Division 1 College Conference Realignment

[rams80]

You're out of your element if you think Michigan is primarily a liberal arts school (do you know anyone who went to Michigan?)

Engineering (and medicine) aside, Michigan is the liberal arts school in the state. Business? Liberal arts. Literature, Sciences, and Arts? Liberal Arts. Law school? Liberal Arts. The vast bulk of Michigan's alumni base and student body has a liberal arts background, and that is still a large part of Michigan's raison d'etre.

(Hint-if you have one of the 20 largest academic library collections in the country, your school has a strong liberal arts mandate)

and Georgia Tech is a "ridiculously hard sciences school and engineering school."

And that's pretty much the only thing they are. Yes, they have adequate liberal arts education, but you don't go there for post-graduate degrees in those fields unless you can't avoid it. It's not sufficiently diverse.

Michigan, Illinois, Purdue, and the Big Ten are known for engineering, and the first two are tough to get into. It's the top program at those three schools and a significant program at Wisconsin, Northwestern, Penn State, etc. Yes, they all operate under the land grant model and offer solid liberal arts programs, but if you want to talk about the history of the land grants, the entire point of a land grant was to offer practical education, i.e., science and engineering. The schools that emphasize engineering (basically everyone except Indiana) would gladly welcome Georgia Tech, and likely the reciprocal.

Oh Georgia Tech would love to get in, but no, engineering does not drive the boat nearly as much as you think it does. It's too narrowly focused. Illinois is also the best public liberal arts school in its state, same for Wisconsin, same for Minnesota, same for Iowa, same for Nebraska, and same for Ohio State thanks to its growth and arrogation of a liberal arts mandate. Breadth of research, as well as the potential for its expansion, is also very important.

Clemson is a land grant and shares a similar institutional role as Purdue.

Only it doesn't do as well at it and is not as broadly. And is populated by Southerners.

Virginia has a well-regarded engineering program and offers an academic/research role that would appeal to the entire Big Ten. The differences that you're seeing just aren't there.

Virginia also likes to pretend that it's a private school when it isn't. Probably a side effect of that primary liberal arts mandate. Which it has.

But again, if academic culture meant anything, Nebraska would have been DOA. Sure, they're similar to Iowa, but no one wanted them academically. No one. You're the one who raised the argument of a cultural issue. I'm telling you, it's just not there.

They're a large Midwestern flagship land grant with a sizable liberal arts mandate as well. That just screams "Big Ten".

As to Kansas State, they will never be in the B1G. I'm sorry if you believe they are bigger than KU or a desirable candidate for B1G membership. It's not happening. KU has 4x the endowment, significantly more political pull, and dwarfs KSU in interest in the Kansas City area.

I'd be less sure about that with regards to football. Kansas doesn't pay into the revenue sharing for the Big XII, Kansas State does. Kansas State actually sells its Bowl ticket allotments as well.

IF (big if) the Big Ten wants to go into Kansas, they will take KU over K State 100 times out of 100. And there is no reason for them to take both. During previous expansion discussions, Kansas State was actually viewed as a problem because there were concerns the Kansas legislature would block the B1G taking Kansas unless it also took K State, and no one wanted to take K State.

Citation besides bloggers and hearsay please.

[joechicago]

You keep shifting criteria, and I'm not even clear what matters to whom (when you talk about culture, do you mean the other school having a problem, or the B1G having a problem with the school?!). "Mandates?!" I have never, in a decade of attending multiple B1G schools and following the expansion debates, heard of anyone complaining that Georgia Tech would be an outlier because 9/12 schools in the B1G have "liberal arts mandates." And for that matter, you just described Georgia Tech as a superior version of Purdue. And the B1G has previously welcomed elite private schools that emphasize lib arts, so I'm not seeing the issue with Virginia. Those are non-issues on both sides.

Nebraska being a flagship land grant helped, but the sticking point there was academic quality. The academians want to add schools that enhance the academic profile, not drop it down, and that's far more important than a school structurally resembling Iowa or Illinois. Kansas State has a terrible academic profile and is the no. 2 school is a low-population state. Georgia Tech, Virginia, and UNC would undoubtedly raise the academic profile.

