Big Ten at 20 (Warning expansion related)

Submitted by ciszew on

Warning:  This post is about Big Ten Conference expansion.  If you are sick of this topic or do not care about this topic stop reading.  This post is not for you.

If you are intrigued by this topic, such as myself, feel free to continue. 

Additionally the ideas in this post are not all that original – the diary’s intention is more to talk these concepts out among Michigan friends who enjoy such conversation.    

Impetus:

In the last couple months there have been some rumors on the internets that conference expansion talks could heat up again.  And specifically that the Big Ten could go to 20 teams.  I am not an advocate for this at all.  I personally enjoyed the conference the most when it was at 11 teams. 

However this concept did spark my imagination – if further expansion was inevitable, and 20! was the number, how the hell would you have a legit conference work like that. 

My proposal for football:

1)   The conference would consist of 4 divisions

2)   All would still play a 12 game season, with two teams playing in the Big ten championship game for a 13th game.  The conference schedule would have to be expanded to 10 games.  Everyone would lose one of their Non-conference games.

3)   Each team would play their 4 other intra-division opponents every year. 

4)   Each team would play all 5 teams in an opposite division every year.  However, the division versus division match ups would rotate on a yearly basis.  

5)   The tenth game would be played against the equal seed (same standings) of  a predetermined opposite division opponent each year.  For example: There would be two 1 seed v 1 seed games, two 2 seed v 2 seed games, two 3 seed v 3 seed games, and so on.  Everyone would play a tenth game, even the 5 seeds versus the 5 seeds. 

6)   The two wining teams from the 1 seed v 1 seed games would then meet in the conference championship game

Possible schools for addition:

From the rumblings – and it is probably just wishful thinking/talk – the schools most likely to join the conference are as followed –

(Again I don’t think this is going to happen but these are the names thrown out there, presently and it the past)

Texas

Oklahoma

Georgia Tech

University of Virginia

Florida State

The 6th school is a little trickier.  My belief is if the Big Ten could secure the above schools they’d go after University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill with all they’ve got.  However I think UNC wouldn’t leave Duke behind, and more likely would end up in the SEC. 

Which would mean the Big Ten would fall back on University of Kansas (AAU member, connects Texas/OU to rest of Conference). 

Below I lay out both options, as well as the general concept of the schedule, and what Michigan’s schedule would look like in a 6 year span (when they would have played everyone home/away at least once). 

Thoughts?

Go Blue!

  East North West South    
Option 1 Florida ST Penn ST Wisc Texas    
Georgia Tech Mich Minn OU    
UNC MSU Iowa Nebraska    
UVA Ohio ST ILL IU    
Maryland Rutgers NW Pur    
             
  East North West South    
Option 2 Florida ST Mich Wisc Texas    
Georgia Tech MSU Minn OU    
UVA Ohio ST Iowa Nebraska    
Maryland Rutgers IU Kansas    
Penn ST NW Pur ILL    
             
             
  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
East Schedule North +West 10th game West + South 10th game South + North 10th game South + North 10th game West + South 10th game North +West 10th game
             
North Schedule East + South 10th game South +West 10th game West + East 10th game West + East 10th game South +West 10th game East + South 10th game
             
West Schedule South + East 10th game East + North 10th game North + South 10th game North + South 10th game East + North 10th game South + East 10th game
             
South Schedule West + North 10th game North + East 10th game East + West 10th game East + West 10th game North + East 10th game West + North 10th game
             
  Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6
  @MSU MSU @MSU MSU @MSU MSU
Option 1 UM Sched + 2 Non-Con games Rutgers @Rutgers Rutgers @Rutgers Rutgers @Rutgers
@FSU Texas @Wisc Wisc @Texas FSU
Ga Tech @OU Minn @Minn OU @Ga Tech
@UNC Nebraska @Iowa Iowa @Nebraska UNC
UVA @IU ILL @ILL IU @UVA
  @Maryland Pur @NW NW @Pur Maryland
  @Penn ST Penn St @Penn ST Penn St @Penn ST Penn St
  OSU @OSU OSU @OSU OSU @OSU
  South Seed @West Seed East Seed @East Seed West Seed @South Seed
             
