Potential Big Ten Expansion
This comes up every once in a while, and I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts. Personally, I've always like Syracuse and Missouri. I remember Brian's post on the subject from a while back effectively called both "meh", but they're the closest things to perfect fits outside of Notre Dame.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:31 PM ^
would had made the most sense but the Big Ten Commisioner is an idiot. so i think when NBC's and ND TV contract runs out ND should be puut into BT.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:36 PM ^
Doesn't the BCS exemption that ND has make this even harder to get them in the B10? I think they will eventually be in the B10, but who knows when that is.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:34 PM ^
IIRC, the perfect team (not taking geography in account) was Texas. Either Brian or a journalist wrote that. I don't know if they'd leave the Big 12 but it was an interesting point. I always thought Pitt was a legit suggestion or Iowa St. since Iowa is already in. I always wondered about Vandy since they're a clone of NW, and they aren't too far out of Big 10 country. I think if you look at a map it's Mizzou, Kentucky, Pitt. Academics: Vandy and Syracuse. Athletics (revenue earning): Texas, WVU and Louisville. Best overall options: Texas, Virginia, Pitt (maybe) and Vanderbilt.
I'm guessing though.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:42 PM ^
virginia and texas seems 100% unlikely. i always thought maybe ND but they love their money and their own tv channel too much so i thought that the likeliest choices were iowa st or pitt. but what about maybe a big east team like cincinnati
November 28th, 2008 at 6:46 PM ^
Yeah, I know UT an UVA are out, but they were the "ideal" candidates in the initial debates. Cincy was out because of how shitty their academics were and their lack of tradition and they aren't very good outside of basketball and football (which is only recently).
November 28th, 2008 at 7:09 PM ^
lets just get grand valley. their academics are fine and its about time they stop winning 5 national titles a year
November 28th, 2008 at 11:29 PM ^
Where does this "Big 10 iz great academics" meme come from? It seems like the ACC is far and away the best Academic conference (which is why I don't get "UVA is coming to the big 10") talk. The Pac-10 is probably roughly equivalent.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:42 AM ^
The Big 10 is the best academic conference top to bottom.
Every B10 school is ranked in the top 75 of the US News & World Report's college rankings (I know they're subjective, but it's a good starting point) and 5 are ranked in the top 50. Only the ACC has more top 50 schools with 6. The lowest ranked B10 school, Michigan State, is ranked 71st, higher than 33 of the 64 other BCS schools. Every other conference has at least three schools ranked lower than MSU. Plus the University of Chicago is still associated with the academic wing of the B10.
So, that's where it comes from.
For the record, Rice is a member of Conference USA, not the Big 12.
November 29th, 2008 at 10:16 AM ^
I guess it's better top to bottom, but the ACC fails the test almost only because Florida State is awful. The ACC has more elite academic institutions, in that they have 6 schools ranked higher than the Big 10's 3rd school (Wisconsin), and your "top 50" argument is a LITTLE mis-leading as the ACC also has #51 (Miami).
I was drunk and bored last night, and was looking at this - by far the weirdest is the Pac-10. They have 3 top-25 schools (Stanford, Berkley, UCLA) a fourth on the fringe (USC) and a fifth solidly in the 40's (Washington). Then they have both Arizona schools, Oregon, and Washington St. far down in the 100's, and Oregon State not even ranked. About 2/3 of the Big East isn't even ranked in the "top tier". People rag on the SEC, but at least the entire conference made "Tier 1" - the Big East and the Big 12 aren't even close.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:24 PM ^
You'd think Oregon would be better.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:44 PM ^
Why hell would Texas leave the comfort of the south to play in the cold rain in Nov. Dec. in the north? Just doesn't make sense.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:59 PM ^
They were perfect for the B10, not to say that the B10 was perfect for them.
December 1st, 2008 at 4:23 PM ^
I think you are selling Syracuse short geographically. Syracuse is roughly the same driving distance from Ann Arbor as Iowa City is, much closer than Minneapolis is, and barely further than Madison is. It's only about 100 miles further than the current longest distance between schools (Penn State and Minnesota) and by air it's actually closer. Plus it would be somewhat of a natural fit because the most popular football programs aside from Syracuse in western New York are actually two Big Ten teams: Michigan and Penn State.
December 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 AM ^
Pitt fucking sucks fucking ass. They're a bush league team with ketchup bottle end zones lined with lies about their 9 "national championships," sung to the tune of "Sweet Caroline." I'd rather any other team join the B10.
