The Big 14 - A Proposal

if you want 14.

though I would replace Maryland or BC with Pitt to give the Big 14 the entire state of Pennsylvania. This would be forward and out of the box thinking. It would also make the Big 14 one of the strongest conferences in many other sports such as soccer, basketball, etc.

I was literally logging on just to post about the same thing, and you beat me to it by like less than 10 minutes...

But really, yes if you're not going to get ND or Nebraska, why go for just one meh team?

3 meh teams can = 1 big time team. Think about it, the B10 has always been about innovation, doing things first, not just copying other leagues. They started the real expansion craze with PSU. Instead of just adding a team to be number 12, why not start the first mega conference?

And while there will be little buzz by adding one so-so team, why not add 3, throw 2-3 other conferences into a tizzy, create the buzz, and not only add the conference championship money, but offset the money split more ways by completely reseting all your tv contracts? Suddenly you become a much more valuable property with more teams, more markets, more competition and more buzz.

I was thinking more along the lines of say Missouri, Pitt, and Cinncy (or substitute Syracuse or any of the other regulars) to offset not getting a big time program, increase in all directions, and hit up the Big East and Big 12. But why stop there? If you're adding the attraction of joining the first mega bucks mega conference, maybe you can pull away bigger teams more set in their conferences like you say. Or maybe you can entice a team that wouldn't normally come, by lurking them with the mega conference appeal, or bringing along a "buddy". Would Nebraska be more likely to come if we took Missouri too? Heck, let them choose which B12 team they want us to offer (Colorado?). Throw 2 from there in, and Pitt to make the East side happy, and done.

You could play 6 division games, 2 cross section games, and still have 4 money making OOC games. (You could make it 9+ ideally, but I'm not sure they want to add another conference game and loss beat $$$ U.)

BTW, your division breakdown is pretty good too. Though you're still a bastard. ;-)

...you completely solve the "new name problem".

I think we're still thinking to small, why not just add the entire Big East, add BC (for the hockey of course) and just have one super 20 team division split into two ten team Divisions.

"3 meh teams can = 1 big time team"

With the reality of revenue sharing, does adding more teams automatically increase everyone's coffers or does it further dilute and distribute the take without adding enough to make up for it?

Someone better with numbers than I could have an awesome diary post with this (hint, hint, wink, wink)

At least MSU would know what it's like to have a little brother nipping at your heels like a schnauzer all of the time.

I like it.
You got my vote.
I would like to see PITT worked in somehow.

I live in DC, so I'd love to have one Michigan game to go to every couple of years, but I doubt that would happen. MD is still a hoops school first and they have a serious rivalry with Duke, Virginia and a growing one with UNC. Maybe the Indiana-PSU football game next year will give them an idea of the college football environment in the DC Metro area which is nil.

On the positive side, most, if not all Big 10 schools have large alumni bases here so it could happen.

I'd say if we're going to be 14 we should get Mizzou, Nebraska and Pitt. That'd be bad ass IME. I don't really care about any of the teams you listed (sorry) because I think we're more after football revenue than anything else and, make no doubt about it, adding big 12 schools would be huge for the BTN since the Big 12 currently has, arguably, the worst TV contract amongst BCS conferences.

In that alignment I'd go w/ a North/South alignment

North: Minn, UW, MSU, UM, PSU, NW, Purdue
South: OSU, IU, UI, UN, Mizzou, Pitt, and Iowa

That'd leave a great setup for "Divisional Rivalry Week" with UM-OSU, Iowa-Minn, PSU-Pitt, Indiana-PU, Illinois - NW, and new "Rivalries" of Mizzou - MSU (let's face it, if MSU loses more than they win against someone they think they are rivals so they can find a reason to get up for the game) and UN - UW (that game could be pretty awesome I think.

But if you start thinking three, why not go five?!

Texas, Syracuse, Maryland, Vanderbilt, and Notre Dame gets you Texas, NY, DC/Baltimore, Nashville, and NBC. I don't think the Big Ten would have the balls to even try, and even if they did I don't think it would happen, but all of those are AAU schools (except Notre Dame) with good to excellent academics.

I wonder how big of a carrot the CIC would really be to these other University presidents. The ACC is a top notch academic conference in its own right, but do those schools have the research collaboration of the CIC or are they just a nice collection of schools?

Despite the Callahan years, Nebraska is a marquis name in the Big 12. Does anyone really believe they'd leave a conference with the likes of Texas and Oklahoma? Not to mention the fact that the BigXII has put a team in 7 of the 12 BCS title games.

I like the idea of Boston College the most (if we're talking about adding just one more team). Great market, excellent academics, clean history.....I think it's a win-win for both conference and school.

