This comes up every once in a while, and I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts. Personally, I've always like Syracuse and Missouri. I remember Brian's post on the subject from a while back effectively called both "meh", but they're the closest things to perfect fits outside of Notre Dame.
Potential Big Ten Expansion
would had made the most sense but the Big Ten Commisioner is an idiot. so i think when NBC's and ND TV contract runs out ND should be puut into BT.
Doesn't the BCS exemption that ND has make this even harder to get them in the B10? I think they will eventually be in the B10, but who knows when that is.
IIRC, the perfect team (not taking geography in account) was Texas. Either Brian or a journalist wrote that. I don't know if they'd leave the Big 12 but it was an interesting point. I always thought Pitt was a legit suggestion or Iowa St. since Iowa is already in. I always wondered about Vandy since they're a clone of NW, and they aren't too far out of Big 10 country. I think if you look at a map it's Mizzou, Kentucky, Pitt. Academics: Vandy and Syracuse. Athletics (revenue earning): Texas, WVU and Louisville. Best overall options: Texas, Virginia, Pitt (maybe) and Vanderbilt.
I'm guessing though.
virginia and texas seems 100% unlikely. i always thought maybe ND but they love their money and their own tv channel too much so i thought that the likeliest choices were iowa st or pitt. but what about maybe a big east team like cincinnati
Yeah, I know UT an UVA are out, but they were the "ideal" candidates in the initial debates. Cincy was out because of how shitty their academics were and their lack of tradition and they aren't very good outside of basketball and football (which is only recently).
lets just get grand valley. their academics are fine and its about time they stop winning 5 national titles a year
Where does this "Big 10 iz great academics" meme come from? It seems like the ACC is far and away the best Academic conference (which is why I don't get "UVA is coming to the big 10") talk. The Pac-10 is probably roughly equivalent.
The Big 10 is the best academic conference top to bottom.
Every B10 school is ranked in the top 75 of the US News & World Report's college rankings (I know they're subjective, but it's a good starting point) and 5 are ranked in the top 50. Only the ACC has more top 50 schools with 6. The lowest ranked B10 school, Michigan State, is ranked 71st, higher than 33 of the 64 other BCS schools. Every other conference has at least three schools ranked lower than MSU. Plus the University of Chicago is still associated with the academic wing of the B10.
So, that's where it comes from.
For the record, Rice is a member of Conference USA, not the Big 12.
I guess it's better top to bottom, but the ACC fails the test almost only because Florida State is awful. The ACC has more elite academic institutions, in that they have 6 schools ranked higher than the Big 10's 3rd school (Wisconsin), and your "top 50" argument is a LITTLE mis-leading as the ACC also has #51 (Miami).
I was drunk and bored last night, and was looking at this - by far the weirdest is the Pac-10. They have 3 top-25 schools (Stanford, Berkley, UCLA) a fourth on the fringe (USC) and a fifth solidly in the 40's (Washington). Then they have both Arizona schools, Oregon, and Washington St. far down in the 100's, and Oregon State not even ranked. About 2/3 of the Big East isn't even ranked in the "top tier". People rag on the SEC, but at least the entire conference made "Tier 1" - the Big East and the Big 12 aren't even close.
You'd think Oregon would be better.
Why hell would Texas leave the comfort of the south to play in the cold rain in Nov. Dec. in the north? Just doesn't make sense.
They were perfect for the B10, not to say that the B10 was perfect for them.
I think you are selling Syracuse short geographically. Syracuse is roughly the same driving distance from Ann Arbor as Iowa City is, much closer than Minneapolis is, and barely further than Madison is. It's only about 100 miles further than the current longest distance between schools (Penn State and Minnesota) and by air it's actually closer. Plus it would be somewhat of a natural fit because the most popular football programs aside from Syracuse in western New York are actually two Big Ten teams: Michigan and Penn State.
Pitt fucking sucks fucking ass. They're a bush league team with ketchup bottle end zones lined with lies about their 9 "national championships," sung to the tune of "Sweet Caroline." I'd rather any other team join the B10.
Pitt sucks like, 40 dicks.
ND is the obvious choice but they'll never do it because of the $$$$ situation.
Short of having ND join, Missouri does seem like a great choice given their location. Rutgers makes sense too.
I don't get why Missouri would make more sense than Syracuse based on location? Syracuse makes more sense based on location and alignment of divisions (i.e. either east-west or north-south).
I gotta keep saying it: Missouri does not even vaguely fit the academic standard. They would be the poorest academic school in the conference by an order of magnitude. Syracuse makes more sense than Rutgers - it's closer, has better sports programs, and a better academic reputation.
would also be a good fit.
