Pac 12 has an espn deal so i'm sure its what espn wants them to do.
"Rodrick Williams Jr.'s 10-month old, 2-foot-long savannah monitor named "Kill" gets the RB some strange looks when they go for walks together."
Pac 12 has an espn deal so i'm sure its what espn wants them to do.
The B1G used to have an uneven number of teams, why not again? Just flip them between divisions every year or two.
They'd have to go back to one division, a total round-robin schedule, not play all of their division opponents, or play an unequal number of conference games.
If it gets rid of "Leaders" and "Legends", I'm all for it . . . . .
how about ND and TCU
TCU is far, they bring no audience or markets, and they aren't a great academic school.
So really, they bring absolutely nothing to the table for the B1G. West Virginia would be better, and that's saying something.
It looks like Ken Starr is going to have to sue every school west of the Mississippi now.
...that momentum is too great toward four, 16-team conferences. If that's the case, the Big Ten obviously needs four teams, and the academic side of things almost requires that they make a strong play for Texas. I think a lot of consideration will be given to the Nebraska people and they'll want the Sooners badly. ND just makes a lot of sense.
So, who would be the 16th team? Mizzou? Rutgers? West Virginia? Kansas?
Geographically they make no sense, and they have too much baggage. I would hate to see them in the Big 10.
Missouri does work for the Big 10, barely. They also work for the SEC, and if the Big 10 pursues a wait-and-see approach (which has gotten us a stable conference with Penn State and Nebraska as its latest additions - not too bad) we might not have them as a viable option.
I always thought Virginia Tech was a good option. Could we convince the ACC to take West Virginia in their place? Probably not. In that case, if we have to go to 16 teams, and one addition is Notre Dame, who are the other 3? It seems that there are a couple of pairs (Oklahomas and Kansases, YUK) that we would have to choose from,and without Missouri there is then Iowa State (guh), and West Virginia. In that company, I don't know how bad West Virginia looks. I dunno, maybe we could take the proceeds due from incoming schools' admission and fund the University of Chicago's re-birth. /s (just barely).
There just doesn't seem to be a lot of good options. Given the questionable viability of 16-team conferences, perhaps the best one, then, is to stand pat. I prefer that than to take given liabilities in order to get to 16 teams.
that West Virginia cuts it academically. Ditto for Kentucky, Oklahoma, OK State. These schools would never, ever, be considered.
if the situation is such that it demands 16-team conferences (due to 2nd BCS bid or a berth in a playoff), then the Big 10 has limited options, none of which are either (1) very good or (2) anywhere near realistic.
If the reasons to go to 16 teams is compelling enough, well... never, ever, say never, ever.
Besides, doesn't the most acedemically prestigeous BCS conference, the ACC, have Florida State and Clemson as members????
I guess I'd have to go down through the list school by school, however, it is my impression that the B1G is generally thought of as the premier academic and athletic conference. I would put them above the ACC.
It would be so cool if Chicago was willing to get back to big time athletics. The Cook County Championship would only have about six fans, but dammed if they wouldn't have a median income of eleventy billion dollars.
Bring back the Maroons!
It's too bad it will never happen. Chicago was my first choice school out of high school and the culture there is bordering on anti-athletics.
It would also be completely impractical given the size of the student body and alumni base, but eff it, let's renew the rivalry. On that note, I wonder if people bitched about Chicago not being the season ending game and putting OSU in its place back in the day...
Chicago was a power for a long time early in the century, and they had great tradition. Sorry you didn't get in, it really is one of the best in the country.
How big is Chicago as compared to Northwestern, Stanford, Duke and Rice? At least they are in a big city in the heart of the Big 10 to draw fans. Well one can dream.
It's about 5,000 undergrads, so slightly bigger than Wake, the smallest BCS school. Basically they would have all the problems that Northwestern has, plus no momentum.
And yea...oh well. Turns out that the program I ended up in isn't available at UChicago (or my first destination), so I don't have any idea where I would be had that worked out. Tough to take at the time, but in hindsight, Chicago, while a great place, probably wouldn't be the best place for me.
