of Oregon (1969)
University of Pittsburgh (1974)
University of Texas at Austin (1929)
Texas A&M University (2001)
University of Virginia (1904)
University of Washington (1950)
simple enough
Popular
Back to top


0






