Rutgers is reported to be trying to get into the Big Ten.
Where is the BigTen with all of this realignment?!
Damn straight, yay. That will give BTN the rights to Jersey Shore 2.
No. Please no jersey shore anything. Sparty has been tainted with that noise already.
I think Jersey Shore has been tainted with Sparty.
I think it's safe to stop reading the thread now.
Where is it being reported? Any other teams mentioned?
I think Rutgers would be a good fit based on recent football success, academics and of course that huge NY/NJ market
Basically people around the program believe that if things start to go south for the Big East, Rutgers will try to jump to the Big Ten.
Of note: Rutgers officials have contacted Big Ten officials to see if they're open to Rutgers potentially joining the Big Ten.
for the link. The article, as you note, seems a lot like wishful thinking that they will be wanted by the B1G.
I'm not so sure of their optimism....
You do realize that Rutgers is the worst team in the Big East, right?
I don't think it matters how much the NYC/NJ market cares about college football. If they are in the footprint, the BTN gets a bigger take for each cable customer.
trying like hell to get Nebraska to join the B1G.
Wait, what's that? We did get Nebraska to join the B1G? You say we also did it in a classier fashion than the Pac-megatron and the other schools whoring themselves out to whomever will have them? You're saying we actually started this whole conference realignment business and aren't standing idly by?
/fake conversation between TheLastHoke and 7nk7
For all of Jim Delaney's faults, the Big Ten did exactly what it should have done: it looked to see if there was anyone out there who would improve the Big Ten. There was, and we got that team. Teams and conferences are scrambling right now to figure out what they 'need' to do. For some of them (the Big 12 in particular) it really is a need, because the conference is probably about to fall apart, but it also seems like people are saying everyone should be scrambling around just because people are freaking out, not because it would be helpful.
The Big Ten is stable and happy--there's no existential question, not one team would choose to leave. As a result, we only need to change if we want to. I haven't seen any names in this discussion that would add much to the Big Ten. I also completely buy the argument that there's really no advantage (and probably a strong disadvantage) to going past 12 teams.
The one interesting case we may see is, with changes to the Big East, whether it will still be a good home for Notre Dame. If not, then joining the Big Ten may make a lot of sense for both parties. With a couple of Big 12 schools trying to join the Big East, however, that looks less likely today than it did yesterday.
Will always be their 3rd game of 2008 against Navy. Watching their fans *SPIT* on the midshipmen as they left the field. Unforgivable.
*I'm sure the comment was a joke, but I had to mention that*
Ruck Futgers! I am with you if this was their behavior.
A guy that goes by the name of Purple Book Cat on NW message Boards reported that Texas and Notre Dame had a joint presentation with the Big Ten on joining together in 2014. He gets his credibility by being ahead of the media on Nebraska joining the Big Ten and Texas' name coming up last year. He claims he knows an inside-source to the Big Ten and that is how he gets his info.
I think Big Ten is already very healthy with Nebraska added.
While others are scrambling to get more teams - Big Ten already has 4-5 teams which will be ranked in the top 20 year after year.
While we should be open to adding new teams in strategic markets I don't think we need to panic and woo teams. If they approach the Big Ten we should consider them. Also no prima donnas who want a bigger share of revenue or all that BS.
Notre Dame would be one obvious one - apart from that, Pitt maybe (academnically sound plus Penn State would get a rival)
Pitt likely going to ACC along with Syracuse.
the obvious choice, they're only "independant" in football NEways and have their own short-lived tv deal, Mizzou makes academic and geographic sense, but doesn't really add to the football value like PSU and Nebraska did. Oklahoma is the other obvious choice imo. They're looking to step away from the Big Texas Conference/Network and get their fair share and are nearer to the B1G than the Pac-Whatever too. If we add Mizzou to Nebraska then Oklahoma/ND look pretty attractive.
More isn't necessarily better.
The Big 10 needs to add schools that will add more value than the share of revenue they take from the Big 10. There's only a few schools out there that will do that. Texas would be perfect, but they aren't willing to be a team player. Notre Dame isn't going to move until the BCS is going to consolidate again. The SEC, PAC X, and ACC schools have no reason to go anywhere. I don't know that any other school adds enough revenue to be worthwhile.
