I think UConn or Kansas can work but I would be shocked if both schools were added as 15&16. One of the two schools will need to be a FB school or at least has the recruiting grounds to become a force.
Mark Hollis, MSU AD, still at it: predicts Big Ten will be at 16 teams in five years
- Thread starter Rumrunner
- Start date
- Status
I think UConn or Kansas can work but I would be shocked if both schools were added as 15&16. One of the two schools will need to be a FB school or at least has the recruiting grounds to become a force.
UConn has fertile recruiting grounds for every sport but football. It is possible football culture here may grow more at the HS level. My alma mater was where training camp was held for the Giants in the 60s. We would be great for NJ, PA, MD and maybe OH recruits but Kansas might be somewhat screwed with Texas recruits for the time being.
Kansas would provide a men's basketball program but would be a means of gradually stretching towards fertile recruiting ground for football (maybe Texas). No idea if Texas would ever consider the B1G. Texas is obviously key to making Kansas useful in football.
Otherwise, it's going to be a while before NC and VA will be free. They already made clear they prefer the ACC.
One thing to keep in mind about football recruiting. With the B1G brand name, it is possible for UConn and Kansas to attract recruits from around the country.
Perhaps. In the era of big time college football you're already seeing a fair number of parents willing to relocate to another state in order to have their son attend a HS with a strong football pedigree. That will make organic growth difficult unless there's a strong concerted effort across the entire state.
This is true, which is why I stated that I think one of the schools for 15&16 will need fertile grounds. I doubt Texas will ever come unless they decide that being top dog in the Big 12 isn't worth it for them anymore.
I don't think NC will ever happen. VA might be in play in another decade or so, which is probably the realistic time frame for additional schools to be added, not 2016/17.
True - but its likely that the bulk of those recruits will either be part of the Big Ten recruiting footprint already or recruits open to other Big Ten schools to begin with (i.e. a hypothetical 3-star Florida recruit interested in UConn will probably be considering Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland, etc.). If new schools end up competing over the same recruits as other Big Ten schools you end up diluting the pool of talent and ultimately end up making existing teams weaker for the sake of the new schools.
This is less of a concern if a school like UConn is coupled with Virginia since Virginia churns out 40-50 D-1 prospects annually.
- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Messages
- 2,444
- Reaction Score
- 1,020
@woomba,by saying that your basically saying the B1G is the equal of the old BE?RU was 11th last year with a terrible coach?Granted I may see the picture a bit rosier as an RU fan but think I'm also rational!They may need a year to work out the kinks but I doubt there will be 10 teams better than them!
The Big Ten's been averaging 6 NCAA bids a year the past few years and the next 3-4 teams after that has done pretty well in the NIT in the years they haven't made the tourney.
Meanwhile Rutgers hasn't had a bid to the NCAA since 1991 and the NIT since 2006.
I can see you guys above Northwestern, Penn State and Nebraska - but until you actually start winning I don't think the general consensus will go any higher.
Money, jobs, etc, is what will keep local economies afloat and high schools going. I don't think the northeast has to worry about that. Washington, DC is growing very rapidly. NYC is not going to disappear. One of the three "mega-cities" in North America. Same with Boston. The Rust Belt may have lost manufacturing jobs but definitely still has agriculture and mining.
You may very well be right about Texas not joining. I personally cannot see Texas ever leaving for anywhere. They probably have the clout to go independent if they wanted. That state of Texas has too much going for itself at the moment. We have to flaunt our history and opportunities to recruits.
We won't know the answer for NC until the ACC GOR expires. Problem with UNC is they are packaged with Duke.
The B1G is expanding to save itself from being dominated by other areas that are growing rapidly. The east coast is clearly step 1. Have to get as much of the east coast as possible. If the B1G can keep itself nationally relevant and have schools in desirable areas, it'll be fine. Connecticut and New England ARE desirable.
That would be very nice but it's going to be a long wait. Personally, I'd try to pry Missouri from the SEC. But I actually think Kansas would be alright, too. That section of the country does have a future.
You're talking markets, I'm talking recruiting base, which NYC+NE aren't great areas for. It's fine for Basketball+Lax, not so much for FB.
Given that Ohio's the main talent pipeline for the Big Ten, the conference needs new member schools to pull their own weight in expanding recruiting, which both Maryland and Rutgers satisfied.
