The Big 14
It won't happen without continued pressure from fans, so once again, my thoughts on expansion of the Big 10/1.
Rules:
1) Must be a quality school with a full range of academics
2) Must be a school with a full range of quality athletics
3) Should be within the "Big 10/1" region
4) Have good/high-potential football and basketball programs
5) My preference is to have these new schools within the area while broadening the viewing area and creating/supporting natural rivalries.
My first choice:
1) Syracuse -- football/basketball; rivalries with Penn State, enables a East-West championship and expands the viewing area into New York.
2) Continuing the Big East decimation, next is Louisville. Quality football and basketball, adds another state, natural rivalries with Indiana and OSU.
3) Pitt -- lock up the state of Pennsylvania and now have two 7/7 divisions
What say you?
August 21st, 2009 at 10:47 AM ^
I really hope the Big 10 does not add a 12th team let alone three more. This would create divisions, which lead to a conference championship, and IMO, diminish the importance of the UM/osu game.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:50 AM ^
Gonna agree. There are arguments for and against it. I'm against it.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
This was discussed in depth. I think most arrangements would diminish the rivalry but there are definitely ways to make it remain undiminished (see my system, enumerated comment #57 here).
As for me, at first I really hated the idea of expansion. Now, I still don't like it but I don't hate it as much as I used to.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:05 AM ^
Not a bad idea, but it would never happen.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:35 AM ^
I, unfortunately, must completely agree with you, it'll never happen.
But, hey, MGoBlog is a place that we can all come and dream of what could be... nay, what SHOULD be.
You know, writing that just now inspired me...
Friends, MGoBloggers, B10ers, lend me your eyes.
I come to bring hope, not praise the Big Ten;
The evil the men do lives after their retirement,
The good is often forgot in chants of S-E-C!
So let it be with the Big Ten... the noble original conference
Hath told you the it was ambitious:
If it were so, it was only in yesteryear
And grievously the it hath not answered [its own call]
Here, under leave of the Big Ten and the rest,
(For the Big Ten is an honorable conference;
So are they all (except the S-E-C!); all honorable conferences
Come I to speak in the Big Ten's regard
It is my friend, faithful, but not always just to me
But the Big Ten said it itself was ambitious
And the Big Ten is an honorable conference
It has won many MNCs
It has kept many sports (thanks to Title IX)
Did this in the Big Ten's ambition?
When the teams have lost, the conference hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff
Yet the Big Ten said it itself was ambitious
And the Big Ten is an honorable conference.
You all did see in this decade OSU thrice offered the NC
Which it did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet the Big Ten says it is ambitious
And sure it be an honorable conference
I speak not to disprove what Delany said
But I am here to speak what I do know.
It was at the top once, not without cause:
What cause hast brought us down then?
O bowls! thou art many and have brutish teams (Fl. Int.)
And men have lost their reason.... Bear with me;
My heart is near the bottom like my conference,
But it is only a pause there till it returns to the top
Wow, I did not expect to actually do all of that. Eh, that was fun and I'm bored at work.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:18 AM ^
My only problem would be the possibility of having to play OSU 2 times in a row.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:21 AM ^
There's no way that would happen. If they did expand to 12 teams, Michigan and Ohio State would be put on the "same side" and it couldn't happen because of our head to head.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:51 AM ^
Let's be honest, Notre Dame fits your criteria the best of any school.
Also, Louisville does not meet your academic criteria.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:07 AM ^
I would't like adding another team because it interferes with the UM/OSU rivalry for reasons that have been discussed before. But I have to admit that adding ND would result in a super-conference. Something feels good about that. I'm curious what the board members think of that.
Can we make a quick poll for adding ND assuming they'd be willing to join in?
A) Yes
B) No
August 21st, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
Notre Dame doesn't want to join because of their TV contract with NBC.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:55 PM ^
To hell with Notre Dame.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:58 AM ^
I like things the way they are but if we did add some more teams, I would not want a "conference championship game". If someone has the best record (in conference), they should be the outright champion. If two teams are tied but they played head-to-head, the winner of that matchup should be the champion. Only if two teams did not play each other during the conference season and they have identical conference and overall records should there be a championship game. If you have a third team, well..... you figure it out.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:03 AM ^
That's the summarized version of what I think.
Unfortunately, it would never actually be done that way because the vast majority of the time there would be no championship game which means less money. And we all know that no conference will willingly choose a system that will give them less money.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:01 AM ^
14 is WAY too many. I don't want to go that long without playing our traditional opponents, and that doesn't mean just our rivals. We already have to go two years without a Brown Jug game. I don't want to trade more of our Illinois and Iowa and whatever games for a bunch of games against non traditional opponents like Pitt and Louisville.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:14 AM ^
The Big Ten needs another team. I don't think having a championship game would diminish our last game of the season with those bastards in Ohio. If Michigan and Ohio State were let's say in the East side of the new Big Ten with 12 teams and we kicked their ass the last game that would keep them from getting to a BCS game and it would keep them from winning the conference, both pluses in my book. One "side" of the conference may be stacked but changes always occur and teams may be better down the road then they are now. I think Pittsburg or Syracuse would be the best choice but I doubt either of those teams will do it considering their chances of winning in the Big Ten are much harder and that would take the Big East to 7 teams. Garbage.
I'm just curious if they would change the name of the conference. It's already stupid having 11 teams in a 10 team conference. I wonder what kind of name they could come up with. Probably something stupid like the Great Lakes Conference.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:57 PM ^
And why exactly does the Big Ten "need" another team?
