Expansion News from 46n2...which means unbiased and most likely accurate....

[tabascojet]

And by borderline you mean.....I hope football in the last decade only. Especially from a Florida fan.

aTm is no jewel, it is an also ran that accomplishes silve's goal of getting a foot in texas. UT and UNC are state flagship universities, now those would be an addition, but of course that isnt happening.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

I don't think the Big Ten is going to add just Kansas and/or Kansas and Missouri.

In fact I don't think the Big Ten will (or should) expand without adding one of the following:
1) Notre Dame
2) Texas
3) Oklahoma

Get one of those 3 schools, and there are a number of viable options for a 14th or for a 14th, 15th and 16th.

Without any of those, I'd rather stay at 12 teams with a conference championship and a chance to get two teams into BCS games each year.

The Pac-16 can go ahead and add 4 more schools, they'd still only have 4 marquee programs (Texas, Oklahoma, USC and Oregon... Stanford is good right now but not a national power).

 

[HighTide]

I don't think the Big Ten is going to add just Kansas and/or Kansas and Missouri.

In fact I don't think the Big Ten will (or should) expand without adding one of the following:
1) Notre Dame
2) Texas
3) Oklahoma

Get one of those 3 schools, and there are a number of viable options for a 14th or for a 14th, 15th and 16th.

Without any of those, I'd rather stay at 12 teams with a conference championship and a chance to get two teams into BCS games each year.

The Pac-16 can go ahead and add 4 more schools, they'd still only have 4 marquee programs (Texas, Oklahoma, USC and Oregon... Stanford is good right now but not a national power).

OU is not going to the Big 10 because it is not a AAU school.

 

[iruletheskool]

OU is not going to the Big 10 because it is not a AAU school.

Meh

 

[BigAppleBadger]

OU is not going to the Big 10 because it is not a AAU school.

They would get in with a commitment to gain admission to the AAU within [insert number here] years. It's a flagship state university, not as good as the existing schools in the Big Ten, but if you believe their chancellor and president, serious about improving.

Oklahoma is a borderline case academically but the athletics (along with Texas) are the biggest prize in the whole re-alignment picture. The B1G could look the other way for that.

Okie Lite and Texas Tech, and for that matter West Virginia, are simply clear "no"s. The academics are worse and the athletics and prestige factor are not even close.

 

[Ballboy534]

I understand about the pull of TV markets, athletic department size/revenue, and even academics (primarily for the Big 10), but what about historic rivalries, traditions, and the logistical fit of expansion? A team like WVU, Mizzou, or VT does not fit within the traditional model of a typical SEC school; location, fan base, and culture are all much different for those three schools. Even NC State doesn't fit into the mold that most schools fall under.

If you look at how the SEC is currently aligned, only Alabama and Mississippi has two large state schools with (reasonably) competitive D1 football teams. A team like NC State has to compete with UNC, ECU, and to some extent Wake, Duke, and App State PLUS surrounding state schools for recruits. Even within the SEC, i'm not sure a school like NC State provides enough of a draw for recruits and "maintaining the SEC tradition." I doubt that even VT, Mizzou, or WVU have SEC-type facilities; otherwise those schools would be pulling in more coveted recruits. I am against expansion, but I don't have much say, and if I was currently in the SEC, I'd be pretty ticked to have such different cultures meshed with mine.

 

[Ballboy534]

All I am saying is don't over look the "tradition" aspect of it; I am only crossing my fingers and praying that Joe Schad had any clue when he reported the SEC was going to invite Clemson, FSU, Mizzou, and A&M back in August. Clemson has long-standing rivalries and history with more SEC schools than any I've seen on any speculatory lists so far and like I said, I'd be pretty pissed to pull in a school like Mizzou that had no ties to any other teams in the conference.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

I understand about the pull of TV markets, athletic department size/revenue, and even academics (primarily for the Big 10), but what about historic rivalries, traditions, and the logistical fit of expansion? A team like WVU, Mizzou, or VT does not fit within the traditional model of a typical SEC school; location, fan base, and culture are all much different for those three schools. Even NC State doesn't fit into the mold that most schools fall under.