You're a poet.
Until you start posting in iambic pentameter.
I mean it.
Anybody want a peanut?
I really like Missouri. I have a friend at Iowa State, they suck hard.
I'm a proponent of Cincinnati. Geographically it works, they are competitive in most sports, and their facilities are up to snuff. I'm not sure I agree with the academic argument against them. 10 years ago that may have made more sense, but that school has come a long ways lately and UC has many programs, undergrad and graduate level, that are above many of the Big Ten schools. They would be near the bottom of the league, but they aren't low enough that they would be a bad fit.
I kind of have to agree with Ground Zero East Lansing. Miami is the #66 on US News & World Report. While I do admit the Report isn't the absolute saying in what universities are academically qualified, Miami probably falls in the Big10 requirements. Its athletics are a step below, but are probably a wash when compared to Northwestern.
IIRC, UBC and a few other Canadian schools are going to start playing NCAA DII in a few years. In the extreme long term one of them might make sense.
UBC has already started in Hockey I think. They don't really use their football stadium for anything other rodeo. It's a nice stadium... for small Wyoming high school. Their hockey arena is really nice though. They should have just finished it this hockey season in preparation for the winter Olympics.
UBC = U of British Columbia?
and if that is true then I have never heard of them, they definitely aren't in one of the 6 D1 hockey conferences but maybe they play D1 club?
D3 if my memory serves me correctly. I can't remember much of the details. I thought they did their first "exhibitions" last season, and had plans to petition the NCAA to start competing in 2012 (now til '12 would be probationary). I think a couple have been competing in NAIA up until this time.
Would their football team have to relearn the American rules to play?
While I would like to see the end of teams like Wisconsin tying for Big Ten championships by not playing OSU/Mich/PSU in a season, I don't really support the "split into divisions and have a championship game" model either. The only way that it makes sense is to bring in a team in the western part of the Big Ten and split the divisions like so: OSU/Mich/MSU/PSU/IU/PU would be East, Wis/Minn/Iowa/Ill/NU and the mystery addition in the West. Any other division split would not work because it would split major rivalries. This would preserve all the major ones. The problem is that the power lies in the East, leaving likely Big Ten championship games in which the Eastern division champion plays a three-loss-in-conference team from the West, and quite possibly see that three-loss-in-conference team that belongs in the Alamo Bowl wind up in the Rose Bowl based on a one-game performance.
It will never happen for monetary reasons, but I'd rather see them drop two non-conferences and play a true round robin like the Pac 10.
You only need to drop one team to play a round robin like the PAC10. I'd almost prefer this. Either NU or Iowa. They don't really offer anything to the conference generally. At least Indiana is good for basketball (generally).
And I'm not opposed to the divisions having one strong team. The Big12 already that and it seems to work just fine. Besides, is it any better for a pair of teams not have UM and OSU on their schedule and possibly go to Pasadena instead?
I hate it when the Big 10 rep didn't play either Michigan or Ohio State as well.
My point, which I could have stated better, is that you can't split Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State from the same division, which would make for plenty of championship games between one of them and ... Iowa or Illinois. It's like those years when Auburn would make the SEC Championship game and get slaughtered by Florida or Tennessee.
How the hell would THAT logo look?
It would say "THE BIG TENish CONFERENCE"
BIG TEN* CONFERENCE
*for exceedingly large values of 10.
It's still the Big Ten in base 12.
I say we got back to the Western Conference. Because that makes about as much sense as it did back in the day.
If the Big Ten added another school and went to divisional play I would actually like to see the divisions split North/South rather than East/West. Let's say the added team is Missouri, then you split the divisions like so:
North: Minn, Wis, MSU, UM, NU, Iowa
South: PSU, OSU, Purdue, IU, Ill, Mizzou
Course we would have to include some stipulations that certain rivalries (*cough*) be allowed to continue every year.
Or they could just go crazy and assign teams to divisions willy-nilly ACC-style.
I agree with that division split, because I would hate to think that the Big10 championship couldn't come down to M and OSU. I can't decide if I think it'd be dream-like that we'd get the chance to play OSU 2 weeks in a row (final game of regular season, then Big 10 championship game) or if that'd be kind of stupid.
That scenario aside, whether it's north/south or ACC-style, a powerhouse-heavy division would take emphasis off the conference as a whole; so having UM/OSU/PSU all in an East division should rule out the east/west scenario.
I'm a bit apprehensive about having a title game, but I think the way our conference finishes out is kind of lackluster. The whole "if this..then that, but if this then that...we'll just have to wait and see" just kind of gets to me. I'd rather see the two title-contenders playing each other in any scenario.