I'm not sure what's going on there, maybe they've been told the SEC will take them, maybe they really are looking around.
I agree with you. There are very few teams the B1G should consider adding. Getting to 12 was a good idea. There's really no advantage going further unless it's a home run for revenue.
FSU just voted to raise the ACC buyout to $20 million, which is not the action of a school looking for a new conference.
So FSU's new committee won't have much to do. I guess that makes WVU and Missouri the most likely candidates for the SEC.
Hoping for WVU personally. I like Mizzou too much to see them in the SEC. WVU seems like a perfect fit.
I'm fairly certain that Delany as well as the University Presidents and ADs know where any of the schools they would be interested in adding to the Big 10 stand. We just added Nebraska. I'm sure they know where ND stands on this issue. Mizzou basically begged us to add them. Any other schools they may be interested in (Texas, Rutgers, Pitt, etc...) Have most likely made their position known. It is wise to let the rest of the leagues make headlines and wait to see what actually happens. If the other leagues start to disolve, I'm sure we have a plan in place.
love to get oklahoma and ND
would likely try, or demand, to bring OSU. That would be awful.
I would like to see no more conference expansion.
You're not getting Oklahoma without taking Okie State. Also, I don't think that the academics at either school live up to what the Big 10 expects.
Then how did OSU get in?
I thought this was interesting--it's a chart of board scores for incoming freshman at each B1G school. OSU consistently splits the difference between Michigan and MSU, which I guess is sort of what you'd expect since Ohio only has one true state school and it has to provide the functions of both.
Pitt going to the ACC suprised me a bit, there was talk of them going to the B10 at one point. Would have re-kindled the PSU / PItt rivalry.
Maybe ND will finally join? I don't really get why they don't , esp. considering they've got rivalries with three B10 schools.
Honestly I would prefer midwestern schools but outside of ND I don't know who else would join.
Iowa State? Missouri? Kentucky?
Did you honestly just suggest Iowa State and Kentucky?! No thank you! Mizzou maybe, but c'mon.
Hey I'm just throwing names out there. I'd prefer schools that are actually are in the midwest, or at least mid-west-ish.
Also I don't want Texas. I spent 3 years in Texas. Do not want.
Could always go for KU and K-State, great bball schools, with football teams that have been solid in the past.
I know the Big Ten is caught up on the academic standing of each university but we need to make a move on Oklahoma. Instant rivalry renewal with Nebraska. It also looks like the Big East may fall also. I can't believe TCU will keep their word if Pitt and the Cuse leave for the ACC. If the Big East starts falling apart you may see Notre Dame finally wake up. Bring Oklahoma and ND into Big Ten that's quite a conference. Total speculation but fun to talk about.
Hell no. Oklahoma is a joke. Once they get some academics going, then we can talk about them joining the B1G. Academics is first, athletics is second. Personally, I'm not happy about Nebraska not being a part of the AAU. I wish we could kick them out until they got it back. Never Oklahoma.
I'm with you on both points. Oklahoma is an academically substandard school in a culturally a$$-backward state.
Apologies to the civilized Oklahomans here and elsewhere. In my experience, though, it combines the worst of the Deep South, Texas, and the Great Plains.
With the current crop of schools we have. I am not suggesting the BT adds WMU or even schools like Kansas or anything. I do however think a school like Mizzou would be a decent fit.
Ideally I would choose to get to 14-16 with Notre Dame of course and any other high caliber schools That fit our footprint
Sorry, I don’t want to be a troll but…. Every Big Ten forum looks at the University of Kansas like it is some big 12 bottom feeder, with bad academics, and nothing to offer the great Big 10 conference. KU’s atheletic department has grossed in the top 26 schools for the last five years (at least). Yes, most of it is due to basketball, which you might not care about, but our b-ball program makes more than a lot of football programs. We are an AAU school, unlike NE (who we make roughly the same amount of money as with our sports every year) and our media market is much bigger than Nebraska’s. KU Basketball is a national brand. The fing Jayhawk is one of the top 5 most recognizable mascots in college sports. We gross more than 20 million dollars a year for our sports programs than Missouri does. Further, although we are down in football at the moment, we won a BCS bowl game just four years ago.
