Big 10 to amplify its search for a 12th member
According to Barry Alvarez, the Big 10 will rev up its search for a 12th member. It has to be Notre Dame doesn't it? I cant think of another team in the Midwest that would fit the bill. Thoughts?
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4735336
December 11th, 2009 at 9:24 PM ^
USF's coach is a dick and they have no history at all. I'll pass.
December 12th, 2009 at 1:00 AM ^
While USF may be used to logging the heavy miles in their sports, the majority of the Big Ten's non revenue sports stick to bus travel to and from games. What you propose would increase travel budgets a ton, not to mention the extra class time the athletes would have to miss. There is no way the university presidents and AD's would allow this to happen.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:33 PM ^
They would be a better fit than ND since they have a stadium that holds 100k. Texas only has 2 rivalries and they can still play in Dallas against Oklahoma and play thanksgiving nights against Texas A&M.
I don't like Missouri at all as an addition, but it would be nice if the Big 10 was more sought after to the point that a big 12 team wants to join the Big 10.
Just to purely spite Ohio St, I want to see Cincinnati join the Big 10. Cincinnati is close enough to all the schools that if they ever expanded their stadium, they could consistently sell out 60,000 a game. PSU, Tosu, Mich and Wisc would all bring their fans en masse and fill up.
I always think about potential big 10 championship sites, it seems like only Houston, Dallas and Kansas City are Big 12 host cities for football. In the Big 10, we have Minnesota (The vikings will probably get a new domed stadium in the future) Heinz field, the stadium in Philadelphia, Ford Field, Soldier Field, or even the dome in Indianapolis. If we must, we can consider the 2 Ohio pro stadiums as well.
One nice thing about a Big 10 title game, anyone can buy tickets early and make plans well in advance to attend.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:40 PM ^
I'd love to have Pitt. Or Cincy.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:40 PM ^
Nebraska plz.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:40 PM ^
Splitting the teams into two divisions is where the problem arises for me.
If you put Ohio State and Michigan on opposite sides (which seems like the most logical move), then you could and probably would have a situation where Michigan and OSU play in the final regular season game and then again in the championship game. I know these teams have not been 1 and 2 in the past couple of years, but if you look back in the history of the conference, it happens more often than not.
The question is, how many years of UM-OSU playing twice in a row would it take for the rivalry to lose some of its luster. Granted, for the big fans it would probably make things even more intense. But nationally the game would take a hit.
The only other option is to have Michigan and OSU on the same side of the conference. Of course the problem with this is that you will have situations where the two best teams aren't playing for the conference title. For instance, imagine the Big 10 was a 12 team conference in 2006. The 1 vs. 2 matchup would have still taken place. BUT it would have been followed by OSU playing the conference title game against the 3rd best team in the conference and maybe even the 4th or 5th best depending on how the split was done.
I think the best option may be a conference with rotating divisions. The rotation could either be random or based on performance in the prior season. This IMO would keep things very interesting and would prevent the Big 10 from becoming the Big 12, where you have extremely unbalanced sides.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:23 AM ^
In your scenario, 2006 would have resulted in a Ohio State (12-0, 8-0) playing Wisconsin (11-1, 7-1). Wisconsin's only loss was their Big Ten opener @ Michigan. Ohio State and Wisconsin had not played that year. A Michigan win would have resulted in a rematch with Wisconsin.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:48 PM ^
Here we go again. I like this topic, though.
Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers--will elicit a collective YAWN from the rest of the country. Universities named after cities just makes the conference look like a sissy. Feels weak. Big East-ish or Conference USA-ish.
We're in Pennsylvania with PSU--Big Brother there. Enough with the Quakers.
Rutgers? Again, New York has little to no interest in college football. And Rutgers gives the Big Ten another Purdue (well, that could be bad for Rodriguez).
Any of the following, and the rest of the country laughs at the Big Ten even more: Iowa State, West Virginia, CMU, and just about anybody not named Texas, Nebraska, or Notre Dame.
Texas? Leave the Big 12--their personal playground? No.