Between our return to the Big Ten in 1917 and 1935, we didn't have a consistent end of season rival. But I do wonder why Michigan and Ohio were originally placed on that date - it was clearly a conscious decision, and maybe it was because Ohio was a relative geographic outlier with Michigan the closest school to it, and that our traditional rivals (Chicago and Minnesota) had their own geographic games (Northwestern and Wisconsin). I'm not sure but it would be interesting to see what folks thought of it at the time.
Wait and see? We got Nebraska and PSU by being proactive, not reactive. We initiated the entire shakeup last year. PSU was the FIRST major independent to join a conference, spurring the other dominoes to eventually fall.
There is zero chance that we don't have a plan and that Delaney doesn't have his finger on the button. I think the plan involves watching the Big East dissolve and then offering Notre Dame refuge, then filling out the conference with the likes of Mizzou.
"proactive" towards has been Notre Dame; the Big Ten has approached them, not the other way around (at least post 1940). Two teams gained in, what, 70 years?
I may be wrong, but I was always under the impression than Penn State and Nebraska both initiated things (i.e., were the proactive ones) and approached the Big Ten and not the other way around. If that is the case, the Big Ten has been reactive, not proactive. Do you have any information that the Big Ten initiated discussions with either school?
Maybe I'm not very smart, but the combo of those 4 teams going to the PAC-12 strikes me as odd. If I'm OU or Okie State, I'm trying to escape Texas - not stay in bed with them. Might as well stay in the Big-12.
And if I'm Texas, why would I want to give up the Longhorn Network? I could be independent, still schedule the Aggies, Sooners, Huskers, whoever and probably tie-in to the BCS just like Notre Dame.
If we go to 16 team super conferences, with two BCS bids per conference, would there be any room left for TX, or ND for that matter, to get a sweetheart tie-in deal with the BCS? I agree that they both are appealing schools to BCS bowls, but more so than a champion and runner-up of a deep conference? Plus, with the advent of these conferences, are schools going to want to schedule TX for an out of conference game? Especially if all the conferences go to 9 conference games? I think TX is feeling they might get left out in the cold, and are trying to make their move now.
Why have a conference title game?
because the current system as we know won't exist
simply put, all those thinking of two 8 team divisions are going to be surprised when the Pac-16 officially announces that it will be split into four 4 team pods.
But is there a scenario where the big ten stays at 12 with 3 other 16 team conferences? I know that the idea of 16 teams is a big footprint for tv dollars, but if the footprint can't be grown with quality, the big ten would have a tie in to whatever develops just through sheer mass and reputation.
Oklahoma supposedly isn't trying to escape Texas. They're looking for stability. There's not a lot of stability when your conference will fall apart if one school leaves, especially when you know they've been looking around. Being a part of the PAC-16 with TX >>>>>>> staying in the Big XII.
Going independent is a big risk for Texas. The Longhorn network is just getting off the ground, it's in very few markets. Filling in schedules from scratch might not be that easy. It's unlikely they can schedule the Aggies and Huskers. Recruiting might take a hit when their main recruiting rivals are moving to strong conferences with better exposure. Then they need to find a home for all their other sports.
Right now Texas has options if they want to join another conference. That could change quickly if conferences go to 16.
And to think that I bought NCAA Football 12 because I wanted the new conferences...
Your title implies this is a done deal. You deserve a serious neg-bang.
your post is fucking stupid....you deserve a neg bang
Tulane is more than willing to be the new northwestern of the b10....wishful thinking
....how many hours do we have to get to the Big 12's funeral in time?
I live in Columbus and have been trying to buy a legacy jersey for over a week. All the stores are sold out and wont be getting more and mden won't get more until February. Does anyone know of any other site that has an XL #16 in stock. I would have started a thread hut can't on my phone.
Have fun shipping your athletes to Seattle, WA to play games Texas.
Austin is only 200 some miles further from Seattle than Los Angeles
The southern Pac-12 schools are ALL closer to Texas than the nearest B1G school, Illinois
Hmmm, that doesn't sound quite right.. so I checked out the air mileage.
SEA to Austin is 1,771 air miles; LA to Austin is 1,227 air miles -- so it's around 544.