If you look at how the SEC is currently aligned, only Alabama and Mississippi has two large state schools with (reasonably) competitive D1 football teams. A team like NC State has to compete with UNC, ECU, and to some extent Wake, Duke, and App State PLUS surrounding state schools for recruits. Even within the SEC, i'm not sure a school like NC State provides enough of a draw for recruits and "maintaining the SEC tradition." I doubt that even VT, Mizzou, or WVU have SEC-type facilities; otherwise those schools would be pulling in more coveted recruits. I am against expansion, but I don't have much say, and if I was currently in the SEC, I'd be pretty ticked to have such different cultures meshed with mine.

VT is the east coast satellite for Nike and has put together a set of facilities that is only eclipsed by Oregon an Oklahoma State now. that is not an issue for the Hokies. the rest of your points are very good, however.

 

[Ballboy534]

Did not know that 46, why then don't ya'll pull in higher-ranked classes? It seems strange to me that a school with that string of success would be so ho-hum on the recruiting trail, when my team can be top ten three-four years in a row and still be mediocre... :confused2:

 

[BigAppleBadger]

All I am saying is don't over look the "tradition" aspect of it; I am only crossing my fingers and praying that Joe Schad had any clue when he reported the SEC was going to invite Clemson, FSU, Mizzou, and A&M back in August. Clemson has long-standing rivalries and history with more SEC schools than any I've seen on any speculatory lists so far and like I said, I'd be pretty pissed to pull in a school like Mizzou that had no ties to any other teams in the conference.

Mizzou belongs in the Big Ten, really. They're just not a top tier program so nobody is jumping at them. But they'll probably end up in the B1G as part of a larger expansion push.

Did not know that 46, why then don't ya'll pull in higher-ranked classes? It seems strange to me that a school with that string of success would be so ho-hum on the recruiting trail, when my team can be top ten three-four years in a row and still be mediocre... :confused2:

It's because recruiting rankings are complete B.S. Wisconsin NEVER has even a top 25 recruiting class, but they're consistently ranked. Part of that is the caliber of athletes that the program brings in, sure, but just as much of it is the inherent problems with ranking high school prospects.

Let's face it, there are way too many high school seniors playing football for scouts to have any idea about most of them. So what they do is focus on certain big high schools that win a lot of state championships, in recruiting hotbeds. Basically all of the 5-star recruits come from Texas, California, Florida, Ohio, etc. and well known schools.

 

[Ballboy534]

Mizzou belongs in the Big Ten, really. They're just not a top tier program so nobody is jumping at them. But they'll probably end up in the B1G as part of a larger expansion push.

Couldn't agree more; my hope is tSEC pulls A&M and then raids FSU/Clemson/VT from the ACC... I don't think Clemson or FSU will get an invite because SC and UF will do their damnedest to block it, but I do think it would be in the best interest long-term and makes the most sense logistically. Have I mentioned how much I hate the ACC? Thanks to our commish (and UNC alum) John Swofford.

 

[Big Red Said]

I also believe that Delany is speaking up front about not being reactive... in any way at this time...

He is in No Hurry To Screw Up The Big Ten Conference...

as he stated

"Quality Over Quanity"

I don't think the Big Ten is going to add just Kansas and/or Kansas and Missouri.

In fact I don't think the Big Ten will (or should) expand without adding one of the following:
1) Notre Dame
2) Texas
3) Oklahoma

Get one of those 3 schools, and there are a number of viable options for a 14th or for a 14th, 15th and 16th.

Without any of those, I'd rather stay at 12 teams with a conference championship and a chance to get two teams into BCS games each year.

The Pac-16 can go ahead and add 4 more schools, they'd still only have 4 marquee programs (Texas, Oklahoma, USC and Oregon... Stanford is good right now but not a national power).

I suspect Delany has a similar thought about not adding too quick....If at all.... Everything including the Big Ten Championship Game will work just fine with 12.

Not sure what type of relationship Delaney has with Texas... but I know from what I have heard... many of the AD's in the Big Ten had lost interest in Texas, due to their Pac 16 bartering last year...

Then this LHN/highschool crap just added more mud to their water as well as Big 12 members talking of leaving for greener pastures has caused institutions to view the negative sentiment against Texas as something they need to pay attention too.