I think if the new team were to be anyone but ND, though, the addition would've already happened. IIRC, the ND-NBC contract is up in '10, so I think the Big 10 is just waiting for then. In all honesty, ND is the team with the closest ties to the Big 10 culturally (tradition, academics and the fact that the Big 10 is always on their schedule at least twice) so I think we'll see the conference wait as long as needed to get them. And besides, with the demise of ND looming, a move to the Big 10 might be something the school needs to get a fresh taste in its mouth.
Screw conference championships. Just do a round robin and drop one of the non-cons. This would have saved us from App State and Toledo embarassments.
We would need to drop 2 games, FYI.
Or drop Northwestern and drop a non-con game. Then we could be the Big10 again.
as Brian stated,
"Maintain the CIC's high standards. The CIC is an academic consortium consisting of the Big Ten schools and the U of Chicago. It's a big deal to people, so any school admitted should have serious research going on in their grad schools and so forth and so on. Large public state schools are the preferred targets, although exceptions can be made."
this will be a concern.
insomnia leads me to this:
14. Duke University
41. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
80. University of Virginia
37. University of Pittsburgh
11. University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
28. University of Wisconsin at Madison
30. University of Minnesota Twin Cities
35. Northwestern University
40. Pennsylvania State University
48. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
62. Michigan State University*
86. Purdue University
2. Stanford University
12. University of California at Los Angeles
5. University of California at Berkeley
22. University of Washington
27. University of Texas at Austin
51. University of Colorado at Boulder*
77. Texas A&M University
66. Vanderbilt University
numbers from a world top 100:
all others from a world top 200:
all numbered schools are listed in both, save the * which were missing from the top 200. no number == not in the 100 list. i don't think i missed any, but there ya go. the world rankings tend to discount small private schools like Rice, ND.
As much as I appreciate the time and effort it took you to compile this list, the rankings are pretty weak.
Can you tell me in what universe Michigan State is rated above Vanderbilt and UVA.
I would say use the US News & World Report.
The current by-laws of the conference stipulate that any school joining the Big Ten must be within or adjoining a current Big Ten state.
rice, of course....
What does Pitt really bring to the table? Good academics and a mildly historical football program? Does anyone in Pittsburgh actually care, though?
Iowa State is a wasteland. As Brian's post said the, only benefit is that it's in Iowa.
As for conference championships and it hurting the Ohio State game... it doesn't hurt games like Texas and Oklahoma.
I think that the Red River Shootout hasn't been hurt because it's in the middle of the season and not the traditional last game. Plus it was a non-con game for most of its history, so that probably factors in as well.
Texas and Oklahoma are also both in the Big 12 South, so they could never be playing for the championship.
It seems like it'd be tough for The Game not to be diminished in importance somehow with a title game. Because if:
A. The schools end up in the same division they could end up competing for the division title but in no scenario the conference title, so we'd lose that.
B. The schools end up in different divisions, by the time The Game is played, there is a pretty good chance the championship teams will already be decided so then the regular season matchup loses a lot of importance (and, if they're both playing in the title, the bigger matchup will be on a neutral site)
C. (least likely) The game is moved to the middle of the season so the game has bigger importance on the title matchup, and we lose the end of the season factor
So that makes me (selfishly as a Michigan fan) not want a title game. Round-robin sounds like a good idea too, but the Pac-10 is actually 10 teams, and three non-conference games seems like a world away from the 1 we'd have if there were a 12th team and even two non-conference games sounds small, since for us we'd have Notre Dame, and would never be able to justify a big matchup for the 1st game of the season (if we ever could convince Martin to get another big non-conference).
So, for me at least, that leaves the current system, and maybe a non-divisional system where the top two teams end up with the title game at the end of the season, or maybe leave the possibility for a tie-breaker game as well. I don't know, I guess I'm open to ideas.
I guess this is just something I'll never understand. Do you hate OSU because you might win a Big Ten title? (by the way the default Big Ten title game is much rarer than it's made out to be)
No, I'm saying that if Michigan returns to glory and joins OSU atop the Big 10, there's a strong possibility that the teams play twice in a season with a title game, meaning The Game will cease to be the battle that comes but once a year and become the battle that could come twice a year (twice in two weeks even). And in the very unlikely, but by no means impossible case that the teams split the regular season game and the title game, bragging rights will be arguable, and the universe will cease to exist.
