Big 10 expansion ponderings
Some free time so I got to thinking about Big 10/11 expansion. We should bring in schools that have big-time football AND basketball, wherever possible. That would have natural regional rivalries with existing conference schools, and that would expand the television and fan base footprint of the conference.
My first choice: West Virginia. (I know...). But they would have built-in rivalries with TOSU and PSU and be competitive in the 2 revenue sports. Plus, no one graduates from WVU and stays in WV, they move to the Washington, DC area, one of the richest regions in the country. This will help Big10 revenues, press and overall exposure.
I think next we go for Louisville. Great basketball rivalry ready-made against Indiana and TOSU. They are desperately trying to build up their football program. And it gets the conference exposure in the upper south, but close to Tennessee and SEC territory, helping recruiting in this very populous area.
We now have enough for clear conference divisions and an end-of season football championship.
After this, if Notre Dame pleads to join, fair enough. They're in. Otherwise, to get to a full 14, I suggest lock up the state of Pennsylvania and bring in Pitt (I've killed the Big East with this plan), or continue to expand the conference footprint and go after Syracuse.
Anyways, my Monday morning thoughts.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:40 AM ^
What are the negatives to expanding the conference?
January 26th, 2009 at 9:45 AM ^
The problem with adding teams to a conference is that you get more rotating of scheduled in conference opponents. Note how we dont play iowa or indiana or illinois every year in football. When u play teams on a less consistent basis, it dimishes the feeling of the rivalry, in my opinion.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:52 AM ^
I think they would be the clear choice at #1. They would never do it, but it would be great. Also, why go to 14 teams? I think 12 would be a fine holding point.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:54 AM ^
seems like a more logical choice to me. I'd rather have them than West Vagina. I'm not sure you could add a better rivalry than PSU/Pitt.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:54 AM ^
Why bother going to 12? The conference isn't any better off that way.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:28 AM ^
Yes it is, certainly from their perspective. A 12th team = conference title game which brings more money and regains the conference some prestige in the eyes of the average fan/press. Plus it brings in new fans and viewers for the B10 Network.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:45 AM ^
A 12th game isn't good enough to structure an entire conference around it. It will bring in slightly more money for one sport, but that money is now being split more ways and it does absolutely nothing for any other sport. And with every expansion comes a loss in the identity and charm that makes the Big 10 what it is. They only team that would truly fit in in terms of size, prestige, location, quality of teams, and national recognition is Notre Dame. And they aren't going to join because being 100% of an independent is still way better than being one twelfth of a conference. Louisville and Pitt? Christ are you people serious?
The Big 10 will get prestige when it wins OOC games and bowl games. Plain and simple.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:56 AM ^
College athletics don't exist to make you happy or to create "identity and charm". Any chance to make more money, no matter how it's split, is good.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:56 AM ^
The details of my life are quite inconsequential... very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for buggery. My mother was a fifteen year old French prostitute named Chloe with webbed feet. My father would womanize, he would drink. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark. Sometimes he would accuse chestnuts of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament. My childhood was typical. Summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring we'd make meat helmets. When I was insolent I was placed in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds- pretty standard really. At the age of twelve I received my first scribe. At the age of fourteen a Zoroastrian named Vilma ritualistically shaved my testicles. There really is nothing like a shorn scrotum... it's breathtaking- I highly suggest you try it.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:11 AM ^
OMG! It's Vilma! I didn't know you were on here! Are you keeping your nuts fuzzy-free like I showed you?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:11 AM ^
This is splendid,truly.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:06 AM ^
monstrosity mega-conference like the Big East. Its annoying enough when you don't play two teams in your conference. Growing the conference to 14 and not playing 5 teams would just suck.
Not to mention the way it screws up basketball.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:27 AM ^
Drop one instead, and get back to playing a round-robin schedule in the Big 10. I like PSU as a program, and they've got a great tradition, but it still irks me that we have 11 teams in a conference called the Big 10. If we dropped one school and played everyone in the conference every year, it would help our strength of schedule - we'd get an extra in-conference game, rather than some cupcake no one wants to see us play.
It works for the Pac-10, and it used to work for us. Why not go back to it?