Pitt sucks like, 40 dicks.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:35 PM ^
ND is the obvious choice but they'll never do it because of the $$$$ situation.
Short of having ND join, Missouri does seem like a great choice given their location. Rutgers makes sense too.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:04 PM ^
I don't get why Missouri would make more sense than Syracuse based on location? Syracuse makes more sense based on location and alignment of divisions (i.e. either east-west or north-south).
December 5th, 2008 at 10:32 AM ^
I gotta keep saying it: Missouri does not even vaguely fit the academic standard. They would be the poorest academic school in the conference by an order of magnitude. Syracuse makes more sense than Rutgers - it's closer, has better sports programs, and a better academic reputation.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:35 PM ^
would also be a good fit.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:41 PM ^
You're a poet.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:45 PM ^
Until you start posting in iambic pentameter.
November 28th, 2008 at 6:55 PM ^
I mean it.
November 28th, 2008 at 7:57 PM ^
Anybody want a peanut?
November 28th, 2008 at 8:05 PM ^
I really like Missouri. I have a friend at Iowa State, they suck hard.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:16 PM ^
I'm a proponent of Cincinnati. Geographically it works, they are competitive in most sports, and their facilities are up to snuff. I'm not sure I agree with the academic argument against them. 10 years ago that may have made more sense, but that school has come a long ways lately and UC has many programs, undergrad and graduate level, that are above many of the Big Ten schools. They would be near the bottom of the league, but they aren't low enough that they would be a bad fit.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:21 PM ^
I kind of have to agree with Ground Zero East Lansing. Miami is the #66 on US News & World Report. While I do admit the Report isn't the absolute saying in what universities are academically qualified, Miami probably falls in the Big10 requirements. Its athletics are a step below, but are probably a wash when compared to Northwestern.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:24 PM ^
IIRC, UBC and a few other Canadian schools are going to start playing NCAA DII in a few years. In the extreme long term one of them might make sense.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:29 PM ^
UBC has already started in Hockey I think. They don't really use their football stadium for anything other rodeo. It's a nice stadium... for small Wyoming high school. Their hockey arena is really nice though. They should have just finished it this hockey season in preparation for the winter Olympics.
November 29th, 2008 at 3:08 AM ^
UBC = U of British Columbia?
and if that is true then I have never heard of them, they definitely aren't in one of the 6 D1 hockey conferences but maybe they play D1 club?
November 29th, 2008 at 7:08 PM ^
D3 if my memory serves me correctly. I can't remember much of the details. I thought they did their first "exhibitions" last season, and had plans to petition the NCAA to start competing in 2012 (now til '12 would be probationary). I think a couple have been competing in NAIA up until this time.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:21 PM ^
Would their football team have to relearn the American rules to play?
November 28th, 2008 at 8:33 PM ^
While I would like to see the end of teams like Wisconsin tying for Big Ten championships by not playing OSU/Mich/PSU in a season, I don't really support the "split into divisions and have a championship game" model either. The only way that it makes sense is to bring in a team in the western part of the Big Ten and split the divisions like so: OSU/Mich/MSU/PSU/IU/PU would be East, Wis/Minn/Iowa/Ill/NU and the mystery addition in the West. Any other division split would not work because it would split major rivalries. This would preserve all the major ones. The problem is that the power lies in the East, leaving likely Big Ten championship games in which the Eastern division champion plays a three-loss-in-conference team from the West, and quite possibly see that three-loss-in-conference team that belongs in the Alamo Bowl wind up in the Rose Bowl based on a one-game performance.
It will never happen for monetary reasons, but I'd rather see them drop two non-conferences and play a true round robin like the Pac 10.
November 28th, 2008 at 8:38 PM ^
You only need to drop one team to play a round robin like the PAC10. I'd almost prefer this. Either NU or Iowa. They don't really offer anything to the conference generally. At least Indiana is good for basketball (generally).
And I'm not opposed to the divisions having one strong team. The Big12 already that and it seems to work just fine. Besides, is it any better for a pair of teams not have UM and OSU on their schedule and possibly go to Pasadena instead?
November 28th, 2008 at 11:00 PM ^
I hate it when the Big 10 rep didn't play either Michigan or Ohio State as well.
My point, which I could have stated better, is that you can't split Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State from the same division, which would make for plenty of championship games between one of them and ... Iowa or Illinois. It's like those years when Auburn would make the SEC Championship game and get slaughtered by Florida or Tennessee.