Maybe after this year it seems "rarer than made out to be," but in case you forgot we were a powerhouse before in the Big Ten, with equal Big Ten-powerhouse status to OSU's. And, of the 5 UM-OSU games before this year's, 3 were for the Big Ten title. So, basically not rare at all
There is no way in hell that Michigan and OSU would not be in the same division, as it would keep them playing anually. So, no, they wouldn't play twice a year.
Yes, people in Pittsburgh actually do care. There is a pretty even split in the Pittsburgh area between loyalty Pitt and loyalty to Penn State and the two factions hate each other. Pitt definitely fits the academic requirements, too.
Pitt hates Penn State. Penn State doesn't give a shit about Pitt.
the B12 is mostly made up of Ag schools and the BEast of small, private schools like GT or BC that don't always show up in these rankings.
the Pac10 has the best at the top in the CA schools, but falls off a cliff like you said.
the ACC is solid top to bottom save FSU.
Ga. Tech and BC are both in the ACC, and, according to US News and World Report's rankings for Undergrads, top 35 schools nationally. If you were to rank the schools from the Big 10 and ACC from top to bottom, it would go:
#28. Wake Forest
#30. North Carolina
#35. Georgia Tech
#47. Penn St.
#56. Ohio State
#71. Michigan State
#71. Virginia Tech
#83. North Carolina State
#102. Florida State
So, of the top half, 7 schools would be from the ACC, and 6 from the Big 10 (though 6 of the top 8 would be ACC schools). Really, the ACC is a superior conference, they just deal with Florida State.
FYI, if we're looking for Midwest-region public schools, Iowa St. would be the worst school in the Big 10 by about 12 spots. Missouri would be the worst by about 25. Kansas, Kansas St., Kentucky, Tennessee aren't even considered "tier one" schools. The only viable schools would be Notre Dame, who would be the 2nd best academic school in the conference, behind Northwestern, or Pitt, who would be middle of the pack.
The ACC does have a lot of great schools, and I guess you could consider it a better academic conference. The thing with the B10 is that the conference has always had an academic side and they aren't going to take a Florida State that would drag the whole conference down.
ND to the Big 10 will make too much sense not to happen. From Andy Staples:"The NBC contract and the BCS exemptions are great, but they're going to evaporate if 6-6 seasons are the norm. Joining the Big East would make more sense for recruiting; that conference has a wider recruiting footprint that would allow the Irish to play regular games in Tampa, Fla., Pittsburgh and Piscataway, N.J. It also would allow Notre Dame's other programs to stay in the same conference. But joining the Big Ten would make that conference the nation's most powerful, and it would allow the Irish to play Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue every year. It also would allow the conference to play a championship game, which may be a necessity now that Ohio State's consecutive BCS title game losses have harmed the league's reputation. Also, a switch to the Big Ten could help Notre Dame's already excellent men's basketball team by getting it out of the top-heavy Big East." http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/the_sweep/posts/27401-ten-things-notre...
from that one time, coach... when they let in OSU. and that other time when they let in MSU.
honestly, i prefer to include international rankings. i think there are two major ones, one out of china and one from europe. more data points. so if you include those, osu & msu drop off, but do does half the acc.
Of course, all of this may be made more complicated by the fact that the Big East is supposedly a few years from implosion. They have 16 basketball schools, but only 8 play DI football. The basketball schools have issues with the football schools and vice-versa. So if that league immolates we may be looking at 8 BCS schools looking for new homes.
The Big Ten must expand. Our season has been over for two weeks. USC plays UCLA in their big rivarly. The confrence championship games are this weekend for the other conferences. I think Notre Dame is the best option. Confrence alligns as follows.
North - Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Minnesota, Illinois, & Indiana.
South - Penn State, Notre Dame, Wisconsin, Iowa, Northwestern, & Purdue.
If not Notre Dame place whomever in the Notre Dame spot
First three teams in each division are a lock. Other three can be moved around. You would play your 6 division teams every year. 3 Non Conference Games and 3 teams from the other division.
I don't think this deminishes the Michigan V. Ohio State game any. They would still end up playing every year for the right to go to the Championship game. I don't see a big difference between this and Playing for the championship or as more often than not a share of the big ten championship.
Tulane is a pretty good fit. They're already better than Michigan at football since Matt Forte turned out better than Mike Hart and everyone would love to come to Louisiana to recruit. Why not?
Call me crazy. But what if Central michigan wudda won the big ten this yr? bc they won it last 2 yrs right? thatd be 3 in a row, but they didnt win it this yr. But imagine if they won 4-5 macs in a row.. Maybe theyd b considered?
ur punctuation and abbrvs make it hard 2 read.
