Report Big 10 expanding by 3 to 5 teams
Rumors of who might join the league have come fast and furious in the last four months and included Notre Dame, Texas, Pittsburgh and Rutgers along with other schools. It now appears that the Big Ten may take on three or five schools to bring its total number to 14 or 16.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2010/04/big-…
this all starts to sound a bit like Milo Minderbinder bombing the airstrip in Catch-22.
what's good for the syndicate is good for the country...
+1 for referencing one of the best books ever (that wasn't written by Kurt Vonnegut)
...is apt.
Dah! No one even cares about Rutgers in Piscataway much less the city.
Go to Madison Square Garden during the Big East Tournament and then tell me who New York's college team is... and it's the same one that the Empire State Building was lit orange and blue.
...is the pick (or one of the picks), nor am I advocating for them. What I'm saying is that if RU is selected, it's because the Conference's due diligence indicates their inclusion will significantly increase BTN's NYC market penetration (for football - not basketball). RU falls short in almost every objective category other than that. Tater's rumination about the meaning of RU support in the online poll answers itself. NYC market team beats out the obvious answer ND. Why? Because they're in the NYC market.
the Big Ten adds two or four teams instead of the more logical choices of one, three, or five. This would give it perfect imbalance; a seven & six team division...or...a seven and eight team division.
Thats a joke right?
I just can't see them opting for 16, for non-athletic reasons. The B10 members are (inordinately?) proud of the academic standing of the conference, and there are relatively few AAU members who are feasible geographically, remotely likely to leave their existing conference, and competitive academically. Do the presidents/chancellors in Ann Arbor, Madison, Urbana-Champaign, and Evanston really want to add a bunch of schools that would be at or near the bottom academically as of their joining date?
I would bet that the conference is going to be very, very careful about who they extend invitations to—the last thing they want is the embarrassment of being turned down after all the work they put in formulating an offer. The bad taste of ND's refusal has to linger still. My money's still on expanding to 12 and no further, but I guess I wouldn't be shocked if they went to 14. At least there wouldn't be a naming conflict with other conferences.
All of these stories seem like page hit bait to me. Like that story in the obscure Kansas newspaper that said that Texas, Baylor, and Texas A&M might be joining the Big Ten.
The Big Ten barely makes sense as a 14-16 team league for football, and it makes immensely LESS sense for every other sport.
I mean, we've already got a scheduling situation in basketball where Michigan doesn't even play Michigan State twice a season from time to time. This is going to be a total trainwreck with a mega-conference model, even with divisions.
Dislike.
Be lucky to get an invitation to join the Big Ten.
with a season ending Big 10 championship = big pay day for schools
This would just flat out suck. Nothing more to say.
As a Syracuse alum, we would go to the Big Ten. Not even a question.
The idea of Rutgers makes my head asplode. Syracuse outdraws them even in Piscataway. Their football program still has never finished higher than third in the Big East. The only reason they've even been bowl eligible finally after 100 years is that they only play baby seals.
Oh yeah, and Rutgers hasn't beaten SU in any single sport this year. Including football, where we blew them out 31-13.
Pitt isn't getting an invite before ND or Syracuse. They don't add anything to the Big Ten footprint that Penn State hasn't already delivered. The only thing they contribute is rivalries with Penn State, Notre Dame, and Syracuse (academically, they're also another strong school with a great research program).
In the end, I think it will be Notre Dame, Syracuse, Pittsburgh for a 14-team league, add Missouri and Rutgers if the Big Ten goes megatron to 16 teams.
The Big Ten already has St. Louis in its sphere of influence (a term I love to apply to collegiate sports for no reason). Adding Kansas would add Kansas City, which covers the important parts of Missouri anyway. Meanwhile, Kansas offers a top tier basketball team and Missouri offers a mid-level basketball and mid-level football team. Kansas' national profile trumps Mizzou's imo.
I don't see Nebraska or Kansas as serious candidates. This has everything to do with new TV sets that will now receive the Big Ten Network as added to their local cable systems.
Let's assume that Kansas delivers every TV set in Kansas and Missouri. Kansas City is the 31st largest media market in the US. Upstate New York has a larger media market, neglecting even NYC, than the Kansas City metro area.
If you assume every person in Nebraska, Kansas, and Missouri has a TV set, that's far less than half of New York State. If you add in New Jersey, that's three times as many as all three states combined, which is incredibly conservative to think you're going to add every TV set in say Nebraska and Missouri for adding Kansas.
There is only one logical place for the Big Ten to expand to for increasing revenue to make this worthwhile and it's the tri-state area and Notre Dame.
Texas is not leaving the Big 12. 1) They've said they're not interested in the Big Ten, 2) They'd be forced to take Texas A&M with them which is another cut so you're effectively degrading what Texas brings in revenue-wise since they share the same footprint, and 3) The Texas Tech and Baylor reps would scream, just like what happened in Virginia to force UVa to get VT into the ACC.