Last point, Delany was one of the ones who started this 16 team realignment thing, by carrying on with MU last year. The Big 10 is not above the fray in any of this and the fact that it may stay put at 12 teams once the East and the 12 implode is deplorable. Delany made it clear last year ,when he was in talks with MU, that 16 team conferences were coming and the Big 10 was being proactive. Further, he gave every indication that the BIG was likely expanding to 16. When NE left, and MU was left begging for the invite, Delany changed his tune and claimed the a 12 league conference was enough. However, he (along with UT, NE, the PAC, Atm and others) destroyed the big 12.
In truth 16 league conferences are a bad idea. Certain teams, enter Minnesota, don’t make crap in a division and bring revenue down. Yet, Delany and the Pac comiss sold the idea of the 16 team conference last year and every college in an unstable conference is making it happen because Delany and others have said it’s the future, its only about football, and media markets. That is obviously not true. The big 12 discovered that losing CO actually would increase our revenue when we signed, the now doomed, deal with fox. Co is the Denver market. The 2ndlargest media market in the Big 12 and they were costing us money. ISU brought more to the table than that program. Media markets don’t matter if no one is watching or cares. If football is the only real potential revenue why do Duke, North Carolina, and Kansas make more or as much in sports revenue as Illinois or Nebraska?
I’m sure some smart guy is going to point out that this is all about football and KU, despite its recent BCS win, is not a good football program. If that is the criteria for the big 10 there are only 3 programs out there for you. UT, OK, and Norte Dame. UT and OK are not headed your way. Pitt and Syracuse are gone as well. You can grab Rutgers who will suck of the teat of the conference or you could grab a team that will bring actual value and revenue to your conference once b=ball season comes around or not. Sadly, if reversed, a case could be made that, besides OSU, MI, Penn and maybe MI state/ ILL / Iowa, every other school in your conference should go to a dying big east when your conference dissolved.
First of all, not every Big Ten forum looks down on Kansas as a bottom feeder. However, in a conference where football is the first, second, and third most important sport, Kansas' football history is not an asset. Furthermore, while the Big Ten wouldn't dismiss Kansas out of hand for academic reasons (unlike, say, Oklahoma), it's not like the Big Ten schools are salivating over the possibility of an academic affiliation with Kansas.
Now, let's take a look at what you list as Kansas' assets:
1. High-Grossing AD - This is irrelevant. The financial question how much money can Kansas bring into the Big Ten, not how much money Kansas can bring in to their own AD. When the Big Ten renegotiates its first tier rights contract in 2016, every school will be making over $30 million at the minimum. Unless Kansas can deliver an additional $30+ million (minimum), Kansas would be a net drag on the Big Ten.
2. Strong Basketball Program - This is Kansas' greatest asset. However, as a rule, basketball is a less financially valuable sport than football, and from a cultural standpoint, the Big Ten is a football-first conference. At any rate, even if we grant that Kansas' basketball program makes Kansas athletically acceptable to the Big Ten (which I personally agree with), Kansas still needs to be financially acceptable, which does not appear to be the case.
3. AAU School - This means you are academically acceptable to the Big Ten, not desirable.
4. The Jayhawk Mascot - Honestly, this is worth about as much as one of the marijuana stickers that Ohio State likes to put on its football helmets.
5. Won BCS Game Recently - That doesn't make Kansas a strong program. Program strength is measured through sustained success and national profile. By these metrics, Kansas football is not a particularly strong program.
Also, your note about the Big 12 schools increasing revenue in the wake of Colorado's departure fails to acknowledge that the only reason this happened was because ESPN decided to honor its contract with the Big 12 in the hopes of keeping the conference together, and because sports TV contracts in general are increasing rapidly.
Finally, no matter what anyone says, expanding to 16 teams is not essential for the Big Ten. The only interest the Big Ten has in expanding is in order to strengthen the conference in such a way that every school in the conference will benefit. So yes, that likely means that the Big Ten will not expand without either Notre Dame or Texas. Otherwise, the BIg Ten has no pressing reason not to remain at 12 teams.
Kansas, you'd be a lot hotter to us without your friend Kansas State always having to be in the mix. You look pretty decent to us especially during those cold winter months. But were not lowering ourselves into doing Kansas State. No way no how.
