UConn to Big 10? [Note: Speculation]
From this post of Brian's I found these gems:
UConn
PROs: Killer basketball program. Would expand the Big Ten into some new England media markets.
CONs: Football program remains fledgling. About as much of a geographic fit as Nebraska.
Verdict: Meh. They're like Louisville except their football team hasn't proven anything yet.
West Fuckin' Virginia
PROs: Darling of the moment with Rich Rodriguez staying, and if he turns down 'Bama's millions he's probably in for the long haul. Will have a good, if sleazy, basketball team with Huggins around.
CONs: Isn't WVU a really crap school? Huggins should be a net negative. Football program has strong flash-in-the-pan characteristics.
Verdict: Academics are a dealbreaker, I think.
Connecticut is 66th in USNWR.
What do people think about UConn being the 12th Big10 team? More attractive than Rutgers I'd imagine.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:44 AM ^
Did you know Michigan State was in the Big 10?
(I know MSU is better than WVU academically, just seizing the opportunity to take a shot at the stepchild school in EL)
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:54 AM ^
Since its 1 in the morning, I gave you a +1
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 AM ^
Heck, let's ask Washington and Kentucky, too. They make as much geographic sense as UConn does in an intrinsically midwestern conference.
People said the same thing about PSU in 1990. No one considers Pennsylvania to be part of the Midwest, but it's part of the Big Ten region now. Things change. If we must add a 12th team (I have mixed feelings about that), I think one of UConn/Rutgers makes the most sense. Getting a foothold on the East Coast would be great for the conference's national profile. (And really, in an age of gigantic athletic budgets, worrying about "geographic fit" is becoming a little outmoded. We can afford to fly to Storrs.)
Penn State was traditionally considered a Northeastern school, this much is very true. To this day Philadelphia remains their biggest market, even if they are slightly closer to Pittsburgh. But I don't think it was so much of a stretch to bring in a school in Pennsylvania. It borders Ohio, it has a piece of Lake Erie and it's all very rustbelt.
I'm largely against Rutgers because they're a flash in the pan of the highest order. We'd be adding a football team that seems to have plateaued into mediocrity, a low level men's basketball team and nothing much else. They're an academic fit, but not the best (they'd be 8th in the Big Ten at 64) and the benefit of the New York media market is negligible if Rutgers isn't winning all the time.
If we're breaking the bordering states rule, I can think of a few candidates more appealing than UConn: Virginia, Colorado, Boston College and TCU spring to mind. Even Syracuse and Pitt dwarf UConn if we're being honest.
Why are you so convinced that Rutgers is a flash in the pan? They are the flagship public school in a state of 8.5 million people, have a huge alumni base, and everything I've heard recently suggests that the school has become serious about competing in football for the first time in forever. They are in the process of expanding their stadium to over 50K, they've given Schiano everything he wants. The state of New Jersey actually produces a fair amount of football talent, and Schiano's turnaround has a lot to do with him simply landing some of it. While I don't necessarily see them becoming a powerhouse in the near future, I'd be surprised if they flatlined, too. They haven't done much in basketball, but that's a lesser consideration.
Virginia, Colorado, Boston College and TCU spring to mind. Even Syracuse and Pitt dwarf UConn if we're being honest.
Come on, none of those first four are realistic options. (Why TCU, anyway?) Syracuse and Pitt are. Pitt would fit in fine; it just doesn't expand the conference's footprint any. Syracuse seemed like a great choice a decade ago but they've really nosedived. If their football decline isn't terminal, they can become an option.
They've yet to actually win the worst conference in the BCS during this unprecedented run. All indications are that Schiano wants the Penn State job, there's a good enough chance of him getting it for me to be skeptical. A lot of their massive alumni base would rather go down to FCS than go through with the stadium expansions. Again, New Jersey is not really a college football market. Winning is necessary to keep people interested and if Rutgers can't win the Big East, they have very little hope to ever rise above Minnesota's level in the Big Ten.