But looking past that (and the fact they "wuddant won the big ten this yr"), your options for potential expansion aren't that poor of choices. Maryland doesn't get a ton of hype, but I'm fairly certain they would actually fit in the Big10 fairly well academically and be a net positive in football and basketball. But again, I'm not sure they would be a high priority of the Big10, I think they are looking for high profile or New York footprints instead of Baltimore.
Maryland is practically in DC, FWIW. Those ACC basketball rivalries will ensure that never happens.
Id go with either Pitt, ND(wont happen), Missouri, Maryland, boston college, iowa state or cinncinati.
If academics are a factor, Missouri, Iowa St., and Cincy are non-starters, as the best of them (Missouri) is ranked roughly 30 spots lower than the Big 10's worst school.
Missouri and and Iowa St. aren't in the top 100 achools academically, and Cincinatti isn't even ranked by US News and World Report.
I just can't see BC or Maryland (both qualify academically) leaving the ACC. Pitt and ND are the only ones I can really envision.
I think Missouri would still be in play. But I think of the Big East schools, Syracuse is most likely. People don't realize it, but when they're good people in NYC and Buffalo take notice.
I don't know - Missouri is a worse school than Florida State.
-It Renew the Pitt-PSU rivalry, which is/was a good one
-Already within the geographic regio
-Pitt is academically solid.
If not pitt, then i say UChicago rebuilds their football program to D1-A status and rejoins.
Both of those moves provide nothing in the way of new markets. The Pittsburgh market is pretty well served by Penn State... and Chicago is a regional mecca and has alums and fans from all 11 schools.
I think he was 1000% serious about UChicago building up their football program...
I was 3000% serious.
Not true about Pittsburgh. Both Pitt and WVU are more popular in Pittsburgh than Penn State. There are a lot of Penn State alums in Pittsburgh, but there's a pretty simple rule that if you're from Pittsburgh and you didn't go to Penn State, you're a Pitt fan. Believe it or not the Pitt-Penn State rivalry is still huge. WVU is so popular because, well, most of West Virginia is closer to Pittsburgh than Penn State is. Morgantown is only about an hour from downtown Pittsburgh.
Honestly, while I assume you have more experience having lived there, I always heard that Pitt could never really compete with the Steelers in terms of popularity.
That is affirmative. Nothing in Pittsburgh competes with the Steelers in terms of popularity. I was just talking about the popularity at the college level.
I've also heard from some close friends that the NFL would never work in Columbus because no team could ever compete with OSU.
Not sure what you're getting at w/r/t the NFL in Columbus...
I was just saying maybe the lack of interest comparatively would hurt Pitt.
I agree. I don't think Pitt would be a fit for the Big 10. I was just commenting on the Penn State factor. The biggest problem with Pitt as a potential Big 10 candidate to me is that no one goes to their games. Pitt is definitely popular, but no one goes to the games. The widely held belief is that has to do with the fact that the stadium isn't on campus anymore. It's kind of a weak excuse, but it makes sense because Pitt is a very urban campus and well no one wants to take a shuttle bus to the games (which is Pitt's solution).
I think if they could build a stadium on campus it would be wonderful. The Pitt campus and the Cathedral of Learning are amazing.
Maybe Carnegie-Melon could co-fund a stadium and move up from D-III?
Highly unlikely. It was debated big time before Heinz Field was built when they decided to raze Pitt Stadium (which is where the basketball arena and dorms are now located). There really isn't any available land in that part of town and the spot where Gesling Stadium (CMU's stadium) is located is too small. It really is a shame.
Just stupid how ND and NBC have that contract, if it wasn't for that.. ND wud join the big 10 asap.. anyone know when that contracts up?
They have a deal through 2015. I don't think either side is looking to end it though. No matter how mediocre Notre Dame has been, they'll always attract viewers, IMO.
I don't know about asap. They're aligned with the Big East in most other sports.
They wud, they wud.
Syracuse works better for creating divisions.
Syracuse, PSU, OSU, UM, MSU, Indiana
Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota
SU, UM, MSU, UW, Minn, NU
OSU, PSU, IU, PU, UI, UI
I heard rutgers, if u search on internet theyre most likely to be, if not ND. Articles going back in august of 07, how they were gonna get a team in then but didnt. Maybe this yr they will, i think theyll get a big east team.
Rutgers was contingent on them being good. And they failed. Syracuse and Rutgers share the New York market... when one is good, people turn in to watch that one. It just happens Rutgers was good most recently.
With regard to academics, part of the problem is that it means different things to different people (and rankings). All of the Big 10 schools are major research schools, have academic ties to each other (through the Committee on Institutional Cooperation) and are members of the Association of American Universities. Part of the reason for the conferences reputation is the combination of research & the reputation of various graduate & professional programs. (In this particular regard, the ACC, Big East or other major conferences don't really compare.) Unfortunately, excellence in research and/or graduate work doesn't necessarily translate into great undergraduate education.