I know I keep saying the same damn thing, but I don't thing the B1G will make a move until we get closer to the new BCS contract negotiations. The B1G won't go to a super conference unless they need to, in order to retain auto-bids. 16 team conferences are going to push for 2 autobids. The B1G can make a play, and has a good chance of succeding because of the fanbases, at getting 2 autobidsbut with only 12 teams. If that happens, I just don't see expansion happening. Having 6 teams compete per BCS bid is much better than having 8 compete.
I figure we get ND, and someone else with good academics. ND is not big in research, but their academics are still good.
Very thoughtful, wasn't considering that.
On a side note I love how starting a thread with legitimate rumors and discussion from around the sports world brings out down votes by people who then can't even comment as to why the thread deserves a negative. That's what keeps me away from making comments ever
That's what keeps me away from making comments ever
Says the guy who just made a comment.
I disagree. Why would the SEC or the PAC 16, with 16 teams each give a conference with 12 teams and lately without the big wins just grant the B1G two playoff slots with 12 teams. I think the B1G made a mistake by not talking to Pitt. What I am afrad of is that by waiting, we are going to get into a situation where the only schools left are academic dregs. Even Syracuse would have been a decent fit.
Money is the reason. It's the reason why the B1G has sent two teams to the BCS every year for a while now. BCS games want B1G teams in their games because it attracts a lot of fans and viewers. Now adding Nebraska with it's rabid fan-base? With only 12 teams, there is a greater chance your bowl pulls a UM, OSU, PSU, Iowa or Nebraska. That's a good product to sell.
Why would two conferences have the votes to dictate terms?
Do other conferences really want the B1G to go to 16 teams? Some of them should certainly worry about their own teams getting poached.
7NK7 meet Nebraska. Nebraska this is 7NK7
Yeah, let's welcome the powerhouses that Pitt & SU are...with arms wide open..!
Like Basketball and they are powerhouses
Have nothing to do with expansion/moving.
It's a big deal for the ACC. Basketball and football TV revenue have been close to 50-50 for them.
And why schools like FSU are looking to jump to the SEC. It may bs important to them, but it's not where the money is. It just looks better than the Big East. If Pitt joins the ACC, and the B10 comes calling, you think they're sticking around there for basketball?
I believe Dave Wannstedt recently gave an interview wherein he said Pitt was begging for a Big Ten invite, but did not get one. So the ACC seems like their 2nd choice. I bet they would flip in a hurry if the Big Ten reached out to them with an offer.
If FSU's looking to jump, why did they just vote to raise the ACC buyout to $20 million. The ACC's looking far stronger than it did even a week ago.
Why would they vote against it? Last time I checked the vote was 12-0. It’s not like their vote was the decisive one and they just shot themselves in the foot. They had nothing to gain from voting against. It was purely a strategic vote and had nothing to do with their future intensions.
With a $20 million buyout? Yeah, I think they might stick around.
Will pay multi-millions to buy out a coach just to PAY him, and not pay $20 million to makes Ten's of millions more EVERY year, I don't know what to tell you. If anything, this is a shot at other same conferences so that no one leaves for anything not SEC/B10.
And as for the previous post, it's easy to vote for something after Florida has already blocked you going to the SEC. Still wouldn't stop them if that's where the world turned. Everyone thought the Big 12 was stable after they all banded together...for not even a year. The SEC still needs another team. And everyone east of Austin and south of Columbus would kill to get in.
"Tens of millions" more? No. The difference is like nine million and that's assuming BTN revenue projections hold. Nine million at best. And what good is a little bit more money per year if all your competition gets the same thing? That's where people always lose sight of things. The point of making money is not for the money's sake. It's so you can compete. Conference realignment is about competing, not scooping up cash in a race for Monopoly money. It so happens that the money helps you compete, but it's not the only thing.
And whether or not it's because of the buyout or because Florida blocked them, it's all the same: FSU is staying put.
The point of making money, in this case, is to fund all the other sports. These contracts will, through TV money, network money (in the BTN's case), advertising, keep the books of these schools in the positive. This money helps keep wrestling, girls volleyball, track, baseball, and any other sport (besides men's basketball and, in some cases, men's hockey) up and running.