Come on, none of those first four are realistic options. (Why TCU, anyway?) Syracuse and Pitt are. Pitt would fit in fine; it just doesn't expand the conference's footprint any. Syracuse seemed like a great choice a decade ago but they've really nosedived. If their football decline isn't terminal, they can become an option.
Well, I'd say Virginia would do it if the state would allow them to. And TCU, while it would be the worst school in the Big Ten by far, belongs in the BCS. Their history in SWC (which would be a BCS conference in today's world) is good enough for me to overlook the academics.
Pitt, I think, adds just as many people as Rutgers does. Penn State is not a major player in the Western Pennsylvania market. So while the people there already get the BTN, odds are they aren't watching it. Pitt would make them watch.
Syracuse we could debate all day, but I personally think they offer a lot more than Rutgers in terms of new markets (NYC and Buffalo) and have historically been good in both basketball and football (not to mention lax, we could finally try to get a Big Ten lax league going)
but there are national perceptions that the Big Ten are the worst conference. The Big East at least won some of the BCS games and they have fared better in the bowl games better than the Big Ten.
There is nobody in the country who thinks the Big East, sans West Virginia, is better than the Big Ten. Sorry, but Cincinnati, Louisville, Rutgers and UConn do not a great conference make.
They think that the Big East is better than the Big Ten.
Nobody? lol, have you tried talking with other people from different region beside the Big Ten country? Sad but it's true.
Your buddies from all over the country are not "most people", unless you're one of those annoying types who don't believe in data.
First, by most statistical measures the ACC is the worst. They lose the most bowl games, they lose the most non-conference games and they can barely sell out their own title game.
Secondly, there is shockingly little data on this subject. Not even an ESPN opinion poll on it. There is a lot of opinion, though, through which one reaches a general consensus that the SEC and the Big XII are universally considered the best and after that there's a dropoff to the other 4.
If we decide to trust some random person from Buttfuck, Montana's opinion... which is likely based on bowl performance and the rare primetime, national game it's easy to see how that conclusion could be reached. But the fact is, the Big East and ACC are statistically inferior to the Big Ten.
.....is very sad. I recall watching that game the year it was in Jacksonville, and there couldn't have been more than 20,000 in the Jaguars' stadium.
I realize the ACC hopes that Florida State and Miami are in the title game every year, hence putting the title game in Florida, but when that doesn't happen too many of the other conference teams are too isolated to bring big crowds.
It's something the Big Ten should keep in mind. If, say, Penn State and UConn played for the Big Ten title and the game was held in Chicago, I would wonder how many fans would make it to Chicago for that game, especially on 7 days' notice.
Well, it rotates because previous sites (Jacksonville and now Tampa) have shown a real lack of interest. Starting next season it's in Charlotte for a couple of years.
And you're right about that for a potential Big Ten title game. I think it's just another reason why there should be some degree of geographic sense in any expansion.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^
I'm not so sure. I think it's more the league ending up with dull match ups at the end of the year. People have pointed fingers at Jacksonville and Tampa, but in the 4-5 games the ACC has played, they have yet to pair a couple of big brands with something meaningful on the line. I don't blame the fans in the game's market for not getting excited. Last year's game was a perfect example. An average BC team vs. an unranked (at the time) Va Tech team. I don't know if any market would have sold that game out.
Also, the ACC suffers from a lack of star players right now (as does the Big Ten perhaps outside of Pryor). Not that they don't have great players -- CJ Spiller, Jonathan Dwyer, Tryod Taylor, etc. But these guys don't get the kind of buzz that McCoy, Tebow, Bradford, or Pryor get. There's nothing really to market with the ACC currently, and I'm guessing there won't be until their flagship teams, Canes and Noles, get back in the national title picture.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:16 AM ^
national perception. They don't care about the statistics. What matters is what people perceive. Right now, people perceived the Big Ten conference as whole to be the worst of all the BCS conference.
The Big East actually has better bowl record and did well against non-conference foes than the Big Ten in the last few years.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:54 AM ^
that "people perceived [sic] the Bit Ten conference ... to be the worst ..." without backing it up. Where's your data? Where's the opinion poll that illustrates this? Is your data set a couple of buddies you were talking to last Friday?
