Just a scenario, something to do because I'm bored, but say talks with Texas are going well and an invitation with acceptance appears imminent, but all the sudden talks with ND start up and they are serious. If both wanted in, who would you pick? Right now, I'd pick Texas. Just out of spite.
Musing: Texas or Notre Dame as the next Big Ten Team?
Why not both?
But out of purely geographical concerns, I'd want Notre Dame. I like symmetry and putting things where they belong and Texas is just so out of whack from traditional Big Ten locales, it just doesn't sit right to me. Plus we'd potentially get back to scheduling some interesting OOC opponents since the infinite scheduling agreement with ND would have to go out the window.
Many said that Penn State did not meet Geographically either.
They don't quite match, but you're nuts if you're equating Penn State's lack of geographical fit with Texas's. At least Penn State is a northern school. And they're closer to Michigan, Ohio State, etc. than Iowa and Minnesota are. Texas would instantly become the furthest school from each and every other Big Ten school.
True, but for Iowa/Minnesota/Wisconsin its not that different that having to travel to PSU.
Still further - in Iowa's case by a couple hundred miles, in Wisconsin's case by nearly 500.
And it's a hell of a lot worse vice versa: distance to Madison from State College is half the distance from State College to Austin.
You ever been to State College? It's not that hard. It's like 15 miles off I-80 and freeway all the way.
And teams would fly into Pittsburgh.....why?
You know State College has an airport, right?
Edit: Here, for your edification:
A Friday evening flight lasting all of 56 minutes from Lansing to University Park Airport. MSU played PSU in basketball on Saturday.
with Notre Dame
That quote is as old as Phyllis Diller and played out more than Paris Hilton's private parts jokes, but it definitely applies here.
Notre Dame has never gotten over their hatred of Fritz Crisler and Fielding Yost, and they will never join the Big Ten unless Michigan opts out.
Texas is a great choice. I have always favored Nebraska. Pitt, Rutgers, and Syracuse make me barf.
Here's a real good read by a guy who thinks outside the box. I think you'll all enjoy it:
...but his love of Syracuse is completely illogical, especially coming from someone who claims to, "...want the best for the Big Ten..."
Realistically, the only candidate significantly less attractive than Syracuse is Iowa State.
Rutgers. Way less attractive, IMO, because I think their ability to make the NYC market care about the Big Ten is way overblown.
The problem with Syracuse is that I think they'd be much less likely to come than most schools. They were all set to join the ACC, yes, but the ACC plays elite-level lacrosse.
that would be awesome, at that point you could finally get all of the big ten teams to stop playing Notre Dame and leave them to struggle to fill a halfway decent schedule.
I'd rather have Texas simply because they are prominent across a variety of sports, but geographically it would be tough. ND makes more sense for the region, but they would be an immense prima-donna with little recent success to back it up. If I'm the Big 10, I'd rather put up with the headaches associated with Texas than the mediocrity that follows ND.
Is out the wondow in today's world. Economies aside, if you look at the Big East, they go from Connecticut to South Florida. The Pac Ten from Warshington to Arizona. That's a whol lotta miles.
The money that Texas' addition to the Big Ten would bring would far outweigh any thoughts of Geography. We MUST think outside the FanBox here.
The Big 12 is not nearly a stable conference--and not nearly as stable as the Big Ten.
The distance is 1164 miles from Detroit to Austin. 1068 miles from Columbus to Austin.
In contrast, 963 miles from Tempe (ASU) to Pullman, WA (WSU) of the Pac Ten.
When have fans ever been considered in these decisions? Fans will make do. It's not like the average fan these days can really afford to drive from Lansing to Ann Arbor and shell out the four to five hundred dollars that a day for three or four would cost to attend a game.
I believe Notre Dame would accomplish everything a Texas addition would, and yes, be cheaper for fans to get to and from. But they aren't coming, and everyone else (except possibly Nebraska) pretty much represents a status quo move that would bore the rest of the country to tears, not increase the TV footprint (New York doesn't give a shit about Rutgers or Syracuse), and do nothing but add more mediocrity to a conference that is fairly heavily saddled with it already.
Travel for the team, coaches, etc would of course not be an issue. However, when you are talking about a school whose fans travel as well as Texas' does, it becomes a real issue. Instead of driving to Texas A&M, Oklahoma et. al., now they have to fly to Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Distance is still an issue, especially when talking about a school whose identity is in part associated with the amount of fans that travel to away games.