My point was that basketball was a big factor for the ACC in inviting Syracuse and Pitt. Their basketball money is not chump change. A 9 team ACC was getting $30M/year in 1999 from Raycom.
No doubt Pitt would prefer to join the B1G, football means more, but basketball is playing a part in expansion.
Acting rationally. Over 12 you don't have a conference, you have a league with two sub-conferences that will inevitably split because you never play each other.
I think all of this is leading to Divisions within a League. If you have the Pac-16, SEC-16 and ACC or Big East with 16, you have the rudiments of a new Bowl Coalition. If that happens, it wont be long before the Big 10 bumps up to 16 teams so that they don't get shut out like the last time there was a Bowl Coalition.
If this happens, Division 1A gets the playoff that people have been clamoring for but not the playoff that will make teams like Boise State and Utah happy.
the two sub-conference champions playing for the 16 team conference championship are the first step in a 8 team playoff system.
The chess pieces are moving on the table to get to this place. The Big East and the Big 12 are done. Now the question is, do we pull some more crown jewels, or do we sit and wait and pick up the pieces? (ND by the way has to move into a conference to be able to play for a NC, so there is one.)
Schools named, here in cbus. Rutgers, BC, Texas and ND (in that order, as far as each schools interest in the B1O).
Notre Dame can go suck it, as far as I'm concerned.
BC? Adding BC and ND would be interesting. ND would have 4 rivalry games in one conference (UM, MSU, BC, Purdue).
Ad natural regional rivals, OSU as long time recruiting and occasional play rivals, and the renewal of the series with PSU. It makes perfect sense....unless you're Notre Dame.
Not interested in BC. Good undergrad but no research. Football team in severe decline. Basketball is meh. Don't draw well (though might, might give BTN the Boston market). Hockey is about the only benefit.
I guarantee that Delaney has a few schools that he has been in contact with. There is absolutely no reason why the B10 would go public with anything right now. We're in a pretty good position of being able to choose who we would want without having to stretch on any school.
has just boxed us in a little, and the Pac 12 is about to as well (depending on what Texas and Oklahoma decided).
Has anyone looked at how all of this expansion affects a university's sports that are not big money makers? For instance, with Texas A&M joining the SEC, how does this affect sports like soccer, volleyball, track and field, etc. These sports already cost a school more money than they bring in, but that defecit is only going to become larger since the teams need to travel farther for games, meets, etc. Coupled with the increased cost of travel is that increased travel distances probaably mean more missed classes for all of these student-athletes.
oh please, won't someone think of the children?!? I think we've burnt that bridge a long time ago.
I'm fine with 12 teams.
More teams is not better. It's not a competition to see who can get the most schools. If we have more teams, then we play the teams already in the B1G less, and I don't want to do that. Keep as is. No reason to change.
UT and ND or GTFO
During the last wave of rumors and chaos, only 4 teams actually did anything - and the Big Ten got easily the best of that batch that time around.
For now, the strenght is to wait and not come off as desperate. Teams will call - as Rutgers allegedly has - and the Big Ten will wait until the time and the schools calling are right, and they will add schools that bring financial and competitive benefit while fitting the Big Ten standard academically. Until those schools call and the time is right, no need to panic. Let's at least have our first Big Ten Championship game before we try to tack on some more teams.
Slippery Rock or no one
ND: Obvious. Money, tradition, geography, all around win
Mizzou: St. Louis/KC market, and they'll be another Iowa/MSU/Wisconsin like team that'll be solid and vie for the Big Ten title every couple years.
then just end it there.
and what about baylor? they look up n up. plus good academics, texas recruiting market. just throwing out a possibility. and of course ND
Man, settle the hell down. One, why is it that if other conferences add a school or two, automatically the Big Ten must as well? Where is that written down? Two, you should hear ACC fans bag on Swofford for inactivity and letting the ACC get destroyed - before it even happened. Or came close to happening. Now as it turns out none of that criticism was true, what with the ACC likely being the first conference to 14 AND a vote of loyalty/confidence from all 12 existing members in raising the buyout. Gee, maybe these guys know what they're doing. But I guess it's fun to get drunk and sit around going OH MY GOD WE'RE TOTALLY DOOMED and acting like Delany's fapping off to porn while the Big Ten burns around him.