But nothing is imossible... time will tell

 

[BigAppleBadger]

You've got to remember that the Big Ten has only expanded its membership twice since 1953 (when MSU joined). Those two teams were Penn State and Nebraska... two of just six teams with >800 wins in college football history.

Unless forced into it, Delany is only going to swing for the fences. Suggestions like adding Missouri and Rutgers and calling it a day are just stupid.

 

[tabascojet]

You've got to remember that the Big Ten has only expanded its membership twice since 1953 (when MSU joined). Those two teams were Penn State and Nebraska... two of just six teams with >800 wins in college football history.

Unless forced into it, Delany is only going to swing for the fences. Suggestions like adding Missouri and Rutgers and calling it a day are just stupid.

waiting for ND is a failing policy. I think rutgers is all kind of wrong for the big10 and doesnt add as much as those touting it think it does. Unless the big10 is going to add the ny giants, they wont see much movement on a ratings meter in nyc. But i do like the idea of adding mizzou and kansas. Gives iowa and nebraska some added grain belt clout and still keeps the big10 footprint reasonably contained.

 

[BigAppleBadger]

waiting for ND is a failing policy. I think rutgers is all kind of wrong for the big10 and doesnt add as much as those touting it think it does. Unless the big10 is going to add the ny giants, they wont see much movement on a ratings meter in nyc. But i do like the idea of adding mizzou and kansas. Gives iowa and nebraska some added grain belt clout and still keeps the big10 footprint reasonably contained.

I do like Mizzou and Kansas, but only as a reactive move or as part of a larger expansion (obviously along with Oklahoma and/or Texas, or even to go to 16 teams with Mizzou, Kansas, Notre Dame and Pitt).

I'm with you on Rutgers. For the millionth time, nobody in NYC gives a shit about them. I've lived here for 7 years and I've met ONE Rutgers fan.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

Did not know that 46, why then don't ya'll pull in higher-ranked classes? It seems strange to me that a school with that string of success would be so ho-hum on the recruiting trail, when my team can be top ten three-four years in a row and still be mediocre... :confused2:

There are a few factors:

1. These facilities are relatively new and were had before last offseason.

2. Beamer stays away from certain kinds of kids that give off a certain vibe. Some of these have been known, and interestingly few have actually panned out.

3. Beamer and company evaluate without using any of the known ranking services. They offer kids based on what they see on film and camps. An example was this year when over 200 kids showed up (some high 3 and 4 stars) and only two offers went out...to two linemen without other offers.

4. VT does not recruit ideal size at a lot of positions, which the ranking sites rely heavily on, and instead leans on our s&c program to build the players.

It works sometimes (roc Carmichael, Darren Evans, jarrett Boykin, James gayle) and sometimes it doesn't. However, I wod put tech's talent evaluation staff very high based on what VT has done with classes ranked in the 30s and 40s.

A good example of this is he fact that the true freshman who played the most snaps in out first game was our lowest rated recruit this season (2* Luther Maddy). If you are on the two deep for a Bud Foster defense, as a true freshman, I would say you are a bit better than that rating.

One more thing, VT recruits players that work well in their system, which may not be the same as players who are recruiting superstars. They play a very position flexible defense, for example so they recruit smaller quicker linebackers a lot and bigger safety types.

 

[Forty_Sixand2]

....which is not to say it did not piss me off that you all got Anthony last year

 

[iruletheskool]

LOL @ 46n2 being jelly of Nebraska's nation-wide recruitin.

 

[Volbound1700]

How come Big10 isn't talking about Syracuse? They probably bring more of the New York market then Rutgers and they have elite Basketball. NY and Northeast is a College Basketball region, why not bring in a CBB superpower?

 

[BigAppleBadger]

How come Big10 isn't talking about Syracuse? They probably bring more of the New York market then Rutgers and they have elite Basketball. NY and Northeast is a College Basketball region, why not bring in a CBB superpower?

Because what's the point of bringing in a basketball power? That's not what re-alignment is about, it's about the BCS. Same deal with Kansas, only makes sense if it's part of adding Oklahoma.

I agree that Rutgers gives you absolutely nothing.