Personally, I hope Notre Dame doesn't join. Their main appeal is their national fan base/tv audience. I think if they join a conference for football (and stop playing a national schedule) they will lose some of what makes them special & their popularity will decline. They don't add new regional markets, nor do they fit academically. (They are a strong academic school, but the emphasis in on undergraduate education, not research).
Right now the best fits (geographic proximity, adding new media markets, academic compatibility) are Rutgers, Missouri, Nebraska and Syracuse. Iowa Stat & Pitt would work, but don't really add new markets.
Over the longer term, if Canadian Universities do join the NCAA and move up to Division I, the University of Toronto is an interesting possibility.
Pitt definitely WOULD add a new media market. Pittsburgh is not a Big Ten town; it's a Big East town. By and large the only people in Pittsburgh that are Penn State fans and pay any attention at all to Penn State are people that went to Penn State. Sports talk radio, sports on television, and the cable sports shows almost exclusively talk about Pitt.
I don't doubt that the Big 10 isn't that popular in Pittsburgh, but what I was referring to was more about things like Television/Cable broadcasting rights.
I don't really know, but would adding Pitt expand the footprint of the Big Ten Network, or increase the dollar value of the current television packages? My guess is that it would, but less than Missouri (adding Kansas City and (sort of) St. Louis, Rutgers (NY/NJ), or Syracuse (upstate NY)). Pitt is a natural fit for the conference, but it would have been easier for them to have joined at the same time as Penn State....
already plays half the B10. the issue w/ them is that they would have to schedule teams like BC, Stanford and Navy at home more often than not. right now, they are willing to travel to philly and stanford every other year (they can get teams to come into SB on 1 & dones, etc). but in a conf, that would mean 5-6 home games a year (on avg) instead of 7-8. *that's* why they won't join a conf: they will indirectly have to abandon their traditional games due to ticket rev. issues within the current climate of DIA FB.
There are no good candidates for Big 10 expansion besides Notre Shame. Incidentally, the thing that makes them a good candidate is the exact same thing that makes them not want to join, since joining a conference or switching conferences is mostly a zero sum game. In the case of Notre Shame, I think that it is even worse than that, since their identity as an independent status makes football for the Irish incredibly lucrative. Likewise, there is very little incentive to invite a team like Syracuse or Pitt into the conference when they won't deliver much in the way of a TV market and they won't travel well to bowl games. Missouri is probably the best choice since they are the closest thing to a major flagship state university in the Midwest that isn't already in the Big 10.
I've heard from several Nebraska alums that are clued into the Nebraska athletic department that there have been periodic talks between Nebraska and the Big 10. Both sides have expressed a modicum of interest and if expansion happens that may be where things wind up. The other school I've heard mentioned is Rutgers with the idea that it would bring in the NY media market. One issue with Rutgers is that even with its upcoming stadium expansion, it will only seat 57,000 fans and I wonder if that is a problem (although I don't think Northwestern's stadium or Minnesota's new stadium have huge capacities.
all about tradition. There are more "trophy" games in the B10 than any other conference. The rivalries in football are legendary as well local. The only thing that is a joke is the non-con schedule. I know it's all a $$$ grab, but if the YSU, Toledo, Coastal Carolina and School for the Blind non-con games go away and a true round robin schedule was introduced, a 12th team wouldn't destroy the tradition.
Despite what Dantonio, Jo Pa and Zook might think, the UM-OSU season closer is the B10 meal ticket. No matter how the conference fairs during the season, The Rivalry puts the B10 back on the map each season. You add a 12th team, divide the conference in two and add a championship game and you'll see more fiascos like the B12 has this year.
I guess I am a traditionalist, I want The Rivalry game to end the season and the big bowl games all on New Years' Day. If they added a plus-one NC game the following Saturday, I'd be OK with that to.
I think what the conference needs to do, is either keep 11 teams and make a true round robin or add ND and still have a round robin, but most importantly, have the final week of the season be Thanksgiving Saturday instead of the week before. As a conference, we get drilled on Jan. 1 because we haven't played in 14 days longer than the SEC, B12 and PAC-10.
I'd be a big fan of a 10-game conference schedule. We wouldn't be missing out on anything in the non-conference schedule since nobody plays more than one good OOC game nowadays.
oh wait, they are in the comment already.
I actually have a solution I have been floating.