While I do not know about academics and all the other requirements that the Big Ten requires schools to have to be included; from a pure wishful point of view I would want Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Missouri. You can expand west with Missouri who could have a rivalry with Illinois and maybe Iowa and you also get St. Louis' media market. You get Pittsburgh's market with Pitt who also becomes Penn State's natural rival. Cincinnati would finally give Osu an in state rival. Also, cincy and missouri do not have big basketball teams to worry about staying in their current conferences and those two teams could make it easier for Pitt to want to leave the Big East.

Like i said before, I do not know if it would work, but I do not think syracuse will leave the Big East because of basketball and Rutgers just has no appeal whatsoever to me. I just think expanding west and east while giving OSU an instate rivalry is a good way to go.

P.S. Screw east/west or north/south divisional alignments. I would support more of a major league baseball type alignment where west and east and north and south teams are in both leagues. In the end, just make it balanced. Lets not be the Big 12.

how everyone just assumes that we can ask any school we want and they'll just drop everything to go to the "new" Big Ten. Alot of the names you're throwing around are happy where they are, and extending them an invite could possibly only result in a very embarassing "thanks but no thanks." Plus their existing conference leadership might have something to say about it.

With the exception of Missouri, the only schools we should really be pursuing are Big East. The ACC is still settling out its growing pains from its expansion, and would likely fight dirty to keep its members, especially the newer ones. So Boston College, in my estimation, is out of the picture.

Pittsburgh, Missouri, Rutgers. Hell, maybe even Connecticut. But that's it.

If this were to occur, you could have 6 division games, 1 protected rivalry from the other division, and 2 rotating games between the other 6. That would make 9 conference games and easy scheduling.

Split into four 5-team divisions!
Then the four division winners have a playoff for the conference title! OMG this would be freaking perfect!!!

Cool idea but I like these 3 better: Pitt, WVU, and Louisville (which may as well be in Indiana anyways b/c it's so close).

All 3 good schools. WVU lacks academics, yes. Louisville too for all I know. But so does MSU and we're not talking about pushing them off on the MAC. (Although maybe we should.)

Go big in this new conference, make it tough and competitive! Look at all aspects: money, academics, rivalries and come up with the best options. Therefore we should look at a 14 team league, but don't add ACC schools just to fill the conference.

West:

Minnesota
Iowa
Wisconsin
Missouri***
Illinois
Notre Dame***
Northwestern

East:

Michigan
Michigan State
Purdue
Indiana
Ohio State
Penn State
Pittsburgh***

Notre Dame, Purdue and Indiana are in a line, but put Notre Dame in West to make the west tougher.

I think that this idea is blown way out of proportion. We should be adding many more than three teams; we need some of that "southern speed" to boost the conference image, so let's pick up some SEC schools; in fact, let's pick up all of them... good tradition, media market, and fan base.

We should also pick up the Pac-10 schools, which are looking pretty good these days and include USC. We may as well pick up the Big 12 schools, since there's great tradition and rivalries there; that would open up a huge market in Texas, Oklahoma, etc. We should still get a good presence in the coast and northwest, so we might as well pick up the ACC and Big East; hey, some of those schools used to be good, and the media market is promising.

Of course, it's impossible to have all these schools play each other, so we'll need lots of divisions. It makes sense to do them by geography; for instance, we could have "pacific" or "southeastern" divisions, which would preserve a lot of the rivalries in those areas.

The problem then would be the championship game, which would have to be a series of games in which the teams would "play off" to determine which team is best. That sounds kind of stupid, so here's the best part of my proposal: we have football experts (and random people) vote on the two top teams, and have them play each other for the conference championship in a highly publicized game. The other division winners, along with some of the better conference teams, could play each other in some high-profile bowls; hell, we could even throw in a good out-of-conference team or two to give em a shot, maximizing the interest of the nation.

The last question is what would we call this conference; since it would span the whole national, it should be called the "National" conference. That way, the two teams could be playing for the "National" championship! Sounds great, right?

I like the idea but 9 conference games would be an inevitability. Not that I disagree, but cupcake padding does help get mediocre teams better bowl games. I'd like it though...

East:
Michigan
Michigan State
Ohio State
Penn State
Indiana
**Rutgers
**Pitt

West:
Iowa
Illinois
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Purdue
**Missouri

Protected Rivalries:
Miichigan-Minnesota
Indiana-Purdue
Ohio State-Illinois
Michigan State-**Missouri
Penn State-Iowa
**Pitt-Wisconsin
**Rutgers-Northwestern

And two rotating non-divisional games, every year, one home, one away. Then the next cycle after three years have the home and away switch.

IME this is stupid, 14 teams is too many. We are thinking one team to add and then all of a sudden everybody wants 3. It would drastically decrease your chance of getting a BCS bowl, while not very goo teams from the Big East are getting it. With 8 conference games you don't play 5 teams from your conference and even with 9 conference games you don't play 4 which is still a lot.