Notre Dame? The Big Ten has been carrying Notre Dame's slopjar for more than a decade, waiting for the Irish to come. Didn't they UNANIMOUSLY reject the Big Ten's marriage proposal the last time? Notre Dame treats the Big Ten like the fat chick at the bar. They'll come in, take the money and the three regular games we give them, then never call once they chew their arm off to get out in the morning.
Nebraska. Think about it. Mull it over. Travelling fan base. Prestige. Instant rivalries with at least Iowa and Penn State. Not too bad for travel (750 miles from Ann Arbor and Columbus). They have never recovered from having their rivalry with Oklahoma killed.
Guys here swear Nebraska and the Big Ten have had drinks together before...
December 11th, 2009 at 9:03 PM ^
be a good fit, but why would they leave Big 12? Too many traditional matchups to leave, I think. It's be like Michigan or OSU leaving the Big 10.
I can't see ND agreeing to come. They just make too much money on their own football tv contract. Not gonna happen.
Personally, I think it's Rutgers if anyone. State school. Decent academics. And, best of all, the Big 10 channel would be throughout the east. That's cash sought after.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:21 PM ^
Nah, it'd be more like Illinois leaving the Big 10. Nebraska's got the traditional matchups with the old Big 8 schools, yeah, but all the schools they consider rivals of some kind have bigger rivalries. Missouri has Kansas and Illinois. Oklahoma has Texas and OSU. Colorado has CSU. They're kind of like Maryland - they have some teams they like to beat better than others but don't really have a real rivalry.
I think Nebraska ought to be the top choice if the Big Ten must expand. Instant football cred. Re-establish the Midwestern footprnt. They're an AAU member, too. And the TV footprint might not be New York-sized, but TBH I don't think adding Rutgers would actually make a major dent in that market. Too much else going on to pay attention to a suburban school that doesn't do very well in most of its sports endeavors.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:57 PM ^
Notre Dame? The Big Ten has been carrying Notre Dame's slopjar for more than a decade, waiting for the Irish to come. Didn't they UNANIMOUSLY reject the Big Ten's marriage proposal the last time? Notre Dame treats the Big Ten like the fat chick at the bar.
IIRC, Notre Dame's trustees (or maybe it was the faculty) actually voted to join the conference, but the university president vetoed it.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:51 PM ^
Personally I think Cincinnati or Pitt would be best for an all sports switch. Haven't seen too much mention of Iowa State yet. They are maybe the most realistic possibly, as they suck enough in the big 12 that a move may spice things up for their university. Then big 12 adds TCU or Tulsa or Colorado St. or something.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:19 PM ^
Since it seems that academics mean more to the Big Ten than any other major conference, here are the most recent US News College Rankings for various D1-A schools in the region and other schools that have been mentioned, along with the current Big 10 teams:
12. Northwestern
20. Notre Dame
27. M
39. Illinois
39. Wisconsin
47. Penn State
53. Ohio State
56. Pittsburgh
58. Syracuse
61. Purdue
61. Minnesota
66. Rutgers
71. Indiana
71. Michigan State
71. Iowa
77. Miami U
88. Iowa State
96. Nebraska
102. Missouri
115. Ohio
121. Buffalo
128. Kentucky
Any relevant schools beyond those are Tier 3 or lower, and thus don't have a ranking.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:25 PM ^
How will the Big Ten logo look when there's 12 teams in the conference?!
December 12th, 2009 at 3:46 PM ^
If they add a 12th member, that is.
It's not without precedent. The conference has been the Western Conference and the Big 9 previously.
