Scenario 1 - do nothing. This is probably the most likely given that there is no reason to expand to add cable TV boxes as there was a decade ago given the changing nature of college sports and how content is delivered. There is no reason the B1G needs to expand--it will continue to send multiple team to the playoff most seasons and still be a strong basketball league. There is no hint of league instability. But, clearly if we stand pat, it is highly likely that the SEC passes us significantly in terms of on-field product and money. Would schools like OSU be satisfied being at a financial and competitive disadvantage, and just be happy making the playoffs most seasons, knowing that it is highly unlikely a B1G school could ever win it? After all, how difficult would it be to recruit Texas if Texas and OU were also in the SEC? I know standing pat would be the most likely scenario, but doing so would essentially lock the B1G as inferior to the SEC for the forseeable future both on the field and off. And in the world of NIL, it could even cause more top players from outside the region to look at SEC schools.
Scenario 2 - double down. The B1G is a midwestern-northern league. If the B1G feels that 16 teams is the wave of the future, then it could double down on its midwest presence and add Kansas and Missouri. I just don't see Iowa State as a viable alternative, a second team in Iowa just doesn't add anything. Would Missouri leave the SEC for the B1G? Missouri will supposedly vote against adding Texas and OU to the SEC so they're clearly not thrilled. The thought has always been that the B1G is its preferred destination, and if they have the opportunity to join a league with Nebraska, Illinois and Kansas, it probably is a better long-term fit. Realistically, Missouri couldn't compete in football in a 16 team SEC. In the B1G it could harbor some hopes of having an Iowa program that occasionally challenges for the conference title. Kansas is a fit academically, geographically and is one of the few basketball schools that moves the needle. But it could be a very tough sell right now given its off the court scandals (though it is questionable whether a pay for play scandal really matters now that NIL is here). The issues here are sort of similar to the first scenario--a 16 team B1G with Kansas and Missouri would likely still trail the SEC financially and adding KU and MU does nothing to strengthen the football product (indeed KU weakens it). Adding KU and Missouri would likely make the B1G the best basketball conference, but that's not a main factor hee.
Scenario 3 - look to an old ally. To me, the nuclear scenario or the bold scenario is some sort of merger with the P12. Let's assume that Borton's story of PSU flirting with the ACC and ND is true. Does a new league merging the best of the P12/B10 make sense? In many ways, the leadership of these two leagues has been aligned for decades, and a merger of the best of both leagues is the one scenario where we could probably create a league that would not only potentially compete on the field with the SEC, but probably surpass the conference financially. Imagine, the following 16 team conference
POD #1 - Michigan, OSU, Indiana, Northwestern
POD #2 - Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
POD #3 - USC, UCLA, Arizona, Colorado
POD #4 - Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal.
It would be cold in that you'd be contracting and leaving behind certain schools -- namely other than California, all other states would have no more than one school. But it would create a powerhouse league both academically (that league would have 6 of the US News top 25 institutions), financially (you'd have more top TV markets than any league) and athletically. If you went to pods, you could control travel to some extent, but make no mistake, in the world we are entering, where colleges are essentially semi-pro leagues, this would be this type of league. It would also have other athletic benefits (it would make California the recruiting centre of the league, and also be an incredible boon to the B1G baseball programs). For the P12 schools, this is a no brainer as it would dramatically increase their $$ and exposure to markets outside of the west coast.
In this world, the remnants of the B12, P12 and B10 could form another league (ASU, utah, Purdue, Illinois, MSU, Ok State, Rutgers, etc.) that would clearly still be a good league with playoff access, but with far less $$ than the SEC and B10 and ACC.
It's a total longshot, but scenario three is the type of bold thinking we need. It would keep Michigan in a league with like-minded universities and ensure that we are not a competitive or financial disadvantage moving forward.
Scenario 2 - double down. The B1G is a midwestern-northern league. If the B1G feels that 16 teams is the wave of the future, then it could double down on its midwest presence and add Kansas and Missouri. I just don't see Iowa State as a viable alternative, a second team in Iowa just doesn't add anything. Would Missouri leave the SEC for the B1G? Missouri will supposedly vote against adding Texas and OU to the SEC so they're clearly not thrilled. The thought has always been that the B1G is its preferred destination, and if they have the opportunity to join a league with Nebraska, Illinois and Kansas, it probably is a better long-term fit. Realistically, Missouri couldn't compete in football in a 16 team SEC. In the B1G it could harbor some hopes of having an Iowa program that occasionally challenges for the conference title. Kansas is a fit academically, geographically and is one of the few basketball schools that moves the needle. But it could be a very tough sell right now given its off the court scandals (though it is questionable whether a pay for play scandal really matters now that NIL is here). The issues here are sort of similar to the first scenario--a 16 team B1G with Kansas and Missouri would likely still trail the SEC financially and adding KU and MU does nothing to strengthen the football product (indeed KU weakens it). Adding KU and Missouri would likely make the B1G the best basketball conference, but that's not a main factor hee.
Scenario 3 - look to an old ally. To me, the nuclear scenario or the bold scenario is some sort of merger with the P12. Let's assume that Borton's story of PSU flirting with the ACC and ND is true. Does a new league merging the best of the P12/B10 make sense? In many ways, the leadership of these two leagues has been aligned for decades, and a merger of the best of both leagues is the one scenario where we could probably create a league that would not only potentially compete on the field with the SEC, but probably surpass the conference financially. Imagine, the following 16 team conference
POD #1 - Michigan, OSU, Indiana, Northwestern
POD #2 - Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota
POD #3 - USC, UCLA, Arizona, Colorado
POD #4 - Oregon, Washington, Stanford, Cal.
It would be cold in that you'd be contracting and leaving behind certain schools -- namely other than California, all other states would have no more than one school. But it would create a powerhouse league both academically (that league would have 6 of the US News top 25 institutions), financially (you'd have more top TV markets than any league) and athletically. If you went to pods, you could control travel to some extent, but make no mistake, in the world we are entering, where colleges are essentially semi-pro leagues, this would be this type of league. It would also have other athletic benefits (it would make California the recruiting centre of the league, and also be an incredible boon to the B1G baseball programs). For the P12 schools, this is a no brainer as it would dramatically increase their $$ and exposure to markets outside of the west coast.
In this world, the remnants of the B12, P12 and B10 could form another league (ASU, utah, Purdue, Illinois, MSU, Ok State, Rutgers, etc.) that would clearly still be a good league with playoff access, but with far less $$ than the SEC and B10 and ACC.
It's a total longshot, but scenario three is the type of bold thinking we need. It would keep Michigan in a league with like-minded universities and ensure that we are not a competitive or financial disadvantage moving forward.