  @MSU MSU @MSU MSU @MSU MSU
  Rutgers @Rutgers Rutgers @Rutgers @Texas @Rutgers
Option 2 UM Sched + 2 Non-Con games @FSU Texas @Wisc Wisc OU FSU
Ga Tech @OU Minn @Minn @Nebraska @Ga Tech
@Penn ST Nebraska @Iowa Iowa Kan Penn St
UVA @Kan IU @IU @ILL @UVA
@Maryland ILL @Pur Pur NW Maryland
  @NW NW @NW NW @NW NW
  OSU @OSU OSU @OSU OSU @OSU
  South Seed @West Seed East Seed @East Seed West Seed @South Seed
             
Pros            
In a 4 year span play everyone in conference at least once    
Regional rivals would continue        
Ten games, hence Big 10 (marketing angle)      
From a strategic standpoint you have contained or surrounded SEC    
Marquee games every weekend        
All teams have equal home/away games every year      
Academic standards have not been overly diminished.  Institutional cooperation enhanced.
Own huge swath of country/Media Markets        
Teams could continue to schedule non-conference rivals if they choose    
Winning divisions would be important, seeding would add intrigue    
Mich/OSU would take place before Thanksgiving again      
Clear/fair conference champion would be crowned      
Would be able to easily regionalize Big ten network - instead of 1 network expand to 4.  And possibly allow Big ten to buy out/absorb Longhorn Network
For the most part all States will be connected.  There will be a gap on either the southwest or southeast depending on who joins.
Recruiting territory would be greatly expanded.  Nebraska could hit up Texas again.  East coast teams would have better tools to sell Florida kids.
For basketball.  Everyone plays each other once -- then seeded Tourney for champion
             
Cons            
Besides regional rivals would other teams play each other enough to really be considered conference foes?
Travel at end of season could be difficult on fans      
Teams would no longer ever have 8 home games.  Lose a 3rd Non-Conference game/guaranteed gate
UM/OSU would not be last game of year        
There is a possibility although not likely that the Big Ten Champion could have a losing or .500 record
Inevitably the division balance could be uneven.  West would need Wisc/Iowa to be a power. 
             
             
             

 

Comments

bigpatky

February 3rd, 2016 at 9:22 PM ^

An important distinction regarding the loss of accreditation is that, from my understanding, the AAU changed how they measure some of the qualifications, which especially affected Nebraska. I guess their medical school isn't on their main campus. The research $$ related to the medical school no longer counted. Thus, the loss of AAU membership. 

mgofro

February 1st, 2016 at 11:41 AM ^

I still don't understand the addition of Rutgers. If they wanted the NY market that bad, why not Syracuse? 

Rutgers All-time record 641–621–42 (.508) Bowl record 6–4 (.600)

Syracuse All-time record 708–503–49 (.581) Bowl record 15–9–1 (.620) 1 Heisman winner

Let's not even compare the basketball programs...

The only thing Syracuse lacks is a football stadium, but they've been trying to replace the Carrier Dome and B1G money would have helped them with that.

DrMantisToboggan

January 31st, 2016 at 4:10 PM ^

The most logical final solution to me is 8 conferences based entirely off location. Each conference (16 teams each, one or two would have to have 17 in the coming years) has a championship game. The winner of each conference feeds into an 8 team playoff for the National Championship. You could create 8 (!!!) TV networks that would all contain at least one major program and major viewer market. As divisions would be 8 teams each (a couple with 9) you should play 9 conference games with one crossover game and 3 OOC games. Each school could establish protected rivalries for those that fell out of your conference (ND/USC for one, others that are seperated by a state or two may be split as well, like Tenn/UF). 

MGlobules

January 31st, 2016 at 4:11 PM ^

that doesn't either dilute the B1G or make a mockery of our geographic footprint. I say drop Rutgers and let's play ball. (I'm a Jersey guy and originally advocated Rutgers; the marriage has not worked.)

raleighwood

January 31st, 2016 at 10:14 PM ^

Taking three schools from the same state (nevermind that they're only 20 miles apart) defeats the whole purpose of expanding geography.

