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.

uminks

September 18th, 2011 at 12:09 AM ^

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.

MrVociferous

September 18th, 2011 at 12:13 AM ^

The only thing that will happen is when the Big East folds (and that could be this week) the Big Ten will push to add them and make it 13 teams. They played with an odd 11 for years, so 13 isn't much different.

Mr Miggle

September 18th, 2011 at 12:43 AM ^

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.

BJNavarre

September 18th, 2011 at 12:22 AM ^

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...

ShockFX

September 18th, 2011 at 12:36 AM ^

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.

Vasav

September 18th, 2011 at 1:19 AM ^

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.

gajensen

September 18th, 2011 at 3:43 AM ^

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

Texas/Missouri/Illinois/Northwestern

Minnesota/Wisconsin/Iowa/Nebraska

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.

Vasav

September 18th, 2011 at 3:56 AM ^

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.

Wolvie3758

September 18th, 2011 at 11:10 AM ^

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

gopoohgo

September 18th, 2011 at 10:02 AM ^

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.

 

 

jb5O4

September 18th, 2011 at 10:37 AM ^

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.

Blue Durham

September 18th, 2011 at 11:00 AM ^

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.