OK, Lets start the bickering...I want no part of Texas in the Big Ten
Yes, this may be unpopular or wimping out but I don't want any part of Texas in the Big Ten. The reality to me is that they have such a competitive advantage over pretty much every other school in the Big Ten because of the quality and quantity of football talent in that state, I think that we may very well find ourselves relegated to a a status similar to what Iowa typically is where we're middle of the pack most years, have some horrendous years and challenge once every 10 to 15 years. I'd much sooner see us lock up some combination of Nebraska/Missouri and some of the Big East NY Market Schools (UConn/Rutgers/Syracuse) and then force Notre Dame into our hands by thereby destroying the Big East.
Let them, Tech, A&M, Okl, Okl State and whomever else go to the Pac Ten.
thanks for that
I'm not bought or sold on the idea yet. However, adding them would certainly help our chances of landing great talent out of Texas.
Please explain that. I guess the theory is they'll see us more and therefore the exposure will make them more comfortable but we're still half a country away and why would they come to us when they could just stay in state and go to Texas.
Because Texas only has 80 scholarship slots.
Only 80? That sucks for them. Everyone else has 85.
Nitpick.. nitpick..
It's the idea that adding better teams and thus better competition makes a conference better and more powerful as a whole. Making the Big Ten more respected around the country is essential to getting better recruits. I'm not sure where you've been the last couple of years, but the rest of the country hates the Big Ten and talks about it like it's a joke. While I obviously disagree with those people, I would very much like to see that image change. Don't you think it would help recruiting for people to stop saying "oh, the Big Ten sucks", and start seeing us like an SEC which can recruit from top to bottom? And yes, the fact that the Longhorns are in Texas will help expose the Big Ten to recruits in Texas. How does watching games with Michigan, and caring about what Michigan does each year as it effects your home team every year not help Michigan get more exposure with southern recruits?
The Gob chicken dance will always get a +1 from me. Well done.
has anyone in this family ever SEEN a chicken?
Seems to be a hotbed of football talent, and having OSU in the B10 has worked out ok. I'm just sayin'. Nothing wrong with tough competition.
Ohio is a hotbed but nothing compared to Texas. Just look at the states the Top 100 and Top 250 guys come from. SO many from Florida, California and Texas. Ohio has more than Michigan and Ohio has done an excellent job keeping their guys in state since the SweaterVest got to town and, as you can see, we're having some trouble beating them. I think my point is that we can't really rely solely on our homegrown talent the way Texas does and competing with that is going to be difficult.
And Texas is that good, you have to go through them anyway to win the championship.
Both Ohio State and Michigan have played Texas close (or in OSU's case, beaten them once) in their most recent meetings. This advantage is marginal at best, and no more pronounced than the advantages Florida and Southern Cal enjoy. Texas will get enhanced exposure as part of the new "super-conference", and Ohio State, Michigan et al. will get recruiting in-roads in the most talent-laden state in the conference. Win-win.
The issue right now is getting the Texas state legislature to even think of leaving Tech behind, or taking Tech along with the Horns.
If you want the conference to get better you can't shy away from great competition, bring on texas I would love to see Michigan beat them down every year.
I'd rather have Texas. Can you imagine beating them in Austin (which we will since we have won in Columbus, State College, Pasadena, Madison, etc.). We need to think big here folks.
about PSU when PSU joined the Big Ten conference. They thought that they would dominate Big Ten for years to come and they never did.
1) PSU, like ND, as an independent was able to schedule favorably. Texas can't do quite the same since they're in a conference.
2) The talent pool in Pennsylvania is good but nothing like Texas. Really it has no equals except Florida and California and look at what the top school in each has been doing the last decade.
I guess if I wanted to argue against myself, one can always point out Alabama although their talent level in that state is strong.
which every M fan heard about. We listened to Nittany Lion rants about Terry Mills and Rumeal Robinsin in '93 and we have seen what history has provided. Texas will not come into the Big 10 and dominate in football.
I was just about the write this. Texas would be a power in any conference but UT struggled before Mac Brown got there. Things have a way of working themselves out. As a Michigan fan I'm not afraid of anybody.
This *is* Michigan. As a Michigan fan I am not afraid of anyone, either.
We can enjoy this playing out in the Rich Rodriguez Vengeance and Redemption Tour 2010 (with special guest Danny Hope)
I completely disagree with the logic that Texas shouldn't join the B10 because they're too good. How could it possibly be a bad thing to elevate the level of competition in the conference? Might as well quit playing if you're scared of losing.
syllables. Not to mention adding B12 teams gives more modern credence to "...Champions of the West." (Though Rose Bowl victories are sweetest.)
We need to pursue the best Universities out there - that match our academic and athletic profile. It's not all about Football...but Texas fits the bill ... barring the need to lace some skates on those cows.
There are plenty of good teams and schools out there if Texas decides to go another way as well. In the mean time I will be watching/downloading the BTN to see what makes the world go round.