I could see a scenario where UNC could jump ship (money talks).  They'd still be able to play Duke in basketball every year.  However, that rivalry runs so deep that I think there be a serious uproar in the fan base if a change was made.

NC State could probably land on its feet in the SEC (and actually have a chance to play for a basketball title in Kentucky's "off years").

M and M Boys

February 1st, 2016 at 1:42 AM ^

Is when UNC (Duke/NC ST/WF) leave the ACC...the ACC headquarters are next door to all of them in Greensboro led by UNC grad John Swofford.
Truth is, blue blood ACC fans HATE change and the additions of Syracuse, BC and Lville.
They still would like to have South Carolina back period.

Blue Durham

January 31st, 2016 at 4:47 PM ^

practicality to be taken seriously.

"Talk" on the internet regarding the number of teams (20) but no real rationalization as to any driving force for this to be so, both for the Big Ten as well as for each team. Texas ain't coming, and the Big Ten ain't having them; UNC is never, ever going to leave the ACC, nor is UVa, nor should they as the ACC is the most academic conference and they can still compete there reasonably well.

Geography matters, and Georgia Tech, UNC and Florida State make no sense, nor are they going to join. Neither would UVa although they, in addition to VaTech, I would not have any problem having in the conference (Big Ten missed that chance when VaTech was an independent).

I saw no compelling reason for the Big Ten to expand to 14 teams. I hate the Big Ten at 14 teams, and would really hate it at more than that. At 12 teams, although it was brief, it was fine.

YoungGeezy

January 31st, 2016 at 5:01 PM ^

Not sure I'm a fan in the 4 divisions. Would rather have 2, and have football/basketball only play division teams (so for football 3 non-conference, 9 division games and 18 division, games with each team getting a home and home. Yes, it sucks you don't play the other division schools but if you have 20 teams in the conference, something has to give.

Big Boutros

January 31st, 2016 at 5:03 PM ^

This is a very nice presentation.

I would oppose Florida State and Oklahoma on academic grounds and insignificant media markets. Oklahoma is also tethered to Oklahoma State in conference shifting scenarios.

I suppose they expand the footprint but Tallahassee and Norman are a) small, b) rural, and c) not close to anything bigger.

Ann Arbor is the sixth-biggest city in Michigan at 114,000 but more importantly it is extremely well-educated and the closest Big Ten town to bigger markets like Detroit and Toronto.

Does Norman get us into OKC? Do we need OKC? Does OKC even care about OU?

Tallahassee's closest big market is Atlanta, which we're already covering locally with Georgia Tech, a terrific school.

I might replace FSU with Miami. University of Florida is the best academic institution in the state, but they're not budging from the SEC. Miami is a clear #2, in a huge market, and it's proven in the past 30 years to be relatively unbound by conference loyalty, going from independent to Big East to ACC.

It has often been said that Virginia is bound to Virginia Tech and that's fine by me. VT is a good school -- a lot like Purdue. Adding both UVA and Virginia would bring the whole state into the Big Ten and potentially give us some media bleed into North Carolina and Tennessee.

Texas is an obvious choice.

Kansas over UNC because UNC is an ACC blueblood and unlikely to leave without its Tobacco Road partners (NC State, Duke). Kansas also gives us better geographic contiguity and it dips into the Kansas City/St. Louis market that we missed when the SEC took Missouri.

So my six additions would be:

Texas

Kansas

Virginia

Virginia Tech

Georgia Tech

Miami

Sooner16

February 1st, 2016 at 11:06 AM ^

"Does Norman get us into OKC? Do we need OKC? Does OKC even care about OU?"

 
Absolutely, Norman gets you into OKC, and OKC is rabid about OU, since it is essentially a suburb of OKC.  I don't know that it matters, though, since Oklahoma is such a boom and bust state, and even when it's booming, the OKC population barely approaches 1 million (and that's with an enormous land area).
 