Division A-M: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, and Minnesota
Division N-Z: Northwestern, Ohio State, Pitt/Notre Dame, Purdue, Penn State, Wisconsin.
You add a ninth conference game, and you guarantee the following cross divisional games each season:
Michigan State-Penn State
Notre Dame/Pitt-Iowa (Make up a trophy, claim it's important)
Have all of those games played on the last weekend of the season, as they already are. Have Thanksgiving weekend off and then have the championship game on championship weekend. Even if there's a rematch, there's been a week between them. Also, with a ninth conference game, you never go more than two years without seeing a cross-divisional opponent. I could even make a case for having a second guaranteed cross-divisional game:
Michigan-Notre Dame or Penn State-Pitt
Michigan-Northwestern or Penn State-Minnesota
Michigan State-Ohio State.
It could work, I think.
Interesting idea. The only problem with a ninth game (and this is why it was dropped after a couple years in the 1980s) is that it means an uneven number of home and road games.
It won't happen because it will affect bowl eligibility. Right now each school has four non-conference games. That enables them to schedule three or four alleged patsies. That in turn helps them get to six or seven wins even in a down season. Bowl games mean money. Thus, no matter how much it makes sense from a competitive angle, it's not going to happen. Indeed, Lloyd Carr was asked exactly this question in May while speaking at an alumni event in DC and that was the answer he gave to the question of why not add conference games. Look, even Brian notes that he would like the fourth non-conference game to be someone like Coastal Carolina. Michigan wants to have at least a 3-1 non-conference record (rather than 2-1) every year. Even if you're not worried about bowl eligibility, 9-3 generally gets you a better bowl than 8-4.
I don't want to add just to add.
If we are going to add, it may as well be a great school that:
1) Has outstanding academics
2) Opens the BigTen to a new market
3) Has a nice revenue, so it doesn't drain our revenue sharing program
Programs like Iowa State and Pitt would be ruled out with this idea.
Ideally it would be Notre Dame or no one for me. If the unlikely chance to ever pick up a Texas or Virginia I would jump on it.
UofCinci or WV? Its a good idea to expand and get a team that fits geographically and as much as possible academically. Divisions would be a plus with OSU and Michigan and State in the N, PSU WI IL and Iowa headlining the S. There have been several names tossed out that I had not considered in other posts so now Delaney should hold a summit with leaders from these schools to hammer out a brave new landscape of midwestern collegiate sports.
1) ND (dislike)
2) Pitt (wahnstache included)
3) Cinci (kelley mafia)
4) Neb (loathe)
5) Rutgers (schiano wood chop)
6) WV (rafting trips-wooo)
7) U of Lou (pitino ugh)
Cinci and WV are even worse than Mizzou, Louisville also has questionable academics. I'm not sure about the Huskers, but the geography there seems off. Rutgers sucks at virtually everything, the geography is beyond dumb.
Pitt is okay if unspectacular. I honestly prefer Syracuse above all, but would be okay with Mizzou despite academics.
I don't want to add Cincinnati, but in all honesty that would be great for UofM. It would give Ohio State a legitimate in state rival to compete against for recruits and attention. Granted Ohio State is going to win the solid majority of battles head to head, but it would siphon off some of their in state dominance.
Wouldn't that sort of kill our Ohio recruiting?
Perhaps, but I don't think that it would kill our recruiting in that state. I bet that we'd still get guys in that state and it would hurt Ohio State more. Anyways we get more players nationally than Ohio State.
For some reason I think an instate rival for Ohio State would influence them more than us, but not significantly to either. Especially years when the Bearcats beat the Buckeyes.
All in all I wouldn't want to add Cincinnati anyways.
The geography is dumb for Rutgers? I'd say it's the best geographical option of all - it puts the Big Ten in the NY media market. It also gives PSU a real second rival (to replace its ridiculous "Land Grant" rivalry with MSU). I believe RU is a pretty good school as well.
Rutgers would be the most isolated school in the conference. And where does everyone get this idea that people in New York care about Rutgers football? They really, really don't... they couldn't sell out home games when they were good. Syracuse gets as much play as Rutgers in NYC and is closer to the rest of the conference.
Sure, they'd be isolated. So? PSU is isolated right now. Someone HAS to be at the geographical margins of the conference. It's worth it to Rutgers, from both an athletic and academic standpoint, so they should go along with it.
As for whether people in NY care about Rutgers, that doesn't even really matter. The bigger point is, once the Big Ten is in that media market, conference games will be broadcast there much more often than they currently are, and the local media will cover the conference more than it currently does. It makes far more sense from a business standpoint to add a NY-area team (and it could also be Syracuse or UConn, it doesn't have to be Rutgers) than a team from anywhere else.
