August 13th, 2011 at 10:55 AM ^
His kneecap and he'll be back in a week. On my phone so I can't post it or see if anyone else has posted it, so apologies if this has already been posted.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^
Thanks
Although I must say... "dislocated his kneecap" + "back in a week" = one tough motherf*cker.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
He just wants those extra few days to make sure he's 100%, right?
August 13th, 2011 at 11:06 AM ^
I don't understand why so many are upset about this? This is change and it is inevitable. The Big Ten better get busy or we will be left behind.
Inevitable New Mega Conference Scenario:
I think making another run at ND is inevitable. After that, I would definitely be ok with adding Pitt, OU and Ok St. That way we could split into semi-rational East-West divisions (with those names, not f'ing Leaders/Legends).
East: Michigan, MSU, tOSU, PSU, Pitt, Indiana, Purdue and Notre Dame
West: OU, Ok St., Nebraska, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Northwestern
We would have MSU, OSU and ND in our division. The competitive balance wouldn't be too far off, for football anyways (basketball may need some tweaking). Do away with the cross division protected games. Go to a 9 game conference schedule, rotating two from the opposite division every year.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:11 AM ^
Their academics are just terrible.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:31 PM ^
More teams in a conference means more revenue, but there's probably an optimum size in terms of revenue per team. It's entirely possible that each school in the B1G earns less after the next expansion than they do before even though the total revenue goes up.
Obviously this depends in large part on which schools are added. Notre Dame, regardless of their decline over the past 15-20 years, adds a lot of potential viewers. I don't see teams like Kansas and Kansas State adding a lot, although they make sense geographically (although I have no idea if they do academically). Rutgers allows expansion into the east coast, but that may or may not be worth the trouble. At this point I don't think there are a lot of home runs out there.
Keep in mind that these mega-conferences may not be all that stable. The SEC may go up to 16, but they may not stay at 16 for long if it doesn't prove to be a good fit for individual member schools. If the SEC mega-conference falls apart, the leftover portion may not be as good as the SEC is now (in terms of either football or revenue).
So I'm a little leery of further expansion for the B1G at this point.
August 13th, 2011 at 4:56 PM ^
The Big Ten better get busy or we will be left behind.And how are we defining "left behind"? The SEC went to 12 teams and a conference title game 19 (!) years agp. We're just doing that now. But does that mean the Big Ten has been on the verge of collapse? Hardly. Even if it's true that the SEC has been more successful than the Big Ten, that cannot be said for any other conference. The WAC went to 16 teams in the mid-'90s and quickly split in two. The Big 12, which went to 12 teams and a championship game about 15 years ago, is splitting up. The ACC, which went to 12 teams and a championship game several years ago, is about to get raided by the SEC. Adding new teams is not the guaranteed cash cow people seem to think. Change for the sake of change is useless. Adding Nebraska gives us the lucrative championship game. It's not clear that adding a 13th or 14th team would do anything similar in terms of revenue - much less going to 16 teams.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:13 AM ^
When did those schools get football teams? lol
August 13th, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^
UConn, Pitt, Rutgers,Oklahoma.
Sorry Syracuse.
Would garner more accidental viewer eyeballs in the I-95 megapolis, than exist in the State of Missouri.
Virginia would also be a snooty choice that would extend viewership from the Mason-Dixon line to Myrtle Beach.
Think about it, Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Wash D.C., Richmond, hmmmm.....maybe double the revenue......
August 13th, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^
I don't really like the idea of 16 team conferences. It just seems kind of pointless when you are going to play some teams like twice every decade. However, I guess this is probably one of the only ways we can actually see a playoff.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
August 13th, 2011 at 11:22 AM ^
Oklahoma's academics will keep them out of the B1G, probably forever. Nebraska might want to get them in, but that's about it. They are too far away and have no relationship with any of the other B1G teams.