December 12th, 2009 at 5:16 PM ^
before college sports were as big a business as they are now. I'm not in marketing, so I'm not sure how to value the name of a brand, but it'd be hard to leave behind a brand name, even if it has taken a hit lately in football.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:32 PM ^
If we're going to discuss hypotheticals that won't happen, let's just have no divisions. Keep things the way they are now, except three teams rotate off the schedule. We can break a few minor rivalries (PSU-MSU) if need be to make things work, but divisions are dumb because they are typically unbalanced.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:31 AM ^
I read somewhere that if a conference goes to 12 teams, it's actually required to split up into two divisions. Even if that's not the case, it's a certainty that we would have them if a 12th team is added.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:41 PM ^
people need to make a decision. You have to be an idiot to believe that conference championships don't do anything for a conference. I don't care if you are brian or tom vh, you can't believe that the big ten is a strong conference right now. If the bcs is going to stay around, conferences that have a championship are going to have an advantage. you are an idiot if you don't agree with that. So what do you want? Michigan to play ohio state before thanksgiving, or a 13th game, a chance to play in december, when the voting really matters and we are still fresh in the minds of the people who vote. I don't understand. I have heard analysis on this subject for years and every talking head on espn has the same opinion about this. I know you all hate espn, but they have more influence on college football than all of you.
Personally, I don't care about ohio state. I want U of M to be considered the best football team in the nation, and I believe that we can be the best football team in the nation in 2011. I believe we can win the big ten and go undefeated. but it doesn't matter if we are or not, because we won't get the recognition we deserve if we stay complacent with our conference and scheduling. Ohio state means nothing compared to a national championship. Cinn went undefeated this year, where did that get them? to jump ahead if a undefeated sec or big 12 team we have to have a conference championship, plain and simple.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:03 PM ^
I am not convinced that a conference championship necessarily helps a conference with the BCS. (maybe it don't do nothing ... ) I've already posted how the Big Ten has consistently placed two teams in BCS bowl games nearly every year since they began in 1998.
The argument for conference strength is interesting but irrelevant. No Big Ten school that finished undefeated in the BCS era has been left out of a national title game. An SEC school and Big East school has been. In addition, let's consider how a conference has seen it's national championship aspirations dashed in a conference championship game since 1998. Texas A&M upset Kansas State in 1998. In 2001, Colorado upset Texas, knocking them out of the game. In 2003, Kansas State's upset of Oklahoma nearly knocked them out of the game, and in 2007, Oklahoma's win over Missouri knocked Missouri out of the title game. In 2001, Tennessee lost to Miss. State when ranked #2 in the SEC title game.
I am sure there are also examples of when the higher ranked team won the championship game and knocked out a potential second school from a BCS bowl game. You might want to do the research on your own.
December 12th, 2009 at 9:09 AM ^
I'm not talking about 5-6-7 years ago, I'm talking about the BCS landscape now. An undefeated big ten team has the same chance as an undefeated big east team to make a nat'l championship, so it doesn't make sense to talk about these teams that ruined their chances by having to play in a conference championship game. They were in a position to at least get there, we aren't. and before you start yelling about how "were the big ten, we have the most history, we're the best conference", think about everything that has conspired against us in the past 3-4 years: miserable bowl showings, especially in big name bowls like the Rose Bowl and nat'l championship, the current landscape where the sec and big 12 are, either rightfully or wrongly, considered NCAA royalty right now, and the current trend of speed over power, which doesn't affect us but the big ten is still considered a "power" conference in the eyes of the press. In todays current landscape you don't have to be a genius to see what is happening.
part of the reason Florida made the nat'l championship in 06 over USC was because of the conference championship game.
December 12th, 2009 at 10:23 AM ^
part of the reason Florida made the nat'l championship in 06 over USC was because of the conference championship game.I don't think the conference championship was much of the reason Florida made the BCS championship in 2006, at least not because of the results on the field. It had more to do with Gary Danielson consistently lobbying for Florida to make the championship game after USC lost to UCLA earlier in the day for their second loss of the season, leaving just one-loss Florida and one-loss Michigan in the debate.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:02 AM ^
i agree, hence the fact I said part of the reason
December 12th, 2009 at 11:26 AM ^
You missed the key phrase in my post. The SEC championship game had nothing to do with Florida getting in over USC, since USC losing to UCLA earlier in the day removed USC from any BCS championship discussions regardless of the results of the SEC championship game. And the reasons Florida got the BCS nod over Michigan had more to do with Florida being a conference champ and the game being a rematch if Michigan got in. Florida playing in a championship game was irrelevant to the Florida vs. Michigan discussion, just as it was to the Florida vs. USC discussion.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:09 PM ^
Hey stupid, is that why Auburn was undefeated after they won the SEC championship game and USC went to the national title game instead?