Frankly, that just won't fly.
Dats is more toward facts than perception. Big difference.
What the fuck does Pavel Datsyuk have to do with this?
Frankly I'm not sure there is anyone who thinks Cincinnati was a better team than Ohio State or that WVU would have beaten Penn State last year. The fact is the Big East is largely comprised of teams that were in Conference USA this decade.
Edit: I responded in a different place and it bumped me down here...response to the guy saying the BigEast is better.
You may have perceptions about the BigEast being better, but there are also the facts of the BigTen being better Financially, Academically, and Historically.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:13 AM ^
as a football conference right now. The fans don't care about anything that you listed. Right now, the perception is the Big Ten conference is the worst BCS conference. It's not going to change unless the Big Ten teams start winning bowl games including the BCS bowl games. OSU, Michigan, PSU, Illini got pasted in the BCS bowl games for the past few years. That doesn't help either.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:10 PM ^
You are wrong. You can't just say, "well I talked to some people about the Big East and Big Ten and they said the Big East is better, therefore the Big East is perceived as better."
It's not perceived as better. The Big Ten gets ripped on a lot more maybe, but that is because we have fallen from arguably the best conference to one of the worst bcs-conferences. However I guarantee you that if the Big Ten had a faceoff with the Big East in football, people would be putting their money on the Big Ten.
Think about it; Ohio State vs WVU, Penn State vs Pitt, Iowa vs Cinci, UConn vs MSU, South Florida Vs Wisconsin, Rutgers Vs Illinois, Louisville Vs. Michigan, Syracuse Vs Northwestern. People aren't that stupid, they may rip on the Big ten more but no one in their right mind thinks that the Big East is superior in football.
but it won't happen since we can't conclude based on paper. The games aren't played on paper, aren't they? I mean, everybody thought that Michigan wouldn't lose to Toledo or Appalachian State since they're a more inferior team than Michigan yet they lost. Same with Boise State against Oklahoma in the Fiesta Bowl or Utah against Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The list goes on.
My point is people perceive the Big Ten to be a weak conference. The Big Ten went 1-6 in the bowl games last season with the lone win coming from Iowa. The Big East went 4-2. That pretty much says it all.
yes upsets do happen, and those big east teams very well could win. If they did, it would be called an UPSET. Why you ask? because they are NOT AS GOOD.
You are the only person writing on this blog who thinks the Big East is better than the Big Ten (And its not because most people are michigan fans, considering most of us are pretty reasonable). Those bowl records are mostly irrelevant because the big ten played much tougher teams in their bowl games (USC, Texas, Georgia, and Missouri are 4 off the top of my head).
Once again, look at the list of matchups I presented and if you honestly believe that the Big East teams are BETTER than you should consider following a different sport.
Furthermore, I looked up the Big East's 4 bowl wins that used as evidence of their superiority.
Memphis, North Carolina, NC State, and Buffalo.
Buffalo is a MAC team, NC State went 6-6 in a weak ACC conference, and Memphis is Memphis.
North Carolina is a solid win, but to think that the best team in the Big East barely squeaked one out vs an 8-5 NC team is less than flattering. I'd venture to say that Penn St. or Ohio St. would have crushed North Carolina (especially considering PSU's 31 point shellacking of Oregon State, who is better than NC)
You are correct in saying that the Big Ten is perceived as weak, but to say it is weaker than the Big East is absolutely Asinine
The Big Ten had two BCS bowl teams, the Big East had one. So no, that does not say it all.
Bowl records don't necessarily work for public perception either. After 2006 there was the perception of OMG SEC owns Big 10 despite the fact that we went 2-1 against them in bowl games that year.
