Official 2009-2010 NCAA Basketball Thread

[nitetrain8601]

Is the Big 10 seriously talking to Texas - and is Texas listening?

 

Texas is way too far away for Big 10 athletes to travel to. The lesser non-revenue sports are going to be spending way too much in travel expense if Texas joins.

 

Plus, there goes the Texas-Texas A&M/Texas-Oklahoma rivalries then. That would kill any conference change, in my opinion.

 

I've read the same, but I don't think it'll go through. If it did though, OSU can kiss future Big Ten titles away. Texas will run this conference. I'm sure Texas A&M and Oklahoma will still face off with Texas though.

[knightni]

I've read the same, but I don't think it'll go through. If it did though, OSU can kiss future Big Ten titles away. Texas will run this conference. I'm sure Texas A&M and Oklahoma will still face off with Texas though.

Missouri makes the most sense, imo.

[nitetrain8601]

Missouri makes the most sense, imo.

 

Missouri or maybe Pitt in my honest opinion. I sure as heck would welcome Texas though, without a doubt.

[knightni]

Iowa State would be a good 12th school, but they aren't consistantly competitive enough in the revenue sports to make it worthwhile for the Big 10. (Sorry, Heads/NSS)

[southsider2k5]

Is the Big 10 seriously talking to Texas - and is Texas listening?

 

Texas is way too far away for Big 10 athletes to travel to. The lesser non-revenue sports are going to be spending way too much in travel expense if Texas joins.

 

Plus, there goes the Texas-Texas A&M/Texas-Oklahoma rivalries then. That would kill any conference change, in my opinion.

 

Texas would be an incredible add for the Big Ten.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Missouri would probably make the least sense if they're looking at just 12 teams. Pitt doesn't make any sense either.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Buehrle>Wood

[danman31]

Missouri would probably make the least sense if they're looking at just 12 teams. Pitt doesn't make any sense either.

Who does make sense then?

[Buehrle>Wood]

Who does make sense then?

 

Texas. Notre Dame. Syracuse.

 

 

Any school that would actually provide new markets and millions more of BTN subscribers. Those 3 are about the only ones I could come up with.

[knightni]

Texas. Notre Dame. Syracuse.

 

 

Any school that would actually provide new markets and millions more of BTN subscribers. Those 3 are about the only ones I could come up with.

Texas and Syracuse don't make sense geographically, though.

 

Iowa St., Missouri, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Kentucky are the only reasonable options.

 

 

[GoodAsGould]

I think Pitt, Syracuse, and Missouri would all be solid additions in rounding up the big ten, all competitive schools. Obviously Texas/Notre Dame would both be better candidates but I dont think either are reasonable.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Texas and Syracuse don't make sense geographically, though.

 

Iowa St., Missouri, Louisville, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and Kentucky are the only reasonable options.

 

It's 2010. Geographics don't matter, especially when there's talk of a football only move.

 

 

If the Big Ten is going to make a move, it's going to be for a home run. Missouri and Pittsburgh are far from that and don't really provide any new revenue streams (other than the ability for a championship game).

 

I think people get confuse over thinking this is a move to get a championship football game. It's not that more than it is expanding the Big Ten brand (and network).

[GoodAsGould]

It's 2010. Geographics don't matter, especially when there's talk of a football only move.

 

 

If the Big Ten is going to make a move, it's going to be for a home run. Missouri and Pittsburgh are far from that and don't really provide any new revenue streams (other than the ability for a championship game).

 

I think people get confuse over thinking this is a move to get a championship football game. It's not that more than it is expanding the Big Ten brand (and network).

 

Well right now the big ten has an odd number of teams, so it would only make sense for them to add either 1 or 3 teams. If its 3, I think Pittsburgh would be almost a must as well as Syracuse. I know its a shot in the dark but if Texas isnt a real option TCU is also a team Id look at.

[danman31]

Texas. Notre Dame. Syracuse.

 

 

Any school that would actually provide new markets and millions more of BTN subscribers. Those 3 are about the only ones I could come up with.

It's interesting that you say new markets and have Notre Dame on the list. Notre Dame to the Big Ten wouldn't add a ton more BTN subscribers because most Notre Dame fans are already in the Midwest and have (or can have) BTN. Obviously Notre Dame is the top pick for the Big Ten. I also don't think Syracuse is that great of a pick. It's a medium size school and may not bring the NYC market as much as you think.