August 21st, 2009 at 8:10 PM ^
... well the Big Ten's record in BCS games speaks for itself.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:14 AM ^
I'm Against It!
August 21st, 2009 at 11:25 AM ^
The college presidents and ADs see the regular season as a series of playoff games every week (lose, and your out). They see no reason for a playoff.
If you add a 12th or 14 teams, create divisions and have a championship game like the B12 and the SEC, then the Rivalry is diminished. The UM-OSU game is the anchor of the Big 10. As has been pointed out, the Big 10 is not the power conference it used to be, but this game is still huge. If the rivalry diminishes because one team can't compete for a long time (at least 10 years) and the popularity of The Game goes away, then something might change. I don't want to ever see The Game compromised by $$.
ND is a logical choice, but they are way too egotistical to join a conference. The $$ and the auto-BCS berth for being decent is too much to give up.
if the Big-10 went to 12 with ND, PITT would be the next best choice. If that happened the Big East might be looking from the outside-in on the BCS.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:03 PM ^
"As has been pointed out, the Big 10 is not the power conference it used to be"
I think that this is all just the perception. All the conference needs is just one year where we win the majority of our bowl games (particularly the ones against the SEC), and Michigan starts performing well again. I think all that this requires is that all of the Big 10 teams that oscillate in between mediocre and good every few years (Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue, PSU, etc.... actually I guess pretty much every non-UM/OSU team besides IU and NU) all manage to have their "good years" at roughly the same time.
A tall order? Eh, maybe...
August 21st, 2009 at 11:27 AM ^
...don't fix it.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:35 AM ^
... Fix it before it becomes broken.
Records tell the story.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:49 AM ^
It's Notre Dame or bust. So bust it is, I guess.
August 21st, 2009 at 11:58 AM ^
kick Purdue out, so that Ten=10
August 21st, 2009 at 12:23 PM ^
Or Northwestern...they belong in the Ivy League
August 21st, 2009 at 12:30 PM ^
they do more for the conference academically, no offense to Purdue. Plus, Chicago> E. Lafayette.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:43 PM ^
Good point.
August 21st, 2009 at 10:32 PM ^
kick out NW but add ND, MIZZOU, and PITT.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:31 PM ^
1. University of Chicago. Have the Maroons rejoin Div. 1 status and reclaim their rightful spot in the Big Ten ideally kicking out the schools that took their place, Michigan Agricultural College.
2. Pittsburgh. Great academics and a natural rival to Penn State.
3. Miami, Ohio. Very good academics to go along with a good athletic program.
4. To hell with Notre Dame
August 21st, 2009 at 8:28 PM ^
Miami may be good as an undergraduate university, but the Big Ten is more concerned about how potential members are as a research institution, and I believe Miami falls well short in that category.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:32 PM ^
Divisions are a scam. It's really no different than having another conference. It also opens the door to having so-so teams win a conference title (Kansas State, Virginia Tech...) They also diminish the importance of inter-division matchups since they have no implications on anything except for conference title game tie-breakers and BCS standings (which only matter for the nat'l title obviously).
Look at the Big 12 North. You could also go the route of the ACC divisions which make no sense geographically and they don't factor in program ups and downs over time (so eventually one division could become like the Big 12 north).
Adding a 12th team is fine. Having 9 conference games would be awesome. I hate divisions though and a conference title game, although profitable, is something else I hate.
What I would prefer instead is a financially absurd but still awesome idea. How about a game where, if 2 teams who didn't play each other and are tied in the standings, then have a neutral site game to decide the champion. It'd be like a tie-breaker game in baseball.
Another possibility is to just have the top 2 teams square off (forget divisions). The issue there is you might, and likely will, have Michigan-OSU playing twice in a row.
Furthermore, although we know it's BS, look at the "playoffs are too hard on the athletes" argument. We've since added a 12th game, conference title game, and extended the bowl season till mid-January. Tell me how those three games are less academically distracting than a 3-game playoff??? If you want to make a BS argument at least make it less obvious you're lying.
August 21st, 2009 at 12:42 PM ^
I don't like the idea,it would take to much away from the Michigan OSU game.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:04 PM ^
1. Can we at least wait a month before rehashing discussions?
2. 14 teams is laughably high
oh those halcyon days of innocence.
August 21st, 2009 at 1:36 PM ^
I'd rather see 10 conference games than an expansion.
August 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 AM ^
Syracuse expands the TV audience into New York: And New York doesn't give a rats arse about college football. I mean, you probably have a sizeable UM alumni base there, but I'm not sure you have many alumni from other BIg Ten schools there, save Northworstern.
Right now Pitt benefits in recruiting because they are in the bIg East and can tout themselves as being on the verge of becoming the Big Dawg in that conference with Rodriguez out. It's kind of a selling point for them and the Big East is, right now, their easiest ticket to BCS games.
Lousiville? You're joking. Tell me you're joking. The bIg Ten is comprised of Big State Universities, crown jewel state universities and some other really, really cool schools know for their stuff, like Purdue and engineering and Norhtworstern and the color purple. A city university like Louisville doesn't fit in any way.
Like another guy said: For the foreseeable future, it's Notre Dame. The reason this is so obvious? If the Big Ten wanted to expand just to expand, they'd have already done it. I believe Michigan signed this silly one hundred million year contract with Notre Dame as a sort of olive branch--reach out to them kind of thing. Otherwise, there is simply NO reason for UM to committ to playing Notre Dame so much at the expense of other cross sectional matchups that would be more interesting, if only to diversify the schedule and travel to other areas of the country to play (and recruit).