The KS legislature hasn't formally acted (why would they?), it's the KS Board of Regents, whose president basically said it's their preference to keep the two schools together. There are still rumblings that the KS legislature would formally block a move for Kansas (and note that the Big Ten wants KU and not KSU), and given what happened in Texas when the B12 was formed, it's fair speculation that the K State supporters would use the state legislature to protect both schools' interests, which would mean that the B1G never comes to Kansas at all.

Would you like more proof that the B1G wants KU and not K State, if it comes to Kansas? Here is a writer in Wichita. Here is one from Omaha. Here an SB Nation guy says KU to B1G and no K State.

I cannot find anyone suggesting Kansas State would be a better candidate, or that the B1G would take both. It's one of those self-evident truths for anyone who is at all familiar with Kansas or the Kansas City area that KU - lousy football aside - is THE game in the state and will be the first choice by any conference looking to add members.

[rams80]

You keep shifting criteria, and I'm not even clear what matters to whom (when you talk about culture, do you mean the other school having a problem, or the B1G having a problem with the school?!). "Mandates?!" I have never, in a decade of attending multiple B1G schools and following the expansion debates, heard of anyone complaining that Georgia Tech would be an outlier because 9/12 schools in the B1G have "liberal arts mandates."

Mandate=why the state set up your public school in the first place and what it expects you to take care of in the course of being a University. And yes, no matter how hard schools try to branch out, typically that original core mandate still has significant pull on research and resources.

Anyway Georgia Tech doesn't have the breadth of research. It is excellent at its specific niche, but that is not a large niche. That's the issue. You bring up Purdue. The CIC does not need to double or triple down on pure engineering schools. The CIC does not need Super Purdues. What does Georgia Tech bring to the table besides engineering, a lack of a fanbase, lengthy travel times, and Southerners?

And for that matter, you just described Georgia Tech as a superior version of Purdue. And the B1G has previously welcomed elite private schools that emphasize lib arts, so I'm not seeing the issue with Virginia.

Yes. Such as Notre Dame. And Notre Dame. And finally Notre Dame. They haven't successfully invited an elite liberal arts-oriented private school since the 1896 Chicago meeting where they founded the damn league. But anyway, Virginia isn't an issue-more an explanation that liberal arts might be a touch more important than you think. Same for North Carolina.

Nebraska being a flagship land grant helped, but the sticking point there was academic quality. The academians want to add schools that enhance the academic profile, not drop it down, and that's far more important than a school structurally resembling Iowa or Illinois. Kansas State has a terrible academic profile

And a brand new 650 million dollar federal biological research facility.

and is the no. 2 school is a low-population state.

Academically, yes. Athletically, no.

Georgia Tech, Virginia, and UNC would undoubtedly raise the academic profile.

Assuming North Carolina doesn't get their accreditation pulled. Which (surprisingly) is actually in the realm of possibility in the wake of that academic scandal of theirs.

The KS legislature hasn't formally acted (why would they?), it's the KS Board of Regents, whose president basically said it's their preference to keep the two schools together. There are still rumblings that the KS legislature would formally block a move for Kansas (and note that the Big Ten wants KU and not KSU), and given what happened in Texas when the B12 was formed, it's fair speculation that the K State supporters would use the state legislature to protect both schools' interests, which would mean that the B1G never comes to Kansas at all.

There's also the 10 year grant of media rights issue.

Would you like more proof that the B1G wants KU and not K State, if it comes to Kansas? Here is a writer in Wichita. Here is one from Omaha. Here an SB Nation guy says KU to B1G and no K State.

I cannot find anyone suggesting Kansas State would be a better candidate, or that the B1G would take both. It's one of those self-evident truths for anyone who is at all familiar with Kansas or the Kansas City area that KU - lousy football aside - is THE game in the state and will be the first choice by any conference looking to add members.

Let's wait a decade. Basketball is increasingly irrevelant and that is all the Jayhawks have going for them.

[pianoknight]

I'm a bit homerish obviously, but I would agree with others that Nebraska joining the Big Ten was probably the best conference expansion move in the last several years. A&M-SEC is a close second, in my opinion, since it got the Ags out of their Hornshadow.

[4_tattoos]

I'm a bit homerish obviously, but I would agree with others that Nebraska joining the Big Ten was probably the best conference expansion move in the last several years. A&M-SEC is a close second, in my opinion, since it got the Ags out of their Hornshadow.