The Big 12 is not nearly a stable conference--and not nearly as stable as the Big Ten.
Do you have a source or more detailed explanation for this assertion?
Younger, worse-off academically, and less profitable. Plus some of the northern schools in the Big Twelve are unhappy with the lack of revenue sharing and the perceived (and probably true) dominance of the conference by the Texas schools and Oklahoma.
As far as younger goes, getting more stable each year. A generation of fans has now grown up thinking of Texas as a Big 12 team, not a SWC team. And academics has nothing to do with stability, or the SEC would have collapsed twenty years ago.
Missouri and Colorado both want out. If the Big Ten asks, Missouri is GONE. Then Colorado is GONE. Then what do you have? Two of the biggest three markets would be gone.
of course, if the bIg Ten chickens out and invites Pitt, all this might be for naught, but I think the Big Ten has bigger fish to fry than backwater Syracuse and Joe Pa's lil red-headed stepchild in Pittsburgh.
Academics in that the faculty and university would be open to better themselves academically as opposed to staying where they are. Do you think that Vanderbilt would leave the SEC for the Big Ten because of academics? Auburn and Ole Miss would not.
I say take notre dame... There is a reason their names keep coming up in expansion talks even though they have no interest. And that is because they are an obvious fit. I just like the identity of the midwest in the Big Ten and Notre Dame would add to that.
The reasons ND keeps coming up in expansion talks is because they are the very obvious choice.
However, they just didn't decide not to join, they slammed any idea of becomming a Big Ten member last time they were invited. And are they any less arrogant about it now? Michigan just signed a contract to play them for the next century. They play MSU and Purdue every year. They play USC every year. There simply is no incentive for ND to join--and if they can get back to any semblance of their past selves, they'll be cashing regular $12-14 million paychecks from the BCS bowl fiasco and keeping it all to themselves.
And they'll always have their own TV contract. The minute NBC opts out (and why would they?), ESPN will snatch them up as part of their ongoing effort to control the world. Yes, ND makes less than they would as part of the Big Ten (and the Big Ten would become more marketable with them--increasing money), but they seem to be very shortsighted on this one and the time is now or never. I don't see them joining the Big Ten.
Now, one idea that could be possible is the Big Ten has floated this 12-18 month thing as a way of saying to ND that the rubber is about to meet the road, and it looks like there is no shortage of colleges waiting to jump. Force their hand a bit more, so to speak.
But I see notre Dame as happy with their position--albeit somewhat delusional--and also happy as a cultural icon. They won't say yes.
It's time to move on, and the Big Ten should shock the world and offer Texas. It's a no lose. There will be no public invite unless they KNOW there will be an acceptance of the ring.
The one part that is incorrect is the BCS money. They now can only accept what any other team can take. In the grand scheme they technically *could* make more since they would not split it within a conference, but on the other hand, the revenue sharing should be more, especially if two Big 10 teams go to a BCS bowl, which happens somewhat frequently.
If we bring A&M and OU with them. That'd be a 14 team super conference to end all conferences. A&M might suck at football but their non-football teams are very good and translate well into the Big Ten getting top points in the Directors Cup. I posed this to a few UT and A&M alums and they all liked (those two groups NEVER agree on anything). With the divisions split up in a way such that the 4 closest schools to DFW (a good average for the three schools) would join OU, UT and A&M. So - Iowa, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, OU, UT, A&M in the South or whatever you want to call it and OSU, UM, MSU, PSU, UW, Northwestern and Minnesota in the North. Football wise you it might be a little heavy on the north side of things but basketball wise it's heavy on the south side of things. You'd have 6 division games, 1 guaranteed rivalry and 1 rotating game and 4 non-conference or you could have 2 guaranteed games, 1 rotating and 3 non-conference. Either way I like it.
If we can't get OU & A&M to go with we might as well go w/ ND because having the 1 outlier in Texas just doesn't make any sense.
All teams in the Big10 are in the AAU. While Texas and A&M meet this criteria, OU does not. Unless something happens, or this is no longer a requirement for membership, OU will not be joining the Big10.
ND is also not in the AAU, and would require 3/4 of the member universities to accept them. This has been said to be a big hurdle to their joining the conference. Schools that have been tossed out there and are in the AAU include Maryland, Mizzou, Nebraska, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, UT and A&M.