November 28th, 2008 at 9:37 PM ^
How the hell would THAT logo look?
November 28th, 2008 at 10:06 PM ^
It would say "THE BIG TENish CONFERENCE"
December 2nd, 2008 at 6:59 PM ^
awesome!
November 28th, 2008 at 9:39 PM ^
BIG TEN* CONFERENCE
*for exceedingly large values of 10.
November 29th, 2008 at 5:57 PM ^
It's still the Big Ten in base 12.
December 5th, 2008 at 4:09 PM ^
math snap
November 28th, 2008 at 10:26 PM ^
I say we got back to the Western Conference. Because that makes about as much sense as it did back in the day.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:08 PM ^
If the Big Ten added another school and went to divisional play I would actually like to see the divisions split North/South rather than East/West. Let's say the added team is Missouri, then you split the divisions like so:
North: Minn, Wis, MSU, UM, NU, Iowa
South: PSU, OSU, Purdue, IU, Ill, Mizzou
Course we would have to include some stipulations that certain rivalries (*cough*) be allowed to continue every year.
Or they could just go crazy and assign teams to divisions willy-nilly ACC-style.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:03 AM ^
I agree with that division split, because I would hate to think that the Big10 championship couldn't come down to M and OSU. I can't decide if I think it'd be dream-like that we'd get the chance to play OSU 2 weeks in a row (final game of regular season, then Big 10 championship game) or if that'd be kind of stupid.
That scenario aside, whether it's north/south or ACC-style, a powerhouse-heavy division would take emphasis off the conference as a whole; so having UM/OSU/PSU all in an East division should rule out the east/west scenario.
I'm a bit apprehensive about having a title game, but I think the way our conference finishes out is kind of lackluster. The whole "if this..then that, but if this then that...we'll just have to wait and see" just kind of gets to me. I'd rather see the two title-contenders playing each other in any scenario.
I think if the new team were to be anyone but ND, though, the addition would've already happened. IIRC, the ND-NBC contract is up in '10, so I think the Big 10 is just waiting for then. In all honesty, ND is the team with the closest ties to the Big 10 culturally (tradition, academics and the fact that the Big 10 is always on their schedule at least twice) so I think we'll see the conference wait as long as needed to get them. And besides, with the demise of ND looming, a move to the Big 10 might be something the school needs to get a fresh taste in its mouth.
November 28th, 2008 at 11:31 PM ^
Screw conference championships. Just do a round robin and drop one of the non-cons. This would have saved us from App State and Toledo embarassments.
November 29th, 2008 at 7:19 AM ^
We would need to drop 2 games, FYI.
December 7th, 2008 at 9:47 PM ^
Or drop Northwestern and drop a non-con game. Then we could be the Big10 again.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:50 AM ^
as Brian stated,
"Maintain the CIC's high standards. The CIC is an academic consortium consisting of the Big Ten schools and the U of Chicago. It's a big deal to people, so any school admitted should have serious research going on in their grad schools and so forth and so on. Large public state schools are the preferred targets, although exceptions can be made."
this will be a concern.
insomnia leads me to this:
14. Duke University
41. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
80. University of Virginia
GT
37. University of Pittsburgh
GT
Rutgers
11. University of Michigan at Ann Arbor
28. University of Wisconsin at Madison
30. University of Minnesota Twin Cities
35. Northwestern University
40. Pennsylvania State University
48. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign
62. Michigan State University*
86. Purdue University
OSU
IU
2. Stanford University
12. University of California at Los Angeles
5. University of California at Berkeley
22. University of Washington
USC
27. University of Texas at Austin
51. University of Colorado at Boulder*
77. Texas A&M University
66. Vanderbilt University
numbers from a world top 100:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_100_Global_Universities
all others from a world top 200:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article4910798.ece
all numbered schools are listed in both, save the * which were missing from the top 200. no number == not in the 100 list. i don't think i missed any, but there ya go. the world rankings tend to discount small private schools like Rice, ND.
December 5th, 2008 at 1:54 PM ^
As much as I appreciate the time and effort it took you to compile this list, the rankings are pretty weak.
Can you tell me in what universe Michigan State is rated above Vanderbilt and UVA.
I would say use the US News & World Report.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:37 AM ^
The current by-laws of the conference stipulate that any school joining the Big Ten must be within or adjoining a current Big Ten state.
November 29th, 2008 at 12:49 AM ^
rice, of course....