Sorry, but this is a Henny Penny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny) post.
Are we supposed to believe that Pitt and Syracuse are going to meaningfully shift power to their destination conference?
I honestly thought both would be better fits for the Big Ten than Nebraska (football aside, of course ... a very significant aside), but they're both meh-ish compared to fish like ND and Texas.
It's my understanding that Notre Dame won't give up its football independence unless there is no place for its other sports to play and the new conference demands that ND bring football with it.. So if the Big East implodes then the B1G makes sense for ND, though who knows... strange things are happening and stranger things are gonna happen before this is over.
As far as ND goes, if there were a playoff system where one or two teams from each large conference were selected, exactly how would you deal with schools that are independent, particularly if only a couple ran successful programs? It seems like ND might have no choice but to join a conference.
Even 12 seems a bit unwieldy - really, the only reason it makes sense is because of the payoff you get from the title game. Otherwise, I'd prefer ~10 schools in a conference.
The only reason the B1G would need to expand is if the rules for the BCS change so that there's an extra autobid for the megaconferences, or we take someone, like ND, that immediately puts the BTN on basic cable in every household in the country. All things being equal, I'd rather we stay put
As far as 16 team conferences - really, that's either just a silly thing that failed in the WAC, or two 8-team conferences that have a playoff to decide who gets the BCS bowl berth.
our conference is awesome as is. great academics, great athletics. the bond between big ten schools is really strong too. we have stability that most other conferences dream of so I am in no way hoping that we'll bring in other teams and destabilize some of what we have. we're the rock in conference expansion
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.
I wouldn't be so sure on the quick dismissal of one and two. The mouthpeice of Texas just had a post on how Texas to the ACC talk is dying and that the ACC is moving without Texas.
(I actually think if the B1G ever adds more teams, it will be Texas and ND, but I'm hiding that opinion because I'll believe it when I see it, and I'm completely tired of hearing people suggest Rutgers so OMG BANG GUN HEAD DEAD!)
I can't believe there are people that would actually bring up ISU. That school is dead weight. Every time I read ISU in conference talk, I think of the great Maize and Brew peice last year, College Football Highschool.and how they were portrayed.
Delaney issued a statement this evening that seemed firm about the B1G standing pat.
I think sticking with where we are would be a good idea. The only teams that move the meter either aren't truly interested in the B1G (e.g., ND) or might eventually destroy it (e.g.,Texas).
Rutgers? Really? Why?
I can't get over any one thinking Rutgers brings anything. Their football team is the worst the Big East, I'm not even sure they have a basketball team, and they're in financial ruin.
If we must go to super-conferences, this setup would not be terrible IMO. I'm not 100% on the final team, but I feel like Missouri and Pitt are good additions to the footprint and boast solid football and academics along with Pitt's powerhouse basketball. It cements PA as a B1G state and grabs the Kansas City and St. Louis markets. ND is a logical academic school that already fits nicely in B1G country and will bring in $$ in TV contracts and "move the needle" nationally.
I'm not so sure who to give the final invite to. The debate over Oklahoma is a tough sell due to greater cultural/academic differences than any other expansion teams on this list (Nebraska and Penn State included). Kansas is a meh addition that does boast a historic basketball program yet brings little else to the table, however, I don't think it's plausible to expect all 4 schools to be home run additions. Anyways, here's my 16 team B1G:
I also think there should be a new scheduling philosophy. While the division opponents should alternate home and home, I think the two crossover games should rotate every year. For example, Michigan plays Wisconsin and Northwester year 1, Illinois and Nebraska year 2, Minnesota and Missouri year 3, and Iowa and Kansas/Oklahoma year 4. One of these two would be at home and the other on the road and the two would flip in year 5. This way, every senior will have had an opportunity to play against the whole conference at least once instead of not seeing opponents for up to 8 years.
NOTE: For the record I do not like the idea of super-conferences, this is merely how I would do a 16 team B1G if it must happen.
And the 13th team will be ND, eventually. Some lucky team will get the 14th and final spot one day. We will probably have to wait a few years since ND will probably only jump in after all the major conferences realign.