Austin to ILL is 866 miles, Iowa City is 859 miles, and AA is 1,136 miles -- so less than the distance to LA. The Arizona schools are closer though.
Big picture wise, I don't think PAC or B1G make sense, just too far.
Would the big ten ever consider adding Iowa State? I know they suck, but it makes geographical sense
But not financial sense. What kind of income/exposure would Iowa St. bring?
Your right. I was just wondering. Besides ND who else is left assuming the big ten will add either 2 or 4 more teams?
As much as I would love to see Texas and it would make buying season tickets easier to swallow, I kind of like teams that are in the conference to be in the region.
your earthquake in college athletics in is room 2. Jim Delany has sent a fruit basket.
Wow, that would be big... Insane if they have both Texas and California in their recruiting/network areas...
The Big Ten stuck at 11 teams for 20 years. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO ADD ISU or RUTGERS JUST BECAUSE OTHER SCHOOLS ADD MORE TEAMS.
Please. Fucking. Stop.
There are alot of things happening in college football that nobody would have dreamed of 20 years ago. I never said I wanted ISU, but if teams are expanding to 16 + teams I don't see the big ten sitting back and getting left behind.
Left behind in what way? What would the B1G get less of with fewer teams?
Which is what this is all about.
What teams, other than UT or ND, actually add more money per team to the B1G?
Good question. I don't know for sure. But adding teams opens the possibility of more tv exposure, more bowl games, ncaa tournament appereances, etc..
What is your opinion on the big ten adding teams?
I know I am starting to hate some of the changes, but it is what it is.
You add a team if adding that team would increase/maintain the conferences prestige academically while increasing per school revenue.
My opinion: http://mgoblog.com/mgoboard/where-bigten-all-realignment#comment-1245350
Man, can we dick punch the next person that suggests any of the following in the B1G:
1. ANY BIG EAST TEAM
2. ANY Big XII team not named Texas.
It's irritating to hear things like "let's add Pitt and ISU and that'll give us just as many teams!" There's all of 4 schools that could add enough value to justify their addition:
2. Notre Dame
3/4. UNC/Duke combo pack.
Since 3/4 is NEVER HAPPENING, 2 will only happen at the end of the earth, and 1 will only come once the Pac-12 says no to LHN and the ACC also says no. Ergo, it's not happening.
The B1G isn't expanding just to have more teams. Stop thinking it's some arms race. It's not. No one wants to fucking watch Pitt play Purdue while Rutgers and Indiana battle it out. So just stop people. Just. Please. Fucking. Stop.
this is the most retarded thing ive ever seen.The B1G would NEVER add Duke and UNC. All this expansion is fueled by fball does Duke and UNC even have fball ?Bball is not enough to justify adding these schools.Not to mention they are geographically retarded.
the ACC just grabbed a bag full of shit to try and ensure that they'll have a place at the bargaining table when the whole thing is done. I'm not saying the Big 10 will bring in ISU and Cincy or whatever just because WE NEED 16, but it should be pretty obvious at this moment that everyone else is doing what it takes to make sure they're in the best possible position when the shit finally hits the fan.
You want Notre Dame? Cool, you have to bring in someone else just for alignment purposes. You don't need even numbers in a single table, but just plopping ND down in the Leaders or whatever is going to fuck with the entire system. So you have to bring in some filler... just like the SEC is talking about West Virginia and the ACC is considering Rutgers and the PAC is about to take Texas Tech.
All of this "the Big 10 doesn't have to do anything" stuff comes from the same people who were saying "16 team conferences is some shit ESPN made up, no sane person would do that". Now the moment's here and they need to cling to the denial. I don't like the direction college football is going in any more than you, Shock, but let's be pragmatic here. The people who were ranting insane shit about 4 super-conferences and freezing out the NCAA, etc. were right. The world's gone crazy.
That the B1G, the Pac-X, and the SEC were going to be part of a superconference scenario. They're in. The ACC made this play because they want to be assured they are number 4.
No scenario exists where the other 3 conferences are left out of a "new world" alignment, expansion or not.