Big Ten Expansion Statement - 3PM EST
December 15th, 2009 at 3:04 PM ^
The Charlie Weis Conference, composed of the Friedgen and Mangino Divisions.
Toledo can be the 12th team and Tom Amstutz can be the commissioner.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:28 PM ^
I have to think it is Pitt or Iowa St. Syracuse is really a basketball school. It wouldn't make sense for the school to leave the Big East where it already has basketball rivalries. Louisville might make sense, but I don't think they are a good fit academically. Pitt is the best fit, but adding a strong football school to the hypothetical East division or a weak one to the hypothetical west (ISU) is trouble in terms of competitive balance.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:33 PM ^
Can anyone even articulate one reason why expanding to 12 teams is a good idea for the fans? There is a meme that expansion is just good in and of itself without even questioning why. I think that deserves a lot more attention than the meaningless allocation of teams to a particular division.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:36 PM ^
I don't know about the rest of this board, but I feel a little left out on the Saturday the SEC/Big 12/ACC have their championship games.
Also - Michigan is a great football school and I can imagine us playing in several of those championship games over the next decade. Another game to go to? Sign me up.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:50 PM ^
Nobody's perfect
December 15th, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^
Money, Money, Money
To compete with conferences, the Big Ten has to have a championship game to step up the revenue. Also, why the hell not? Like the other responder said, a final game is exciting. The Big Ten is already a misnomer, why not make it more so?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:29 PM ^
Why does an extra team = more money? They would have to bring in more than the average (which to me is like an Illinois or Wisconsin) to boost up the average, otherwise each B10 team would take home less money. 1 more championship game could be accomplished without having an even number of teams, and even if you disagree, a championship game split by 12 teams would at most give each team an extra $1, maybe $2 million in profit.
December 15th, 2009 at 6:57 PM ^
It's not necessarily the 12th team, but the conference title game that will result from it, that will bring in the money.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:47 PM ^
That can't be more that $1 to $2 million in profit per team, given 12 teams share the profit from 1 game.
Also, you don't need a 12th team to play a conference championship. You could do that anyway.
December 15th, 2009 at 3:04 PM ^
I agree 100%. For years I have been pissed that all I can watch during conference championship weekend is other people's favorite football teams playing in games I care nothing about.
Anything that could give UM the chance at playing another game each season, not to mention the fact that it is an actual Championship game (next best thing to a Bowl game) gives me goosebumps just thinking about it.
Edit: I was agreeing with Bevis, but this guy jumped the cue dammit!
December 15th, 2009 at 2:56 PM ^
The only way to preserve "meaningful" games on rivalry weekend and to avoid rivalry rematches (which is the bane of big conferences) is to ensure the following pairs are kept together in the same division:
-Michigan-Ohio State
-Michigan-Michigan State
-Iowa-Minnesota
-Wisconsin-Minnesota
-Penn State-Pitt
-Purdue-Indiana
-Illinois-Northwestern
-kill the phony Michigan State-Penn State rivalry now that Pitt is back in the equation.
That would produce the following structure:
-UM, MSU, OSU, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin
-UIUC, Northwestern, PU, IU, Pitt, Penn State
Just sayin'. I think this conference championship game thing plain sucks, so you won't see me advocating.
December 15th, 2009 at 7:46 PM ^
I like this, with one exception. The "UM, MSU, OSU..." division is too top heavy. Those three, plus Iowa, plus Wisconsin are five of the top six best teams in the conference, on average.
Purdue and Indiana can be moved to the top division without disrupting their rivalry games. Then you need to pick two teams to move down. The obvious options: Minnesota/Wisco and Iowa/Wisco.
However, that will remove one of the bigger rivalries. That could probably be solved with a set "cross-divisional" game. If you play each in your division once, that leaves three conference games. You set one of those aside for your "cross-divisional" rivalry game, and you rotate the other two games.
Division 1: M, MSU, OSU, Iowa, Purdue, Indiana
Division 2: Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pitt, PSU
Cross-Divisional Games: M-Minn, PSU-MSU, Pitt-OSU, Iowa-Wisco, IU-Ill, Purdue-NW
Then you rotate the remaining two games.
Geographic division names be damned, but it seems pretty even to me.
December 15th, 2009 at 2:59 PM ^
What would the name of the new conference be?
December 15th, 2009 at 3:02 PM ^
I see someone just beat me to this.
FWIW, if it's not going to be the B10, what about the Great Lakes Conference?
December 15th, 2009 at 4:10 PM ^
What would the GLIAC say about that?
December 15th, 2009 at 6:45 PM ^
Texas, Notre Dame, Syracuse, Vanderbilt, and Maryland.
Pluses: opens up huge TV markets in Texas, NY, Nashville, DC/Baltimore. All top notch academic universities, only Notre Dame isn't an AAU member. With Notre Dame on board, Jesus can replace Delaney as Big Ten Commissioner.
Negatives: travel, reality, would never happen
December 15th, 2009 at 7:39 PM ^
Logical divisions are irrelevant to this. The only thing that matters is that UM and OSU are in the same division so they only play once a year. I also don't think division strength matters. who cares if one division blows? I'm not going to lose sleep over missing 2 of iowa, northwestern,indiana, illinois, purdue or school x. We already do this except we wouldn't miss psu or wisky ever, but that's bad ass to miss the shitty teams more often.
Also since every B10 winner in the past 15 years has been from this hypothetical East conference (except the one or two northwestern titles) why does it matter if its constantly the east champ that wins it all. Not like a B10 game would ever NOT be a sellout.
My personal divisions would be:
Div1: UM, MSU, OSU, NU, minnesota, wisky.
Div2: PSU, Iowa, indiana, purdue, illinois, school X.
You could swap wisky and purdue if so inclined.
Nebraska, pitt, or mizzou would fit nicely into Div2.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:06 PM ^
Sorry if Im being lazy by not reading the whole thread, but is splitting into divisions a requirement to have a conference championship game?
I love the idea of a championship game, but am not sold on divisions. Could we just have a championship game between the top two teams?
If UM/OSU are undefeated going into the game, why not just replay in the championship game? When we lost to tOSU , I know Mike Hart was ready to play them again!!
I would have loved to see that game replayed at a neutral site!
December 15th, 2009 at 10:21 PM ^
"If UM/OSU are undefeated going into the game, why not just replay in the championship game? When we lost to tOSU , I know Mike Hart was ready to play them again!!"
Why even bother playing the first game then?
The idea behind a championship game is that two teams in the same conference can't have the same conference record without a head to head tiebreaker. Say in 2006 if Wisky beats UM, then OSU and Wisky are both 12-0. Uhh, then what?
Basically, you need a conference championship game if the conference is too big for playing round robin, although it's still vulnerable to a Texas/TexasTech/Oklaholma disaster if the three teams each lose one game to one of the two and win all their other games. It's pretty unlikely though.
/shrug