Use talks with Texas to give an ultimatum to ND. Hopefully, ND coalesces and becomes the 12th team.
Adding Texas to the Big Ten would be a bad move, IME. They're the big shots of the Big 12, and they'd want similar status here. They don't want to share the stage with us, OSU, and Penn State, especially considering that they'd be fighting for the 2nd BCS spot.
I don't understand how ND would feel pressure at all, one way or the other. a B10 with 10, 11, 12 or 16 teams doesn't differentially affect them in any way that i can see.
Texas needs to stay out of the Big Ten.
Texas is good, but playing at the Big House, Horseshoe, Camp Randall, and Happy Valley is a little different than playing AM, and Oklahoma State and Oklahoma in Dallas every year.
In terms of travel distance? Home field/crowd advantage? Quality of the cheerleaders and/or co-eds?
He's saying that it is much harder to play in the 'Shoe, Happy Valley, Camp Randall, the Big House etc. but A&M, and Nebraska are difficult to play at also.
In terms of I'd love to see them freeze on their October/November road games up to Madison, Minneapolis, or Ann Arbor.
Ehh it can be pretty cold in the Big Twelve North during those months too.
Personally I think Texas should be added and the conferences that dominate college football should stop giving benefits to Notre Dame, treat them like any other independent and therefore force them to ultimately join the Big East.
Texas should come, and as for geographical sense, Boston College plays Miami, Washington plays Arizona, USF plays Syracuse, and on and on and on. Distance is pretty much a non-factor.
I have the same feeling about Notre Dame as you. But, if they wanna join, I'm not gonna be TOO upset.
you may have been negged because your argument that ND shouldn't join holds no weight. The first point in your argument is that the Big Ten is a conference with just one private school. What does this mean? Do you want to keep the private-to-public ratio the same? Do you think that the number of private schools should only be 1 per conference? Also, you argue that ND is religious. So what? Why doesn't a religious school belong? I think people on this board value opinions, yes, but well-supported and logical ones.
No no no no no.
Geographically dissimilar means something: travel costs.
Academically dissimilar means something: Presidents care about this.
Lots of schools in the Big Ten aren't like any other. Northwestern is the only private school. Should we kick them out?
If Morgan State tried to join the Big Ten, and the Big Ten rejected them and said the reason for this was because the Big Ten doesn't allow black schools, the Big Ten would be roasted over the coals and rightfully so. That has nothing to do with the practical reasons (revenue, strength of athletics, strength of academics, etc.)
Your response not only holds no weight, it's also discriminatory.
The University of Notre Dame builds an atmosphere of trust among its students, faculty, and staff. Although unwavering in its Catholicism, the University requires no particular belief of its community members and asks only that all be willing to appreciate and nurture the University’s mission.
Honestly, you can't be serious: "I want a Big Ten open to all, therefore no religious schools allowed." Yes, it's discriminatory, not to mention contrary and borderline hypocritical. Notre Dame, as with 99.9% of religiously-operated schools in the country, doesn't discriminate based on religious affiliation or require any kind of religious participation any more than the public schools do. Guess what: they don't even ask your religious affiliation on the application form. You can be Muslim, atheist, or sun-worshipping and go to Notre Dame. You have just as much religious freedom at Notre Dame as at Michigan.
Given this, the only possible remaining religious reason for you to want Notre Dame out of the Big Ten is an exclusionary and discriminatory one. You're not pro-religious freedom, you're anti-religion.
P.S.: The motto of the University of Wisconsin is, "God, our Light", and Northwestern's is a verse from the King James Bible.
P.P.S.: Given that the Big Ten has already tried to invite Notre Dame, I don't think the university presidents care about the school's religious affiliation like you claim they do.
And what's special about the Big Ten that has turned you into an anti-religion zealot? What threat to you do they pose? Is your religious freedom impaired in any way by their Catholicism?
Is Texas less religiously free because they associate with Baylor? Is Florida State less religiously free because they associate with Boston College and Wake Forest? Do SMU, TCU, and BYU leave a religious stain on their conferences? You know, we have laws in this country that prevent you from discriminating against religion. They're not here to to protect your sensitive ass from religion, they're here to protect religion from people like you who would deny membership for religious reasons.
