I think you have all lost sight, a bit.
The Big 10 did not pass over Mizzou (STL & KC markets) and add Nebraska for market share.
Mizzou and Nebraska were both AAU. AAU has much more sway with the Big 10 than Market share.
Nebraska is not AAU anymore, and it was known well in advance of them joining the B1G that they were getting voted out of the AAU, in fact Michigan was one of the schools leading the charge to kick them out.
If AAU was everything Nebraska would still be in the Big12 and Mizzou would be in the B1G.
There is email evidence that the B1G was considering adding Oklahoma (just got Tier1 status a year ago and not even close to AAU) so saying its all about AAU is wrong.
AAU and all around academics are just a few of the factors to consider in expansion along with markets, market penetration, and athletics.
You take schools like Nebraska and Oklahoma for the athletics and market penetration (general interest of the country and ability to pull TV ratings/eyeballs) not for their non AAU Tier 1 status or tiny markets.
And you take a school like Maryland or Rutgers for the near opposite reasons...large markets and academics...not really athletics or penetration.
Read my post again. I never said AAU was the only consideration. I said AAU was more important to the Big 10 than Market Share.
I also did not say Nebraska was still in the AAU, I clearly said that they both "were" in the AAU.
I don't understand the need to control the conversation. I am an educated man and I thought I had something to add to the conversation.
I'm not sure how that post was defensive, but I'll bite.
You said "I think you have all lost sight, a bit" and your entire point was that "AAU has much more sway with the Big 10 than Market share."
That's a fine view point to have, but as Delaney has stated the opposite and there is clearly evidence of the Big Ten considering expansion with non-AAU schools like Oklahoma, Boston College, and Notre Dame; it is simply wrong, whether it be ill-informed or just stubborn.
One of your first 5 posts on this board kicks off by claiming that the other posters on this board have all "lost sight" a proceed to explain to us how we are wrong and you are right. I don't know how they do it in Germany but its not proper etiquette to walk into a room of people you don't know and have never met and explain to them why they have "lost sight."
Regardless, the other patrons of this board and I would be doing you a disservice by not filling you in on the near 1800 posts which one would assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you have not read, and quickly summarize the current train of thought backed up by empirical evidence held in the last 120 or so pages.
That is a dialog, you can feel free to once again disagree and post your thoughts or ask more clarifying questions in hope of better educating yourself to a train of thought that most of the sports world is ignorant to, or if you do not feel like participating you can agree to disagree or simply not reply.
Now if there is something I said in the above statement (which was written without any animosity toward your previous post) feel free to identify and address it specifically where as I can apologize or explain, but please refrain from the normal message board bickering where as you play the victimized "educated man" just trying to add his two cents while uniformly maligning my post as a "need to control the conversation" as that sort of tactic does not facilitate the growth of quality dialog and in fact just acts as a way to alienate and divide.
Now all that being said...welcome to the board.
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...