I'd argue that Virginia Tech joining the ACC was a good move for them. They've been in the thick of the conference championship picture for most of their time in the ACC.

[HedleyLamarr]

What does Georgia Tech bring to the table besides engineering, a lack of a fanbase, lengthy travel times, and Southerners?

For what it's worth, Atlanta is as close or even closer to Chicago and Indianapolis than Washington, DC (Maryland) and Piscataway, NJ (Rutgers) are....so the "lengthy travel times" argument holds no water.

[pianoknight]

I'm a bit homerish obviously, but I would agree with others that Nebraska joining the Big Ten was probably the best conference expansion move in the last several years. A&M-SEC is a close second, in my opinion, since it got the Ags out of their Hornshadow.

I'd argue that Virginia Tech joining the ACC was a good move for them. They've been in the thick of the conference championship picture for most of their time in the ACC.

That's fair, although I wasn't really thinking that far back. The whole Big East/ACC defection with Miami, VT and Boston College was for the best.

My point was more towards this notion of the coming super conferences.

[illwauk]

I'm a bit homerish obviously, but I would agree with others that Nebraska joining the Big Ten was probably the best conference expansion move in the last several years. A&M-SEC is a close second, in my opinion, since it got the Ags out of their Hornshadow.

I'd argue that Virginia Tech joining the ACC was a good move for them. They've been in the thick of the conference championship picture for most of their time in the ACC.

That's fair, although I wasn't really thinking that far back. The whole Big East/ACC defection with Miami, VT and Boston College was for the best.

My point was more towards this notion of the coming super conferences.

I'd disagree... I'm pretty sure the ACC cannibalizing the Big East will one day be looked at as the point at which college football jumped the shark, if it isn't already.

[Island_Style]

I'm a bit homerish obviously, but I would agree with others that Nebraska joining the Big Ten was probably the best conference expansion move in the last several years. A&M-SEC is a close second, in my opinion, since it got the Ags out of their Hornshadow.

I'd argue that Virginia Tech joining the ACC was a good move for them. They've been in the thick of the conference championship picture for most of their time in the ACC.

That's fair, although I wasn't really thinking that far back. The whole Big East/ACC defection with Miami, VT and Boston College was for the best.

My point was more towards this notion of the coming super conferences.

I'd disagree... I'm pretty sure the ACC cannibalizing the Big East will one day be looked at as the point at which college football jumped the shark, if it isn't already.

I think CFB is getting better every day. Playoffs are starting and bowl games are at it's lowest in popularity.

Also conference shifting has been going on since way before the BE raid. The ACC was playing catch up to the SEC and Big12 who just raided as well.

[pianoknight]

The dynamic of Haves/Have Nots that raiding creates is interesting.

A school like Florida State, Notre Dame or Oklahoma could flaunt themselves around to the highest bidder, while the Iowa States of the world are sort of stuck with whatever they get.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just an interesting dynamic.

[Island_Style]

The dynamic of Haves/Have Nots that raiding creates is interesting.

A school like Florida State, Notre Dame or Oklahoma could flaunt themselves around to the highest bidder, while the Iowa States of the world are sort of stuck with whatever they get.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just an interesting dynamic.

All of this is actually a great lesson on Capitalism.

[Island_Style]

Another reason why I am sold the Big10 and Big12 are not done. Also will be the reason ND never joins the ACC.

[joechicago]

So...the case for KSU joining the B1G is a research lab and a football team that's been good under exactly one (1) coach? Do I hear that right?

[pianoknight]

So...the case for KSU joining the B1G is a research lab and a football team that's been good under exactly one (1) coach? Do I hear that right?

For what it's worth, Kansas State is partnering with Nebraska on that billion-dollar Federal research grant.

I'm not saying that fact alone guarantees them membership, but the fact that they're already actively a part of an academic partnership with an existing Big Ten school can't hurt their chances. The Big Ten, for all the pretense about televisions and media money, still values academics highly.

I realize that the Big Ten wants to expand into ACC/SEC territory for the markets, but if I had my pick I wish they'd pursue schools like Kansas, Missouri or Oklahoma - other Midwestern schools that fit the classic "Big Ten" profile. North Carolina and Virginia are fine schools, but each time the league adds a "cultural outlier," the brand is weakened.