So why is the Big Ten special? You might wish Northwestern away, but they're here. You might wish U of C away, since they're a private school (and were inconveniently founded by the Baptists) but you can't - there they are, associating with the Big Ten. The conference wasn't founded on some bedrock principle of public schools only, it just happened that way, and if you want freedom from religion, I suggest you move to North Korea.
Frankly, if the Big Ten were starting from scratch, I'd eliminate NW because they are private and all else are public.
I don't "wish" NW away, and don't make up things I didn't say.
Do you pretend you didn't say things in the courtroom, too?
Anyway, as I've managed to reduce your argument to four paragraphs of gibbering personal insults, you don't seem to have anything worthwhile left to say. I can't blame you for that, as you didn't start with much to begin with. When the facts on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; when neither is on your side, pound the table; isn't that how it goes? Your table has taken such a beating you've forgotten to deny or refute anything I've said except for the part about wishing Northwestern away - which was a lie.
Well then you suggest why you're getting negged. I didn't do it.
they would be bitch-in all the time about our conference. I'd rather just keep that arrogant school out of our conference. Texas would be a bit geographically displaced but I would welcome them to the conference. I was hoping Nebraska would want to join, at least they are still in the Midwest! Mizzou is too small of a school and wouldn't make a good fit.
Yeah, you make perfect sense when you hope the school with 22,000 students will join because the one with 30,000 is too small for your tastes.
Any school that joins the B10 will be a complete conference member in all athletic sports, not just football. Right now the longest road trip in the B10 is PSU to Minny, which is well over 800 miles, with a large portion of the road trips overall in the conference less than half that distance. I don't how often the various athletic teams for men and women take the bus, but it's at least feasible for the shorter trips. The trip from PSU to Austin is about 1500 miles or so, and a road trip from any existing B10 school to Austin is by far the longest in the conference for them. So that means not only the football team but all the other non-revenue sports are faced with travel distances and times that are significantly longer than anything currently in the conference. To dismiss the issue of transportation/fuel costs is very short-sighted, as it is to ignore the impact on the students in terms of increased time away from campus. It's easy for us to blithely dismiss these issues since we're not athletic directors, but I'm pretty sure that guys like Brandon—who has to watch the bottom line every day—sure as hell doesn't.
Commercial jets fly somewhere between 500 and 600 mph. Counting boarding, snafus, etc, that's a little over four hours to get to Austin on a direct flight. It really doesn't require an extra day or anything. A few hours each way is negligible.
As for fuel costs, the ROI is pretty good for major sports, but not so good for things like golf, gymnastics, etc. I think Texas would bring enough money into the conference to offset any increase in costs that they would cause.
You are right about the money Texas would bring to the conference.
One thing I've heard about the Pittsburgh argument is the opening up of Pennsylvania as a recruiting ground to the Big Ten.
Uh, ever hear of Texas? Prolly sends more players to D1 football than Ohio and Pennsylvania combined. Now THAT'S a recruiting ground opening up if ever there was one.
And talk about games between Texas and UM, PSU, OSU???Holy shit. That puts the Iliad to shame as far as epic battles week in and week out.
And Texas won't--and doesn't need to--bring A&M and Oklahoma with them. Oklahoma and Nebraska would be just fine with being the Big Fish in that pond, and A&M would probably jump up a notch in importance to the remnants of the Big 12 left over after Texas signs on with the Big Ten.
I'm gonna call my shot right here: Texas to the Big Ten: 67% chance of it happening.
Chance of OU and NU coming with them? Well, now that I think of it--and if all those egos can be stroked--44%.
So you think Texas would come but OU and A&M wouldn't? So they would be, basically, forced into having 2 of their non-conference games w/ OU and A&M? Talk about a murder's row! Generally teams only play once BCS level opponent - you add OU and a strengthening A&M and UT would, year and year out, have the toughest non conference schedule in all of football. We need OU and A&M to come with them so UT can have out of conference games other than those two. As Brian said - the Texas legislature (and the fans themselves IMO) would go ape sh!t...
I'd prefer Notre Dame over Texas if only one team was added to the Big Ten. If however Texas brought along two other teams from the B12 like Nebraska, Texas A&M, Oklahoma or Missouri, and thus Texas making more sense in the Big Ten geographically, I'd take Texas of Notre Dame any time.