maizenblue92

December 11th, 2009 at 6:56 PM ^

I don't agree with adding a 12th team. Mostly because the only reason to do it is start a conference title game. I thought we already had one? Most years I call Michigan vs. Ohio State.

maizenbluedevil

December 12th, 2009 at 2:24 AM ^

I don't get where this notion comes from that the B10 is somehow the Ivy League of the midwest.

There are some great academic schools in it - U of M (obvs), Northwester, Purdue, Wisconsin, I'm lookin at you - but the others.... Are they really highly regarded academic schools?

I mean, Indiana, Illinois, Penn St., Ohio St., MSU(!)... These aren't real prestigious academic institutions.

I just don't like Cinci though, for other reasons.

They had BBall success in the past w/ Huggins, but are they that good anymore? (That's not rhetorical, I really don't know. You don't hear about them much which probably indicates they're not that good.)

Their recent success w/ football was a flash-in-the-pan thing. It was more due to Kelly than established programatic strength.

If it happens - Notre Dame, Pitt, or no one.

Expanding the B10 and adding a title game, yes, it would diminish the importance of The Game. It would probably also mean that M and OSU would be in the same division and would never play each other for the B10 championship, rather would play each other for the right to go to the B10 championship game.

I don't really like that.

BUT, if the B10 is ever going to hope to get on par w/ the SEC and get more respect in the BCS/MNC picture, adding a 12th team and a title game is something they need to do.

bacon

December 12th, 2009 at 8:23 AM ^

I don't disagree with your point, but we should acknowledge that the big ten has some good schools academically. Northwestern is obviously a top school. Michigan is the 27th best college in the country according to US news, Illinois is ranked as the 39th. Tied with Wisconsin. Penn State is 47 (same as florida and UT austin). OSU is 53 (and you don't have to know how to read to get in!), Purdue is 61, tied with Minnesota. Iowa, IU and MSU come in at 71.

FWIW, Pitt is 56. University of Cincinnati is tier 3, so I can't see their ranking.

mstier

December 12th, 2009 at 9:08 AM ^

UC certainly isn't Northwestern or Michigan, but they have some extremely good programs. Off the top of my head, I know they have one of the best architecture and design programs in the country, and Cincinnati Children's Hospital (aka UC's Department of Pediatrics) is considered the 3rd best children's hospital in the country. They're also a major research institution for what it's worth.

mstier

December 12th, 2009 at 1:31 PM ^

I understand, and it wasn't exactly the point I was trying to make. Saying "Tier 3" or whatever isn't descriptive enough in my opinion. The fact is, if any of my kids needed a serious pediatric specialist, I'd almost certainly take them to Cincinnati Children's.

Are they fantastic across the board? No, but saying Tier 3 and calling it quits doesn't really tell the whole story either.

nazooq

December 12th, 2009 at 2:51 PM ^

To anyone who knows anything about colleges in the US, saying Cincy is tier 3 is more than enough. The schools in the Big 10 are all major research universities with large undergraduate populations, ranging from Northwestern with 8000 students all the way up to OSU with 40k. These schools are academic and athletic peers with a history going back over 100 years to the Western Conference. There's no way a school with lesser academic credentials that isn't a member of the

http://www.aau.edu/

will be let in. It doesn't matter how good one or two programs or researchers there are. To be a AAU or Big 10 member, a school must show breadth and depth in academics.

mstier

December 12th, 2009 at 3:53 PM ^

Agreed.

And I don't think I ever lobbied for them to be the 12th member, though I could understand my posts being construed that way. Rather, I'm just tired of the notion that schools are either entirely fantastic in every respect or absolutely terrible.

In fact, I really don't want a 12th member, but oh well.

thethirdcoast

December 12th, 2009 at 11:30 AM ^

...everything I've read and seen in my career as an engineer indicates that Illinois has an excellent engineering program, with the subdiscipline of electrical engineering standing out.

On the other hand, I live in western NY state and I work with several PSU grads. I'm going to haul out the ol' "Michigan Arrogance" and say I'm not blown away by them as engineers. Solid engineers? Yes. Exceptional? NO!

Also keep in mind that PSU was voted #1 party school in the nation very recently.

restive neb

December 11th, 2009 at 6:59 PM ^

It looks like a reporter latching on to wishful thinking by Alvarez, because the season is over, and the reporter needs something to write about. Alvarez has been one of the more vocal AD's in favor of expansion, and he is quoted as saying that he believes Delaney will push it harder. There is nothing in the article from Delaney confirming that it's a priority. It seems to me that Alvarez is saying the same thing he's always said, and is hopeful that the Big Ten will put some focus on the effort.

Bryan

December 12th, 2009 at 5:42 PM ^

IME, it would devalue M-OSU, and I am against that. The conference schedule should matter more than a one game championship. A two or even three loss team, which occasionally happens in the B12 North, has the chance to win the conference if they beat a undefeated Texas or Oklahoma, to me, this doesn't seem right. How many times in the past has the B12 conference championship game been fun to watch? It seems to cause more controversy (last year) than entertainment.

The conferences are not about this because it will make the competition better or help to determine a true champion, it is all about the money.

Just to play along, if I had to pick a team to come in it would be Pitt. To hell with Notre Dame.