I don't see the B1G expanding just to keep up with the SEC/Pac-1X. The 12 team set-up works as it is, and I see no reason to change it.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:27 AM ^
They have to keep up with the joneses
August 13th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
Not only is OU a mediocre academic institution, they don't bring anything in regards to a major media market or geographic match-- and if Okie State has to come, that's just another killer. My guess is that they aren't close to the top of the list as far as B10 targets.
August 13th, 2011 at 1:52 PM ^
I don't think OU OR OSU are good fits.
August 13th, 2011 at 3:21 PM ^
I don't think our OSU is a good fit.
August 13th, 2011 at 11:36 AM ^
I have also heard that Pitt/WVU could potentially be a package deal. IMO I wouldn't mind seeing some "lesser" teams to expand the BIG 10 out.
Kansas, 'Cuse, VaTech, and Virginia in my mind would be ideal. All solid universities and this would expand the BIG 10 from Kansas to the DC area. Kansas and 'Cuse are solid with basketball, VaTech and Virginia for football (obviously virginia is not a huuge name but VaTech is a very successful ACC team).
August 13th, 2011 at 11:56 AM ^
Uva used to be really good in Football and Basketball and they're top notch academically. Maybe in the Big Ten they could regain some of their luster.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:49 PM ^
What would be the basis for WVU and Pitt being a package deal? Sounds extraordinarily far fetched that Pitt would turn down an invitation to the B1G (or WVU to the SEC) unless the other was included.
August 13th, 2011 at 4:19 PM ^
No way are Pitt and WVU a package deal. For all of the rivalry, they're completely different institutions...like, more different than M/OSU different.
August 13th, 2011 at 4:04 PM ^
kansas?
August 13th, 2011 at 11:37 AM ^
Officially official according to espn ticker and Doug Gotlieb
August 13th, 2011 at 11:51 AM ^
Crap, the SEC is already too big for it's britches. The Vol fans here will be lauding it even more now (that seems hard to believe the way they laud it now). Why are we complaining about Texas being a primadona and asking for Notre Dame (the world's largest primadona) pot, kettle, black ,Hello. I'm not sure who I'd want the most but Syracuse (NY market) Maryland (DC market) would make sense money/rating market wise, I'm not sure about academics though. I just hope the Big 10 saw this coming and has a contingency plan, but knowing Delany...I'm sure he doesn't. Well, at least we have the best 12 team conference in the country.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:44 PM ^
I don't understand why everyone keeps mentioning Maryland. Nobody cares about Maryland football, and their basketball program is good but not great. Whats the appeal?
August 13th, 2011 at 1:46 PM ^
I see Maryland as a stronger choice than Kansas. Maryland has potential at football, has made some bowl games, and gives us an east coast presence into the Baltimore and DC markets.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:00 PM ^
Independents will not survive in this mega confence scenario. For one, teams might not be allowed to play out of conference games since there will be fifteen other in conference teams, and if you do a ten game conference schedule do you really think Michigan is going to go to Notre Dame Stadium when they already have to play Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Penn State, Little Brother, Iowa, Nebraska, ext. ext.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:05 PM ^
The SEC has done its homework and have in mind that getting the "brand name" is greater than getting media markets. College football is national now and having Florida St. vs LSU etc.. will be greater than having LSU vs Maryland despite the media market in Baltimore. Nationally they will be able to sell FSU vs LSU better. I think if the Big Ten take teams like UConn, Syracuse, and Maryland would be a mistake. Those are media markets that are interested in much more than just college football. Nebraska vs Michigan would get a lot of national attenion versus Michigan vs UConn. At the moment, the product is better than the media markets. Oklahoma, W.Virgina, Pitt, VT, and N. Carolina are good products. For those that say that the B1G will not do anything or that we shouldn't then remember this: If the SEC and Pac 12 and other conferences like the ACC go to 16 teams they will ask the NCAA for a guarenteed 2nd BCS bowl. It would be hard for the B1G to send 2 teams to the BCS on an annual basis with just 12 teams.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
I'm with you Southlander. I'd much rather see Oklahoma, Pitt, WVU etc. but it seemed that when all the talk was happening last year the Big Ten was looking at tv markets as much as teams. I'd rather have great teams and if they also equal big markets great...but the best 2 or 4 teams would be my preference.