They're quite willing to add mid-major schools for football. Most, maybe all of their schools have nowhere better to go. Their basketball contract is much more lucrative than any non-AQ conference makes for football and basketball combined.
A fair schedule with 13 teams in two divisions is problematic, unlike 11 teams in one division. Either some teams won't play everyone in their division or they won't all play the same number of conference games.
The ACC is angling to land ND, or possibly a ND/Texas combo. They're also now the conference that Penn State would really like to join if the Big Ten was not already showering them with money. Just throwing that second point out there...
No, PSU would not want to join the ACC if the B1G didn't already shower them in money. Are you kidding, PSU is a great fit in the B1G. The ACC is a basketball conference with smaller, undergrad focused schools. PSU does not want to be in the ACC.
The ACC could never give PSU what they are making in the Big10 unless they really wanted to short change the exsiting members.
Which is what I implied. Just worth pointing out that the ACC is now a super-version of the Eastern Conference that Penn State tried to create 30 years ago.
I think PSU realizes it gets much more national exposure playing Mich/OSU/Iowa/Wisconsin/Nebraska/Illinois than Miami/FSU/Maryland/UNC/Virginia Tech/Pitt
Meh, 'Cuse and Pitt don't add anything to the ACC for football. Basketball gives a nice revenue, but football is where the real money and school promotion is at.
Remember about 20 months ago, when the B1G put out a little press release saying "hey we're thinking about starting a very slow process of adding a single team, we'll get back within a year and a half." Understandably, B1G fans were excited about what the future might hold, and it was a fun topic for the offseason. Unfortunately, the B1G admitted that, in the interest of thinking things throgh thoroughly, they were looking at an outside the box model - 14 to 16 teams. Then everybody freaked out. Things happened fast, and when the dust settled, not too much had changed in the Big Six conferences. But suddenly, the Big 12 looked as vulnerable, if not more than, the Big East. Oh yea also the WAC is on life support.
And then, Texas A&M threw a temper tantrum about an agreement they signed onto with Texas. And of course, everbody is freaking out again. Except this time, it's in the midst of actual football games. And on top of that, despite the fact that power brokers like Larry Scott says "I don't want things to change," they're acting like the change is inevitable. Never mind that these guys who don't want change not only hold all the chips, but can see all the cards and deal them where they like. But they act like they're impotent, at the whim of forces they can't control.
About the only way I could see this change being a good thing is if all of a sudden there are a few more big name independents - all of a sudden, there would be some fun out of conference games. But instead we're moving towards a world where the conferences are so large that one division would never see opponents in the other, or the entire season would consist of conference games and baby seals. Or perhaps both of those will come to pass. And lo and behold, the casual fans will be happy because suddenly we'd have a playoff system because of it - never mind that the regular season comes down to your divisional games only.
But these jackals are taking the fun out of college football - and in the middle of what is already a memorable season, no less. Forget them. If I were in charge, we'd stay put at 12. Or even better, we'd kick out Nebraska, Penn State and MSU, and go back to playing for a true leage championship as the Big 9. And we'd have OOC games against little bro, Notre Dame, and another big name every year, along with a MACrifice. And who gives a damn how they pick a national champion? We want the B1G championship and the Rose Bowl. And we're gonna win it AS A TEAM.
I don't realistically believe this scenario could ever happen. Truthfully, I like picking up Nebraska, and Penn State was a win for the B1G. But I don't realistically believe that college football would be as much fun if we had mega-conferences (remember when 12 teams was a super conference?) and conference playoffs leading to national playoffs. I like that CFB is chaotic. I like that every game matters. I like that rematches are an anomaly (I'm looking at you, Dave Brandon). I like that we're not the NFL Jr.
Larry Scott, Mike Slive, Jim Delany, Dave Brandon, and all the rest: please, get off my lawn.
Well, looks like Pitt and Cuse to ACC are official according to ESPN bottom line, and potentially UConn and Rutgers to follow.
As I have clearly spent too much time thinking about football and on this blog, I just woke up from a dream about conference realignment. I was the Big Ten commissioner, and I added Texas, Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, and Missouri. I split things into four conferences of four, as follows:
Michigan/Michigan State/Notre Dame/Indiana
Ohio State/Penn State/Pittsburgh/Purdue
That was fresh in my mind. I went straight to my computer to write down the divisions.