Advertising accounts for approximately 60% of the BTN's income. Nebraska football and Kansas basketball are both boons to this source of income as they are both big draws. Meanwhile, Syracuse is a valid choice because they can draw fans for basketball (and football if they ever get good again). Rutgers, however, is not a valid chice unless they can deliver New York, which I personally doubt unless they come with Syracuse.
In my opinion, anyway. I could live with 3. But 5? Seems like too many. Unless those 5 are something along the line of ND, Texas, Nebraska, Missouri, and Pitt, who are all pretty big names, I think it actually dilutes the conference more than adding to it.
TV money is a huge factor in this. I did not realize how much money the Big Ten made in advertising alone. This guy's blog has been on the forefront of this. Smart fellow, he. I do believe Brian linked to him once.
http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/the-value-of-expansion-can…
There is going to be a serious domino effect if the Big Ten moves to 14 or 16 teams. I think that the SEC is going to try and match whatever the Big Ten does. And if it looks like Big 12 is starting to fall apart a team like Colorado will try and move to the Pac 10. And then the ACC will likely try and raid whatever is left of the Big East.
Lets say the Big 10 adds 5 teams (Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Notre Dame, and either Pittsburgh or Syracuse). Then I see the SEC moving and inviting Florida State, Miami, Oklahoma, and Virginia Tech (though they could be forced to take Oklahoma State for political reasons). Colorado will not want to stick around a Big 12 conference that is crumbling and will jump to the Pac 10 with Utah. Then the ACC will have to decide if they want to simply replenish their teams or go up to 14. They probably add UConn, South Florida, and either Louisville. (if they want to go 14 they could also go after WVU and Rutgers). The Big 12 probably makes up for their lost teams by going after teams like TCU, Houston, BYU etc. And the remaining Big East teams probably join Conference USA.
I believe now more than ever that ND will be joining the B10. I think Swarbrick's statements a couple weeks ago set himself up perfectly for this scenario, now if they join he can just throw his hands up and say they had no choice.
and apparently not just opposing but strongly and vehemently opposing. I don't have any direct connection to SU nor do I know anybody from there, but from what I've read Boeheim swings a lot of weight on campus, which makes a move to the B10 far from a sure thing, regardless of the extent of the B10's interest.
Disclosure: I am a Syracuse alum and view the world with orange colored glasses, with a second set that are maize.
Syracuse is entirely on-board with a move to the Big Ten. Our athletic director Daryl Gross was interviewed tonight on the local news in Syracuse.
Boeheim is on record as not liking the move, but the financial considerations make it a no-brainer.
Daryl Gross has actually been actively positioning Syracuse for the Big Ten. Our non-conference schedule of Northwestern, Penn State, and Minnesota was no coincidence, nor additional games scheduled recently with Iowa, Illinois, and Ohio State (OSU backed out).
Then there's this...
SUAthletics.com
New York City
And then there's after we beat UNC at Madison Square Garden last year
Syracuse at Rutgers (Rutgers isn't even Piscataway's team)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHY4vduNoRo
Syracuse vs. Pittsburgh at Madison Square Garden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdLDEN1Txow
If the Big Ten wants the New York market, we're the best option.
New York City
And then there's after we beat UNC at Madison Square Garden last year
Syracuse at Rutgers (Rutgers isn't even Piscataway's team)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHY4vduNoRo
Syracuse vs. Pittsburgh at Madison Square Garden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdLDEN1Txow
If the Big Ten wants the New York market, we're the best option.April 19th, 2010 at 11:21 PM ^
Do we really need another block S in the Big Ten?
April 19th, 2010 at 11:30 PM ^
Unlike Sparty, ours has appeared in BCS bowls in the last 20 years...
April 19th, 2010 at 10:21 PM ^
...the voting process for Big Ten expansion.
According to the Big Ten's bylaws, an institution first must apply for admission to the league's Council of Presidents/Chancellors. The COP/C then votes, and it takes 70 percent of the council, or eight of the 11 members, to approve the candidate for admission to the league. So a candidate doesn't need to earn a unanimous vote to be admitted to the Big Ten, as is the case in the Pac-10.
April 19th, 2010 at 11:22 PM ^
Expand by 2 teams, play a round robin. 13 teams means 12 games per team. No OOC cupcakes. It makes so little sense that it's genius.
April 20th, 2010 at 10:37 AM ^
New York Times article today, comments from Boeheim and former SU AD Jake Crouthamel.
NY Times
April 20th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^
From that NYT article, I think that something along the lines of what Jake Crouthamel, former Syracuse AD, predicts will eventually come to fruition:
Eventually, Crouthamel said he saw the Big Ten, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference and the Pacific-10 forming four 16-team superconferences and leaving the umbrella of the N.C.A.A. (Just imagine the fight between the SEC and the Pac-10 for Texas.) He said that those leagues would form their own basketball tournament to rival the N.C.A.A. tournament. “If you look at the history of what’s been going on for the last decade, I think it’s leading in that direction,” he said.And just because the WAC coulnd't make it as a 16-team league, doesn't mean the brighter minds of the Big Ten won't be able to figure out the logistics.