Expansion...going to happen...but is it good for MICHIGAN?

Submitted by M-Wolverine on

We've all been caught up in the exciting nature of positioning to get the best teams, and it's going to happen, and it's important we come out of it the best we can.  But ultimately, how does it help Michigan, other than financially, and how does it hurt it?

I mean, Nebraska makes the conference tougher.  Texas would make it a lot tougher.  ND would probably help us, because we play them anyway, so everyone else might as well have to also.  If we round it out with all good teams...and no Rutgers level squads, how hard does it become to win the conference?  To get the bowl berth (whether it be the Rose or a Championship playoff)?

And what about the other sports? Would a Texas come in and dominate Baseball...or would it force teams to up their game and raise the whole level of the conference?  Basketball...how will it shift? Will conference splits be in our favor, or make it tougher?

Recruiting...will it open up new areas to us, or open up our areas to others?

There are a lot of factors, and I've seen every rumor, every analysis of every team...but have we thought how it will affect Michigan?  How will it make us better?  How will it make us worse? Are we going to be happy with a big 4..or 5...or 6...instead of the old big 2?  We've talked about Rich Rod running off 10 straight Big Ten titles and 5 National Championships starting in 2011...but can we lower our standards if the conference gets way tougher?  Or are we going to still want to win more than anybody in what could end up the toughest conference in the country by far?

There a lot of ways this will affect Michigan, and we can't change it.  But we can discuss what might be the results.  

TrppWlbrnID

June 11th, 2010 at 2:34 PM ^

it only affects Michigan in that they get more money.  but so do all of their competition and rivals in the conference.  so i don't really think that it helps Michigan more or less than any other B10 teams, but it helps B10 teams more than it helps B12, BEast or SEC teams.

Shaqsquatch

June 11th, 2010 at 2:35 PM ^

Bigger recruiting footprint, increased television revenue, more varied schedule, more BCS bids, and a more respectable conference. Yes, this is good for us.

Bosch

June 11th, 2010 at 2:36 PM ^

Michigan won't be any more disadvantaged than any other program in the conference.  To be the best you have to beat the best. 

a2bluefan

June 11th, 2010 at 2:47 PM ^

Michigan should never be afraid of, or worried about, playing anyone at any time in any sport.

People have been clamoring for better OOC opponents in football for years. Now that it's looking like some of those teams people wanted to play are gonna be our opponents year in and year out, you're worried over how much tougher it's gonna be?  Seems a little hypocritical to me.

Personally, I welcome the challenge with open arms. Plus, it'll be nice to have another team or two in the conference that can kick Ohio State's ass on occasion.

oldblue

June 11th, 2010 at 2:50 PM ^

it will ruin, forever, the beauty of playing OSU in the last game of the season and having it matter more than any game almost every year.  No matter how they do it, the impact of this game, and thus its soul, will be lessened.  I wish we could throw out Northwestern (I'd really like to throw out MSU, but that seems a bit far fteched) and go back to 10.

MGoDC

June 11th, 2010 at 3:17 PM ^

I propose a 4 team conference including Michigan, Ohio State, Delaware State U, and the Flint Michigan Tropics.

Week 1: Tropics vs UM, OSU vs. DSU

Week 2: DSU vs UM, Tropics vs OSU

Week 3: DSU vs Tropics, and MOST IMPORTANT GAME OF THE CONFERENCE SEASON UM vs. OSU

shorts

June 11th, 2010 at 2:53 PM ^

We have to rethink the way we look at college football schedules. In a world of 16-team superconferences, the competition is going to be EXTREME in all of them. Just look at the proposed Pac-16: Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon ... that's insane.

We're not gonna see many undefeated teams anymore -- there'll probably be several high-level one- or two-loss teams that are deserving of a shot at the national title in most seasons.

As for recruiting, I think growth into any new parts of the country (especially Texas) would be beneficial for everyone in the conference. More exposure in those parts means more likelihood of landing recruits and competing at a high level against everyone else in the country (read: SEC).

It's hard to say how baseball will be affected, but as for football, you're right -- no team will be winning five or six straight conference titles anymore. But that'll be the norm. The landscape will just be a little different.

outwest

June 11th, 2010 at 3:29 PM ^

I have wondered how much expansion will help teams with recruiting.  I totally understand the increased exposure, but it seems like more and more kids are wanting to stay closer to home. 

From watching the Under Armor games and National Signing Day, the 'staying close to home' reason for picking a school seems to be very common.  It will be very interesting to see how recruiting is improved with the new conferences.

strafe

June 11th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^

Seriously. My dream schedule is like, Alabama/Florida/Georgia/Texas/USC/Oregon/OSU/etc.

At night.

All year long.

Adding really good teams is one step closer to making this dream come true. Will it be harder to win the Big 1(twelve)0 with more good teams in it? Of course. WIll I be 1000x more emotionally invested and excited everytime I walk into the Big House? Double yes.

MGoDC

June 11th, 2010 at 3:22 PM ^

If you saw my Charleston Southern 2013 Schedule, I believe the plan is to have 12 elite teams all play each other (meaning 11 tough games each) with the 12th game for each coming on a separate week of Charleston Southern's schedule.

expatriate

June 11th, 2010 at 3:05 PM ^

I can see two ways this could all be better for Michigan. 

1) if you have a watered down conference with Syracuse/Rutgers/Maryland football added that would more than offset the addition of Nebraska, Michigan football would be more successful.

2) (and possibly more interesting) if Notre Dame joins that would free up another nonconference opponent who we could choose, be it a tomato can or a legitimate contender.  I am not a huge fan of Notre Dame joining the Big Ten but it would give Michigan some more scheduling flexibility.

However, at the end of the day it shouldn't matter.  Be it the WAC or the SEC, Michigan should be able to contend.  We have the resources, and hopefully with Dave Brandon we will have the leadership and management to turn Michigan back into an elite athletic program.

I heard DB speak the other day to myself and my colleagues (development staff), and he said that he asked himself before he took the job whether Michigan was still among the elite athletic programs in the country, on par with USC, Texas, Ohio State (yes he made sure to mention they were ahead of us), Florida, and others.  He said that he couldn't say that we were anymore, and he knows he has a lot of work to do.  But that's beside the point.

Hannibal.

June 11th, 2010 at 3:23 PM ^

Whether this is good for Michigan is really debatable.  Additional revenue will be split 12 ways, and Nebraska doesn't bring much as far as population and talent base.  Once you split the conference championship game up 12 ways, you're probably talking less than 2% of Michigan's athletic budget.  National appeal for the conference definitely improves.  Bowl tie-ins will improve, due to the Nebraska name.  Scheduling may get more entertaining, depending upon what happens with the ND series.  But now, scheduling will become even more unbalanced than it is now.  The Big Ten's two divisions will be badly unbalanced, barring some kind of crappy gerrymandering arrangement.  The huge winners here are Jim Delaney and Nebraska.  I would throw in Iowa too, since they just picked up a potentially great rival.  For everyone else, it's maybe a slight gain, but not much more.