December 11th, 2009 at 11:20 PM ^
who went instead of Auburn - IIRC that USC team was #1 the whole season.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:22 PM ^
So clearly, not getting the chance to prove themselves in a conference championship game was a major obstacle for USC.
December 11th, 2009 at 9:49 PM ^
The obvious choice if it were to have a permanent location, like the SEC, would be Lucas Oil. But would it rotate? Would it possibly be outdoors in Cleveland or Chicago, or be confined to Detroit and Indianapolis?
As for Divisions, it would be one permanent rival, 5 in division games, and 2 additional conference games, as so (if the 12th team is not ND, and I really can't imagine an expansion with ND at this time):
Div 1 - Div 2
Mich - MSU
OSU - PSU
IU - PU
NW - Ill.
Minn - Wisc
Pitt/Cuse - Iowa
December 11th, 2009 at 9:49 PM ^
I would think West Virginia would be perfect, so I wonder what academics have to do with football? This seems to be the only argument against them. Because WVU has lower standards they can recruit dumber athletes? Is there an academic requirement or minimum standard to be in the Big 10? I ask because I do not know.
December 11th, 2009 at 10:03 PM ^
Besides being an athletic conference, the Big Ten has an academic wing, the CIC (which still includes the University of Chicago) which engages in a lot of institutional cooperation. The CIC is prestigious and doesn't want its rep tarnished by admitting a mediocre member.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
did MSU get in?
December 11th, 2009 at 11:17 PM ^
Not a member of the AAU, which is sort of a prerequisite for joining. Only school that the Big Ten would bend this rule for is Notre Dame. IME.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:15 PM ^
game has pretty much been a fail for the ACC. Although bringing in BC, Va Tech and Miami raised the football profile it is still a basketball focused conference. Its expansion has hurt it in basketball by reducing rivalries and making 1/3 of the conference not care about the ACC tournamanent because they are eliminated on the first day.
Speaking of the ACC, every now and then Maryland gets pissed at the Carolina centric nature of the conference and might be ripe for the picking. If ND were not available and Maryland were interested it would make some sense. It fits academically and brings in a two large tv markets Baltimore and DC.
December 11th, 2009 at 11:24 PM ^
But then the Big Ten would have to put up with Maryland fans. You think Sparty gets on your nerves....
December 11th, 2009 at 11:28 PM ^
The Big Ten has made it abundantly clear... they are seeking to EXPAND their footprint. They are not going to take a school form within current boundaries PERIOD.
So far, they've dismissed it all together, but the almighty $$ speaks loudest, and it's a matter of time. I too read this article and if Alvarez is saying the ADs are really beginning to put heat on the commish, maybe it'll happen sooner than later.
However, that won't change the conditions. OUTSIDE the footprint people, outside.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:54 AM ^
For the bitchin' Avatar
December 12th, 2009 at 8:55 AM ^
When? by who? Source? Link? Hard Information to back this assertion up? Quotes from B10 officials, coaches, presidents?
December 12th, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^
In May and June of this year after Joe Pa's comments about needing to expand. Dozens of articles cited Commish Delany. Consensus was big-market (not Pitt, not WVU, not Cincy) AND new territory. Heavily mentioned were Rutgers & Syracuse (NY market), Missouri (KC and St Louis), and Texas.
Sorry, I don't feel like finding specific articles. They're there to Google if you do.
December 12th, 2009 at 11:39 AM ^
Pittsburgh would be considered a big market.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^
Not trying to be rude, but despite it's relative population size, it's at the low end of every soprts TV market.
Even the mighty Steelers are 26th in TV rankings in the NFL.
Also, it doesn't fall "outside" the "footprint".
December 12th, 2009 at 1:23 PM ^
I agree it is not outside of the current 'footprint', but I think that is a good thing with regard to rivalries and the ability of fans to travel to away games.
Not trying to be rude either, but...
"Two-thirds (66%) of adults in Columbus, Ohio are avid sports fans, making the city the #1 sports town in America, according to (pdf) a recent analysis from Scarborough Sports Marketing.
