In which I continue to beat the dead horse of B10 expansion offering a hopefully new (?) Idea

Submitted by Blueto on
I must confess that I don’t read EVERY post on MGOBLOG (obviously my priorities are screwed up), My apologies if someone has thrown out this idea before. First to restate the obvious, the general feeling is that expanding the B10 for expansion’s sake alone is as distasteful as a 96 team NCAA hoops tournament. Expansion should significantly expand the Big 10’s TV market AND enhance the Big 10’s overall national image. The two best targets to accomplish these goals are Texas and ND. Texas would seem to be the more desirable but also the more difficult target. ND is playing coy. So how does the B10 lever ND into the fold? Notre Dame will likely only come in if they see some sort of major realignment that will affect their long-term outlook. We can do that by quietly suggesting to ND that Big 10 members will not renew their contracts to play ND if they don’t play ball. So right now that is only 3 games, but if the Big 10 first takes Pitt then… (here comes the new idea) Boston College two more of ND’s frequent football opponents, ND is now looking at the possibility of a bleak scheduling future. BC is academically a good fit and has a fine football tradition, better than any Big East team. They can bring the Boston TV market and maybe most of New England. They have been part of the ACC for a relatively short period of time and are geographically separated from the rest of their conference, so they probably wouldn’t feel any great angst about leaving for greener pastures. They certainly have more football tradition than either Rutgers or Syracuse and likely bring along a bigger TV audience. Assuming ND then folds and a 16 team super conference is in the cards we could then expand westward with either UT & TAMU, Mizzou/Kansas or Mizzou/Nebraska. An interesting question is whether the addition of Notre Dame would help bring Texas into the fold. Alternatively, the Big Ten could go with an eastern theme and add Rutgers and Syracuse, but I would personally prefer going west for the final 2.

Blueto

April 21st, 2010 at 12:21 AM ^

Oops, I see that BlueSeoul just put out somewhat of the same bargaining idea ealier today, although this is probably not the first time someone has mention this My main idea though was to bring up BC which I don't think anyone has mentioned, and is a more frequent ND opponent than Syracuse or Rutgers.

SysMark

April 21st, 2010 at 12:25 AM ^

"They certainly have more football tradition than either Rutgers or Syracuse" I think Doug Flutie was a great college football player - no argument there, but are you familiar with the following former Syracuse football players?: Jim Brown Floyd Little Ernie Davis Of later note, Art Monk Joe Morris Donovan McNabb I am all-Michigan and have no ties to Syracuse but you have to be realistic. Syracuse may not be doing particularly well right now but there is plenty of footall tradition.

Blueto

April 21st, 2010 at 12:58 AM ^

so perhaps I was engaging in a little hyperbola to back my postition. I am aware that Syracuse has been good in the past and has had some great players. My opinion was partially formed from personal experience watching a small sample of both team's games on TV. Whenever I watch Syracuse they kind of stink, even when they had Mcnabb, but I have seen a couple of absolutely classic, wonderful football games played by BC. I do have this statistical fact to back up my otherwise unfounded assertions on -- All time winning percentages: BC .587 Syracuse .585 Pitt .576 Rutgers .504

steviebrownfor…

April 21st, 2010 at 12:37 AM ^

BC has been in a bowl game very year since 1999. Syracuse has been to 3 bowls in the same time span. the two are probably pretty comparable overall, but BC has been way better recently.

MGlobules

April 21st, 2010 at 8:01 AM ^

if the B10 goes to 14-16 without them. And--honestly--who do they join then? The Big 12? They have no historical association with conferences other than the Bigs--East and Ten. A complicated puzzle w. many pieces to place, but Delaney is holding 11 very good cards--i.e. most of the marbles.

OHbornUMfan

April 21st, 2010 at 9:09 AM ^

Anyway, in the spirit of the NCAA basketball tournament, and in the spirit of 'no girl likes to go to the bathroom alone', we ought to form a 32 team conference that would have plenty of oomph in football, basketball, academics, and engineering. We would add: Texas Oklahoma Nebraska Texas Tech Kansas Missouri Cal USC Stanford Washington Duke Virginia Virginia Tech Boston College North Carolina NC State Pitt Cincinnati Rutgers Syracuse West Virginia Akron Miami (OH) Toledo Plenty of new rivalries, traditional rivalries, juicy matchups, and best of all - the SEC and Notre Dame are not invited!

M2NASA

April 21st, 2010 at 11:30 AM ^

We also played for a national title in 1987. Pat "Tie" Dye sucks. We also have four BCS bowls since MSU last went to one. 1987 Sugar Bowl 1992 Fiesta Bowl 1997 Fiesta Bowl 1998 Orange Bowl BC hasn't been to one since the 1942 Orange Bowl, and has zero national championships.

Tater

April 21st, 2010 at 1:36 PM ^

I"m with you: I have suggested this numerous times here. You will find one very strong ally in the MSM: Angelique Chengelis. I wrote her about this once, and she wrote back that she has wanted this for years, but doesn't see it happening soon. Anyone in ND's position would be stupid to join a conference that lets them cherry-pick it to fill out a nice schedule while not requiring them to share revenue as a member would. Sadly, as long as Notredame Broadcasting Company continues to pay them as though they are still as relevant as they were when they were a dominant team, they have no reason to join a conference. My biggest college football pipedream, besides an Urban Meyer-like run for RR at UM or severe NCAA probation for OSU and USC, would be to see most of the major conferences refuse to schedule ND and watch ND try to justify a schedule filled with MAC, MWC, and service academies as one worthy of "major" status and BCS bowls.