Raoul

June 9th, 2010 at 7:29 AM ^

Denver Post article says CU has not yet received an invite from Pac-10:

During a two-hour emergency meeting that caused phone lines to buzz across the nation, the board emerged with little to say but with assurances that CU is still in the Big 12.

Asked if CU has an invitation from the Pac-10, Ken McConnellogue, associate vice president for university relations, said, "No, we don't."

Same article quotes Tom Osborne saying Nebraska situation will be resolved in "next few days":

Nebraska athletic director Tom Osborne told Omaha radio station KFAB on Tuesday night that a decision regarding conference membership "will be put together in the next few days."

Osborne has chafed at what he believes is a Big 12 bias toward Texas.

"I think before too long, and I don't know exactly what that time frame is, we'll be able to put this thing to bed because I'm getting tired of it," Osborne said. "The fans are getting tired of it."

Blazefire

June 9th, 2010 at 7:45 AM ^

Nebraska, yes!

Mizzou... ehh... I could take it.

ND: As my mom says, "Aren't they already a part of the conference?" Joining is practically just a formality.

Syracuse and Rutgers may be good money wise, but they actually WEAKEN the football profile of the conference.

M2NASA

June 9th, 2010 at 12:07 PM ^

Rutgers has never had a good football team in over 100 years of football.

I would have hoped that we as Michigan fans could relate to the recent plight of Syracuse's decline and have perspective on the tradition and success that football program has had in its history which includes 4 BCS bowls since 1987 (how many does MSU or most teams in the Big Ten had in that same span?).  Doesn't the Michigan fanbase remember the Syracuse game in 1998? and even the very close contest in 1999?

Syracuse is on the way back, and while SU will never be Michigan, Ohio State, or Penn State, it will definitely be a competitive team (even last year SU beat Northwestern, went to OT with Minnesota, and played Penn State tight - and who were all bowl teams).

Sven_Da_M

June 9th, 2010 at 8:03 AM ^

... Nebraska, Mizzou and ND.

That would be AWESOME.  Can always go to 16 later, if superconferences happen.

Hell, you could just do Nebraska now and then have your pick later once the seismic activity slows down a bit. Gives ND a chance to sit on the outside looking in for awhile.

Think about it: Big Ten gets Nebraska, and the Pac 10 is dicking around with the likes of Texas Tech.

Do they even have cable in Lubbock?

 

 

buddha

June 9th, 2010 at 8:58 AM ^

Nebraska could be really cool. I am not a fan of Mizzou at all, but I suppose their rivalry with Illinois does make some sense. But, I s'pose I'm not the one making the decision!

In all the expansion talk, the one team I am surprised nobody has mentioned at all is Kansas. Granted, they've had maybe a handful of respectable football seasons in the last century, but they are a major basketball powerhouse. But, in all the expansion discussion b/t Pac-10, Big-10, etc, they are nowhere to be found. While this may have a lot to do with their geography and small TV market, it would be a bummer to see them left out of a major BCS conference.

Pea-Tear Gryphon

June 9th, 2010 at 11:15 AM ^

Kansas and K-State are in it together...or so I've read. I believe the Kansas Pres or AD said something to that effect. Texas may have a "Tech Problem", but Kansas has a "State Problem". I don't think the B10 wants to have to take them both. Therefore, Kansas is looking in from the outside on all this.

ADingwall

June 9th, 2010 at 9:08 AM ^

As someone married to a "bred in Lincoln, born in Lincoln, raised in Lincoln, educated in Lincoln" Husker, I shudder to think of the ramifications this has for my marriage.  My wife is giddy over the fact that we may be able to easily drive to East Lansing or Evanston or Bloomington to watch NU play.  The problem is when they play M, there is no way for me to come out a winner.  I'm going to pay one way or the other.

Keep in mind that Nebraska will also be bringing a excellentvolleyball program, solid track program, a sometimes solid swim program, and a women's hoop program that is on the rise with them.

I'm screwed.

 

AD

Don

June 9th, 2010 at 9:20 AM ^

Various Big 10 officials have said from the beginning that expanding the footprint is one of the things they have their eyes on, and from that standpoint Missouri actually brings more to the table than Nebraska. Missouri can bring both the St. Louis and Kansas City markets into play along with the rest of the state, and without checking I would guess that the number of households in those areas exceed by a healthy amount whatever Nebraska can bring in.

I think it's not going to be an either/or situation anyhow; I bet that if we take one, we take the other, which in turn means we have to add at least one more, probably from the Big East. I just don't see ND joining us, even though that's the most sensible thing to happen from an athletic standpoint.

jblaze

June 9th, 2010 at 9:41 AM ^

that ND would be off the schedule (I think I read that the contract wasn't actually signed)?

I'm asking because a 12-16 member conference would require more conference games (aside from the championship one), so Michigan would logically drop ND (and keep the cupcakes), correct?

jrt336

June 9th, 2010 at 9:44 AM ^

East: UM, MSU, PSU, OSU, Indiana, Purdue

West: Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, Northwestern

That's pretty even. The East should usually be a bit better, but I don't see any other way.

FreetheFabFive

June 9th, 2010 at 10:17 AM ^

What about a North/South?

North - Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, MSU, Iowa. ND?

South - Nebraska, Illinois, OSU, PSU, Indiana, Purdue.  Mizzou?

That seems a bit more even.  The only thing I might switch out is Nebraska for ND.  That way Nebraska can get their Iowa matchup, and ND can be with Indiana and Purdue.  This keeps together most of the rivalries, however with the current rotating schedule, some rivalry games don't happen every year anyways.  Michigan didn't play for the Little Brown Jug this year.

OysterMonkey

June 9th, 2010 at 10:33 AM ^

but I don't think I'd like OSU and Michigan to be in different divisions, especially if B10 goes to 14 teams. If there are still 8 conference games, that would mean 6 division games every year, OSU, and then only one other team from the other division each year. Assuming scheduling would be home and home for two years and then switch, Michigan would play Penn State twice and then not see them again for what, 10 years?

I think if they go to 14 teams then they have to align the divisions so there are no permanent interdivision games. Or go to a 9 game schedule, which would mean unbalanced home-road schedules.

Pea-Tear Gryphon

June 9th, 2010 at 11:23 AM ^

Why not just take into account the football and basketball histories and rivalries and try to split a 12-14-16 team conference up that way? No one said it has to be based on where teams are located. It's not like travel is going to be that much more if we have to go to Nebraska every year.

Here's my 14 team breakdown (like anyone really cares, but I feel the need not to just critique but also offer alternatives):

Bo Division: UM, MSU, OSU, Minn, Wisc, Ind, Purdue

Other Division: Neb, Mizz, ND, PSU, NW, Iowa, Illinois

Maintains as many rivalries as possible (Sorry Land Grant Trophy)