Ohio State vs WVU - OSU favored
Penn State vs Pitt - PSU favored
Iowa vs Cinci - tie, home team favored
UConn vs MSU - MSU favored at home, push at UConn
South Florida Vs Wisconsin - home team favored
Rutgers Vs Illinois - Illinois favored (barely)
Louisville Vs. Michigan - UM favored
Syracuse Vs Northwestern - NW favored
We'll see if Jamiemac agrees, but I don't think it's that far off reality. If you could slot a good Michigan team above Iowa in the order, I'd imagine the Big 10 would be favored against all teams. I'd also slot Illinois above Wisconsin.
Virginia probably would not do it, even if the state allowed them to, which it wouldn't. President Casteen stuck his neck out a few years ago and joined forces with the Virginia government to lobby the ACC for Virginia Tech's inclusion so that the teams could play their rivalry game in the same conference. Syracuse was going to be invited instead. Quite a few UVA fans are still unhappy with Casteen for doing so. I doubt very much UVA would up and jump to the Big Ten after working so hard to be in the same conference as Tech.
Gracias for dropping the knowledge, senor.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:15 PM ^
A lot of their massive alumni base would rather go down to FCS than go through with the stadium expansions.
Perhaps, but it's a done deal now, and construction is ongoing. Having committed so much money to the football program, RU can't afford to go down in status now.
As for New Jersey not being a big CFB market, I don't really disagree now, but I think it can become one. If RU can remain competitive, I don't see why they won't draw their share of fans. And having Michigan, Ohio State and PSU visit their campus regularly should be more exciting for them than playing the likes of South Florida.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^
I think they are a pretty good team and all, but you have to wonder what would happen to them if Schiano up and left for a job like Penn State when it became available.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:55 AM ^
Bradley has that job all but locked.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^
Theres a reason Schiano wanted back in the Michigan head coaching search at the last minute.
Its because Bradley pretty much runs the Penn State team now.
Good luck wresting control from someone already entrenched.
So I doubt he goes to Penn State, but does he think he made a mistake staying at Rutgers instead of coming to Michigan?
If he does he might try to get in on a Notre Dame HC search or something along those lines...
According to Brian, it was us who begged Schiano to reconsider at the last minute and not him begging us as was reported elsewhere. Take that fwiw.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:57 AM ^
That's an potential concern, but given that they are committing $100 million to a stadium renovation and have shown themselves willing to break the bank for their coach, I don't think we'll see them totally collapse when he leaves. Their fans/alumni have gotten a taste of winning now and will expect them to keep it up. I also frankly don't see him as all that innovative of a coach. The biggest thing about him is that he recruits well; NJ produces plenty of talent, but RU had never been able to land it until Schiano came.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:57 AM ^
Football program has strong flash-in-the-pan characteristics.
Regret, thy name is Brian Cook.
UConn would involve some bending of the conference's bylaws, but they're certainly a better fit than Rutgers. I'd say yes.
What would adding UConn to the Big Ten do for us? I understand it would make the conference 12 teams, but what do you want to do with those 12 teams? ...Divisions? ...Conference title game? ...12 is cooler than 11 teams?
12 teams = money. Sweet, sweet money. It means more cable systems (or at least more viewers) picking up the Big Ten Network. It means more games for the BTN. It means a conference championship game on national TV.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:39 AM ^
The reason you consider either Rutgers or UConn is the New York media. If you add one of them, together with PSU, the Big 10 (or whatever) suddenly becomes the predominant conference in two of the three big media centers -- New York and Chicago -- and given the Rose Bowl tie-in, it's probably the second or at worst third most covered conference in the other big media market -- Los Angeles.
I'm not saying a favor either school, but that's one advantage they would bring to the table that, for example, Nebraska and Missouri don't.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
True that.
If 'Cuse can show some signs of like in a few years who knows. At least the Orange have a great bball team, and would open us to the NYC market.
That makes a lot more senes than adding Rutgers which would only add a middle of the road football team and no bball team at all.
I'd rather wait and not add just to add. Notre Dame would be the best fit, however, UConn would be a much better fit IMHO compared to most of the names I hear on the radio like Iowa State (which wouldn't even open us up to a new market).