 

Also, Mizzou brings new markets (St. Louis and Kansas City) and millions more subscribers (6 million in the state, only FBS school in the state). As a Mizzou alum I don't want to see the Tigers switch to the Big Ten from an athletics perspective, however, the Big Ten currently offers more money. I'm just saying your qualifications "Any school that would actually provide new markets and millions more of BTN subscribers" don't eliminate Mizzou.

[Buehrle>Wood]

It's interesting that you say new markets and have Notre Dame on the list. Notre Dame to the Big Ten wouldn't add a ton more BTN subscribers because most Notre Dame fans are already in the Midwest and have (or can have) BTN. Obviously Notre Dame is the top pick for the Big Ten. I also don't think Syracuse is that great of a pick. It's a medium size school and may not bring the NYC market as much as you think.

 

Also, Mizzou brings new markets (St. Louis and Kansas City) and millions more subscribers (6 million in the state, only FBS school in the state). As a Mizzou alum I don't want to see the Tigers switch to the Big Ten from an athletics perspective, however, the Big Ten currently offers more money. I'm just saying your qualifications "Any school that would actually provide new markets and millions more of BTN subscribers" don't eliminate Mizzou.

 

You're not adding BTN subscribers with ND, no, but ND is probably the biggest college football brand in the country, no? Either way ND is a lot more of a national thing than any current school in the Big Ten. It definitely increases the brand of the conference. As for' Cuse, yeah I agree, but I think it still makes the most sense out of any of the Eastern schools mentioned. And I still think they go East, because that's where most of the rumors have been circulating.

 

 

As for Mizzou, I figure StL is already a decent Big Ten market, especially with the amount Illini fans. And I figure most of the state (Eastern side at least) already gets the BTN. I think you'd be essentially adding KC, which is what, 5th or 6th biggest market in the Big 12 alone? Mizzou is nice, I just figure they'll want to do better.

[danman31]

Fair points. It's an unusual situation because the Big Ten actually has a lot to offer with their network. Given the financial success of BTN you would think others will soon follow.

[Heads22]

Iowa State would be a good 12th school, but they aren't consistantly competitive enough in the revenue sports to make it worthwhile for the Big 10. (Sorry, Heads/NSS)

 

I have a feeling they'd be more competitive in the Big 10 than the Big 12. And I hope we're going balls to the wall to try and get an invite.

 

 

 

On a side note, the ISU women's team is so the best team in the state. Probably 9,000 in the seats for an 11 AM start, crushing the #11 team 56-28.

[RockRaines]

I've read the same, but I don't think it'll go through. If it did though, OSU can kiss future Big Ten titles away. Texas will run this conference. I'm sure Texas A&M and Oklahoma will still face off with Texas though.

 

LOL, in bball? MSU runs this conference. In football, Texas hasnt been more dominant than OSU so not sure what sport you are actually referring to. Maybe OSU wouldnt win back to back to back to etc, but they would still win their share of titles. Texas has won 2 conference titles under Mack Brown, they've only made 4 BCS bowls. OSU has 7 conference titles since 1998 (when mack joined texas) and 7 BCS games. OSU has had more first round NFL selections than Texas so there isnt a talent question. So I'm wondering, what makes you think that Texas would dominate the Big Ten and the most dominant team in the Big Ten just because they switch conferences.

[danman31]

In football, Texas hasnt been more dominant than OSU so not sure what sport you are actually referring to. Maybe OSU wouldnt win back to back to back to etc, but they would still win their share of titles. Texas has won 2 conference titles under Mack Brown, they've only made 4 BCS bowls. OSU has 7 conference titles since 1998 (when mack joined texas) and 7 BCS games. OSU has had more first round NFL selections than Texas so there isnt a talent question. So I'm wondering, what makes you think that Texas would dominate the Big Ten and the most dominant team in the Big Ten just because they switch conferences.

Ohio State doesn't have to compete with Oklahoma and back in the day Nebraska. You could compare Nebraska to Michigan because they once were great and now aren't. The last 6 Big 12 titles have gone to OU or Texas.

[RockRaines]

Ohio State doesn't have to compete with Oklahoma and back in the day Nebraska. You could compare Nebraska to Michigan because they once were great and now aren't. The last 6 Big 12 titles have gone to OU or Texas.

 

Still trying to find the Texas relevance in your post. Are you saying that there is no competition in the Big Ten or something? Michigan has been bad for 2 years, if 3 years ago is "back in the day" then I guess I am getting very old. I am aware that OU has won a majority of the conference titles since Brown started at Texas, no sure how that makes Texas look like they would dominate the Big Ten and especially one of the best programs in the country over the last decade. The statement made was that OSU wouldnt win another conference title because Texas would dominate so much. I am still trying to figure out where that opinion would even come from considering they havent dominated their own conference. Texas and OSU have met 3 times in the last several years, 2 were ridiculously close contests and one was a blowout in Austin. I struggle to see how those Texas teams would blow through the B10 conference so easily that the top program wouldnt sniff a conference title. And forget about UM, PSU and Wisconsin, NO chance at that point.

[knightni]

Let's see:

 

As a fan of neither Big 10, nor Big 12, I'll make general comparisons of overall recent men's bball/football success.

 

 

Ohio State =/

Penn State =/

Michigan > Nebraska

Wisconsin =/> Texas Tech

Michigan St. =/

Iowa > Missouri

Purdue = Oklahoma St.

Indiana = Colorado

Illinois =/> Kansas St.

Minnesota = Texas A&M

Northwestern

xxxxx ----- Baylor

[knightni]

If the Big 12 loses Missouri, they should snap up Utah ASAP.

[RockRaines]

Let's see:

 

As a fan of neither Big 10, nor Big 12, I'll make general comparisons of overall recent men's bball/football success.

 

 

Ohio State =/

Penn State = Oklahoma

Michigan > Nebraska

Wisconsin =/> Texas Tech

Michigan St. =/

Iowa > Missouri

Purdue = Oklahoma St.

Indiana = Colorado

Illinois =/> Kansas St.

Minnesota = Texas A&M

Northwestern

xxxxx ----- Baylor

Still not sure what that has to do with the comment that if Texas joined the Big Ten that OSU wouldnt see a conference title since Texas would dominate the conference. That was the point that was made, and thats what I replied to.

 

And I'll even add something. I am not saying OSU is so much better than Texas, in fact OSU may have split the conf titles with them the last few years, but anyone who claims Texas would come into the B10 and dominate is either f***ing retarded or Mark May. They are a top tier program in the country dont get me wrong, but so is Ohio State. And there is NO chance in hell that Texas would beat them year in and year out, NO chance. Its not going to happen anyway, but I'd love to see a Texas team come up to Madison, Columbus, Ann Arbor, or Happy Valley in November and play a conference game.

Edited February 14, 2010 by RockRaines

[knightni]

I was doing a conference to conference comparison.

Looks fairly even, but the Big 12 has a small advantage.

[danman31]

Still trying to find the Texas relevance in your post. Are you saying that there is no competition in the Big Ten or something? Michigan has been bad for 2 years, if 3 years ago is "back in the day" then I guess I am getting very old. I am aware that OU has won a majority of the conference titles since Brown started at Texas, no sure how that makes Texas look like they would dominate the Big Ten and especially one of the best programs in the country over the last decade. The statement made was that OSU wouldnt win another conference title because Texas would dominate so much. I am still trying to figure out where that opinion would even come from considering they havent dominated their own conference. Texas and OSU have met 3 times in the last several years, 2 were ridiculously close contests and one was a blowout in Austin. I struggle to see how those Texas teams would blow through the B10 conference so easily that the top program wouldnt sniff a conference title. And forget about UM, PSU and Wisconsin, NO chance at that point.

I'm just saying the Big 12 has been tougher than the Big 10 and that is part of the reason why Texas doesn't have as many conference titles. That's not to say they would dominate Ohio State or the Big 10. I just think if they swapped conferences, Texas wins more than they have and Ohio State wins less than they have. It's close enough that I'm not going to pick between the 2 in the long run. And back in the day was in reference to Nebraska. I realize Michigan hasn't been bad for long.

 

Let's see:

 

As a fan of neither Big 10, nor Big 12, I'll make general comparisons of overall recent men's bball/football success.

 

 

Ohio State =/

Penn State = Oklahoma

Michigan > Nebraska

Wisconsin =/> Texas Tech

Michigan St. =/

Iowa > Missouri

Purdue = Oklahoma St.

Indiana = Colorado

Illinois =/> Kansas St.

Minnesota = Texas A&M

Northwestern

xxxxx ----- Baylor

I'm not sure what recent means, but there are problems with these. Penn State was missing bowl games 4-5 years ago in football and is rarely making the tourney in basketball so I don't see a comparison to Oklahoma, who was just in the elite 8 last year and won 3 straight Big 12 titles in football 06-08. Iowa State > Northwestern? Same in basketball for last few years and Northwestern has been better at football. Sorry, I had to jab Heads lol.

[knightni]

Both Penn St. and Oklahoma have had midlevel basketball programs overall. Yes, OK has had more recent Bball success (last 8-10 years). However, both PSU and OK are very similar in football; even though OK has a more successful overall history.