Interesting B1G Expansion Idea

• SportsAndLady

  

  enigmaax;907150 wrote:I'm not addressing how the fanbase is split at all. I don't have any idea and don't care. It doesn't really matter as long as Missouri is going to be on TV in KC.
  
  As for Kansas' national brand and the value of their basketball team, I fall somewhere in the middle of your and Jordo's opinions. Basketball isn't a driving force and that's where Kansas' national brand is built. They do incredible business from a basketball standpoint. However, there's astronomically less value in that to an entire conference than there is for football. And Kansas isn't a national brand for football. Their basketball team makes Kansas better off and if it came down to picking up scraps, that might give Kansas an edge over schools like Baylor and Iowa State. But for someone to actively pursue Kansas as a valuable addition? The major players aren't exactly going to salivate over the chance to have Kansas.
  
  Kentucky has a similar brand in basketball. You never hear any conference talk about how much UK would enhance the conference. If the SEC started falling apart, nobody would be scrambling to get them even with two decent-sized markets and a stand-alone basketball program.

  Well Kentucky is in the SEC lol no one mentions them in realignment talk because they're securely in the best conference in the country.
  
  btw, i'm not arguing that Mizzou isn't a better option than KU. I'm not arguing that KU is a "big" grab for a conference. My stance has always been, when you NEED to add a team not named Texas, ND, etc.....KU is a good option. They have the brand, the market (KC), and a profitable athletic department. Don't forget they were in a BCS bowl 5 years ago. It's not like their fball program has been irrelevant for 30 years
• enigmaax

  SportsAndLady;907161 wrote:Well Kentucky is in the SEC lol no one mentions them in realignment talk because they're securely in the best conference in the country.
  
  btw, i'm not arguing that Mizzou isn't a better option than KU. I'm not arguing that KU is a "big" grab for a conference. My stance has always been, when you NEED to add a team not named Texas, ND, etc.....KU is a good option. They have the brand, the market (KC), and a profitable athletic department. Don't forget they were in a BCS bowl 5 years ago. It's not like their fball program has been irrelevant for 30 years

  I agree. Nobody is going to expand just to get Kansas, but if people were subscribing to the superconference idea where 64 of the current 66 (whatever the number is/was) were included and two teams were left out - Kansas wouldn't be left out.
• Con_Alma

  Writerbuckeye;906970 wrote:If you have to expand (not saying I agree with this, but if everyone is going to 16 super conferences, you get left behind, otherwise) who else you going to take that's available, close to your existing footprint, is at least a reasonable academic fit, and brings at least, in part, a new market?
  
  Remember now, I've already eliminated two better choices in Notre Dame and Texas which, for different reasons, didn't want to come to the Big Ten.
  
  So give me two better fits academically and otherwise than Kansas and Missiouri?...

  You don't have to expand. You are not forced to. You are not getting left behind.
  
  Expanding is a choice.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Con_Alma;907629 wrote:You don't have to expand. You are not forced to. You are not getting left behind.
  
  Expanding is a choice.

  A truer statement has never been spoken on these threads.
  
  12 teams = conference c'ship game, extra $$$
  
  anything above that = Extra teams = profit? There is no difference between a 12 team conference and a 16 team conference unless the additional 4 teams provide some sort of value. Other than that it just dilutes the 12 teams.
• Con_Alma

  That's exactly my point Manhattan. It seems folks get swept up in this massive expansion fad and look toexpand just for the sake of expansion whether it makes $ense or not.