What it does gain you is a better ability to recruit Oklahoma and Texas, along with a strong presence in Football and Basketball, as well as many of the sports no one really cares about.

Mi Sooner

February 2nd, 2016 at 12:44 AM ^

And the OU has the same problem that caused Nebraska to loose its AAU accreditation, OU's med school is headquartered in OKC and doesn't count towards OU's research dollars; otherwise, both would be members of AAU. Nebraska's med school isn't in Lincoln.

s1105615

January 31st, 2016 at 7:32 PM ^

Did I miss it in he lost or was ND left off, and if so was it intentional? ND's not a full football member of the ACC, so any attrition to the ACC would probably prompt ND to need to look for another legitimate conference...and should force their hand to finally join the B1G...shouldn't it? Maybe I'm myopic in my hopes to see them finally give up whatever "independence" they have and make the decision that makes the most financial sense, even if it means having to play tougher schedules every year. At least that way if they ever do win a conference title they will have earned their way into the playoff...

s1105615

February 2nd, 2016 at 3:59 PM ^

I believe that ND being forced to join a conference, especially one as strong as the B1G is the ulitmate in screwing them over.  If they were to join the B1G, it would be years before they would lose less than 2-3 games a year in conference, especially if they get stuck with UM, MSU, and OSU as division mates.  Add in road trips to Madison and Iowa City every now and then and it's highly unlikely they contend for national relevance more than twice a decade.  ND belongs in the B1G, and having ND in the conference would be a gain for teams in the conference as they would be a big draw for their road games, and would eliminate ND poaching the spot on UM/MSU/Purdue's schedule that is reserved for a quality opponent.  Just my $0.02.

NittanyFan

January 31st, 2016 at 8:50 PM ^

although --- I'm not entirely sure 10 conference games would work.  I think that college football is pretty locked into 12 regular season games.  There is literally no other weekend to add to the regular season unless you start before Labor Day or move Championship Week further back.

If we're locked into 12 regular season games, I don't think we have 10 conference games (because of the desire to keep some OOC games).

I'd guess a 20-team setup has 4 groups of 5, with 2 groups making up one division in a year and NO cross-over play prior to the B1G Championship game.  Rotate the divisions every 2 years.

gbdub

February 1st, 2016 at 12:45 AM ^

How about we merge with a conference from the West Coast states, have two divisions, and play a yearly championship game somewhere warm, like Pasadena or something?




Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad

Mr. Elbel

February 1st, 2016 at 1:01 AM ^

Interesting division splits. You pretty much end up with an old ACC division in the east and an old Big 12 division in the south and the actual B1G (minus Rutgers) in the north and west.

I feel like if you're gonna get the big schools from the big 12 though you can't go and try to raid the acc too. I dont think you'll be able to do both. And I think the big 12 is much more likely to fall apart than the acc with all the expansion they've done. So although I'd love to see UVA in the B1G (I live 30 minutes from UVA's campus), or GT because of academic reasons, I don't think that'd happen. I mean, I don't think anything like this happens anyway, but if anything is blowing up its the big 12 and I think we could get a group like kansas, UT, ok, ok st, wvu and isu. I don't think UT and OK come without osu, and I think geographically, obviously isu, but also wvu and Kansas make better sense than anything.

I have no idea how those work academically or if they're AAU schools or what. I highly doubt Texas would ever join a conference in which it is the only Texas school, but I think the absolutely only way it would ever be possible is to include ok and ok st.

Also, adding isu/kansas/ok in basketball this year would be insane. Haha

bluebyyou

February 1st, 2016 at 8:07 AM ^

It won't happen but if I could make a wish, I'd go for 4 conferences of 20 teams each with two divisions in each conference, and reconstitute the old Big Ten for one division and the other 10 schools in the other.  Ditto for all of the other conferences.  Nine conference games within the division, one game with the other division in the conference and two games with other teams from the other four conferences.

This alignment immediately makes for an eight team playoff due to "symmetry" of four conferences and the divisional winners in each conference playing each other and the winner going to the NC playoffs.