January 26th, 2009 at 10:31 AM ^
College football isn't about tradition or what we want to see. It's about money and prestige and how to get the most air time so you can maximize your profits. And, especially in the Big Ten, it's about getting fans to watch your non-rev sports and spend money on you.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:39 AM ^
You don't think that adding an extra in-conference game for EVERY team in the conference would get better ratings than the cupcake games we have now? If we added one team (or god forbid, three) to the Big 10, we'd get the addition of one marquee game in the form of a championship, and devalue a bunch of other games. I personally don't think that would add to the prestige of the conference (is the ACC more prestigious than the Pac 10?), and I would think the money/ratings would be a wash.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:34 PM ^
The schools of the Big Ten don't want to change this because schools like Minnesota can schedule nothing but patsies for those four games and only have to win two conference games to become bowl eligible. I know that adding one conference game means they have to win three, but as we saw this year, when the team isn't very good, the third win can be hard to get. The conference makes more money by getting as many teams bowl eligible as possible (because the teams split all bowl revenue, which is a major obstacle to getting ND). It really says something for this year's conference to not be able fill it's bowl allotment.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:40 PM ^
I think it's too cynical by half. In fact, tradition is part of the package of college football and its unique appeal that ATTRACTS the money we see continuing to flow. With the exception of 1 or 2 NFL matchups, no one cares about any two teams in the NFL playing each other apart from gamblers and the home fans unless it's in the playoffs. Not true in college football.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:44 PM ^
I'm not saying the NFL is better or anything of that nature.
But if "no one cares about any two teams in the NFL playing each other apart from gamblers and the home fans" then MNF wouldn't routinely be one of, if not the, highest rated show on cable, and NFL TV ratings wouldn't dwarf college ratings routinely.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:57 PM ^
There's some truth to that. Rivalries are less important in the NFL than in college, although like you say it doesn't seem to hurt NFL TV ratings.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:46 AM ^
Notre Dame coming to the Big 10 would be stupid as they would be at best the fourth best team every year.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:52 AM ^
I hope future BCS/playoff rules really screw over ND. That way they have incentive to join the Big 10. In basketball the Big East already has 87 teams, so they won't miss the Irish.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:54 AM ^
Two things to consider:
The Big Ten covers an immense area, including half of the 8 states with 10 million people or more. The goal of any expansion would be to expand the geographic and marketing footprint of the conference. Some places (St. Louis, parts of West Virginia, etc) already get Big Ten sports and thus are not appealing as markets.
Aside from landing a national fanbase like Notre Dame (not going to happen) or Nebraska (Do not want) the team has to be in a densely populated area.
The Big Ten is not the best academic conference in I-A. The Pac-10 and ACC are better, I believe. But the Big-10 is most consistent, having no school outside the top 75 in the country. Any new school would have to be reasonably strong academically to join the CIC. This cuts out a lot of the bordering Big 12 schools and some of the bordering Big East Schools (WVU and Louisville). Again, the dream scenario is Notre Dame.
In reality, the three most likely options are Rutgers, Syracuse and Pitt. Pitt is the best fit, but least attractive option because the Big Ten is already in the market, if not as the major player. Rutgers is attractive due to academics and location to New York... but the fact is, people have begun to see what an aberration that great season was. Syracuse is attractive as a compromise candidate, especially because they have shown an ability to catch the attention of New York and Buffalo in the past.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:00 AM ^
lets look at what adding a conference championship did to the Big 12 and Nebraska-Oklahoma in particular. NU-OU was one of the great rivalries in college football, now it doesn't exist.
Before you get on your bandwagon for a 12th team, explain to me how you align Michigan and Ohio State while preserving the rivalry and keeping the two conferences relatively balanced. And the only team that is even worth considering is Notre Dame.
WVU? Pitt? Are you serious? Those would be at best mid tier programs as far as prestige and national interest goes. If anything, cut a team out. while I'm not suggesting this, I'd rather lose IU, Purdue or Northwestern than add someone other than Notre Dame.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:04 AM ^
What do you mean by "preserving the rivalry"? Do you think there would ever be a universe where we wouldn't play OSU the last week of the regular season? Because we always will, 12 teams or not.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:26 AM ^
And what happens if the Big Ten institutes a conference championship game at the end of the season? It's absolutely feasible that the championship game is simply a replay of the Michigan/OSU game.