And it makes a lot of business sense to put an NHL team in Mexico City because it's the biggest city in North America. Does it matter if nobody cares?
Yes someone HAS to be on the geographical margins, but if you add Rutgers you are adding almost four hours of drive time to that margin. If you add Syracuse you add almost nothing and that eastern margin effectively remains at the same distance as it is now with Penn State.
Syracuse would also be a fine choice, but as a private school with so-so grad programs, they aren't quite as good a fit as Rutgers, which is another large, research-oriented public university. While it is further away, realistically, most Big Ten teams would fly to either school, regardless.
Yes Brodie, there are people in the New York area that care about college football. And if Michigan, OSU and PSU were to start playing games in the area on a regular basis (as opposed to the crap from the Big East that visits Rutgers now), a lot more people in the area would start paying attention.
Sure the teams would fly, but most fans would then also be forced to fly. The second closest conference team to Rutgers would be Ohio State at about an hour drive. Now, that isn't a whole lot farther than Columbus, Ann Arbor, and East Lansing are from Syracuse, but the difference being that Syracuse would have one team kind of close (Penn State), three teams right at about the edge of reasonableness (Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State), and everyone else pretty far. While Rutgers would have one team kind of close (Penn State), one team right at about the edge of reasonableness (Ohio State), and everyon else pretty far. Also, I disagree with the academics; especially research. You're selling Syracuse short. The fact that Syracuse is private is irrelevant; so is Northwestern.
I think you're really overestimating the interest in college football in New York. The media doesn't report on it because there is no interest.
As for academics, Syracuse is ranked higher than both Rutgers and 6 Big Ten schools in the US News rankings.
Syracuse is a significantly better school academically than Rutgers. And, lest we forgert Rutgers does not equal NYC. It equals Jersey.
But you fail to take into account that NJ:NY::Canada:MI.
I'm not advocating Rutgers, but over the past half decade, it has far surpassed Syracuse in terms of local football coverage. The other thing to remember is that Rutgers plays its games in a stadium that's about 20 minutes from one of the largest airports in the United States. I know the teams fly in on charters, but media -- and fans -- do not. Have you ever tried to get to Syracuse? As I said in an earlier post, if there is expansion, I expect them to go to Nebraska, but Rutgers is probably ahead of most of the other schools that have been touted in this thread.
P.S. Rutgers can also agree to play some of its games in Giants Stadium and that's something Syracuse can't do.
What gives you the impression that this school would only be added for football? Syracuse, historically, is a much better football program than Rutgers, and in basketball it's not even marginally close. They also have elite teams in lacrosse, and mens soccer and are a significantly better school academically.
Further, Nebraska is an awful acedemic school and wouldn't be considered. Also, they wouldn't give up their traditional rivalries with Oklahoma and Texas and I REALLY doubt they'd be willing to schedule those two as non-conference opponents every year on top of playing in the Big 10.
The school that really makes the most sense is Pitt. They have a decent football program (this has been true for thirty years), a very strong basketball program, are barely further away than Penn State, are a strong school academically, and really only have one traditional rivalry that they'd have to schedule OOC (WVU).
FWIW, Pitt would be about 3 hours closer to Ann Arbor than Penn State.
Only because Syracuse has gone into a massive decline. 'Cuse is the safe school for all the preppy New Yorkers, the alumni base in the City is huge. If they wanted to play at Giants Stadium, they could.
Also, Rutgers actually used to play at Giants stadium, and stopped because they didn't fill half of it. I've been to Rutgers games at Giants stadium back in the day.
Why do we keep assuming NYC is this massive college football market just waiting to be tapped? There are too many alums from too many schools in that city to ever put together a decent fanbase... why do you think USC can't fill the Coliseum and UCLA can't fill the Rose Bowl?
That's a really good point. It's the same reason that the teams in Florida (where I live now) have historically had such a hard time drawing fans to the games: most people who live here are from somewhere else and are fans of teams from that somewhere else.
attendance figures, but does USC really struggle to fill their stadium? that surprises me somewhat.
The average attendance is 90,000 and it seats 93,000 roughly.
i would never have guessed that. I'm sure they aren't upset with getting 90,000 to each game though.
They used to pull in over 100,000 against Notre Dame and UCLA in the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Syracause is a pretty easy place to fly into actually. It's airport isn't huge, but it's convenient and is served by most every airline. There are also several other substantial airports within a couple hours' drive. You're also overlooking the fact that most fans don't fly; they drive.
Didn't Syracuse play at Ralph Wilson at one point? Or talk about it? That could help.