December 15th, 2009 at 8:18 PM ^
They're not a very good geographical fit. The conference wants to add a school either within its current "footprint" or one state over.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:18 PM ^
12th of 10? I will reveal the old school Trekkie in me by saying this sounds like the name of a Borg.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:24 PM ^
Michigan - Canada- Massachusetts. 1 state over.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:56 PM ^
Umm, you might want to get yourself a map there.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:10 PM ^
You don't know where Massachusetts is, do you, bcsblue?
December 15th, 2009 at 10:46 PM ^
obviously not. and I dont know Canada is not a state.
December 16th, 2009 at 8:21 AM ^
The rest are all commonwealths, right BS?
December 15th, 2009 at 8:27 PM ^
In addition to geography, Boston College is a bad fit because they have no history of playing the teams in the Big10. There is no rivalry at all that would create any juice/excitement about them joining the league.
They are also a small, religious institution (doesn't fit the big state school template of most Big10 schools and even Northwestern is irreligious) with little national following (they don't even really move the needle in Massachusetts).
BC is a great academic school with quality athletic programs across the board (basketball, football and hockey) but they are a lousy fit for the Big10.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:07 PM ^
School 1 is a Catholic school enrolling 8371 undergrads and 3362 graduates. School 1 has very good academics, being ranked 20th in the nation according to the US News rankings (which, to be fair, are biased towards private schools due to its statistical methodology, but whatever), but isn't AAU qualified. School 1 is competitive in football, basketball and hockey.
School 2 is a Catholic school enrolling 9171 undergrads and 4960 graduates. School 2 has very good academics, being ranked 34th in the nation according to the US News rankings, but isn't AAU qualified. School 2 is competitive in football, basketball and hockey.
School 1 is Notre Dame, who we would take in a heartbeat. School 2 is Boston College. Boston College obviously doesn't have Notre Dame's tradition or star power, but they do offer a chance to expand the Big Ten into the Boston market (pun unintended).
I personally think that the best choices are (in this order) Pitt, Missouri, and Syracuse (unless Notre Dame or Nebraska miraculously decide that joining would be a good idea). But BC isn't a bad option if they would be willing to join.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:14 AM ^
As a Methodist, I'm deeply offended by your comment :)
Northwestern was founded as a Methodist school. As with many Methodist institutions, it is quite independent, not closely tied to the church (even the founders were committed to non-sectarian admissions), but it's definitely not irreligious. For one, Garrett-Evangelical Theological Seminary sits on the campus and has close ties.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:37 AM ^
Thanks for the info. I wonder if USC would have the same football success if they were still known as the Fighting Methodists? Would make the ND rivalry a little more interesting, I think.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:47 PM ^
I tend to disagree that Boston College would be a bad fit. That isn't a knock on you.
Even with the points that have already been made, I just don't see how a Syracuse or Rutgers could fit the mold of a "Big 10 team" while Boston College does not. I'd really REALLY like to have BC in the conference over Rutgers or Syracuse.
Boston College has just as much national attention as Northwestern or Minnesota. The college is private and a religious institution, but so what? Notre Dame is too, they are just larger.
Boston College has terrific academics, a great athletic program and IME, would produce ample amounts of attention. I hope we include their name along with Pitt and Mizzou.
December 15th, 2009 at 8:53 PM ^
I too would take BC over Rutgers (definitely) or Syracuse (probably). For me the only teams worth discussing with respect to addition are Pitt and ND. If it isn't one of those teams I would be very disappointed if the powers that be still decided to add a 12th team.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:00 PM ^
True. I'm not necessarily saying I want BC. I guess I'm just talking lesser of two...well, dumbass teams.
I'd be excited about Pitt or Notre Dame. I'd be ok with Mizzou or Boston College. I'd be extraordinarily pissed if we welcomed Rutgers or Syracuse into the conference.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:08 PM ^
Boston College has a larger enrollment than Notre Dame, if that's what your using as a definition for size.
December 15th, 2009 at 9:12 PM ^
I didn't realize that. Thanks for helping me with my point even more!
December 15th, 2009 at 10:19 PM ^
The Big East can go from Boston to South Florida. The Pac 10 can go from Pullman, Warshington to Tempe, Arizona.
But the Big Ten is scared and needs to stay within a distance that a two year old on his tricycle can cover in just over three hours.
And we wonder why this conference is the butt of so many jokes.
December 16th, 2009 at 1:26 AM ^
There wasn't anything close to the number of college football teams on the west as there was in the east when the Pac 10 was founded, so they had to cover a much bigger area. The Big East, meanwhile, stretched its boundaries as a matter of survival, not choice.
Conferences like fairly compact geographic areas because they otherwise have to spend a lot of money on travel for non-revenue teams.
December 16th, 2009 at 12:24 AM ^
I had never thought of BC and geography is definitely an issue here, but I think I'd take BC ahead of almost any other school (minus ND or a shocker like Nebraska or Texas). I don't know much about BC's fanbase, and that could definitely be an issue, but it's a fun idea.
December 16th, 2009 at 11:10 AM ^
in the Grid of Judgment! Feel free to expand on or argue against any of my initial assessments.
Willingness (Baseline 3) -1 for additional travel costs incurred by the school, -1 for a second hop to a new conference after a painful transition to the ACC (lawsuits, etc.). +1 for interest due to the fact that the ACC hasn't lived up to expectations and BC may want more exposure. -1 for being a hockey school anyway. (1)
Academics (3) No argument necessary.
Football (2) Pretty good winning percentage at .62 (47/18) with two bowl wins and two ACC finals losses since 2005. Not at Texas/ Nebraska caliber but a high 2 at least. An Emerald Bowl against USC this year may put them in the pre-season top 25 for 2010.
Basketball (2) I need some help here ... not a big basketball fan. My understanding is that they're somewhere in the middle of the pack in the ACC?
Other (2) Great hockey team but committed to the Hockey East. With the Beanpot & the prominence of the BU/ BC rivalry don't expect this to change much. Putting this at a 2 with the assumption that the rest of the school has good facilities and some sports (track, cc, volleyball, etc.) that may come over to the Big Ten as well.
Location (0) Incredibly awkward location based on current Big Ten participants. Nearest opponent is PSU at almost a 7 hours drive. Minneapolis is a 20+ hour drive.
Market (1) Makes an attempt to open up the East Coast to some Midwest football and a new TV market for our games. However, as a New England resident I have to firmly argue that the fanbase is not traditional of Big Ten teams and that they're not the most passionate fans. BC is the only D-I team in the area besides UConn and Alumni Stadium only seats 44,500 which would make it the smallest in the Big Ten by far (Indiana's Memorial Stadium seats 52,692).
Footprint (2) Again little argument here from me. Having BC would make a splash in college football circles.
The verdict: 1.6 Somewhere between West Virginia and Nebraska.