This is the part I had to wake up and think through:
It would pretty much work out in terms of competitive balance and geography, and rivalries could still be preserved despite divisional lines. Scheduling the other six conference games would be flexible within the confines of having to play at least one team from each other division every year, as well as having to play each team in the conference at least once every three years.
I'd love to have that set up, if only because I thought of it and it makes sense to me.
I'm still annoyed that M and Ohio are in separate divisions. The only positive I could possibly see of a 16 team B1G is that M and Ohio are forced to be in the same division. If they're still split up in a B16, I'd feel like we killed the goose that lays the golden egg.
As long as we play Ohio State the last game of the regular season and never skip a year, I have nothing to complain about. I wouldn't hate to play OSU twice in the same season, either.
How does the championship game work with four divisions? The NCAA doesn't currently allow any extra games other than a conference championship so a playoff isn't really feasible. Two teams would be left out.
they are going to the ACC so stop talking about them as far as Big10 goes...Im sure the BIG knows what they are doing HOWEVER in the past Jim Delaney is always THE LAST person to do anything so Im not all that confident that hes as on top of it as people seem to think.
I believe if they DO expand it will be ND, TX, BC and Rutgers....
Armageddon starts TOMMOROW
With the ACC's moves, it does provide clarity for future expansion.
Rutgers: God no. I know they are an AAU school, but they don't bring the NY/NJ market (and cable companies aren't stupid, they won't allow an increase in footprint revenue when all anyone cares about in this region are the Giants, Yankees, Jets, Knicks in that order.
UConn: Great basketball, ok football, zero revenue advantage. Not an AAU school. Won't bring the NY/NJ footprint
Pitt: Would have been a great fit from an academics (AAU), sports (Bball > football), and geography. Unfortunately wouldn't provide any additional revenue (PSU, tOSU has enough cross-coverage to provide the Pittsburgh market). Sure as heck wouldn't have brought more eyes from Philly
Syracuse: Great BBall school, AAU school. Upstate NY wouldn't bring more $, and like Rutgers, wouldn't bring NY/NJ footprint $.
So what is left is ND, Texas, both with significant problems regarding individual TV contracts. Mizzou is only attractive if another big-revenue team (Texas) comes. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State would never pass muster academically.
Kansas is intriguing, but again, only if Texas comes with.
Theres not alot of teams the Big Ten can add without diluting the money from mediocre teams. I say if the Big ten can land Notre Dame, and Missouri or Texas stop there. Unless we can also land OU and Ok State.
is my hobby
This isn't a giant game of musical chairs where, if the Big Ten doesn't pick up another 2 or 4 teams, is left out in the cold. There has to be a purpose to it, and the only reason to expand is to get to 16 teams for the extra BCS bid (or in the event of a playoff, a spot there). Unless it is the addition of 2 very compelling schools, going to 14 doesn't make any sense.
- Stability of the conference is of utmost importance. The absolutlely last thing that we want is what is happening to the Big XII or the previous 16-team conference (which I think was the Mountain West).
- Geography matters, regional rivalries matter, annual games of Rutgers vs. Iowa, Minnesota and/or Nebraska reduce the number of border games and is a total waste. It is also important when considering the travel costs of all of the non-revenue sports. This is not inconsequential to them.
- Nobody cares about Rutgers, especially in New Jersey (and I am from NJ, it is a very good place to be from). Rutgers would be a net loss to the conference.
- Texas is toxic.
- Acedemics matter
Personally, I was surprised but liked the addition of Nebraska. They are a good fit, and a 12-team conference is very workable and makes sense, as opposed to 16 teams.
with 4 attractive girls and 12 fat girls.
Quality >> Quantity
Maintain quality - feel happy
Fat girls need loving too.
Sometimes you just gotta go hoggin'
If ND is at the orgy, the count would be five attractive girls. Five of the ten most attractive girls that ever existed, at that.
Found great article today at NY Times which looks at # of fans for each school to help breakdown which schools are attractive for conference expansion. Maybe some people here can go over how they came up with their #'s but they come to the conclusion that the Big Ten can stand pat.
Here's the article: