ADVERTISEMENT

Interesting info on B1G expamsion

PAC12 does have major markets. But there is a low level of interest in CFB in those markets.

PAC12 is mostly geographically isolated, making poaching unlikely. Lots of people like to predict USC/UCLA/Az/AzSU to B12, but that seems like crazy talk.

USC and those schools would be giving up a lot of history to be the semi-isolated Western outpost for a low population conference.

Everyone has gone to bed when those games are on. I see maybe 10 minutes of one of their games.
 
They can schedule games earlier in the day without changing conferences.

ESPN has released data showing that P12 games at 9pm CT get way better ratings than P12 games at 3pm. People aren't turning off B1G or SEC to watch P12. But they'll watch P12 when nothing else is on.
 
The hand gesture thing is an embarrassment to the league, and the people responsible should be severely shamed because of that decision.

While the Longhorn Network has been a negative in some ways -- like limiting the audience for the UT-ISU football game this year -- it has been positive in other ways. By retaining the third tier rights, ISU has been able to televise all its non-conference MBB games and some WBB games this year, for instance.

i hope you don't pay for CyCLOWN.tv....
 
For the record, I'm not one who wants to see the Big 12 collapse. I want schools like KSU, KU, ISU, etc...all the schools Nebraska "grew up" with to be treated fairly and do well. I enjoy seeing Iowa State have success. Same goes for the others.

Do you have proof that OSU and Michigan have leveraged their schools' status to enact policies that are OSU- and Michigan-centric, to the detriment of schools like Rutgers and Indiana? I don't have proof they haven't, but so far as I can tell this league cares about the good of the whole a lot more than the Big 12 league does...it's concerned with Texas. See upside down hook 'em horns policy as a perfect example. Like you said, big time embarrassment, driven by and for Texas sole benefit because they could.
I didn't say that. I said OSU and Michigan have more influence than do Rutgers and Indiana, and I'll stand by that statement. Do you think Nebraska and Oklahoma didn't have more influence in the old Big Eight than Kansas State and Iowa State?

As I recall it, the primary bitch Nebraska had about Texas was that Texas didn't want to allow partial and non-qualifiers, which NU had used to great advantage. But that wasn't just Texas. ISU and Missouri weren't using them before the expansion, they were banned in the SWC, and the other Big 8 schools didn't use many.

Look, I am NOT defending the teasips. My biggest concern -- call me paranoid, I don't care -- is the way they're treated by the officials (that wasn't the case in the FB game this year, BTW, just to be clear about that.) I would like to see them playing in Ames late in the season, when it's cold and snowy, occasionally. There is no question that Texas throws its weight around.

But the negative aspect of the "Texas Effect" is exaggerated, by Nebraska fans and Iowa fans, albeit for different reasons.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThrowBones92
I didn't say that. I said OSU and Michigan have more influence than do Rutgers and Indiana, and I'll stand by that statement. Do you think Nebraska and Oklahoma didn't have more influence in the old Big Eight than Kansas State and Iowa State?

As I recall it, the primary bitch Nebraska had about Texas was that Texas didn't want to allow partial and non-qualifiers, which NU had used to great advantage. But that wasn't just Texas. ISU and Missouri weren't using them before the expansion, they were banned in the SWC, and the other Big 8 schools didn't use many.

Look, I am NOT defending the teasips. My biggest concern -- call me paranoid, I don't care -- is the way they're treated by the officials (that wasn't the case in the FB game this year, BTW, just to be clear about that.) I would like to see them playing in Ames late in the season, when it's cold and snowy, occasionally. There is no question that Texas throws its weight around.

But the negative aspect of the "Texas Effect" is exaggerated, by Nebraska fans and Iowa fans, albeit for different reasons.

The reason I asked if you have proof is because I don't know. In the Big 12, it's obvious for the reasons we both have explained and witnessed. I haven't seen that in the B1G, so that was why I asked. I don't see it. If we just want to assume that the blue bloods have more power without it bearing out in policies and other rulings, I'm okay with that. I just don't want to say it's a fact that it happens in the B1G similar to how it happens in the Big 12. To me, it's night and day difference. And I don't want any part of Texas again.

The partial qualifier rule change was part of it. The politics of it were interesting, with Texas influencing decisions and leanings of current Big 8 schools. There is nothing inherently wrong with allowing partial qualifiers. It's not like they played until they became eligible.

You probably do not remember the game because I don't expect you to watch games that don't include ISU. But, regarding the officiating, I've only watched one game where I ever felt like the officials were actively screwing a team. Heck, I'm a college basketball official and it bugs the crap out of me when people question the integrity of referees (yes, we all miss calls, some of them are bad, but it's not as easy as it looks and everyone I have ever worked with has refereed to the best of their ability that night). There are plenty of examples of missed or bad calls that influence games. But I'm convinced the game Nebraska played vs Texas A&M that they lost 9-6 was a classic example of the Texas-centric league using officials to screw Nebraska on the way out of the door. If you ever are interested, go watch that game, and tell me that something screwy wasn't going on with the officiating.

Here's the thing - four teams ran for the hills as soon as it looked like they could find a good landing spot. Missouri, Colorado, A&M (pride got in the way) and Nebraska all opted out, and I think a lot of it had to do with the way the conference was trending and was from a compilation of decisions that caused the conference to lack stability. I don't want the team most responsible for that anywhere near a league Nebraska plays in.
 