To be fair, I don't think anyone ever seriously suggests Iowa State.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 AM ^
Which is kinda too bad, I think: they're among the most absolutely logical choices. Geographically, at least; and they fit the AAU requirement too. Plus I imagine the Big 12 kinda secretly wishes the Big Ten would try to poach ISU, then they could put up a token fuss and then go snarf up TCU. But the Big Ten would never bother: ISU sucks at most things, and they would do absolutely nothing at all for the TV footprint.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:05 AM ^
ND won't join as long as they keep getting that sweet sweet money from NBC (and the Big East for BCS purposes). The only way the big ten could really force ND to join is if the conference as a whole decided to ban playing against them. Then they MIGHT think about it. But as it stands right now, they really don't have a reason to join.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:07 AM ^
How long will NBC be willing to pay for a team that no longer dominates the Catholic market? NBC has the Olympics, the NFL, the NHL, golf and tennis. Notre Dame is just not what it used to be.
August 3rd, 2009 at 10:26 AM ^
out of curiousity I went to mapquest to see how long of a drive it is from one place to another. I first looked up U of Minn to PSU since they are the furthest east to the furhtest west in the confrence as it stands right now. The distance from U Minn to PSU is 1045 miles. The distance from U Minn to Syracuse is 1085 miles. From U Minn to Rutgers U it is almost 1200 miles. Then I looked up PSU to U of MO and the trip would only be 940 miles and a trip for PSU to Nebraska would be 1150 miles. lastly I looked up U Minn to UConn and it was the longest of all at 1330 miles.
Delaney has to think of all parties concerned when considering what team to add, and that would include fans. I know that the teams would more than likely fly but a lot of the fans would not be able to do so. The fans would have to drive so the ones that are driving from U Minn to PSU now would have to add an additional 3-4 hours onto the end of their trip if they want to go to UCONN. I have to say that if I were a U Minn fan I woud be pissed off at that. I think the idea of U MO bears the most intigue if for no other resaon because of the way the big 12 is seen right now, but it also opens up the world of recruiting in a new region.
I like the idea of branching out to new areas of the country but let's be honest, we have to keep it within reason. MO would be a reasonable distance for all B11 teams and their fanbaseses.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^
In this age of declining state revenues, I think one could make a solid case that adding teams with significant travel costs to conferences makes no financial sense for state universities. Athletic budgets may be massive, but few of them are in the black. Traveling from Minneapolis to Connecticut is basically flying across half the country.
I know this is an old school view, but IMHO conference rivalries mean something to the fans in because of longstanding local and regional geographical considerations. The most intense rivalries are either instate, involve adjoining states or involve conference teams from the same region, and without these intense rivalries conference play is less meaningful. That's not to say that good rivalries from schools who are far apart can't develop (UM-PSU, ND-USC), but close regional rivalries are the meat. I think Boston College moving to the ACC was lunacy; if BC and PSU were in the Big East where they logically belong, that would make it a ten-team conference; the Big Ten would then go back to being ten teams, and scheduling for us would be easier. I know it's not happening, though.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:06 PM ^
In this age of declining state revenues, I think one could make a solid case that adding teams with significant travel costs to conferences makes no financial sense for state universities. Athletic budgets may be massive, but few of them are in the black. Traveling from Minneapolis to Connecticut is basically flying across half the country.
If Big Ten universities actually had to pay for their own athletic departments, I'd agree with you, but pretty much all of them (except possibly Northwestern) are fiscally autonomous. Also, most of them are profitable - and the addition of a 12th team, which would bring along a conference title game (and probably also a new television contract) would lead to increased conference revenues that would likely offset the increased travel costs.
Finally, while it's true that traveling from Minneapolis to Storrs is far, you're looking at the most extreme case, and one that is typical of outlying schools in any conference. The Minn-UConn trip is far, but the same is true for Boston College to travel to Miami, Iowa State to travel to Texas, Louisville to travel to South Florida, Washington to travel to Arizona, and so on.
August 3rd, 2009 at 12:41 PM ^
....the conference teams who fly to Hawaii this year (and, in non-conference play, Wisconsin).