Suppose that, in 2006, the Big Ten has a conference championship game. Michigan and OSU, ranked #1 and #2 in the country, would have played another game, rendering the outcome of that historic game almost moot. That diminishes the rivalry. That diminishes the significance of that one game against OSU per season. And I want no part of that.
And I strenuously disagree with you when you say that college football does not exist to serve my interests as a fan. I would be tremendously disappointed if the conference expands solely to increase revenue, and as a fan, that's my right. Yes, I do think there's tremendous value in traditions and historical rivalries within the conference. No, I don't want the conference to be split into divisions, which would happen if the Big Ten expanded. Would we still play for the Brown Jug every year? OSU? MSU? Notre Dame?
That's a scheduling nightmare if you want to guarantee that teams maintain rivalries. Frankly, if you believe that the Big Ten needs to expand to increase revenue and to be more competitive (we solve this by avoiding a 3-9 season and if someone--anyone--could beat USC), I am glad you're not the Big Ten Commissioner.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:32 AM ^
Aren't we the fanbase that kept arguing that we should play OSU for the national title in 2006? But playing twice otherwise would "diminish" the rivalry.
As to your second point, they already did it with Penn State. We don't play for the Brown Jug every year... and we'd always play State and OSU. Notre Dame, as an OOC game, is at their mercy. There are a few things people need to accept... one is that conferences will take money over tradition in every case except when tradition is more profitable (the bowls).
As to your last point, Delany already announced they planned on doing it. Sorry, bro.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:36 PM ^
One look at the 2009 schedule tells you that we don't play for the Little Brown Jug every year.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^
Brodie, you're wrong about the PAC-10 being better conference academically. The PAC-10 does have Stanford, Cal, UCLA and USC which are top 40 programs. But Oregon State and Washington State (and possibly Oregon) aren't even ranked in the top 150. Its debatable as to whether or not the ACC is a better conference academically. Duke, UNC and Virgina are excellent schools, but the rest of the conference doesn't match up.
And unless you have been to Syracuse, let's not add that school to the discussion. The single worst Michigan football experience of my life happened there in 1999. The fan behavior in Columbus or East Lansing is far better than Syracuse.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:19 AM ^
The PAC-10's top 4 are better than all but 1 Big Ten school using the (admittedly shitty) USNWR rankings. Ditto ACC, better on the whole.
As to fan behavior in Syracuse, when I was there for a basketball game it was pretty cool afterwards.
January 26th, 2009 at 2:18 PM ^
That's not true, both NW and Michigan are ranked ahead of USC. UCLA is barely ahead of M, too.
January 26th, 2009 at 1:41 PM ^
What happened in 1999? I was at that game, and the only problem we had with the fans was that some guy in the row ahead of us was farting the whole game. It was awful. Other than that, they left my buddies and I alone.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:02 PM ^
You can definitely argue that the shittiness of the bottom of the Pac-10 (academically) pulls them lower than the Big 10. But the only ACC school that is ranked lower than the 4 lowest Big 10 school is Florida State. In other words - the entire ACC, aside from FSU, is better than 40% of the Big 10.
January 26th, 2009 at 8:17 PM ^
36%, thank you very much. Your argument is no longer valid.
February 1st, 2009 at 11:26 PM ^
Rest of the ACC doesn't match up? What about Boston College, Georgia Institute of Technology, and Virginia Tech? Even Maryland and Clemson pretty solid. In the big ten, it's really Michigan, Northwestern and maybe Wisconsin as upper tier schools... then maybe Illinois? I don't know, i could be selling some schools short but my point is it's definitely not valid to write off the ACC.
February 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 AM ^
Same here. (My worst Michigan football memory, as a student, was Syracuse in 99.) My hatred for Donovan McNabb hasn't diminished one iota in the intervening years.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^
Always felt Missouri would be a better Big 10 school than Big 12. But agree that by adding PSU, Pitt makes a more natural addition to solidify the PA geography. Domers rejected a formal invitation to join the conference several years ago, did they burn their bridge?
January 26th, 2009 at 11:13 AM ^
Missouri isn't even top 100 academically.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:13 PM ^
Adding a school about 30 spots below your worst school, especially when you already have a small foothold in the closest big market via Illinois, is stupid.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:26 PM ^
We've entered stupid territory a long time ago by including the words "Rutgers" and "Louisville" in the same sentence as "Big Ten".
I couldn't care less where a fellow conference member is ranked academically, as long as they follow the same rules.