Don't be a pussy
I would rather see the Big Ten stay with 11 teams than add Syracuse, Rutgers, Missouri, or UConn.
Personally, I've been hoping this whole expansion deal falls through. If the B10 does expand, though, I'd like to see ND then Texas. After that, it's not at all worth it, in my opinion.
I know we've done this before about the NY Market not giving a crap about college football but they've never had anything to cheer about. Plus, MIchigan has a HUGE alumni backing in the northeast.
Plus, looking at this from a basketball standpoint. UConn and Syracuse bring quite a bit in that regard.
C'mon...UConn is garbage. Syracuse is garbage. Settling for any team from the low grade Big East is a major loss. Texas is great in football and bball. People in NY, amazingly, are able to get TV channels from all over the country. Anyway, Houston and Dallas are massive media markets. It would be a shame to weaken the Big Ten by adding from the Big Least.
I don't understand why you wouldn't want Texas in your conference. It makes the Big Ten even stronger and makes it more appealing to play in the conference as a whole. Look at the SEC, players go there because they think it has the highest level of talent and competition. If Texas is added to the Big Ten people will start thinking about the conference being stronger than the SEC. Just think, Michigan, Penn State, OSU and Texas all in the same conference would be amazing.
Also the revenue from the BTN would definitely increase drastically.
This is typical of many people when they discuss expansion -- they look at how a team has done the past 3, 5, or 10 years and say who would be a good fit where. (Like people I've seen say Cincinnati would be a good pickup -- based on 3 years under a coach who just left). It would be saying, we don't want ND because the last few years they've stunk.
Texas has been dominant the last few years for one reason: MACK BROWN. Texas was on hard times for years and years before he got there. Brown turned UNC into a contender, save a poor showing in 1997 against FSU. He's shown why the right guy can win at Texas, but not every coach there has won like that.
So stop fearing Texas. Nothing lasts forever.
And Florida was dog meat, door mats before Spurrier. Just look back at AP polls from 20+ years ago. The Big 10 will be the strongest inviting schools with historically high competition in a number of different sports. (and academics)
Amen. See the ACC.
Before adding Miami and Va. Tech in 2004, these two teams had played in 3 of the previous 4 national championship games. Neither has been at that level since moving to the ACC.
the conference is called the BIG 10!!!!!!
Let's grow some balls here men.
If the B10 doesn't take anyone, other conferences will, and the other conferences will improve. Then we could be the #4 conference, which will hurt our recruiting and hurt us in bowl games. I think adding Texas, A&M, Nebraska, Mizzou, and ND would turn us into the best conference in the country. Obviously we probably aren't going to get those teams, but we could get at least a couple of them.
On our terms!
then it's a no brainer that Texas joins the Big Ten. We'd offer like twice the amount of money the PAC-10 could, a larger alumi base, better academic reputation and something else that isn't mentioned to often, better time zones; who's going to want to watch UT football on Pacific time? We'll probably get Rutgers to join the Big 10 and corner the NY market...If the Big 12 goes under, welcome to the Big Ten Longhorns...
I don't think we'll have to worry about it as all signs point to the Pac-10 getting the first crack.
It's quite simple to break Texas down in two sentences:
The Good: 3 texas schools, with a HUGE college football TV market (has to be the biggest market by state in the US), and rich tradition.
The Bad: Everyone from Texas thinks of themselves as from their own country, and could possibly take away some of the current B10 members' star power.
Financially it makes sense for the Big 10, so the conference should be all about it. It's just the whole geographic issue / changing the "culture" of the B10. Does money win out, does culture win out, or does somewhere along the line Texas say "I'm gonna be me" and does their own thing?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Big_12_Conference_champions#Football
They have only won their conference 3 times.
If Oklahoma isn't scared, then neither am I.
Here's how I decide it. What screws ND more? Unfortunately, I haven't figured it out yet.
Texas in the B10 would be awesome; next to "Go Blue!", "Hook 'em Horns!" is the best.
Lets just forget Notre Dame.
and Rutgers.
and Syracuse.
and the Pac 10.
and A&M.
and UConn.
and Cincinnati.
and about being pussies.
How do you give someone more than +1? If I could, I would.
It just seems like you're afriad of competition. Were you still in little league when you were in high school?
Since when was Michigan's, and all of the Big Ten's teams of the powderpuff variety.
...you have to be the best. So by your logic, Michigan isn't going to win any national championships since we're going to be relegated to being middle of the pack. Good logic and way to be a fan.
As long as Michigan plays football on 12 Saturdays in the fall (and one game in January for good measure), everything else is okay by me.
Let's line up the conferences interested in Notre Dame:
Big Ten...crickets...crickets...Big East...crickets...
And now, the conferences interested in Texas:
Big Ten, Pac Ten, SEC.
So, is the goal to be shitty like the Big East? Or to be a power conference? The aura of ND was brighter when the idea of Texas in the Big Ten was unheard of. Now that we can see much better options on the table (and no one interested in ND), it would be foolish to pick the ugly girl just because she's a short drive away.