There would be no independent schools eligible for national playoff consideration.

 

TruBluMich

February 1st, 2016 at 10:07 AM ^

The only way I would be ok with 20 teams in the B1G is if they did it like MLB did before inerleague play.  Have two "leagues" that only play each other if they meet in the championship.



The Big Ten League:

Michigan

Illinois

Minnesota

Purdue

Wisconsin

Indiana

Iowa

Ohio State

Michigan State

Northwestern



The Other 10 League:

Nebraska

Penn State

Maryland

Boston College

Georgia

Gerogia Tech

North Carolina

Duke

Florida State

Syracuse



The only time they would ever play each other in football, in a confrence game, would be in the Confrence Championship game.  Sets up two fairly competitive leagues and it doesn't destroy what is great about college football.  Keep it at 9 confrence games and everyone plays all the teams in thier league.  In theory, they could schedule a non-confrence game against a team from the other league.  This way each team still gets a shit ton of TV money but fans can go back to enjoying the yearly rivalries that help to make this sport great.

Zone Left

February 1st, 2016 at 2:50 PM ^

I'm not really sure who this benefits.

If the goal is TV dollars, I'm not sure anyone gets more money. Maybe we'd get something more if Texas came in, but Texas would get less.

If the goal is football competition, you'd be bringing in a few teams to shore up the other half of the conference, but we'd never play them.

By the way, the Big 10 shares its revenue and won't let Texas be in charge. I can't see that ever happening unless they ditch the Longhorn Network. Even then, it's going to be a hard sell for both sides.

Moonlight Graham

February 1st, 2016 at 4:16 PM ^

 really fucked everything up because we could have moved toward something like this in the wake of a Big 12 implosion. 

Four 16-18 team "Conferences" with two major "Divisions" of 8 or 9 that resemble the old conferences. And in many cases I literally mean "resemble the old conferences." In this scenario, nobody gets left out of the game of musical chairs, and only one more team would need to be added: And it happens to be Houston. 

ACC (17)

ACC Atlantic (resembles old Big East)

BC, Louisville, Miami, ND, Pitt, Rutgers ($%&#!!!), Syracuse, VT, West Virginia

ACC Coastal (resembles old ACC)

Clemson, Duke, FSU, GT, Maryland ($%&#!!!), UNC, NC State, Virginia, Wake

BIG 10 (16) 

Big Ten East (resembles most of old 11-team Big 10)

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, MSU, OSU, Northwestern, Penn State, Purdue

Big Ten West (geographically perfect hybrid of B1G West and old Big 12 North)

Iowa, Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin

SEC (16)

SEC East (resembles most of old SEC)

Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, S.Carolina, Tennessee, Vandy

SEC West (geographically perfect hybrid of SEC West and parts of old SWC)

Arkansas, Houston, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Oklahoma, Oklahoma St., Texas A&M

Pac 12 (16)

Pac 12 "Mountain" (geographically aligned remnants of the SWC and newer additions to the Pac 12)

Arizona, ASU, Baylor, Colorado, Texas, TCU, Texas Tech, Utah

Pac 12 "Pacific" (The old Pac 8)

Cal, Oregon, Oregon St., Stanford, UCLA, USC, Washington, Washington St. 

 

Rasmus

February 2nd, 2016 at 8:17 AM ^

Yes, nice job. Well thought out. Back in the day (i.e., before CFP, and during the rounds of musical chairs) I would begin writing diaries with layouts similar to this (Moonlight Graham's scheme), trying to preserve some semblance of tradition and geography while creating a playoff first round in the conference championships.

I even did maps and charts, but always ended up dropping the effort -- feeling like I was chasing my tail.

You've got it about right. Texas is the big one -- splitting up Texas-Oklahoma is problematic, but something has to give. And I guess the Red River game would still be played, but it loses something if it is non-conference in a world where conference champions are automatically in the CFP. Thus, I might be inclined to switch OU and TCU -- splitting up the two Oklahoma teams is less problematic, IMHO.