January 26th, 2009 at 3:28 PM ^
Rutgers is probably the most serious candidate to join the conference. The main point of expansion is expanding the geographic footprint of the conference.
January 26th, 2009 at 6:37 PM ^
You may not care, but the people in the conference do. Along with membership in the league athletically is membership in the CIC, the league's academic wing (which still includes the U. of Chicago). The league is flat-out not going to let in a terrible academic school.
I don't think Louisville fits the academic profile we're looking for, but I believe Rutgers does.
January 26th, 2009 at 10:55 PM ^
100% correct. One reason why Penn State's entry into the Big Ten did not happen until 1993 was due to the CIC needing to approve their addition. No 12th school will ever enter our conference without being thoroughly vetted academically to meet the CIC's standards. The only school that is a 'gimme' for approval is Notre Dame, given its geography and academic rank -- hence the standing invitation to join the Big Ten that Delaney has tendered them.
Of the other schools mentioned thus far, Louisville absolutely does not fit; it's practically a commuter school. Miami U. (Ohio) has a better shot to join the Big 10 than Louisville. Syracuse, Pitt, and Rutgers are all similarly-ranked Tier 1 schools and could be an acceptable fit. Rutgers has the obviously huge appeal of bringing in the NY-metro market, though, which I think would give it the edge.
I also doubt the conference will do any expansion until Delaney is gone. Once that happens, I could see the Big 10 going to more than 12 teams. But without the 'Domers in the mix, I don't see how any expansion happens; the CIC just isn't gonna Sparty up the conference.
And a (snarky) point re Big Ten vs. ACC or Pac-10: As jmblue mentions, U-Chicago IS still a part of our conference, academically, via the CIC (and yes, that still matters). Now do the math about overall conference ranking (mean avg.); it changes a bit.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:09 AM ^
Brodie, lay out the two divisions of the conferences that leaves a balance conference and keeps us playing OSU every year. This is the issue that killed NU-OU. It makes balancing the conference difficult if you put the two best teams in the same division.
And who else do you add to the M-OSU division? Can't add PSU, then it would be the top three teams. Yet, PSU is one on the bigger secondary rivals of both M and OSU. MSU is also in the top half of the big ten, but they are also a main rival of us. Where do they end up? The only school that help alleviate this issue is ND, under the theory that they could help balance the other division.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:16 AM ^
You can play an out of division game every year, they do it in the SEC for Alabama-Tennessee.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:28 AM ^
I don't know if any one would care about the current strength of each division when the divisions are first made. It just makes sense to make the divisions based on geography because that makes for the most efficient travelling.
However, the ACC does not really have divisions based on geography, and they have an interesting little rule which addresses the concern of rivals who are not in the same division. Every team every year plays 8 conference games. Within those conference games they play every team in their division (duh), but every team also has a partner in the other division that they play every year. i.e. Miami and FSU are partners, and VT and BC are partners, and I can't remember the other partners. But this could address the problem of having rivals in opposite divisions.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:12 AM ^
I don't think that ND will ever agree to join a conference. There is too much money available from NdBC and getting their entire take of the bowl revenue (particularly important if they go to a BCS bowl). And with the way they are setting up their schedule now, they wouldn't want to play the level of competition the Big Ten (even in its currently weakened condition) would provide.
Take a look at ND's schedule next year. It is beyond soft. The 6-6 (regular season) ND team this year will win at least 8 games next year. They pull two out of their hat and they're in a BCS bowl. It will take some seismic shift in CFB (possibly a playoff system that favors conferences over ND) to get ND to join a conference.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:19 AM ^
This all would have been moot if they had managed to convince Texas to join when the Southwest Conference broke up. I'm pretty sure I remember there being discussions, and their coach at the time had just left Illinois to take over at Texas. I think they were actually considering it. The Big Ten was THE moneymaking conference for a long time, it's only recently that the SEC has managed to catch up, and still no one else is really all that close.
Of course, it made a lot more sense for them to go with three other Texas schools and join up with the Big 8, especially since they already played one of the Big 8 schools (Oklahoma) every year as it was.
January 26th, 2009 at 11:22 AM ^
Actually, they picked the Pac-10 and the state government forced them to stay with the other schools. Props to the one state legislator who threw in Baylor over the much better/more traditional Rice, Houston and TCU.