GoBlueScott

December 14th, 2009 at 9:39 AM ^

I don't think it would devalue "The Game" at all. In a Hypothetical Big 10 that had a conference championship (HB10) then I would want Michigan and Ohio State in the same division. That way, the winner would be the one going to the championship game.

Personally, I don't think we need a 12th team to do that, but I certainly don't think it devalues the game.

As is stands now, the Big 10 has two weeks of nothingness when the rest of the country is playing additional games and watching championship games. I want this conference to stay relevant, and I think a championship makes it so.

wesq

December 11th, 2009 at 7:38 PM ^

Chicago is still part of the Big Ten academically really the Committee on Institutional Cooperation. And one of the biggest draws for Notre Dame is getting in to the CIC and why the faculty voted in favor of joining last time.

Mfan1974

December 11th, 2009 at 7:16 PM ^

could drop michigan state, would that bother ant ony in here?. Or do what soccer does and drop teams from leagues that under perform for a long time and move somebody else up, but we wouldn't move anybody up! My Brit friend says it's great because it makes organizations have to be decent.

I realize the Lions would be in Div. 3 football by now.........

TTUwolverine

December 11th, 2009 at 7:16 PM ^

Notre Dame makes the most sense in every aspect with the exception of ND's own financial interests. Outside of them, I struggle to find anyone else that would fit the bill. I think the most likely scenario would be a Big East team (Pittsburgh? Cincinatti?), but a Big 12 team like Missourri isn't out of the question... assuming the B12 can find someone to replace them (TCU?).

Seth9

December 11th, 2009 at 10:35 PM ^

I don't think that we would care if we screwed over the Big 12. And if it made sense for Missouri to go to the Big Ten, I don't think that they would care either.

That said, I don't think that Missouri would want to join the Big Ten. They have a huge rivalry with Kansas, which currently means something because of the weakness in the Big 12 North. Furthermore, they would have to play teams that were farther away than the other Big 12 schools, upping costs for the athletic department, which would offset the financial benefit of joining the Big Ten.

I think that the second best choice for a 12th Big Ten school (that really sounds contradictory) is Pitt. Pitt is closer to the rest of the Big Ten Schools than Penn State. Furthermore, they have a natural rival in Penn State (which is great for Penn State too, because they wouldn't have to finish up with MSU anymore), and are athletically and academically comparable to other Big Ten schools. Moving to the Big Ten would benefit its basketball team, because they wouldn't have to deal with the perennially dangerous and crowded Big East, as well as significantly increase their revenue. The only problem they would face is having to schedule a yearly non-conference game against West Virginia, because there is no way that their fan base would accept a cessation of that game.

gobluesasquatch

December 11th, 2009 at 7:21 PM ^

Even if the Big Ten is looking for a twelfth member, it won't be Notre Dame. There are some academic issues that would prohibit ND from joining the conference. There is some sort of accreditation group that ND is not a part of that all the rest of the Big Ten schools are, and that was an issue last time the talks heated up.

Pitt would be the most logical choice - both athletically or academically. It's location would still put it within the current geographical boundaries while opening up more of the Pennsylvania market to the Big Ten. You could argue for Syracuse and the New York market, but being so far upstate and so irrelevant in football as of late, I don't see the move. For basketball, that would make the Big Ten killer and actually make things easier for the Orange than the Big East. Maybe. You could make the argument for Missouri, but I don't see them leaving the Big 12. However, that would provide the opening to bring TCU in, which if it wasn't for former Texas governor Ann Richards, would have been in the Big 12 and Baylor out.

But here is the real reason why the Big Ten won't move to 12 teams - THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CHAMPIONSHIP GAME AND HURT THE CONFERENCES CHANCES OF MULTIPLE BCS BOWL PARTICIPANTS. Since the BCS started in 1998, the Big Ten has sent two teams to BCS bowls in 1998, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2005-2009. Granted with the 5th game its easier now, but that is much better than any of the other conferences. The Big Ten would be better suited by moving the last weekend of the season back to the weekend after Thanksgiving.

Plus, their is the historical problem with the Michigan Ohio State game, otherwise traditionally known as the Big Ten Championship Game. Of course, that would require Michigan to win more than 5 games in a season. But that will change soon.

jmblue

December 11th, 2009 at 8:19 PM ^

Huh? The main reason for wanting to add a 12th member is a conference title game. Those games are lucrative. Even if one would reduce the conference's chances of receiving a second BCS bid (which may or may not be true), the revenue generated from the game would more than offset it.

gobluesasquatch

December 11th, 2009 at 9:05 PM ^

Then sure, I would agree with you. In 2008, BCS bowl games paid out $17.5 million to the participant's conference. I don't believe the those games can generate nearly that amount of money. However, if you can find the amount of profit a conference can bring in from the those games, I'd be open to modifying my response.

Mfan1974

December 11th, 2009 at 7:21 PM ^

pitt, kansas, or We drop out of conference (we did it once before) and get a huge tv contract with espn to carry all our games in every sport with a automactic bcs bid when we win 8 games in football, and big dance bid if we pull out 18 hoops victories, plus an automatic frozen four bid just because of our helmets.