Expansion Buzz from Tom Dienhart

Submitted by TheDarkKnight on
"Big Ten expansion buzz has league adding Mizzou, Nebraska, Pitt, Rutgers and Syracuse and splitting into four, four-team divisions."

"The Big Ten divisions: Syra, Pitt, Rut., Penn St.--Mich., Wisc., Mich. St., Mnn.--Ohio St., Pur., IU, Ill./North.--MU, Iowa, Neb., Ill./NU."

Rudy31

April 29th, 2010 at 1:03 PM ^

If I understand this correctly, that means that we will not be playing Ohio State every year, only on a rotation with the other divisions?  Yeah, that's not going to fly.

artds

April 29th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^

That's not necessarily true. You can't really infer from what was posted how many conference games each team would be playing, and either way, it's unlikely there won't be some sort of provision for rivlary games.

TheDarkKnight

April 29th, 2010 at 1:07 PM ^

There is no way OSU wouldn't automatically be on our schedule. That's only 3 conference games in your division, so there are 5 others to be filled. I'd guess there would be one locked-in opponent for us and the other 4 would rotate. Not sure how it would work logistically, but I see no way that the B10 would ever do away with UM/OSU on an annual basis

topgun161

April 29th, 2010 at 1:04 PM ^

2 pretty competitive divisions and 2 divisions dominated by 1 team (at least from a footabll standpoint). I don't like this configuration at all.

artds

April 29th, 2010 at 1:12 PM ^

I don't see what the problem is with a 12-team, 2-division conference with a conference championship game.

Why do we have to add 5 teams? Where's the value in that?

exmtroj

April 29th, 2010 at 1:21 PM ^

Well, being that it is the modern era, we have to make sure that we make everything as excessive and nonsensical as we can in order to generate more revenue.  On the bright side, if the conference shares this added revenue, we might be able to stave off advertisements in the Big House a little longer.

Njia

April 29th, 2010 at 7:19 PM ^

Someone else posted that cake > pie, and I'm willing to go with that, in many cases. Well, except for Thanksgiving, when only pumpkin, apple and pecan really do it for me. Oh, and my birthday, because I really like peach pie and peach cobbler.

And I can get behind a bigger cake with room for more slices any day. The question is whether you'd like a bigger cake, but the same number of slices. That way, each slice is bigger. Kind of a Marie Calender's thing.

joeyb

April 29th, 2010 at 1:44 PM ^

 

You have to keep in mind that this whole thing is based on increasing revenue through BTN. Adding 5 more teams adds more games each week for the BTN to cover. Adding Missouri increases viewers in Kansas City and St. Louis. Adding Rutgers and Syracuse is aimed at getting the entire view base in NY, specifically NYC. Pitt doesn't add much in terms of viewers, but it adds another quality team, renews the rivalry between them and PSU and gets us to 16 teams.

exmtroj

April 29th, 2010 at 1:16 PM ^

Maybe it's just me, but I don't like the possibility if re-matching with OSU in the Big Ten title game.  I realize it would mean a ton of revenue for the conference,but I really think it takes away a lot of the signifigance of the regular season meeting.  If we both enter the last game of the year having locked up a title game berth, then who really cares about the game?  We'll get a rematch in a week or two.  I think UM and OSU need to be in the same division, like Texas and Oklahoma are in the Big 12.  That kept their rivalry fresh and heated because they know they only have one crack at each other every year.

artds

April 29th, 2010 at 1:29 PM ^

I agree. The prospect of UM and OSU playing each other in a title game every so often, as cool as it sounds, does not outweigh keeping the rivaly "fresh and heated" by limiting the teams to 1-shot at each other every year.

On a related note, if through some strange course of events Notre Dame ends up joining the conference, then we're either going to have to leave open the possibility of playing 1 of our 3 rivals more than once a year, or they're going to have to put all 4 of us in the same division.

Tater

April 29th, 2010 at 1:47 PM ^

Any format that expands the geographic area will help make it easier to recruit the new areas.  Rutgers and Syracuse might not help football a lot, but they would make it a lot easier to recruit the NY/NJ/Philly areas for basketball.  Mizzou and Nebraska would help a little with football. 

I would still rather see ND in there, though. 

exmtroj

April 29th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^

There's a pretty good article on Big Ten expansion by the always awesome Austin Murphy in this week's Sports Illustrated.  He throws out a few different possible scenarios, definitely worth a look.

michiganfanforlife

April 29th, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^

that expansion of the Big 10(16) Network into new states will have a positive effect on our recruiting. It will happen right as we are rising back to the top in college football. Everyone will want to be the next Denard Robinson after he goes ballistic on the conferece this year. Michigan will become a factory for dual threat QB's (it's already starting to happen).

BigWeb17

April 29th, 2010 at 6:13 PM ^

I was talking with friends when RR came aboard and I pretty much said the same thing! I said wait until he turns over the roster with his kids...I actually said 2011 would be an outstanding yr to be a wolverine fan.  All in for Michigan here in Roscoe Illinois.  Dual threat QB's will line up to make a run for BCS bowls in the very near future.

exmtroj

April 29th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^

I don't think the dual-threat QB itself is anything new or fancy in the Big Ten (Darryl Clark, Troy Smith, Juice Williams,  TP), I think it's the offense that Coach Rod runs.  It just seems more creative and versatile than the other "spread" hybrids that PSU, OSU, and Illinois have run.  I love that we have a spread offense that runs more than it throws and goes to a ton of short bubble screens and swing passes to keep everything open.  I've always thought that in Rich Rod offenses, the system makes the players stars, not vice versa.