Boston, Buffalo and Pittsburgh round out the top four sports markets. Nearly two-thirds (64%) of Boston adults are avid sports fans, as are 63% of those in Buffalo and Pittsburgh."
"In Pittsburgh, the Steelers are most prominent, with 75% of Pittsburgh adults saying they are fans. Based on percent of the market, the Steelers command the second-largest local fan base of any team in the country."
http://www.marketingcharts.com/topics/demographics/columbus-boston-buff…
I'm guessing your stats are misleading. Do you have a link?
What team, aside from Boston College which would be awesome, would have a bigger local city and inherent media market?
December 12th, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
I think his point is national interest more than local. Expansion isn't necessary if we're looking to improve local fan bases. Expansion is only to improve our national image, and Pittsburgh does not open us up more nationally.
Pittsburgh is a niche market for western Ohio, eastern Pennsylvania, and some parts of West Virginia. I think that is what he is trying to say.
On the other hand, adding a team like Syracuse, Buffalo, Rutgers, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, or Nebraska would open up to a different area of the country, either in football or basketball. Also, a note, I'm just looking at AAU schools here as that is one of the requirements to join the BigTen.
I would consider Iowa State in the same boat as Pittsburgh as not expanding the footprint, but Iowa State offers much less than Pitt on the football/basketball front.
December 12th, 2009 at 2:17 PM ^
OK - if you are arguing for Buffalo over Pittsburgh as having a more prestigious national image...I quit. I'm guessing you will retract that one and continue. "National Image" is -whoa- hella subjective. I think a lot of people underestimate Pittsburgh. Top 20 cities in terms of population.
Geographically, Syracuse and Buffalo and others are in a different state, yes. Syracuse is seriously brutal. Have you ever been there? Those two also do not expand the population and numbers count of the media market as much as Pittsburgh does. So, I guess we need a standard definition of "footprint". To me, more people=more money and more attractive. Sacrificing significant revenue in order for a larger geographical area does not make sense to me, and most likely not to the people making these decisions either.
Rutgers...NJ? haz image? whoa no thanks...
Maryland is meh - football stinks...National Image? not really. Baltimore is ok for market potential I guess.
Kentucky, National image - yes please - even though football stinks...Lexington is much smaller than Grand Rapids though.
Mizzou - faaaar away and Columbia is a small town, 164,283 residents, and 2 hrs from St Louis, which doesn't really care that much what happens at Mizzou. but I guess it is the State University. seriously far away though.
Nebraska? FAAAAARther away. better national image than PITT? questionable. basketball sinks...
Ranking
1)Pitt
2)Kentucky
3)Mizzou
4)Nebraska
5)Maryland
6)Syracuse
December 12th, 2009 at 3:05 PM ^
Buffalo is something different. I agree that it isn't prestigious, and I don't think it's a big gainer. If anything, they gain everything and we gain very little in the way of Buffalo/western New York. That's fairly fertile recruiting ground, but nothing else. I don't think they're anyone's first pick, they are just eligible, which is something Kentucky is not (I mistakenly included them in my AAU list earlier, my apologies).
Syracuse is more largely visible on the national map, if for anything basketball. Sure their football program has been crap this decade, it's been better historically, and it's basketball team is still top notch. It also opens us up in the New York state market. Pittsburgh doesn't have, nor has it had, the same sort of national perception that Syracuse once had in football, and it's about even on basketball. I think the two schools are approximately equal when it comes to expansion.
Rutgers doesn't offer us much in the way of top tier athletics, but it brings NJ and it's recruiting grounds into a stronger BigTen fold. It also extends the BigTen's reach toward NYC, although I think most of us will agree that NYC is a pro sports town, and not a college sports town. The perception of a potential NYC market for the BigTen will probably be enough for the BigTen to go after Rutgers, whether that is a good idea or not.
I think Maryland doesn't get enough attention in anyone's expansion list. Baltimore/Maryland has quick access to the DC/MD area recruiting which isn't bad, and the Terrapins have a solid basketball program. If they can ever afford to get rid of the Fridge, they've shown that they're willing to put money into their football program and make it better.