August 13th, 2011 at 1:58 PM ^
They are GOD AWFUL in academics and provide absolutely NO media market.
<br>
<br>Worst addition ever
August 13th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
They always do. Their restrictions are academics (they stretched to get Nebraska in, and without AAU or whatever now, they may NOT have gotten in). Second, they want geographic contiguity; Texas may be the exception.
I think a third thing is they only care about football...see Nebraska.
If you accept those, then the only real choices outside hail mary's like ND and Texas are Mizzou, Virginia, Pitt, Syracuse, UConn.
Oklahoma is a nonstarter because I don't think we take the likes of Okie state, Kansas St, etc. Kansas doesn't really play football, do they?
Texas is interesting, because I don't think they want to go to the SEC and have equality. But I wonder if the Pac 10 or Big 10 would consider allowing them to have their own network in texas. I think the Pac 10 is much more likely in this scenario.
One thing is for sure...if SEC goes to 16, the Big 10 and Pac 10 will almost certainly have to as well. ACC will only survive that way too, which means they will probably have to steal some from the Big East again, killing off that conference for good.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:27 PM ^
The Big Ten is doing quite well with 12 schools. Four schools rank among the most prestigious programs in the nation (Michigan, OSU, Nebraska, and PSU), and the second tier schools (Wisconsin and Iowa) are also quite strong. It makes no sense to add more schools unless they would contribute positively to league finances and competitiveness, and the only schools that can do that are Notre Dame and Texas*. Adding the likes of Syracuse and Mizzou would merely be adding an additional mouth to feed while eliminating possibilities for future expansion.
*I am not including Oklahoma, as their academics are not strong enough for Big Ten membership.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
in what way?
Football?
I certainly hope you're not talking about academics.
August 13th, 2011 at 1:16 PM ^
I probably should've been more clear there, but I figured that including OSU on the list would make it clear that I wasn't talking about academics. Not that I mean to downplay OSU's academics, but the literacy rate of OSU students is a little too low for them to be considered among the elite.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
August 13th, 2011 at 2:56 PM ^
I don't think VT will help the DC market. It would definitely get the hampton roads market though. DC is all basketball and UVA if you had to pick a football team. Saying VT gets you DC is equivalent to saying Michigan alone could get Chicago. Living in Virginia, I'd love to have Tech...but UVA would almost be perfect. They are essentially Northwestern of the south.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:30 PM ^
would be to add OU, and Georgia Tech this would be awesome for the conference. Then Texas could be to OU what Notre Dame is to Michigan, the big fat bitch who doesn't get in.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:51 PM ^
Texas should be an independent. They're ridiculous.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^
as a long island,ny native, let me tell you guys that syracuse would definately be a great addition to the B1G along with ND for many reasons.First of all, for those who say they do not bring in the NY market are crazy.Go into any bar downstate Ny in the city or the island and of course upstate near the cuse and you will always see the cuse games on TV with numerous people intently focused on the games.Second, Syracuse is a good academic school which would definately be accepted in the B1G(they are rankeed 55 with schools like tOSU, minny,MSU, indiana and others behind them along with other expansion candidates in the NY megalopolis area like Pitt,Uconn,and Rutgers.Third theyve had a decent football history with some greats coming through the program (Jim Brown anyone)?Fourth,the hoops program is an absolute juggernaut and draws 30000 every bball game.There lacrosse team is the most dominant in history and while many may not know much about lax, ity is by far the fastest growing sport in the nation and with ND would need 1 more team to form a B1G lax conference similar to hockey(which syracuse also sits in a hockey hotbed and while they only have a womens team because of title 9, a mens team is wanted by many and would be a great addition to the hockey conference). I know many may discount their fball program but if they move into the B1G, recruiting will skyrocket and instant prestige would be given therefore instantly upping the program.