Depends on how important the B1G thinks they are to the success of the conference. I'm not saying they would be allowed to. I'm saying I'd like to hope they wouldn't. Neither you nor I know for sure what future leverage they may hold in negotiations. A person who has shown a propensity to use leverage to benefit themselves in the past will look for opportunities to do it in the future. You don't understand the ego of that program, school and state if you don't think they'll try. Michigan, OSU nor PSU have thought to act in a way that Texas has acted.
I don't trust Texas, they have a bad history. They might say all the right things to get in the door, but once they're in the door, maybe a decade down the road, I can see them scheming and being an upsetting influence on the rest of the conference. We just don't need that kind of school around. They don't fit the profile.

Ever notice how divorces go in spurts in social groups you know. One woman gets a divorce, and she's miserable but is telling her girlfriends how great being single is, because misery loves company. Next thing you know one, then two, then more of her girlfriends in that social circle are getting divorced. It's because that original divorcee was a corrupting influence. Sure, there might have been issues in those marriages, but she was there to point them out, plant that seed, negatively influence her girlfriends until they also get divorced and are miserable just like her. It's a slow, eroding, corrupting process. Texas is that original divorcee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThrowBones92
The reason I asked if you have proof is because I don't know. In the Big 12, it's obvious for the reasons we both have explained and witnessed. I haven't seen that in the B1G, so that was why I asked. I don't see it. If we just want to assume that the blue bloods have more power without it bearing out in policies and other rulings, I'm okay with that. I just don't want to say it's a fact that it happens in the B1G similar to how it happens in the Big 12. To me, it's night and day difference. And I don't want any part of Texas again.

The partial qualifier rule change was part of it. The politics of it were interesting, with Texas influencing decisions and leanings of current Big 8 schools. There is nothing inherently wrong with allowing partial qualifiers. It's not like they played until they became eligible.

You probably do not remember the game because I don't expect you to watch games that don't include ISU. But, regarding the officiating, I've only watched one game where I ever felt like the officials were actively screwing a team. Heck, I'm a college basketball official and it bugs the crap out of me when people question the integrity of referees (yes, we all miss calls, some of them are bad, but it's not as easy as it looks and everyone I have ever worked with has refereed to the best of their ability that night). There are plenty of examples of missed or bad calls that influence games. But I'm convinced the game Nebraska played vs Texas A&M that they lost 9-6 was a classic example of the Texas-centric league using officials to screw Nebraska on the way out of the door. If you ever are interested, go watch that game, and tell me that something screwy wasn't going on with the officiating.

Here's the thing - four teams ran for the hills as soon as it looked like they could find a good landing spot. Missouri, Colorado, A&M (pride got in the way) and Nebraska all opted out, and I think a lot of it had to do with the way the conference was trending and was from a compilation of decisions that caused the conference to lack stability. I don't want the team most responsible for that anywhere near a league Nebraska plays in.
I am not among those who question the integrity of officials. I think sometimes they do things intentionally, but rarely. I certainly do not buy the conspiracy theory of the league office pressuring the officials to produce a certain outcome. However, that doesn't mean I think they aren't subconsciously influenced by which team is wearing which jersey. I think they are.

Nebraska went to the Big Ten because it could. If Nebraska had been invited to join the Big Ten when it was in the old Big Eight, Nebraska would have gone. So would ISU, just as ISU would do so today. It's a better deal in most respects. Money talks.

Colorado was always out of place in the Big Eight and later Big XII.

I don't think Mizzou left because of Texas. I think the southern half of the state had wanted to go SEC for a long time, and the Tigers had several reasons to be pissed about the Big Eight. The fifth down debacle against Colorado comes quickly to mind, but I think the straw that broke the camel's back was when Mizzou and KU tied for the league and KU went to the Orange Bowl even though MU had beaten the Jayhawks.
 
I would much rather have something that would never happen but would be awesome for college football. Have a shuffle happen. All conferences down to 12 teams max. 8 conference games. Add one more power conference so there is a power 6. Every year you have to schedule 2 non con games against power 6 teams. The conferences would look like this.

B1G: Ohio St, Michigan, MSU, Notre Dame, Indiana, Purdue, Iowa, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Minnesota, Illinois and Nebraska.

SEC: Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Missouri, Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St, Texas A&m and Kentucky.

ACC: Syracuse, Virginia, Virginia tech, UCONN, Pitt, Louisville, Clemson, Duke, NCST, UNC, Wake Forest and Georgia Tech.

Big 12: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Iowa St, Kansas, Kansas St, Arkansas, Texas, LSU, TCU, Baylor, Houston, Texas Tech.

PAC 12: Same

New Conference: Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland, West Virginia, Temple, Boston College, Florida St, Miami, UCF, USF, Memphis and UAB.
I’m onboard too, but the B1G needs to find a way to ditch Nebraska.
 
I'm convinced that when they are available to join and I've heard there could be a loophole sooner then anticipated that OU and Kansas join the BIG.
 
I'm convinced that when they are available to join and I've heard there could be a loophole sooner then anticipated that OU and Kansas join the BIG.
You see no problem with OU's lack of AAU membership, or bringing Okie State along with them?
 
You see no problem with OU's lack of AAU membership, or bringing Okie State along with them?

No to the first point as Nebraska is no longer AAU so that can of worms is opened. OSU will be fine and look for them perhaps to the SEC. Thanks to T Boone Pickens they have money and some clout

It's better for the teams and conferences to split up the state schools as it allows for a larger geographical footprint.
 
ADVERTISEMENT