I'VE HAD JUST ABOUT ENOUGH OF YOU SONNY
You've probably heard by now, but Mizzou is going to the SEC to balance the conference at 14.
One interesting thing: Missouri will play in the SEC East, which obviously makes almost no sense geographically (though it is relatively close to Kentucky and the Tennessee schools which are all in the East) and it's permanent rival will be Texas A&M. My solution would be to move the Alabama schools to the East, and move Vanderbilt west, along with the two new schools. You would lose Alabama-LSU (the Nick Saban bowl) as every year games, but you would gain Alabama-Florida every year. Permanent rivals would change as follows (the other three stay the same):
It will be interesting to see if the SEC goes to 9 conference games like the B1G, Pac-12 and Big XII. It's not much of a conference if you don't play 5 teams per year, and potentially go half a decade between seeing opponents.
Between ESPN & CBS, there are 3 possibilities for the opponent (yes, this assumes nothing strange happens and Michigan goes to the Gator Bowl):
Not much hope for an easy opponent among those 3, but certainly 3 different styles.
After trying to keep up with all of the expansion talk, it seems that Kansas being left out of the whole multiple death star thing is kind of a forgone conclusion. I've always enjoyed their basketball program. So my question is, why not do Kansas instead of Missouri?
Academically, Kansas seems to have the slight advantage. Whichever one of them got the CIC bump would seem to end up being the higher rated school. It's been assumed that Missouri is the key to the St. Louis / KC market, but this analysis seems to indicate that the financial incentive to the BTN is equal between the two.
So, if academics, TV and football are equal, wouldn't the KU basketball program be an obvious push over the top for Kansas? I guess I just don't get Missouri over Kansas. When it comes to national brand, it has to be Kansas.
I think there's a great opportunity to get an amazing football AND basketball conference here. Land Nebraska, Notre Dame, Kansas, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh and you just owned every other conference.
Football - Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, Notre Dame in tier one and a solid tier two of Iowa, Wisconsin, Pittsburgh, and maybe eventually Syracuse again.
Basketball - Kansas, Syracuse, MSU, Purdue, Pitt, Indiana, OSU (as long as Matta stays) in tier one and a nice tier two of Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Michigan (I can hope), and Illinois.
This is the blockbuster I think we need if Texas can't happen.
It's everybody's favorite non-pollutionary, anti-institutionary, pro-confectionary conference conundrum...
I've got a real good question for you:
If money is the driving force behind Big Ten expansion, and academics are the official sticking point, and the Big Ten Network makes this conference so attractive that almost any team would be in for joining, who is really a potential expansion candidate now?
This Has All Been Chewed Before
Gum chewing's fine when it's once in a while
It stops you from smoking and brightens your smile
But it's repulsive, revolting, and wrong
Chewing and chewing all day long
I realize I'm not exactly the first person to start talking about Big Ten Expansion. But this isn't just any old stick of gum: this gum has an entire meal in it. You probably won't learn anything new here, but you'll get some information to back up what we already know.
This diary is a look at current FBS (formerly Division I-A) teams that might be considered for Big Ten Expansion, and others that might fit the academic profile, even if there's no way they would join the Big Ten.
When expansion to 12 or 14 teams was the modus operandi, this blog reviewed the leading candidates. However, with even 24 teams having been mentioned by NCAA people (by which I mean "Just Tom Osborne"), the field has grown.
The question: are there that many schools out there that fit the conference's academic profile, or at least close enough the Big Ten can continue to claim itself the most academic FBS conference?
In reality, there is a clear cutoff: does the school match the criteria to join the American Association of Universities?* and the Big Ten's own little version of that, the CIC. There are currently 63 members, but I would imagine a Big Ten addition not already part of the AAU would be able to join, if it matches the academic criteria. Therefore, the lower bound of AAU membership is the functional lower bound of Big Ten expansion consideration.
To find out who has a golden ticket, follow me, overjoyed, enraptured, entranced. Are we ready? Yes, good. In we go.
* If not, MaizeAndBlueWahoo is going to neg me.
The Maneater (?), which looks like a student-run Missouri campus paper, has an opinion article today in support of Missouri joining the Big 10. HT to Dr. Saturday.
I like Pitt better, but Missouri is the next best choice in my mind if we decide to expand.