August 13th, 2011 at 1:21 PM ^
When we talk about adding a market to the Big Ten, we're talking about getting the Big Ten Network on basic cable. During the last round of expansion, it was concluded that Syracuse could not do this on their own. Even if we added Syracuse and Rutgers, it is unclear if that would be successful.
August 13th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
At this rate, the ACC and Big 12 will have just enough teams left to combine and form the fourth superconference.
August 13th, 2011 at 1:49 PM ^
They all agree with UT's demand to call it the "Texas and Riff Raff Conference"
August 13th, 2011 at 1:03 PM ^
Should just become an independent and play every game at home. Who cares what these other conferences do in expansion. If we win our games we'll get into the national championship game. Go Blue!
August 13th, 2011 at 1:15 PM ^
If the SEC adds A&M, I'd have to believe the team they add simultaneously is either Clemson or FSU. Those two just seem like SEC teams, don't they?
And the B10 had a chance to add Mizzou and Pitt, but passed. So why would they add them now? It only makes sense to do so if the B10 expands to 16: ND, Mizzou, Pitt and one more. Oklahoma, maybe.
August 13th, 2011 at 1:22 PM ^
the big ten would never add Pitt if the cuse was in the market.Cuse=better academics, more national exposure,NY market,and better athletic department by far.
August 13th, 2011 at 2:39 PM ^
In what world do you live in where Syracuse has better academics than Pitt? Certainly not the same one I live in.
August 13th, 2011 at 1:43 PM ^
To even be considered to join the B1G, I believe a university should have to pass what I call the "Sparty Test". Simply put, if a school cannot bring more to the B1G table than what MSU brings, they should not be added. Plain and simple.
So lets look at MSU (honestly) in the two categories that seem to matter regarding conference expansion.
Football: In general, I think you can generate a pretty good correlation between on-field football success long-term, and football attendance. Sparty averages around 73k fans for their home games, which puts them at mediocre, winning the conference title once every 15-20 years. I don't want another B1G school that draws less than 73k for their home games.
Academics: Before UNL, Sparty competed with IU for the bottom spot in the conference. I don't want another UNL academically. Whatever school we add should not be worse academically than Sparty. That is not B1G style.
And for discussion sake, I will give their hoops program some credit, but only to dispute any arguments made that we should somehow consider adding school X because they have a great hoops progam. Even if the school does have a hoops program, if their acadmics and football are below MSU, they still fail the Sparty test because MSU also has a good hoops progam.
So with all that being said, what schools out there have both better academics and football than Sparty (and can reasonably be consider for B1G membership)? The only two I can think of are ND and Texas.
ND won't join and we don't want Texas. Thus for that reason, the B1G should stay at 12.
August 13th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
To further your point, basketball simply doesn't bring in as much revenue/profit as football. I believe that UNC football actually brings in more $ than UNC basketball.
Forbes considers UNC basketball to be the most valuable basketball program in the nation at 25.9 Million. Texas football is valued at $119 Million by Forbes.
August 13th, 2011 at 2:33 PM ^
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but this is a HUGE loss for ESPN. They own deals with the SEC and the Longhorn Network. Their establisment of the Horn network basically killed themselves. If A&M goes to the SEC, the contract with ESPN and the SEC is void. I'd bet the SEC then tries to establish their own network like the Big Ten. ESPN may have just lost a TON of money.
August 13th, 2011 at 2:55 PM ^
1. Texas was planning on developing the LHN and ESPN decided to try to scoop it up because they'd rather own it then someone else.
2. The SEC contract with ESPN will not be void if the SEC adds new members. They will probably have to adjust the contract to accomodate the new arrivals because of the "look-in" clause to the contract, but this will not lead to the contract being voided under any circumstances.