As stated, Kentucky isn't AAU, which disqualifies them already. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't need much to qualify if they were interested.
Missouri is closer to us than Minnesota is. They offer a good balance of football and basketball.
Nebraska offers the best football, but I have to agree it's way the hell out there.
My list of already qualified academic schools:
- Maryland - best population vs new marketing areas, regional rivalry with PSU possible
- Missouri - best combo of football/basketball, rivalry here already
- Syracuse - best basketball, some football potential, extended footprint, old rivalry with PSU rekindled
- Nebraska - most football exposure, not much else, but football = money, keeps east/west division with OSU/PSU in same conference with best balance of football power
- Pittsburgh - co-best basketball, football is meh, PSU rivalry
- Rutgers - Second best new market. Not much for football or basketball
- Buffalo - We'd have to build them up into a power in anything
- Iowa State - We'd have to build them into a power in anything. Iowa rivalry. Keeps East/West conferences with Michigan/OSU in same division
December 12th, 2009 at 3:24 PM ^
arrrg you got me excited about Kentucky
Maryland definitely has potential. Close to NY,DC,Philly. Baltimore has a fairly vibrant sports community and a cool 'revitalized' downtown area.
Minny is really far away, but it has a huge population (3.5mil) and is easy to travel to with tons of direct flights from a lot of Big 11 cities.
If Columbia was only 30 mins outside St. Louis, I think that would be a tough choice, but I still have to have Pitt on top.
I really don't like the Rutgers idea, but any of Pitt, Mizzou, Maryland or, to a lesser extent Syracuse would all be really good for the conference I think.
Who do we call to get this done? Should we start a petition?
December 12th, 2009 at 5:40 PM ^
I don't disagree at all that WITHIN Pittsburgh, a VERY high percentage of adults are devout fans. It's an all-Steelers, blue collar, hometown fanbase, that bleeds for it's team.
The problem is, it's within just that area. If my town had 5 guys, and 4 were hometown fans, that's 80%. It doesn't say ANYTHING about national appeal or how effectively we market to guys outside our town.
I don't argue Pittsburgh's population is huge, I mention it in fact. However, population alone doesn't lead to "market size". If you're that familiar with P'burgh, have you not heard that the Pirates are also considered a "small market" team? It's for the same reason.
Google "Steelers small market" and see what you find...
P.S. didn't neg you
December 12th, 2009 at 6:49 PM ^
We're not talking about MLB here. We're not talking 'any city in the country'. I understand what you are saying. Northwestern is in chicago and they can't even sell out a 50,000 seat stadium. Their basketball gym is tiny and crappy. I get it.
Pittsburgh is roughly the 20th largest media/population market in the country. There is an avid sports fan base there, which was the point of my post.
What are your possibilities in larger markets?
Give me Boston College? yes please - but highly doubtful.
St. Louis is even with Pittsburgh in size, market and maybe lower in appeal, and Mizzou is 2 hrs away. Cleveland? nothing.
Maryland - possible, although the Baltimore market ranks below Pittsburgh and its way farther away. Where else are you going to go?
http://www.mediainfocenter.org/compare/top50/
December 12th, 2009 at 10:47 PM ^
I only pointed out what the BT has stated multiple times in the past. Frankly, I don't care who they take, me and mine are still rooting for Michigan.
I do think you're too hung up on the singular value of the population as a whole. There is a reason that the Steelers got 60+ % of their revenue through revenue sharing being handed out to them, despite the ENORMOUS population that is the 'Burgh.
As for the MLB comparison, fine, but it's no more invalid than a ranking of newspaper distribution. More people, more newspapers, still small market. When all revenue streams suck (local TV contracts, $$$ spent per fan-capita, etc), you're small market.
We won't even approach the topic of "expansion", as in the reality of how few people we'd get who don't already watch the Big Ten in the area.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:13 AM ^
we can't add another team to the big ten. Why, you ask? Because right now, the graphic that says "Big Ten" but has a little "11" hidden in there is soooooooo clever!