Musing: Texas or Notre Dame as the next Big Ten Team?

Submitted by victors2000 on
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.
MGoBoard

dahblue

February 16th, 2010 at 12:35 PM ^

Look, I don't have the time or energy to explain the law/Constitution to you. Other than to note that you seem to be 100% clueless as to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, I'll just direct you to bother someone else with your ignorance. Why you can't seem to understand that the ENTIRE DISCUSSION is about what school are SIMILAR enough to join the Big Ten is beyond me. For me, public schooling is a common theme. Others see other important similar/dissimilar traits. I don't "wish" NW away, and don't make up things I didn't say. That's almost as stupid as your North Korea comment, Ms. Palin. I've gotta say, though, when arguing about the Catholic Church, you should avoid comments like "sensitive ass". Anyway, it's getting really tiring hearing about the woes of the oppressed majority. As a lawyer, I've learned not to argue with idiots or drunks...and it's a bit early for you to be drinking. All the best.

Joined: 11/09/2009

MGoPoints: 5253

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

February 17th, 2010 at 7:33 AM ^

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.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 41586

dahblue

February 17th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^

Seriously...are you retarded? What is this about "wishing" NW away??? I couldn't care less about NW being in (or out of) the Big Ten. They have never nor will they ever appear in my "wishes". Starting from scratch, yes, I would omit NW so as to be consistent in terms of public/private. Does that mean I wish it? No. It doesn't even mean that I give a shit. I am amazed that someone who is able to type can't understand that. Again, I had one simple point - a conference of secular schools shouldn't include a religious school. I see that as a difference in the same manner some see geography, academics or AAU affiliation. Why that so baffles you is beyond me. I'd waste more time on you, but since you seem not to have understood anything I've said, it's of no use.

Joined: 11/09/2009

MGoPoints: 5253

uminks

February 13th, 2010 at 5:21 PM ^

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.

Joined: 11/10/2009

MGoPoints: 31973

Don

February 13th, 2010 at 7:38 PM ^

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.

Joined: 06/30/2008

MGoPoints: 148237

Tater

February 13th, 2010 at 9:07 PM ^

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.

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

Tamburlaine

February 13th, 2010 at 9:28 PM ^

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%.

Joined: 01/30/2010

MGoPoints: 5

bigmc6000

February 14th, 2010 at 3:24 AM ^

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...

Joined: 01/12/2009

MGoPoints: 1957

brianshall

February 14th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^

I doubt either will join and as much as I would rather we bring in Pitt or Rutgers, I think the expansion seems (to me) driven by the more westerly Big 10 teams that simply don't get the love and coverage that Michigan and OSU and PSU does. I think adding Missouri would instantly create solid rivalries with Iowa, Wisconsin and Illinois. That's a plus for the conference overall.

Joined: 11/08/2009

MGoPoints: 44

The Mick

February 16th, 2010 at 11:22 AM ^

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.

Joined: 12/06/2009

MGoPoints: 240