Where is the BigTen with all of this realignment?!

Submitted by 7NK7 on
So I have to say it: but where is the BigTen while all of this new realignment talk is happening?! Are they really going to sit by on the sidelines while all these schools look for new homes? First it was Texas A&M this year; now Texas and Oklahoma are meeting monday to look into finding a new conference; since that news Baylor and Iowa State have contacted the Big East...and now Syracuse and Pitt have officially applied to the ACC. Does anyone else think that the BigTen needs to jump in here and get some more schools? I am hoping that Delany is doing this very quietly and behind closed doors, but I can't help but we worry whether we will be leaders or simply leftovers.

bluebyyou

September 17th, 2011 at 10:51 PM ^

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.  

FreddieMercuryHayes

September 17th, 2011 at 10:57 PM ^

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.

M-Wolverine

September 17th, 2011 at 11:01 PM ^

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?

mmc22

September 18th, 2011 at 9:40 AM ^

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.

M-Wolverine

September 18th, 2011 at 12:16 AM ^

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.
<br>
<br>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.

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 18th, 2011 at 1:02 AM ^

"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.

dayooper63

September 18th, 2011 at 7:51 AM ^

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.

Mr Miggle

September 17th, 2011 at 11:54 PM ^

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.

mikoyan

September 18th, 2011 at 2:59 AM ^

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.

maizenbluenc

September 18th, 2011 at 10:23 AM ^

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.)

turbo cool

September 17th, 2011 at 10:33 PM ^

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.

xcrunner1617

September 17th, 2011 at 10:35 PM ^

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.

Sir Guy

September 17th, 2011 at 10:39 PM ^

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.  

jethro34

September 17th, 2011 at 10:52 PM ^

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.

MGoKorea

September 17th, 2011 at 10:53 PM ^

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. 

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

September 17th, 2011 at 11:10 PM ^

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.

Jasper

September 17th, 2011 at 11:15 PM ^

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.

river-z

September 17th, 2011 at 11:16 PM ^

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.

bluebyyou

September 18th, 2011 at 6:19 AM ^

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.

Vasav

September 17th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^

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.

lhglrkwg

September 17th, 2011 at 11:18 PM ^

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

ShockFX

September 17th, 2011 at 11:52 PM ^

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:

1. Texas

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.

 

BlueHills

September 17th, 2011 at 11:57 PM ^

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?

 

M2NASA

September 17th, 2011 at 11:59 PM ^

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.

ChiCityWolverine

September 18th, 2011 at 12:12 AM ^

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:

Lakes

Pitt

Penn State

Ohio State

Michigan

Michigan State

Indiana

Purdue

Notre Dame

 

Plains

Northwestern

Illinois

Missouri

Iowa

Wisconsin

Minnesota

Nebraska

Kansas/Oklahoma

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.