Thinking long term, any additional expansion should be from a school in a red/blue state in the map below or a brand so big to offset that.
I corrected the first sentence in my post. I knew you were talking about. I was talking about developing recruiting grounds. The south is even beginning to develop elite hockey players now. It boils down to local cultures. It's going to be very difficult for the B1G to get states like those in the SEC or Big 12. Unless Oklahoma and Texas gets added. The Pac-12 manages to get by very well. Look at Oregon. Minnesota used to be a football powerhouse and is now hockey mad. Don't know if I am correct in saying this, but the Patriots' success might change how kids in New England decide which sport to play. UConn being in the B1G can also help.
Ohio is legendary in early gridiron football history. And I don't mean college, I mean semi-pro or pro. The state were instrumental in getting the NFL going.
Ohio is legendary in early gridiron football history. And I don't mean college, I mean semi-pro or pro. The state were instrumental in getting the NFL going.
Well..California's in the top 3 best recruiting areas in the US - the entire Pac-12 is reliant on California similar to how the Big-12 is reliant on Texas. Certain Big Ten schools like Minnesota used to be great back during the segregation era because they could pull in a lot of great athletes from the South - not so much anymore
If your point is that mega metro areas around NYC and Boston will become fertile recruiting grounds over time because of the population concentration there...I'm not sure I'm convinced. FB is notoriously takes up a lot of open space to play and open space is a premium in large cities. NY actually used to be decent recruiting grounds back in the 60s and 70s but it's steadily declined as more and more people started to concentrate around NYC.
UConnDan97
predicting undefeated seasons since 1983
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,042
- Reaction Score
- 42,560
You're talking markets, I'm talking recruiting base, which NYC+NE aren't great areas for. It's fine for Basketball+Lax, not so much for FB.
Given that Ohio's the main talent pipeline for the Big Ten, the conference needs new member schools to pull their own weight in expanding recruiting, which both Maryland and Rutgers satisfied.
Thinking long term, any additional expansion should be from a school in a red/blue state in the map below or a brand so big to offset that.
You DO realize the problem in this type of analysis, right?
The maps are normalized for a per-capita analysis. In other words, NY is at 0.23 in per capita football talent (less than CT). Now compare the populations of the two states to come up with the total number, and see if that holds up (I'll save you the trouble; it doesn't). These maps are interesting because it shows how well each population can create football players based on what they have. However, it should never be used to come up with the absolute number of recruits.
We are making in-roads in NY right now, and that is a VERY good thing, whether these two maps suggest that or not...
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,349
- Reaction Score
- 46,669
Everyone is assuming that the ACC is locked up for 15 years.
Given that, options are limited. The B1G can easily do nothing. It doesn't even have to take the ACC's threat about basketball that seriously. But, if the ACC starts dominating the way they expect, the B1G might want to take a look.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,349
- Reaction Score
- 46,669
The B1G would only have interest in UConn to the degree it has interest (or perhaps future needs) in basketball, and in putting out product for BTN, and in the bball market in the northeast, and in women's bball. UConn football in the BTN is purely a sprout that may grow a bit.
I don't agree with woomba that UConn would suck talent away from the BTN schools since the terrirtories do not overlap. UConn, in its current areas, is doing OK with recruiting, because enough talent is coming. It certainly wouldn't be bottom of the B1G. It sends enough players to the NFL to make a dent.
UConn's problem for OVER a decade now has been gameday coaching. I think the coaches that have been there have done a good job of developing players and preparing them for the pros. In terms of Xs and O's both Edsall and Pasqualoni leave a lot to be desired.
I don't agree with woomba that UConn would suck talent away from the BTN schools since the terrirtories do not overlap. UConn, in its current areas, is doing OK with recruiting, because enough talent is coming. It certainly wouldn't be bottom of the B1G. It sends enough players to the NFL to make a dent.
UConn's problem for OVER a decade now has been gameday coaching. I think the coaches that have been there have done a good job of developing players and preparing them for the pros. In terms of Xs and O's both Edsall and Pasqualoni leave a lot to be desired.
You can just multiply the population by the ratio to get the absolute numbers.
It does a good job of showing how a state like Alabama is more valuable as a FB recruiting state than NY despite the massive disparity in population. But you're right that ratio by itself doesn't tell the whole story.
As far as I can tell about half of UConn's roster is pulled from NE(Connecticut and Massachusetts), which are states that I don't consider to be in the Big Ten footprint. The other half is split between the Big Ten states (NJ/NY/MD...I guess we can debate NY if you really want to but Rutgers and Penn State pull decently from there) and talent centers from other P4 conferences (Georgia, Florida, Texas, etc) that the Big Ten also recruits from.
Would UConn focus as much in the NE area if they were in the ACC or the Big Ten? Looking at how BC deemphasized NE recruiting once they joined the ACC I personally doubt it, although I'm sure you'd still recruit Connecticut as heavily as before.
UConnDan97
predicting undefeated seasons since 1983
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2012
- Messages
- 12,042
- Reaction Score
- 42,560
You're right that Alabama has a lot of football talent.
I just want to make sure that people see these maps, whereby NY looks barren, and they understand that NY is producing a LARGE amount of football talent. Here are the numbers for three states (2 dark red from the south and NY) to illustrate the point:
Alabama = 4.8mil. x 2.06 = 9.9
Mississippi = 3.0mil. x 1.76 = 5.3
New York = 19.6mil. x 0.23 = 4.5
So yes, Alabama produces about twice as many D-1 prospects as NY. But NY is right around the production level of Mississippi, and somewhat close to some of the other high-producing states. That's actually the source of my excitement about the fact that there have been increases for UConn into the state of New York; I think it will really lead to success on the field...
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,349
- Reaction Score
- 46,669
The point is though that there is plenty of unidentified talent available to compete at these levels. The scholarship restrictions allow Uconn to find kids with not many offers and to develop them into draft picks. UConn hasn't won at recruiting at the highest levels. It has sent a lot of northeastern kids that didn't have offers from Penn State to the pros.
UConn basically competes with Syracuse for football players, Boston College much less so, and for some reason we don't quite grasp, it doesn't go head to head with Rutgers often. NJ kids with no offer from Rutgers have gone to UConn and developed into pros. The same is true in reverse as Conn. kids like Listorti and Mark Harrison with no offer from UConn have gone to Rutgers and made NFL camps.
I just think UConn is at the bottom of the recruiting ladder for BCS type schools, and that it would tend to get the same type of player until that time that it started wining big games and attracting better talent from, say, Maryland and Pennsylvania.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,684
- Reaction Score
- 2,889
When Rutgers and Maryland were announced as joining the Big Ten, this is what Hollis had to say:
November 19, 2012:
“We were very comfortable as a group of ADs and a group of presidents being set at 12, and as you continue to watch the evolution and the changes take place, we wanted to protect our brand. Sitting in a status quo demographic of the Big Ten Conference we felt was not in our best interests at this time.”
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2012/11/michigan_states_mark_hollis_se.html
June 27, 2013:
“We’re going to protect our brand, we’re going to protect our demographics , but it appears as though things are stabilizing a little bit,” he said.
Not to be too literal, but "we're going" is a future tense. The only way to "protect" demographics is through expansion. In this case, protecting east coast demographics and NYC exposure. I imagine Delany watched the the machinations of the ACC in New York, right down to the nasdaq opening bell deal. I doubt that he will be content with Rutgers as a foil to these attempts.
November 19, 2012:
“We were very comfortable as a group of ADs and a group of presidents being set at 12, and as you continue to watch the evolution and the changes take place, we wanted to protect our brand. Sitting in a status quo demographic of the Big Ten Conference we felt was not in our best interests at this time.”
http://www.mlive.com/spartans/index.ssf/2012/11/michigan_states_mark_hollis_se.html
June 27, 2013:
“We’re going to protect our brand, we’re going to protect our demographics , but it appears as though things are stabilizing a little bit,” he said.
Not to be too literal, but "we're going" is a future tense. The only way to "protect" demographics is through expansion. In this case, protecting east coast demographics and NYC exposure. I imagine Delany watched the the machinations of the ACC in New York, right down to the nasdaq opening bell deal. I doubt that he will be content with Rutgers as a foil to these attempts.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 29,349
- Reaction Score
- 46,669
The problem with expansion is GORs
Now, if I were the ACC or the B1G, I'd imagine that I can get UConn any time I want. So there's no urgency. On the other hand, if both of these entities see UConn as the last available option in the northeast, and if they value that option, there is some urgency to grab it before the other gets it. Both of them could live well without UConn. But if theya re looking at consolidation, and UConn is a possible chip in future plans, maybe there's some competition.
The ACC had apparently little idea that the B1G was going to lockdown the Mid-Atlantic with Rutgers, PSU and Maryland. It came out of the blue to them. As with everything, you can't tip your hand. Any overt or explicit calls toward UConn are dangerous if you value them at all. Just as with the last expansion, the ACC and B1G didn't move until the B12 started sniffing around, and the prospect of some chips moving got the ACC into the action, and then the B1G.
Now, if I were the ACC or the B1G, I'd imagine that I can get UConn any time I want. So there's no urgency. On the other hand, if both of these entities see UConn as the last available option in the northeast, and if they value that option, there is some urgency to grab it before the other gets it. Both of them could live well without UConn. But if theya re looking at consolidation, and UConn is a possible chip in future plans, maybe there's some competition.
The ACC had apparently little idea that the B1G was going to lockdown the Mid-Atlantic with Rutgers, PSU and Maryland. It came out of the blue to them. As with everything, you can't tip your hand. Any overt or explicit calls toward UConn are dangerous if you value them at all. Just as with the last expansion, the ACC and B1G didn't move until the B12 started sniffing around, and the prospect of some chips moving got the ACC into the action, and then the B1G.
Woulda... coulda.. shoulda ......life in the A.C.C.would have continued in some form for sure. Like minded institutions stick together. If FSU Clemson or any combo of southern football schools departed, and with 15 projected members whatever was left would have still been a more solid nucleus than the current AAC or new Big East. Oh, and U Conn as well as Cinn would have been extended membership.
It would have been a hybrid mix of Northern and Southern East Coast BB schools. Which would have been 100% fine with me. But its not the reality. I would have been very happy to have you in the A.C.C. ....so bring it! the rivalry would have been good for both schools.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2011
- Messages
- 7,188
- Reaction Score
- 8,765
If the ACC lost Florida State (and likely Clemson, too) to the XII, it would have survived as a combo ACC/Big E conference (maybe with UConn) that is very good in basketball and medicore in football. If the ACC lost UNC (to the B1G or maybe the SEC), the ACC as we know it today would be gone.
Highly unlikely. You have 4 N.C. schools very much strung together through various interests. Even if you have UNC as a defector Wake, Duke, N.C. State remain along with G.T.,B.C., Virginia Tech Virginia and thats with a a full group of departing football schools FSU, Miami, and Clemson. Syracuse Pitt and LV arrive shortly there after.
Sorry I just dont buy the demise thing and as you know ESPN has alot of money and influence. So T.V. revenue might have been leass but not dried up. It still would have been a very good conference. I agree to disagree not changing my mind on this topic. Speculation makes for conversation to pass the time only. Way to many twists turns and unforeseen events shape the landscape. I could type hundreds of pages of pure speculation as Im sure you could.
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2011
- Messages
- 3,002
- Reaction Score
- 8,295
I really want to give you a like, for your post is well thought out, but that BC in your title makes my hand shake. Oh well I hope a UConn/BC fb game happens before I die.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 8,173
- Reaction Score
- 21,413
Well..California's in the top 3 best recruiting areas in the US - the entire Pac-12 is reliant on California similar to how the Big-12 is reliant on Texas. Certain Big Ten schools like Minnesota used to be great back during the segregation era because they could pull in a lot of great athletes from the South - not so much anymore
If your point is that mega metro areas around NYC and Boston will become fertile recruiting grounds over time because of the population concentration there...I'm not sure I'm convinced. FB is notoriously takes up a lot of open space to play and open space is a premium in large cities. NY actually used to be decent recruiting grounds back in the 60s and 70s but it's steadily declined as more and more people started to concentrate around NYC.
Where do you live? Where did you grow up?
I grew up in NYC (Queens, went to HS in Manhattan), did my undergrad in Upstate NY and went to Michigan for graduate school.
I relocated to California recently for work.
...are you going somewhere with this?
- Status