Lucky Socks

November 30th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^

I'm good at math, so I see the disconnect between the name Big "Ten" and 16 teams -- but why are people so upset about it?  The name Big Ten has history and is a recognizable brand. A very short, quick, of odd and maybe not peferct examples from the top of my head:

Brands and companies change hands all the time as brand names.  For example, Ashton Martin (founded by the Lionel Martin near Ashton Clinton in England) was owned by Ford from 94-07.  They didn't call the cars Ashton Martin-Fords.

They don't play much Jazz in Utah

Boneless Chicken Wings aren't wings at all...they're just breaded balls of chicken.  Chicken fingers aren't fingers.

Many fruit juices don't contain much fruit, they just taste like it.  

 

I should probably stop with the examples now...Point is, as long as we have the history, and tradition of the Big Ten the number doesn't matter.  I love the Big Ten and I'd love it to stay that way, even if we end up with 16 teams and stretch from Georgia to Wisconsin.

 

woomba

November 30th, 2012 at 10:56 AM ^

...then I won't mind this too much.  

Of course, 10 conf games will probably only happen if the playoffs guarantees the conf winner access...make it happen Delany!  So sick of MAC schools.

Hardware Sushi

November 30th, 2012 at 10:59 AM ^

Subscription bait for the stupid Clemson fanbase. Fuck Clemson.

This site had Clemson and FSU to the Big 12 like a year ago and again like 6 months ago.

I'm not saying it's won't happen, but these guys are just throwing it against the wall and seeing what sticks.

dahblue

November 30th, 2012 at 10:59 AM ^

Maybe there's trying to setup an easier division breakdown.  "Legends" would be the original teams and "Leaders" could be all the shitty programs we've picked up, plus PSU and NEB.  Maybe we trade one of the shitty OGs to Leaders:

Legends:
Michigan
Ohio State
Wisconsin
Iowa
Illinois
Indiana (gotta keep State's rival in here)
Purdue
Minnesota

Leaders:
MSU (the aggies were the last expansion prior to MSU)
Northwestern (gotta have some football tradition!)
PSU
Nebraska
Rutgers
Maryland
GTech (if Central Florida isn't available)
Idaho St. (or whatever other shitty, unrelated program we reel in)

Done.  Jim Delaney, you're welcome.
 

buddhafrog

November 30th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^

Exactly what I was thinking... except we get MSU, they get Wisconsin.  Wiscy will be a better team year in and year out - and that division is pretty weak, especially with a weakened PSU.  They need help.  AND, we NEED to play MSU every year.  Don't separate borthers.  One of the cardinal rules of divorce.  Keep brothers together.

But really, I actually like this idea a lot.

dahblue

November 30th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^

That probably makes more sense.  I guess I was just trying to go back on date of entry into the conference to make the choice between Wisc and MSU.  I just hope that the B1G adds a relentlessly shitty program to the mix to make a mockery of this whole mess.

If anyone can explain why Nebraska was a good fit and how those same standards allow for the trio of suckitude - Rutgers/Maryland/GTech - I'm all ears.  It's like the standards used change based on the team selected.  Nebraska...tradition and program quality.  RutgersLandTech...tv sets (though not really, since the east coast doesn't care about football and no one cares about GTech except for Kenny Anderson).

dnak438

November 30th, 2012 at 11:27 AM ^

Pod 1 (North): Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa

Pod 2 (South): Nebraska, Northwestern, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana

Pod 3 (East): Penn St, Rutgers, Maryland, Ohio State, Georgia Tech

Then we have a conference playoff! The highest-ranked pod champion gets a bye and plays the winner of the other two pod champs.

EDIT: or West (Nebraska, Minny, Iowa, Wiscy, Illinois), Center (Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State), and East (Ohio, Penn St, Rutgers, MD, GA Tech).

buddhafrog

November 30th, 2012 at 11:00 AM ^

I seriously thing this should become the BIG Confernce, with 8/9/10 (1/2 of the number we end up with) of the original Big Ten in one division, and all the newbies (plus we'll give them Purdue, etc) in another.  Winners play in the championship game.

At least we still get the Big Ten that way and build more standard rivals outside the Big Ten.

The problem right now is that other division would suck.  Maybe we give them Wisconsin, Purdue, Neb, PSU, Rutgers, Maryland GT, ...

I'm as serious as a heart attack (haven't said that in decades - haven't felt the need until now)

markinmsp

November 30th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^

 Delaney would love to have the Nashville/Memphis market, but Vanderbilt is going NOWHERE. It’s all about money and Vandy couldn’t make enough new money to justify it. B1G and SEC are both stable conferences and will make comparable amounts so why would they move.

rpel84

November 30th, 2012 at 11:05 AM ^

Anything that helps us push into the south and get some of those SEC kids and get some speed up here will def help us and our conference.  I would take Miami,Virginia or Virginia Tech next.

STW P. Brabbs

November 30th, 2012 at 1:55 PM ^

Can someone explain to me how having a team from a different geographical area in your conference automatically gives you an advantage in recruiting that area? Especially when you're only going to play said team inside that geographical area once a decade or so?

As a bonus, you can explain why it is that you think Hoke needs some extra advantage in recruiting.

SAvoodoo

November 30th, 2012 at 2:34 PM ^

On TV so more exposure (how many kids in the south see Michigan play on a regular basis). Ability to promise (assuming you play in the area with any frequency) a game close to home so parents/family/friends can come.  Easy to get down there and recruit when you have to go anyway.  More relations with local teams/coaches because you know the area better.

That said, this is all worthless when you play there once a decade.