That's why Nebraska joining was such a natural fit. A large, public, land-grant school sitting in the middle of farmland with Midwestern values is a natural dovetail into the Big Ten. That's why schools like Kansas, KSU, etc., are a better fit than Georgia Tech or Florida State, IMO.

[ESTONES6]

Another reason why I am sold the Big10 and Big12 are not done. Also will be the reason ND never joins the ACC.

No one thinks the B16 TEN is done expanding. Nothing insightful or profound with that statement.

[rams80]

So...the case for KSU joining the B1G is a research lab and a football team that's been good under exactly one (1) coach? Do I hear that right?

Kansas doesn't have that research lab and less football success than that, so the Wildcats at least would be better for the Big Ten than the Jayhawks.

[DaytonBlue]

I stopped believing the B1G cared about "cultural fit" once they added MD and Rutgers. It's all about BTN now.

[Island_Style]

I stopped believing the B1G cared about "cultural fit" once they added MD and Rutgers. It's all about BTN now.

You get it. People are wasting their time on here arguing that the Big10 is expanding with their old ways in mind. It is all about footprints, Big10 network and fox/espn. AKA money. Nebraska is all of the proof you need. And don't give me the "they were AAU at the time they got in the conference" Yeah. well the conference knew they were going to lose that AAU status. The same people that voted them in the Big10 voted to take away their AAU status. They wanted the brand and the area. THAT is CFB today. Why? because it is now a huge moneymaker. Unlike the old days. NWO, get use to it. It will make life easier.

Now some FSU news. AD pretty much says they are exploring.

[pianoknight]

I stopped believing the B1G cared about "cultural fit" once they added MD and Rutgers. It's all about BTN now.

You get it. People are wasting their time on here arguing that the Big10 is expanding with their old ways in mind. It is all about footprints, Big10 network and fox/espn. AKA money. Nebraska is all of the proof you need. And don't give me the "they were AAU at the time they got in the conference" Yeah. well the conference knew they were going to lose that AAU status. The same people that voted them in the Big10 voted to take away their AAU status. They wanted the brand and the area. THAT is CFB today. Why? because it is now a huge moneymaker. Unlike the old days. NWO, get use to it. It will make life easier.

I will partially agree with you. The AAU membership was not a deal maker/breaker for the Huskers. However, you can't deny what I was saying earlier about Nebraska fitting the "giant land-grant, farming community school with agricultural sciences and Midwestern values." Those things pretty much run through all Big Ten schools, even the "fringe" ones like Northwestern which aren't land grants.

Maryland and Rutgers broke the mold, not Nebraska. I don't say that to offer some sort of protection or justification for my own team, but if the Big Ten was completely gonzo for the BTN revenue, they at least partially obscured it with Nebraska since the cultural fit was there already. Hell, Nebraska spent a good part of the early 1900s trying to get B1G membership anyway.

I'm not upset about Maryland and Rutgers - I think they are actually decent pick ups for the B1G. But at that point it very clearly was about televisions and money, while Nebraska could at least make the regional/rival/culture argument.

[dfwabel]

Another reason why I am sold the Big10 and Big12 are not done. Also will be the reason ND never joins the ACC.

No one thinks the B16 TEN is done expanding. Nothing insightful or profound with that statement.

There are many posts on other threads here about the possible impact of Speed becoming FOX Sports 1.

However, regardless of the re-branding of SPEED to make it more mainstream, there are a few key issues FSMG (FOX Sports Media Group) must deal with.

1. Contracts: The current Big Ten contract with ABC/ESPN runs through 2016 and they will have an exclusive period to re-negotiate as well as the right to match.

2. Eyes: Most cable households have ESPN and expect to see college sports there. Recruits look at ESPN/2. They did not look at The Mtn. or even at CBSC.

FOX had issues with seeing Big XII and Pac-12 and C-USA games on FX. Today, FX has households than SPEED on basic cable, yet there is the thought to move it to basic cable still has the NBCSN issue...it's not ESPN and they do not have the games which ESPN has.

Bottom Line: Outside of the NBC/NotreDame deal and the SEC/CBS, the less you are ESPN, it is hard for people to change networks to see your games. Ask the Mountain West.